Silver Nemesis reborn, only with cappier music
Agamemnon
version of the theme tune on the opening credits? It was even worse than the
TVM cowboy theme.
Is this garbage going to be used for Series 4 too?
And to make it even crappier they brought in Bernard Cribbins to make fun of
the last two Christmas specials.
Gayvies is totally deranged. He couldn't resist having the Doctor clench
another mans bum. The misogyny is back once again with Gayviews pointlessly
killing off the pretty girly bird and in yet another tribute to the garbage
which was Sylvester McCoy, Gayvies makes fun of the queen as well, or was
all that crap about her being bundled out of Buckingham Palace and tanking
the Doctor supposed to be taken seriously.
If Veritly Lambert was still alive she'd be turning in her grave.
4/10. Comparable to an average Sylvester McCoy episode with just as shitty
props and special effects. A ships wheel that rocked back and forth all over
the place, a shitty rehash of Davros (was that the real one in the closing
spoilers?) crossed with Del Boy, cardboard control panels and cardboard
stereotypes. The only thing missing was the Polish builders and Albanian
asylum seekers. Who could forget the second last Christmas special where one
stowed away in Denzel's van. No, wait a moment, wrong stowaway, wrong
series, but it might as well have been Fool Horses going by the manner it
was written.
The sooner Gayvies goes or is sacked, preferably sacked and never allowed to
write for Doctor Who again, the better for everyone.
Monkey D. Luffy
needs to be sacked, shoved into a cannon and fired at the sun. Parts
of the episode were cringe-worthy (the scene with the Queen waving at
the Titanic or the guard running with the corgi's, age old film rule.
"make sure the dogs survive"
Even the series 4 trailer was un-impressive. The Series 2 and 3 promo
trailers always had something to grab my interest for the next series.
In this case it felt as if there was nothing there.
I'd give it 5/10, purely on the basis that kids would probably enjoy
it as a stand alone action episode but as far as a Doctor Who episode
goes, this was just standard run of the mill average gunk that just
keeps coming from RTD's demented head.
solar penguin
Monkey D. Luffy <m...@notlikey.com> wrote:
> Agreed, RTD keeps on proving why he is running out of imagination and
> needs to be sacked, shoved into a cannon and fired at the sun. Parts
> of the episode were cringe-worthy (the scene with the Queen waving at
> the Titanic
Really? I thought that was the best bit. But then I've _always_ loved
the silly humour in DW, ever since the Graham Williams years.
In fact, I'd say this episode reminded me of a Williams-era story.
Possibly the best Christmas Special so far. Or at least the only
non-crap Christmas special so far.
Stephen Wilson
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:vOqdnXyslZH...@eclipse.net.uk...
> So what was the reason for using an utterly shite stoned out unbearable
> rock version of the theme tune on the opening credits? It was even worse
> than the TVM cowboy theme.
>
> Is this garbage going to be used for Series 4 too?
>
> And to make it even crappier they brought in Bernard Cribbins to make fun
> of the last two Christmas specials.
>
> Gayvies is totally deranged. He couldn't resist having the Doctor clench
> another mans bum. The misogyny is back once again with Gayviews
> pointlessly killing off the pretty girly bird and in yet another tribute
> to the garbage which was Sylvester McCoy, Gayvies makes fun of the queen
> as well, or was all that crap about her being bundled out of Buckingham
> Palace and tanking the Doctor supposed to be taken seriously.
>
> If Veritly Lambert was still alive she'd be turning in her grave.
If Verity was still alive she'd be saying how much she enjoyed it. She
thought Dr Who was seriously off the rails during the 1980s. She thought the
Dr Who of the 2000s has been top notch.
> 4/10. Comparable to an average Sylvester McCoy episode with just as shitty
> props and special effects. A ships wheel that rocked back and forth all
> over the place, a shitty rehash of Davros (was that the real one in the
> closing spoilers?) crossed with Del Boy, cardboard control panels and
> cardboard stereotypes. The only thing missing was the Polish builders and
> Albanian asylum seekers. Who could forget the second last Christmas
> special where one stowed away in Denzel's van. No, wait a moment, wrong
> stowaway, wrong series, but it might as well have been Fool Horses going
> by the manner it was written.
>
> The sooner Gayvies goes or is sacked, preferably sacked and never allowed
> to write for Doctor Who again, the better for everyone.
Yep. We were all expecting you to hate it. And you didn't disappoint.
Best thing on TV this Christmas. Well done David Tennant, Kylie Minogue,
Russell T Davies et al.!
Stephen O'Connell
FWIW. I enjoyed it too, and so did my kids.
Luke Curtis
me, my wife, my son, my parents and my grandmother watched it together
as a family and we all enjoyed it, even my wife who normally hates who
liked it.
My son (6yo) was really in to it and was in a frenzy at the end of the
show cheering on the Doctor at the top of his voice at the end of the
show!
I personally thought it was far better that either of the first 2
Christmas specials and a highly enjoyably piece of family
entertainment.
-
Got unwanted CDs, DVDs & Games?
www.swapshop.co.uk/default.aspx?referrerid=b788c9b0-70e7-4192-91cc-d549e513f0bf
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
Agamemnon
"Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6Aecj.15466$745....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:vOqdnXyslZH...@eclipse.net.uk...
>> So what was the reason for using an utterly shite stoned out unbearable
>> rock version of the theme tune on the opening credits? It was even worse
>> than the TVM cowboy theme.
>>
>> Is this garbage going to be used for Series 4 too?
>>
>> And to make it even crappier they brought in Bernard Cribbins to make fun
>> of the last two Christmas specials.
>>
>> Gayvies is totally deranged. He couldn't resist having the Doctor clench
>> another mans bum. The misogyny is back once again with Gayviews
>> pointlessly killing off the pretty girly bird and in yet another tribute
>> to the garbage which was Sylvester McCoy, Gayvies makes fun of the queen
>> as well, or was all that crap about her being bundled out of Buckingham
>> Palace and tanking the Doctor supposed to be taken seriously.
>>
>> If Veritly Lambert was still alive she'd be turning in her grave.
>
> If Verity was still alive she'd be saying how much she enjoyed it. She
> thought Dr Who was seriously off the rails during the 1980s. She thought
> the Dr Who of the 2000s has been top notch.
If she hated McCoy then she would have hated this. It's Sylvester McCoy all
over again with comedy cameos from Geoffrey Palmer, Bernard Cribbins, Queen,
Kylie and all. Gayvies has turned the series into a comic parody and is
running the show into the ground for cheep laughs.
>
>> 4/10. Comparable to an average Sylvester McCoy episode with just as
>> shitty props and special effects. A ships wheel that rocked back and
>> forth all over the place, a shitty rehash of Davros (was that the real
>> one in the closing spoilers?) crossed with Del Boy, cardboard control
>> panels and cardboard stereotypes. The only thing missing was the Polish
>> builders and Albanian asylum seekers. Who could forget the second last
>> Christmas special where one stowed away in Denzel's van. No, wait a
>> moment, wrong stowaway, wrong series, but it might as well have been Fool
>> Horses going by the manner it was written.
>>
>> The sooner Gayvies goes or is sacked, preferably sacked and never allowed
>> to write for Doctor Who again, the better for everyone.
>
> Yep. We were all expecting you to hate it. And you didn't disappoint.
>
> Best thing on TV this Christmas. Well done David Tennant, Kylie Minogue,
> Russell T Davies et al.!
I preferred "300"
Mr.Smartypants
> So what was the reason for using an utterly shite stoned out unbearable rock
> version of the theme tune on the opening credits? It was even worse than the
> TVM cowboy theme.
>
> Is this garbage going to be used for Series 4 too?
>
> And to make it even crappier they brought in Bernard Cribbins to make fun of
> the last two Christmas specials.
>
> Gayvies is totally deranged. He couldn't resist having the Doctor clench
> another mans bum. The misogyny is back once again with Gayviews pointlessly
> killing off the pretty girly bird and in yet another tribute to the garbage
> which was Sylvester McCoy, Gayvies makes fun of the queen as well, or was
> all that crap about her being bundled out of Buckingham Palace and tanking
> the Doctor supposed to be taken seriously.
>
> If Veritly Lambert was still alive she'd be turning in her grave.
LOL!!
If she were alive why would she be in her grave?
Mr.Smartypants
<stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>
> news:vOqdnXyslZH...@eclipse.net.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > So what was the reason for using an utterly shite stoned out unbearable
> > rock version of the theme tune on the opening credits? It was even worse
> > than the TVM cowboy theme.
>
> > Is this garbage going to be used for Series 4 too?
>
> > And to make it even crappier they brought in Bernard Cribbins to make fun
> > of the last two Christmas specials.
>
> > Gayvies is totally deranged. He couldn't resist having the Doctor clench
> > another mans bum. The misogyny is back once again with Gayviews
> > pointlessly killing off the pretty girly bird and in yet another tribute
> > to the garbage which was Sylvester McCoy, Gayvies makes fun of the queen
> > as well, or was all that crap about her being bundled out of Buckingham
> > Palace and tanking the Doctor supposed to be taken seriously.
>
> > If Veritly Lambert was still alive she'd be turning in her grave.
>
> If Verity was still alive she'd be saying how much she enjoyed it. She
> thought Dr Who was seriously off the rails during the 1980s. She thought the
> Dr Who of the 2000s has been top notch.
Yes but she was senile her whole life.
>
> > 4/10. Comparable to an average Sylvester McCoy episode with just as shitty
> > props and special effects. A ships wheel that rocked back and forth all
> > over the place, a shitty rehash of Davros (was that the real one in the
> > closing spoilers?) crossed with Del Boy, cardboard control panels and
> > cardboard stereotypes. The only thing missing was the Polish builders and
> > Albanian asylum seekers. Who could forget the second last Christmas
> > special where one stowed away in Denzel's van. No, wait a moment, wrong
> > stowaway, wrong series, but it might as well have been Fool Horses going
> > by the manner it was written.
>
> > The sooner Gayvies goes or is sacked, preferably sacked and never allowed
> > to write for Doctor Who again, the better for everyone.
>
> Yep. We were all expecting you to hate it. And you didn't disappoint.
>
> Best thing on TV this Christmas. Well done David Tennant, Kylie Minogue,
> Russell T Davies et al.!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mr.Smartypants
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:30:58 +0000, Agamemnon wrote:
> > So what was the reason for using an utterly shite stoned out unbearable
> > rock version of the theme tune on the opening credits? It was even worse
> > than the TVM cowboy theme.
>
>
> > Gayvies is totally deranged. He couldn't resist having the Doctor clench
> > another mans bum.
Yads loved it.
>
> I noticed this unnecessary scene, too.
>
> > The misogyny is back once again with Gayviews
> > pointlessly killing off the pretty girly bird
>
> I thought Kylie was surprisingly good in this, and she's still hot! A
> real shame she was pointlessly killed off. Why can't we have her instead
> of Tate in the next season?
>
> > 4/10. Comparable to an average Sylvester McCoy episode with just as
> > shitty props and special effects. A ships wheel that rocked back and
> > forth all over the place, a shitty rehash of Davros (was that the real
> > one in the closing spoilers?)
>
> No, that was a Sontaran, methinks!
>
> Finally, why can't we have a few stories well away from Earth? Davies is
> running out of ideas if once again he thinks it's a good idea to threaten
> London in yet another Christmas special...
>
> I give this 6/10, and it only gets that much because of Kylie and her
> boots :-)
> --
> Rob
> To reply, remove zudo
Agamemnon
"Rob" <monst....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9Vfcj.146936$WF3.1...@fe06.news.easynews.com...
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:30:58 +0000, Agamemnon wrote:
>
>> rock version of the theme tune on the opening credits? It was even worse
>> than the TVM cowboy theme.
>
No. It's the second worst version of theme music ever, the worst being the
Jon Pertwee version with the Jewish Harp which the producers had the decency
to remove from all the credits because it was so crap. Hopefully the same
will occur with this version.
On top of that they didn't use the theme over the next series preview like
they did last time and the changed the font on the title sequence to a
larger one and ran it at twice the speed so it was totally impossible to
read despite the size.
>
>> Gayvies is totally deranged. He couldn't resist having the Doctor clench
>> another mans bum.
>
> I noticed this unnecessary scene, too.
>
>> The misogyny is back once again with Gayviews
>> pointlessly killing off the pretty girly bird
>
> I thought Kylie was surprisingly good in this, and she's still hot! A
No. She tired to do a posh accent which was obviously fake and did not suite
either her or her character. It would have been better if shed used her
normal accent.
> real shame she was pointlessly killed off. Why can't we have her instead
> of Tate in the next season?
Because Gavies wants to make Doctor Who into a cheep comedy show.
>
>> 4/10. Comparable to an average Sylvester McCoy episode with just as
>> shitty props and special effects. A ships wheel that rocked back and
>> forth all over the place, a shitty rehash of Davros (was that the real
>> one in the closing spoilers?)
>
> No, that was a Sontaran, methinks!
Right, it's got two eyes. Sontaran then.
>
> Finally, why can't we have a few stories well away from Earth? Davies is
> running out of ideas if once again he thinks it's a good idea to threaten
> London in yet another Christmas special...
And take the piss out of his pervious specials at the same time.
Agamemnon
"Mr.Smartypants" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:90959baf-054f-4941...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 25, 1:30 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> So what was the reason for using an utterly shite stoned out unbearable
> rock
> version of the theme tune on the opening credits? It was even worse than
> the
> TVM cowboy theme.
>
> Is this garbage going to be used for Series 4 too?
>
> And to make it even crappier they brought in Bernard Cribbins to make fun
> of
> the last two Christmas specials.
>
> Gayvies is totally deranged. He couldn't resist having the Doctor clench
> another mans bum. The misogyny is back once again with Gayviews
> pointlessly
> killing off the pretty girly bird and in yet another tribute to the
> garbage
> which was Sylvester McCoy, Gayvies makes fun of the queen as well, or was
> all that crap about her being bundled out of Buckingham Palace and tanking
> the Doctor supposed to be taken seriously.
>
> If Veritly Lambert was still alive she'd be turning in her grave.
<<<LOL!!
If she were alive why would she be in her grave?>>>
So she can turn in it.
Ian Salsbury
"Stephen O'Connell" <no....@fk.u.com> wrote in message
news:4Fecj.23904$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
Everyone in my family thought it was great. I preferred it to the 2 previous
Xmas specials.
Ian Salsbury
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
Really? I thought 300 was a very poor film...far too long with barely any
plot beyond half naked sweaty men shouting and grappling with each other.
Mindless trash.
Ian Salsbury
> Finally, why can't we have a few stories well away from Earth?
Apparently there are 4 stories next year set on different planets.
Agamemnon
"Ian Salsbury" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5tdhjmF...@mid.individual.net...
1) It took itself seriously despite the fact that all the villains were
depicted as deformed monsters.
2) It didn't need to use comedy stereotypes or so-called humour and idiotic
wise cracks in order get a 15 certificate or attract younger viewers.
3) Apart from the part with the Ephors instead of the Oracle of Delphi, the
lack of a second king of Sparta, the scenes with Leonidas wife and the
costumes of the soldiers it was more or less historically accurate. It had
all the plot it needed and didn't need an idiotic subplot.
4) It was maybe about 10 minutes too short.
Mike Morris
> "Ian Salsbury" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:5tdhjmF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:jdydnUZY19qfEeza...@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> >> "Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >>news:6Aecj.15466$745....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> >>> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
It took itself seriously? Are you kidding me?
> 2) It didn't need to use comedy stereotypes or so-called humour and idiotic
> wise cracks in order get a 15 certificate or attract younger viewers.
No, just moronic machismo, gore, and well-oiled abs all over the
place.
> 3) Apart from the part with the Ephors instead of the Oracle of Delphi, the
> lack of a second king of Sparta, the scenes with Leonidas wife and the
> costumes of the soldiers it was more or less historically accurate. It had
> all the plot it needed and didn't need an idiotic subplot.
Really? So all the Persians really were orcs? And the King of the
Persians was dressed like a Gangsta Rapper and was ten foot tall?
> 4) It was maybe about 10 minutes too short.- Hide quoted text -
I'm quite intrigued that you're sticking up for the most homoerotic
film of the year, Aggers. Just when I think you've got nothing more
stupid to say, you prove me wrong again.
Ian Salsbury
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
It was boring as fuck. Just one long, tedious fight scene. If ever there was
a film to check your brain in at the door before watching it`s 300. Too
*short* (?), you must be joking, it could have been cut in half and the
story wouldn`t have been affected. It was more padded than a Pertwee 6
parter!
Agamemnon
"Mike Morris" <nyder_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e32c7068-5b6f-45b5...@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
It took itself completely seriously. It didn't add a non-historical love
affair as a sub-plot which would have undermined the main plot like the
1950's, "The 300 Spartans" did in order to attract the women. It stuck to
the reasons for the battle outlined by Herodotus and got the women into the
cinemas by showing men as men.
> 2) It didn't need to use comedy stereotypes or so-called humour and
> idiotic
> wise cracks in order get a 15 certificate or attract younger viewers.
<<<No, just moronic machismo, gore, and well-oiled abs all over the
place.>>>
It was men fighting in battle for their freedom and nothing to joke over.
How else do you expect people to fight?
> 3) Apart from the part with the Ephors instead of the Oracle of Delphi,
> the
> lack of a second king of Sparta, the scenes with Leonidas wife and the
> costumes of the soldiers it was more or less historically accurate. It had
> all the plot it needed and didn't need an idiotic subplot.
<<<Really? So all the Persians really were orcs? And the King of the
Persians was dressed like a Gangsta Rapper and was ten foot tall?>>>
Only the Immortals looked like orcs. Remember this film was mythologizing a
historical event just like the ancient Greeks did. Jason and Cadmus had
their sowen men to fight and Leonidas had his Immortals.
> 4) It was maybe about 10 minutes too short.- Hide quoted text -
<<<I'm quite intrigued that you're sticking up for the most homoerotic
film of the year, Aggers. Just when I think you've got nothing more
stupid to say, you prove me wrong again.>>>
It's only homoerotic if you're a puff. You got to see the Spartan
priestesses tits so there was something in it for everyone. And this film
did better in the box office and with the critics than either Troy or
Alexander since it made clear what everyone was fighting for and didn't try
to psycho analyse the main character or reverse the roles of the heroes and
the villains.
Agamemnon
Rubbish. They cut out loads of stuff like the Persian sacking of Greek
cities and villages and the people fleeing for their lives to the
Peloponnesus, Demaratus assisting the Persians by the side of Xerxes, the
Spartan raid on Xerxes tent where they captured his entourage, the Athenian
Naval battles including Salamis, Leonidas decapitation and crucifixion
(though the hinted at the latter), and the final route of the Persians from
Greece which they were about to do when it ended.
Ian Salsbury
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
I don`t care what was cut from the original story, I`m commenting on the
film as it stands. A complete snoozefest with zero characterisation and a
plot that was little more than one long fight scene.
Stephen O'Connell
Definitely agree! For me, it was the best of the DW 'Christmas Specials'
so far. I even liked the rocked up theme!
pbo...@aol.com
> So what was the reason for using an utterly shite stoned out unbearable rock
> version of the theme tune on the opening credits? It was even worse than the
> TVM cowboy theme.
>
> Is this garbage going to be used for Series 4 too?
Am I the only one who completely failed to notice that the theme music
was different?
> And to make it even crappier they brought in Bernard Cribbins to make fun of
> the last two Christmas specials.
Do you ever get the feeling you take things too seriously? Everyone
moans about how over-the-top stories of times past got completely
ignored by the public in the Who universe, and when RTD cones along
with an insert saying "Yes, it was silly wasn't it?" the same people
*still* moan. Doctor Who was never meant to be taken or to take itself
terribly seriously, and I love these sorts of knowing winks to the
audience - one of my favourite parts of "The Runaway Bride" was the
running joke about Donna's obliviousness to past alien invasions in
the same vein.
> Gayvies is totally deranged. He couldn't resist having the Doctor clench
> another mans bum.
Uh, are you sure you know what "clench" means?
The misogyny is back once again with Gayviews pointlessly
> killing off the pretty girly bird
Uh ... what? Because one of several (well, okay, two of several)
characters killed during the story is a girl, Davies is misogynistic?
What about all the stories where the Doctor saves the companion (like,
say, every other one)? And it wasn't pointless - we were meant to see
this girl as the Doctor's companion, so something needed to be written
into the script to explain why she wouldn't be carrying on into the
next season. Killing her off makes a change from "oh, it's too
dangerous".
and in yet another tribute to the garbage
> which was Sylvester McCoy, Gayvies makes fun of the queen as well, or was
> all that crap about her being bundled out of Buckingham Palace and tanking
> the Doctor supposed to be taken seriously.
Of course it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, but so what? Jokes
have a place in Doctor Who, and the fact that the queen happened to be
the subject of that particular joke doesn't mean it was "making fun of
her". And if it was making fun of her, so what? Why would that detract
from the humour value? I thought it was great, and from most of the
comments I've seen here it seems to have been taken as a well-judged
humour moment in an otherwise mostly straitlaced episode.
> If Veritly Lambert was still alive she'd be turning in her grave.
>
> 4/10. Comparable to an average Sylvester McCoy episode with just as shitty
> props and special effects. A ships wheel that rocked back and forth all over
> the place, a shitty rehash of Davros (was that the real one in the closing
> spoilers?)
Probably just glimpsed. But this character had no connection with
Davros save a wheelchair.
crossed with Del Boy, cardboard control panels and cardboard
> stereotypes.
It's Doctor Who. If you're expecting fleshed-out, realistic
characters, try another series or rewatch Human Nature.
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
> Even the series 4 trailer was un-impressive. The Series 2 and 3 promo
> trailers always had something to grab my interest for the next series.
> In this case it felt as if there was nothing there.
From the previous seasons' trailers, it seems they only have enough
material filmed when the Christmas special airs to cover the first
four or five episodes, and when one of those is an Ood episode you
probably can't build up the suspense (don't get me wrong, I like the
Ood, but not as villains). It seems that we'll be seeing quite a few
returning monsters early next year - there seemed to be Judoon with
flamethrowers (I've heard it rumoured that Sontarans will be back next
year, but those looked like Judoon helmets) and I'm guessing the woman
who got all the screentime in the trailer will turn out to be the
Rani. At least there weren't any Daleks in there (although we know at
least one will be in season 4).
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
> "Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6Aecj.15466$745....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> >news:vOqdnXyslZH...@eclipse.net.uk...
> >> So what was the reason for using an utterly shite stoned out unbearable
> >> rock version of the theme tune on the opening credits? It was even worse
> >> than the TVM cowboy theme.
>
> >> Is this garbage going to be used for Series 4 too?
>
> >> And to make it even crappier they brought in Bernard Cribbins to make fun
> >> of the last two Christmas specials.
>
> >> Gayvies is totally deranged. He couldn't resist having the Doctor clench
> >> another mans bum. The misogyny is back once again with Gayviews
> >> pointlessly killing off the pretty girly bird and in yet another tribute
> >> to the garbage which was Sylvester McCoy, Gayvies makes fun of the queen
> >> as well, or was all that crap about her being bundled out of Buckingham
> >> Palace and tanking the Doctor supposed to be taken seriously.
>
> >> If Veritly Lambert was still alive she'd be turning in her grave.
>
> > If Verity was still alive she'd be saying how much she enjoyed it. She
> > thought Dr Who was seriously off the rails during the 1980s. She thought
> > the Dr Who of the 2000s has been top notch.
>
> If she hated McCoy then she would have hated this. It's Sylvester McCoy all
> over again with comedy cameos from Geoffrey Palmer,
Um, he was in it, but I don't recall him doing any comedy whatsoever.
"Haha, he just shot the midshipman! That's a classic gag, that is! And
then he tried to get everyone killed to provide money for his family!
Stop, stop, the hilarity is causing my sides to ache!"
Bernard Cribbins, Queen,
I must have missed Freddie Mercury's cameo...
> Kylie and all. Gayvies has turned the series into a comic parody
You missed the point of the Tom Baker years, then?
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
wrote:
> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>
> news:jdydnUZY19qfEeza...@eclipse.net.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:6Aecj.15466$745....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> >> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah, but it's set in Greece, which must redeem it for all its faults
and make it a great work of philosophy into the bargain.
Phil
Jeremiah Harbottle
I didn't really watch it, it was just on in the background, but it seemed
pretty much bog standard RTD who - bits nicked from here and there, all
linked by a flimsy plot and some overly sentimental dialogue. I was looking
after my daughter at the time, and she was far more entertaining than this.
She discovered that clanging two bricks together could make a loud noise and
spend a long time doing this and laughing a lot!
What's up with Bernard Cribbins? Great to see him on screen, even in a small
part! The bloke from Revelation of the Daleks was playing the same character
in that Bucket show. He was creepy as hell in Revelation.
I can't really be arsed with this stuff anymore - and after watching Arc of
Infinity and Timelash I'm not sure I can stomach more of the post 1979
WHO...
Jeremiah Harbottle
> parter!
Fucking hell! That's some severe padding!
Jeremiah Harbottle
> Finally, why can't we have a few stories well away from Earth? Davies is
> running out of ideas if once again he thinks it's a good idea to threaten
> London in yet another Christmas special...
He isn't running out of ideas. He's running out other people's ideas. Dr
Who's always been good and using other genre works as inspiration, but it
seems to me that Davies isn't quite as well read as they were.
Jeremiah Harbottle
> suite either her or her character. It would have been better if shed used
> her normal accent.
Sofa so good, I thought, when she came on. She was OK.
>> real shame she was pointlessly killed off. Why can't we have her instead
>> of Tate in the next season?
>
> Because Gavies wants to make Doctor Who into a cheep comedy show.
He's got a chirpy sense of humour, you've got to admit.
Jeremiah Harbottle
> terribly seriously, and I love these sorts of knowing winks to the
> audience - one of my favourite parts of "The Runaway Bride" was the
> running joke about Donna's obliviousness to past alien invasions in
> the same vein.
I think these sort of in-jokes are quite poor, and not really required.
Everyone knows that the series is ridiculous and always has been, with alien
invasions left right and centre that are forgotten...
But the point is that no one really cared about it, as everyone accepted
that the UNIT plot device explained it all nicely and really made you forget
it about it and enjoy the story in isolation from this cobbled together
"world". Sort of like Hitchcock's McGuffin.
These nudge nudge things are almost like insulting the audience and turning
it into a Police Squad style parody. There are far better ways of being
funny than this.
pbo...@aol.com
wrote:
Insulting the audience would be if it were done in a way that was
saying "Hey, this stuff's ridiculous - can't you lot SEE how stupid it
all is?" (well, that would be insulting those members of the audience
who CAN see the show is ridiculous - given his insistence that Who
take itself utterly seriously, Agamemnon appears to be excluded from
this not-so-select band). That's not the sense I get from this episode
or the similar scenes in the last Christmas one - it's the very fact
that they are presented as jokes for the audience to laugh at is much
more a case of respecting the audience enough to expect them to
appreciate the joke. And that's what an in-joke is, after all - joking
with someone who's in on the gag. Yes, it's self-parody, but what's
wrong with that? Comparing it with Police Squad or whatever just
because both happen to contain elements of self-parody isn't a
sensible criticism - the parody here doesn't get in the way of the
story or define the plot, whereas Poilice Squad plots were only ever a
way of stitching all the jokes together.
And I don't think it's fair to say "no one really cared about it" -
look at the fuss here a couple of years back because of the ending to
World War Three, and indeed the Christmas episode then. It's because
there's an audience out there that notices these things that these
jokes get inserted. There was a DS9 episode years back where Quark,
Rom and Nog were en route to Earth when their shuttle went wrong. Rom
came up with an idea to save them that amounted to a string of
technobabble, leading to the following exchange:
Quark: Rom, you're a genius!
Rom: You think so?
Quark: How should I know? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Just do it.
It's the same thing again - the joke's only there because people pick
up on the fact that Trek relies so much on technobabble solutions, and
it wouldn't work at all if they didn't catch it. It's because everyone
knows the Who scenario is ridiculous that the jokes make sense at all.
Phil
Stephen Wilson
"Jeremiah Harbottle" <harb...@ukfsn.org.REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:fku3p1$1mom$1...@energise.enta.net...
And you've got to admit, it hasn't even begun to plumb the depths that Dr
Who reached in the past in the cheap comedy show status. Look at any show
during the Graham Williams era. I mean, even one of his script editors was
primarily a comic author (ie Douglas Adams). Comedy scenes abounded (think
Romana's regeneration. Think Horns of Nimon). Comic monsters abounded (think
Creature from the Pit).
And virtually the entire run from Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy. Then
there was the pantomime Master in the TV movie...
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4611831d-807d-4e9f...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Dec, 17:48, "Jeremiah Harbottle" <harbo...@ukfsn.org.REMOVETHIS>
> wrote:
>> > *still* moan. Doctor Who was never meant to be taken or to take itself
>> > terribly seriously, and I love these sorts of knowing winks to the
>> > audience - one of my favourite parts of "The Runaway Bride" was the
>> > running joke about Donna's obliviousness to past alien invasions in
>> > the same vein.
>>
>> I think these sort of in-jokes are quite poor, and not really required.
>> Everyone knows that the series is ridiculous and always has been, with
>> alien
>> invasions left right and centre that are forgotten...
>>
>> But the point is that no one really cared about it, as everyone accepted
>> that the UNIT plot device explained it all nicely and really made you
>> forget
>> it about it and enjoy the story in isolation from this cobbled together
>> "world". Sort of like Hitchcock's McGuffin.
>>
>> These nudge nudge things are almost like insulting the audience and
>> turning
>> it into a Police Squad style parody. There are far better ways of being
>> funny than this.
>
> Insulting the audience would be if it were done in a way that was
> saying "Hey, this stuff's ridiculous - can't you lot SEE how stupid it
Insulting the audience is what RTD does all the time by not taking the show
seriously. Look at Heroes which is totally stupid (like the arrangement of
your DNA can make you travel in space and time) but at least it takes itself
seriously and doesn't ridicule itself like Gayvies does in every episode he
writes.
> all is?" (well, that would be insulting those members of the audience
> who CAN see the show is ridiculous - given his insistence that Who
It is only ridiculous because Gayvies makes it ridiculous. When Gramham
Williams was producer he took everything seriously and the humour was
serious humour not parody or slapstick.
> take itself utterly seriously, Agamemnon appears to be excluded from
> this not-so-select band). That's not the sense I get from this episode
> or the similar scenes in the last Christmas one - it's the very fact
> that they are presented as jokes for the audience to laugh at is much
> more a case of respecting the audience enough to expect them to
> appreciate the joke. And that's what an in-joke is, after all - joking
They are not good jokes. They are cheep Music Hall gags relying in
ridiculous unbelievable and outdated stereotypes.
> with someone who's in on the gag. Yes, it's self-parody, but what's
> wrong with that?
Everything, since it's supposed to be about people putting their lives on
the line, which Gayvies simply doesn't get. How can you take someone's death
seriously when seconds earlier Gayvies mocks the queen and everyone who is
British. Does he thing by doing this he is appealing to US viewers? He's an
idiot if he does and is insulting everyone in this country. When did Heros
insult the US president in such a manner?
>Comparing it with Police Squad or whatever just
> because both happen to contain elements of self-parody isn't a
> sensible criticism - the parody here doesn't get in the way of the
> story or define the plot, whereas Poilice Squad plots were only ever a
> way of stitching all the jokes together.
Rubbish. The fact is that the parody completely ruined what could have been
a perfectly reasonable story without it. Who is so stupid as to believe that
anyone could be as ignorant of the monetary exchange rate, pile up a 5,000
credit phone bill to win a ticket the same price which was only worth about
£100 in any case, flee London at Christmas because it had been invaded by
aliens for two successive years, be a tour guide but not know what the names
of countries were, tell people about Christmas but get everything wrong, get
a job as a waitress in order to visit an alien planet when the trip only
cost £100 in any case, which she could have earned in only a couple of days,
give people a credit card with a £1,000,000 pound limit when they only payed
£100 for the trip, and hide in their own ship which was going to crash into
the Earth and destroy it, all without any means of rescue, like why, instead
of keeping well away from it all, and buy a ticket from or trust anything
said by person who talks and acts like Del Boy Trotter.
It was a fucking PANTOMIME as bad as the series became when Sylvester McCoy
took over.
>
> And I don't think it's fair to say "no one really cared about it" -
> look at the fuss here a couple of years back because of the ending to
> World War Three, and indeed the Christmas episode then. It's because
> there's an audience out there that notices these things that these
> jokes get inserted. There was a DS9 episode years back where Quark,
> Rom and Nog were en route to Earth when their shuttle went wrong. Rom
> came up with an idea to save them that amounted to a string of
> technobabble, leading to the following exchange:
>
> Quark: Rom, you're a genius!
> Rom: You think so?
> Quark: How should I know? I have no idea what you're talking about.
> Just do it.
Oh you mean like the crap Tennant came out with in order to bring back Kylie
from the backup pattern buffer, which was never mentioned to the audience
prior to that event, so he might just as well have waved a magic wand. And
how was he able to transport down to the Earth with the idiot he was with
when the power to the transporters was supposed to have been exhausted, and
if he managed to recharge it then why didn't he wait until it was recharged
before trying to bring back Kylie. Sloppy writing at its worst.
If Gavies had submitted this script anonymously it was have been instantly
rejected, assuming anyone would have taken it as a serious submission and
not as a demeaning insult.
>
> It's the same thing again - the joke's only there because people pick
> up on the fact that Trek relies so much on technobabble solutions, and
> it wouldn't work at all if they didn't catch it. It's because everyone
> knows the Who scenario is ridiculous that the jokes make sense at all.
Bollocks. The jokes were scraping the bottom of the barrel and totally
idiotic.
>
> Phil
Agamemnon
There was plenty of characterisation. Your problem is that you can't tell
character from stereotype. The story was about 300 Spartans fighting against
2,000,000 Persians and that's what was shown. It didn't need any made up
romantic sub-plot which is what ruined Troy or any psycho analysis of the
main characters relationship with his mother which is what ruined Alexander.
It got straight to the point, which was freedom or death.
Ian Salsbury
> It is only ridiculous because Gayvies makes it ridiculous. When Gramham
> Williams was producer he took everything seriously and the humour was
> serious humour not parody or slapstick.
If I had any respect for your opinions you would have lost them with that
staement.
pbo...@aol.com
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
I think people anal enough to take a kids' TV fantasy show that
seriously deserve any insult they take from these sorts of jibes,
frankly. People can have fun doing their jobs - get over it. It
strikes me as quite healthy that Davies realises that it's just a TV
show, not a matter of life and death.
Look at Heroes which is totally stupid (like the arrangement of
> your DNA can make you travel in space and time) but at least it takes itself
> seriously and doesn't ridicule itself like Gayvies does in every episode he
> writes.
Which is actually one of the things that its critics have tended to
complain about - whereas most of the superhero cartoons it's derived
from have more of a sense of humour (look at the Spiderman films).
Humour sells more effectively than sex or celebrities, and generally
makes for a better product than either.
> > take itself utterly seriously, Agamemnon appears to be excluded from
> > this not-so-select band). That's not the sense I get from this episode
> > or the similar scenes in the last Christmas one - it's the very fact
> > that they are presented as jokes for the audience to laugh at is much
> > more a case of respecting the audience enough to expect them to
> > appreciate the joke. And that's what an in-joke is, after all - joking
>
> They are not good jokes. They are cheep Music Hall gags relying in
> ridiculous unbelievable and outdated stereotypes.
Huh? It's an 'unbelievable and outdated stereotype' that Doctor Who
features alien invasions of London, as parodied in this episode, or
that the public is assumed to be oblivious to all of them, as parodied
last year? Or are you straying away from the subject at hand for the
sake of raving generally?
> > with someone who's in on the gag. Yes, it's self-parody, but what's
> > wrong with that?
>
> Everything, since it's supposed to be about people putting their lives on
> the line, which Gayvies simply doesn't get.
People put their lives on the line all the time in real life, while
still being able to maintain a sense of humour. Or do you suppose
that, say, soldiers never tell jokes?
How can you take someone's death
> seriously when seconds earlier Gayvies mocks the queen and everyone who is
> British.
You really are a nutcase, aren't you? How does he do either? How does
supposing the queen would evacuate a building that was about to be hit
by a falling spaceship constitute 'mocking her'? Or suggesting that
she might be concerned about her dogs in the process? And goodness
knows where the rest of this random gibberish is coming from. As for
taking people's deaths seriously, that rather relies on the actor
playing the part of whoever's being killed and the way that death is
scripted. If you see someone sacrificing her life because she has
nothing left to live for after her husband has died, how does that
become any less moving or serious because of a totally unconnected
joke about people evacuating London in case of another Christmas
invasion, or whatever? Most people's minds are sufficiently complex
that they can register and respond differently to different stimuli.
Does he thing by doing this he is appealing to US viewers? He's an
> idiot if he does and is insulting everyone in this country. When did Heros
> insult the US president in such a manner?
Well, portraying a president as a psychotic genocidal maniac is
probably somewhat more insulting than supposing the Queen would try to
get her corgis out of Buckingham Palace if it was about to be hit by a
spaceship...
> >Comparing it with Police Squad or whatever just
> > because both happen to contain elements of self-parody isn't a
> > sensible criticism - the parody here doesn't get in the way of the
> > story or define the plot, whereas Poilice Squad plots were only ever a
> > way of stitching all the jokes together.
>
> Rubbish. The fact is that the parody completely ruined what could have been
> a perfectly reasonable story without it. Who is so stupid as to believe that
> anyone could be as ignorant of the monetary exchange rate,
Well, considering how ignorant he was of Earth in general...
pile up a 5,000
> credit phone bill to win a ticket the same price which was only worth about
> £100 in any case,
What had me wondering was more the idea that it would take them 20
years to pay that much back.
flee London at Christmas because it had been invaded by
> aliens for two successive years,
You weren't expected to believe it - it was a joke. London was empty
because it was more convenient for the story than to have people
wondering at everyone teleporting in and out. Davies could have come
up with a contrived explanation he wanted people to take seriously,
but instead he played it as a joke - with better results.
be a tour guide but not know what the names
> of countries were,
Well, he was only meant to be a tour guide to London, but did you miss
the bit where it was made plain he lied about his credentials to his
employer?
get
> a job as a waitress in order to visit an alien planet when the trip only
> cost £100 in any case,
You've never been a student, have you?
which she could have earned in only a couple of days,
So? This way she got her money and a free trip, rather than the money
or the trip. Good deal if you've got nothing better in mind. Plenty of
people take jobs on dive boats to get free dives. It wouldn't surprise
me at all if somed of the staff on cruise liners do much the same
thing.
> give people a credit card with a £1,000,000 pound limit when they only payed
> £100 for the trip,
He wasn't given the money. He programmed the card himself to give him
a particular balance.
and hide in their own ship which was going to crash into
> the Earth and destroy it, all without any means of rescue, like why, instead
> of keeping well away from it all, and buy a ticket from or trust anything
> said by person who talks and acts like Del Boy Trotter.
Um, because no one except the captain knew it was going to crash? And
how often have you bought cruise tickets directly from the company's
CEO? You're just fishing for absurd excuses to justify your
preconceived dislike of anything RTD puts out - and in a way that has
nothing to do with the actual point about the episode's parody
elements.
> It was a fucking PANTOMIME as bad as the series became when Sylvester McCoy
> took over.
I wasn't aware he had taken over - how many seasons did he direct,
again?
> > > Quark: Rom, you're a genius!
> > Rom: You think so?
> > Quark: How should I know? I have no idea what you're talking about.
> > Just do it.
>
> Oh you mean like the crap Tennant came out with in order to bring back Kylie
> from the backup pattern buffer, which was never mentioned to the audience
> prior to that event, so he might just as well have waved a magic wand.
Well, except that if he'd waved the magic wand it would have worked.
Yes, Who uses a lot of technobabble as well (using the heat of reentry
to restart the nuclear whatnot engines, for example) - the point I was
making was of a case where an episode's scriptwriter realised that
it's a silly plot device and made fun of it.
And
> how was he able to transport down to the Earth with the idiot he was with
> when the power to the transporters was supposed to have been exhausted,
Presumably the teleporter was recharged when the engines fired up.
Still, this is the closest you've come to a cogent criticism of the
episode yet.
and
> if he managed to recharge it then why didn't he wait until it was recharged
> before trying to bring back Kylie. Sloppy writing at its worst.
The Keeping Up Appearances fellow said something about the system
being too badly damaged - presumably reconstructing someone from atoms
in storage goes through different systems from teleporting. Or maybe,
since he ordered Kylie revived as soon as he could, he simply hadn't
thought of it at that stage. No, it wasn't a terribly good plot device
to kill Kylie off with a transporter malfunction and then to use the
transporter a scene or two later with no ill effects - better to have
ignored the whole 'maybe the teleporter can get her back' thing
altogether and just accept that she got fried with the rest.
> If Gavies had submitted this script anonymously it was have been instantly
> rejected, assuming anyone would have taken it as a serious submission and
> not as a demeaning insult.
He's hardly the best writer, but there have been plenty of non-Davies
episodes far worse than this (Fear Her, for instance).
Phil
Stephen Wilson
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>
>
>> all is?" (well, that would be insulting those members of the audience
>> who CAN see the show is ridiculous - given his insistence that Who
>
> It is only ridiculous because Gayvies makes it ridiculous. When Gramham
> Williams was producer he took everything seriously and the humour was
> serious humour not parody or slapstick.
Of course not, Aggy dear. Everyone took Horns of Nimon seriously.
Particularly Graham Crowden who you can actually see giggling during his
death scene. As for Creature from the Pit, no slapstick - apart of course
from the Monty Python rejects playing the bandits (looking fantastic ub
their fake beards), Geoffrey Bayldon giving probably the worst performance
of his career, and the joke monster. Nightmare of Eden - you could tell that
was being taken seriously, particularly with Tom Baker's seemingly ad-libbed
comedy moments. City of Death. If RTD had featured John Cleese and Eleanor
Bron, you'd have blasted him. The story rarely takes itself seriously.
Nope, Dr Who under Graham Williams was far sillier than it's ever been under
RTD.
Wayne J. Kinsella
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>news:lu2dnQUNxOfHKO_a...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>>
>>> all is?" (well, that would be insulting those members of the audience
>>> who CAN see the show is ridiculous - given his insistence that Who
>>
>> It is only ridiculous because Gayvies makes it ridiculous. When Gramham
>> Williams was producer he took everything seriously and the humour was
>> serious humour not parody or slapstick.
>
>Of course not, Aggy dear. Everyone took Horns of Nimon seriously.
>Particularly Graham Crowden who you can actually see giggling during his
>death scene.
He corpsed and there was no time for a re-take. Nimon is intentionally
as it is, it is a pantomime for Xmas and it is very very good at what
it does.
>As for Creature from the Pit, no slapstick - apart of course
>from the Monty Python rejects playing the bandits (looking fantastic ub
>their fake beards), Geoffrey Bayldon giving probably the worst performance
>of his career, and the joke monster.
Still no evidence of slapstick in the story.
>Nightmare of Eden - you could tell that
>was being taken seriously, particularly with Tom Baker's seemingly ad-libbed
>comedy moments.
Apart from the infamous "Oh my arms....." scene it is pretty much
played straight and there is an excellent message in the story. The
scene where Tryst tries to excuse what he has done and the Doctors
reaction is bloody brilliant.
>City of Death. If RTD had featured John Cleese and Eleanor
>Bron, you'd have blasted him. The story rarely takes itself seriously.
>
>Nope, Dr Who under Graham Williams was far sillier than it's ever been under
>RTD.
>
Totally wrong.
Burping wheelie bins, farting aliens, Pavements slabs giving blow
jobs, camp bodyswaps and so on. NuWho owes alot to the Williams era
and the first two series especially were silly. RTD is on record as
saying the last series was too dark and that will be changed.
Agamemnon
>
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:lu2dnQUNxOfHKO_a...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>>
>>> all is?" (well, that would be insulting those members of the audience
>>> who CAN see the show is ridiculous - given his insistence that Who
>>
>> It is only ridiculous because Gayvies makes it ridiculous. When Gramham
>> Williams was producer he took everything seriously and the humour was
>> serious humour not parody or slapstick.
>
> Of course not, Aggy dear. Everyone took Horns of Nimon seriously.
> Particularly Graham Crowden who you can actually see giggling during his
> death scene.
That's because someone didn't tell him they were actually filming the scene
for real and it was not a rehearsal, and the person directing it didn't do a
retake.
>As for Creature from the Pit, no slapstick - apart of course from the Monty
>Python rejects playing the bandits (looking fantastic ub their fake
>beards), Geoffrey Bayldon giving probably the worst performance of his
>career, and the joke monster. Nightmare of Eden - you could tell that was
>being taken seriously, particularly with Tom Baker's seemingly ad-libbed
>comedy moments. City of Death. If RTD had featured John Cleese and Eleanor
>Bron, you'd have blasted him. The story rarely takes itself seriously.
>
> Nope, Dr Who under Graham Williams was far sillier than it's ever been
> under RTD.
Wrong. Graham Williams took the series seriously and the humour was serious
intelligent humour. Gayvies can't do serious or intelligent humour and all
he knows is slapstick and old music hall gags. He should be writing for the
Good Old Days not Doctor Who.
Agamemnon
"Wayne J. Kinsella" <kinsel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l0m5n3tnvct7t505l...@4ax.com...
Oh wonderful. The only moderately decent series he has produced apart from
Smith and Jones and Gridlock and he plans to go back the garbage of series
2.
Wayne J. Kinsella
<agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>"Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:56Acj.35663$zw.3...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>> news:lu2dnQUNxOfHKO_a...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>
>>>
>>>> all is?" (well, that would be insulting those members of the audience
>>>> who CAN see the show is ridiculous - given his insistence that Who
>>>
>>> It is only ridiculous because Gayvies makes it ridiculous. When Gramham
>>> Williams was producer he took everything seriously and the humour was
>>> serious humour not parody or slapstick.
>>
>> Of course not, Aggy dear. Everyone took Horns of Nimon seriously.
>> Particularly Graham Crowden who you can actually see giggling during his
>> death scene.
>
>That's because someone didn't tell him they were actually filming the scene
>for real and it was not a rehearsal, and the person directing it didn't do a
>retake.
Just like the scene in Blackadder II where Rik Mayalls moustache
slides down his lip in "Bells".
>
>>As for Creature from the Pit, no slapstick - apart of course from the Monty
>>Python rejects playing the bandits (looking fantastic ub their fake
>>beards), Geoffrey Bayldon giving probably the worst performance of his
>>career, and the joke monster. Nightmare of Eden - you could tell that was
>>being taken seriously, particularly with Tom Baker's seemingly ad-libbed
>>comedy moments. City of Death. If RTD had featured John Cleese and Eleanor
>>Bron, you'd have blasted him. The story rarely takes itself seriously.
>>
>> Nope, Dr Who under Graham Williams was far sillier than it's ever been
>> under RTD.
>
>Wrong. Graham Williams took the series seriously and the humour was serious
>intelligent humour. Gayvies can't do serious or intelligent humour and all
>he knows is slapstick and old music hall gags. He should be writing for the
>Good Old Days not Doctor Who.
>
"Sophisticated and Stimulating" was, if not the fan consensus back
then, certainly a view within fandom concerning the humour in the
Williams years. Certainly season 17 was very "college student" in its
humour and for me it worked well. There were some slapstick moments
but to characterise it all as cheap laugh filled stunts is plain
wrong. It was far from it.
Ian Salsbury
> saying the last series was too dark and that will be changed.
Is he? In a recent interview he says this...
"It's fun, and it's darker than ever in some places. It's a cracking series,
I can't wait for it to start."
Wayne J. Kinsella
Yup, saw him quoted on OG saying so especially in reference to
HN/FOB/B
Ian Salsbury
Well, he`s clearly *since* said it`s "darker than ever in some places" so
we`ll just have to wait and see! I like Who light and dark in equal measures
( although I generally prefer bleak drama I don`t think it entirely suits Dr
Who ).
Wayne J. Kinsella
<I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Wayne J. Kinsella" <kinsel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:dcp5n31spbnb2cfmc...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:35:46 -0000, "Ian Salsbury"
>> <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> RTD is on record as
>>>> saying the last series was too dark and that will be changed.
>>>
>>>Is he? In a recent interview he says this...
>>>
>>>"It's fun, and it's darker than ever in some places. It's a cracking
>>>series,
>>>I can't wait for it to start."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yup, saw him quoted on OG saying so especially in reference to
>> HN/FOB/B
>
>Well, he`s clearly *since* said it`s "darker than ever in some places" so
>we`ll just have to wait and see! I like Who light and dark in equal measures
>( although I generally prefer bleak drama I don`t think it entirely suits Dr
>Who ).
>
I like a bit of whimsy but drivel like the burping wheelie bin and
farting aliens goes too far IMHO. All a little CBBC for my taster.
>
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:490ddc17-c29b-47b2...@j64g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
Gayvies thinks its a comedy show. He thinks it's Basil Brush, Rentaghost or
Rod Hull and Emu.
Look at Heroes which is totally stupid (like the arrangement of
> your DNA can make you travel in space and time) but at least it takes
> itself
> seriously and doesn't ridicule itself like Gayvies does in every episode
> he
> writes.
<<<Which is actually one of the things that its critics have tended to
complain about - whereas most of the superhero cartoons it's derived
from have more of a sense of humour (look at the Spiderman films).
Humour sells more effectively than sex or celebrities, and generally
makes for a better product than either.>>>
Twaddle. If people want humour they can watch a comedy. Why should they have
it inflicted on them in a serious drama by and idiot who doesn't know how to
write intelligently?
> > take itself utterly seriously, Agamemnon appears to be excluded from
> > this not-so-select band). That's not the sense I get from this episode
> > or the similar scenes in the last Christmas one - it's the very fact
> > that they are presented as jokes for the audience to laugh at is much
> > more a case of respecting the audience enough to expect them to
> > appreciate the joke. And that's what an in-joke is, after all - joking
>
> They are not good jokes. They are cheep Music Hall gags relying in
> ridiculous unbelievable and outdated stereotypes.
<<<Huh? It's an 'unbelievable and outdated stereotype' that Doctor Who
features alien invasions of London, as parodied in this episode, or
that the public is assumed to be oblivious to all of them, as parodied
last year? Or are you straying away from the subject at hand for the
sake of raving generally?>>>
The stereo types I was referring to were the insulting comic social
stereotypes used by Gayvies.
> > with someone who's in on the gag. Yes, it's self-parody, but what's
> > wrong with that?
>
> Everything, since it's supposed to be about people putting their lives on
> the line, which Gayvies simply doesn't get.
<<<People put their lives on the line all the time in real life, while
still being able to maintain a sense of humour. Or do you suppose
that, say, soldiers never tell jokes?>>>
Gayvies was not telling jokes. He was doing slapstick gags and using
insulting comic social stereo types behaving like idiots in serious
situations. A professional soldier behaving in such a manner would be
charged with gross incompetence of duty and court martialed.
How can you take someone's death
> seriously when seconds earlier Gayvies mocks the queen and everyone who is
> British.
<<<You really are a nutcase, aren't you? How does he do either? How does
supposing the queen would evacuate a building that was about to be hit
by a falling spaceship constitute 'mocking her'? Or suggesting that>>>
It was the way it was done that was insulting. Gayvies used her as a cartoon
stereotype in the same way the woman in the Tom and Jerry cartoons is
showing by only showing the bottom of her legs, but with corgies instead of
Tom. She was only included in the story for the laughs and served not
purposed whatsoever to the plot.
<<<she might be concerned about her dogs in the process? And goodness
knows where the rest of this random gibberish is coming from. As for
taking people's deaths seriously, that rather relies on the actor
playing the part of whoever's being killed and the way that death is
scripted. If you see someone sacrificing her life because she has
nothing left to live for after her husband has died, how does that
become any less moving or serious because of a totally unconnected
joke about people evacuating London in case of another Christmas
invasion, or whatever? Most people's minds are sufficiently complex
that they can register and respond differently to different stimuli.>>>
No real person would have sacrifice her life in such a manner for a bunch of
strangers. It was totally ridiculous.
Does he thing by doing this he is appealing to US viewers? He's an
> idiot if he does and is insulting everyone in this country. When did Heros
> insult the US president in such a manner?
<<<Well, portraying a president as a psychotic genocidal maniac is
probably somewhat more insulting than supposing the Queen would try to
get her corgis out of Buckingham Palace if it was about to be hit by a
spaceship...>>>
Since the US president is psychotic genocidal maniac how can it be
insulting?
> >Comparing it with Police Squad or whatever just
> > because both happen to contain elements of self-parody isn't a
> > sensible criticism - the parody here doesn't get in the way of the
> > story or define the plot, whereas Poilice Squad plots were only ever a
> > way of stitching all the jokes together.
>
> Rubbish. The fact is that the parody completely ruined what could have
> been
> a perfectly reasonable story without it. Who is so stupid as to believe
> that
> anyone could be as ignorant of the monetary exchange rate,
<<<Well, considering how ignorant he was of Earth in general...>>>
The fact is that he was not ignorant of Earth. He know it existed and there
is no reason why he would have got the facts in such a mess since there were
very few of them to learn. The impression given was that he learned them
from a source (the info androids) which got them wrong itself and that is
totally unbelievable. Gayvies revived a standard racist Music Hall gag about
Johnny Foreigner.
pile up a 5,000
> credit phone bill to win a ticket the same price which was only worth
> about
> £100 in any case,
<<<What had me wondering was more the idea that it would take them 20
years to pay that much back.>>>
flee London at Christmas because it had been invaded by
> aliens for two successive years,
<<<You weren't expected to believe it - it was a joke. London was empty
because it was more convenient for the story than to have people
wondering at everyone teleporting in and out. Davies could have come
up with a contrived explanation he wanted people to take seriously,
but instead he played it as a joke - with better results.>>>
The joke was not funny and totally unnecessary. There is no reason why they
couldn't have had them appear in the corner of a crowded street so that no
one noticed them, since they do it all the time in Star Trek when visiting
primitive planets.
be a tour guide but not know what the names
> of countries were,
<<<Well, he was only meant to be a tour guide to London, but did you miss
the bit where it was made plain he lied about his credentials to his
employer?>>>
So what. Why wasn't he asked questions about Earth society during his job
interview?
get
> a job as a waitress in order to visit an alien planet when the trip only
> cost £100 in any case,
<<<You've never been a student, have you?
which she could have earned in only a couple of days,
So? This way she got her money and a free trip, rather than the money
or the trip. Good deal if you've got nothing better in mind. Plenty of
people take jobs on dive boats to get free dives. It wouldn't surprise
me at all if somed of the staff on cruise liners do much the same
thing.>>>
The impression given was that she was totally skint and couldn't even though
the trip to Earth only cost about £100. She would have earned that in only a
couple of days so could have gone on shore leave anytime she wanted.
> give people a credit card with a £1,000,000 pound limit when they only
> payed
> £100 for the trip,
<<<He wasn't given the money. He programmed the card himself to give him
a particular balance.>>>
No, the card already had that programmed into it by the credit company. How
was the Doctor supposed to reprogram their computer when he was no where
near a terminal? And since it was credit the guy would have to pay it all
back anyway when his monthly bill came in so he was totally buggered with or
without it.
and hide in their own ship which was going to crash into
> the Earth and destroy it, all without any means of rescue, like why,
> instead
> of keeping well away from it all, and buy a ticket from or trust anything
> said by person who talks and acts like Del Boy Trotter.
<<<Um, because no one except the captain knew it was going to crash? And
how often have you bought cruise tickets directly from the company's
CEO? You're just fishing for absurd excuses to justify your
preconceived dislike of anything RTD puts out - and in a way that has
nothing to do with the actual point about the episode's parody
elements.>>>
If Richard Branson or Stellios Hadjigiannis made a commercial or behaved in
such a Del Boyish manner nobody would do business with them or fly on their
airlines.
> It was a fucking PANTOMIME as bad as the series became when Sylvester
> McCoy
> took over.
<<<I wasn't aware he had taken over - how many seasons did he direct,
again?>>>
> > > Quark: Rom, you're a genius!
> > Rom: You think so?
> > Quark: How should I know? I have no idea what you're talking about.
> > Just do it.
>
> Oh you mean like the crap Tennant came out with in order to bring back
> Kylie
> from the backup pattern buffer, which was never mentioned to the audience
> prior to that event, so he might just as well have waved a magic wand.
<<<Well, except that if he'd waved the magic wand it would have worked.
Yes, Who uses a lot of technobabble as well (using the heat of reentry
to restart the nuclear whatnot engines, for example) - the point I was
making was of a case where an episode's scriptwriter realised that
it's a silly plot device and made fun of it.>>>
So you agree that Gayvies has turned to show into a pantomime parody.
And
> how was he able to transport down to the Earth with the idiot he was with
> when the power to the transporters was supposed to have been exhausted,
<<<Presumably the teleporter was recharged when the engines fired up.
Still, this is the closest you've come to a cogent criticism of the
episode yet.>>>
The Doctor did not used teleporter to retrieve Kylie until he had already
saved the ship and it was back in orbit. On top of that the EMP thing they
took from the dwarf miraculously recharged itself even though the Doctor
said it was exhausted and that's why the dwarf died. If it could recharge
itself like that the dwarf should still be alive. More idiotic shoddy script
writing.
and
> if he managed to recharge it then why didn't he wait until it was
> recharged
> before trying to bring back Kylie. Sloppy writing at its worst.
<<<The Keeping Up Appearances fellow said something about the system
being too badly damaged - presumably reconstructing someone from atoms
in storage goes through different systems from teleporting. Or maybe,
since he ordered Kylie revived as soon as he could, he simply hadn't
thought of it at that stage. No, it wasn't a terribly good plot device
to kill Kylie off with a transporter malfunction and then to use the
transporter a scene or two later with no ill effects - better to have
ignored the whole 'maybe the teleporter can get her back' thing
altogether and just accept that she got fried with the rest.>>>
> If Gavies had submitted this script anonymously it was have been instantly
> rejected, assuming anyone would have taken it as a serious submission and
> not as a demeaning insult.
<<<He's hardly the best writer, but there have been plenty of non-Davies
episodes far worse than this (Fear Her, for instance).>>>
If Gayvies was a decent head writer he would have thrown Fear Her out the
moment he read it.
<<<Phil>>>
Agamemnon
Read what I wrote again. My comments were directed at Gayvies writing.
Wayne J. Kinsella
Read what I wrote again. I am defending Season 17 and Graham Williams
against someone who followed up your post. I do not need you to tell
me what to read and not to read, Sonny.
hulahoop
<stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
Isn't it good to have Aggy back?
More predictable than an RTD script
Regards
H
Agamemnon
Then why did you reply to my post and not directly to his or make it clear
that you were talking to him by snipping?
Wayne J. Kinsella
<agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
Actually I was supporting this point in your post.
"Wrong. Graham Williams took the series seriously and the humour was
serious intelligent humour. "
I am really not interested in your pathetic digs at RTD's sexuality.
You have a good point to make but lose it in your continual digs at
his sexual preference.
Mike Morris
> >Of course not, Aggy dear. Everyone took Horns of Nimon seriously.
> >Particularly Graham Crowden who you can actually see giggling during his
> >death scene.
>
> He corpsed and there was no time for a re-take. Nimon is intentionally
> as it is, it is a pantomime for Xmas and it is very very good at what
> it does.
I like Nimon a lot, but... a pantomime for Xmas - we sort of got that
on Christmas Day, didn't we? Tom undermines two of the cliffhangers,
Crowden's performance is generally appalling, the writing is pretty
cliched, and the thing only holds together through its sense of fun. A
bit like Voyage of the Damnded, perhaps?
> >As for Creature from the Pit, no slapstick - apart of course
> >from the Monty Python rejects playing the bandits (looking fantastic ub
> >their fake beards), Geoffrey Bayldon giving probably the worst performance
> >of his career, and the joke monster.
>
> Still no evidence of slapstick in the story.
The "you're standing on my scarf" bit. All that smart-arsed stuff
about the Doc reading Teach Yourself Tibetan. The Doc jumping down the
pit for no apparent reason. The Creature from the Pit is a cheap,
nasty story that uses humour as an excuse for its own lazymindedness,
and it's ten times worse than anything the New Series has broadcast
(except Doomsday).
> >Nightmare of Eden - you could tell that
> >was being taken seriously, particularly with Tom Baker's seemingly ad-libbed
> >comedy moments.
>
> Apart from the infamous "Oh my arms....." scene it is pretty much
> played straight and there is an excellent message in the story. The
> scene where Tryst tries to excuse what he has done and the Doctors
> reaction is bloody brilliant.
I'd agree here, Nightmare of Eden is well-intentioned, but it's
incompetently made. I don't mind that at all, I love it, but the
standard of acting and direction is dreadful in a way that nuWho never
is.
> >City of Death. If RTD had featured John Cleese and Eleanor
> >Bron, you'd have blasted him. The story rarely takes itself seriously.
>
> >Nope, Dr Who under Graham Williams was far sillier than it's ever been under
> >RTD.
>
> Totally wrong.
>
> Burping wheelie bins, farting aliens, Pavements slabs giving blow
> jobs, camp bodyswaps and so on. NuWho owes alot to the Williams era
> and the first two series especially were silly. RTD is on record as
> saying the last series was too dark and that will be changed.- Hide quoted text -
I agree that NuWho owes a lot to Williams, and I hate this apologia
that runs "Well to show you how rubbish it is I'm going to slag off
another period in the show's history." It's just that, as far as I'm
concerned, both eras have silliness of different kinds which works
well on someoccasions, badly on others.
Wayne J. Kinsella
<nyder_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 26, 10:44 pm, Wayne J. Kinsella <kinsella1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Of course not, Aggy dear. Everyone took Horns of Nimon seriously.
>> >Particularly Graham Crowden who you can actually see giggling during his
>> >death scene.
>>
>> He corpsed and there was no time for a re-take. Nimon is intentionally
>> as it is, it is a pantomime for Xmas and it is very very good at what
>> it does.
>
>I like Nimon a lot, but... a pantomime for Xmas - we sort of got that
>on Christmas Day, didn't we? Tom undermines two of the cliffhangers,
>Crowden's performance is generally appalling, the writing is pretty
>cliched, and the thing only holds together through its sense of fun. A
>bit like Voyage of the Damnded, perhaps?
Of course the writing is cliched and I think that is part of the point
of it and part of the charm. As you say there is a sense of fun that
holds it together and that is the point of it.
From first viewing I took Crowden's performance to be that of panto
villain and hence the OTT performance being suited to the role.
>
>> >As for Creature from the Pit, no slapstick - apart of course
>> >from the Monty Python rejects playing the bandits (looking fantastic ub
>> >their fake beards), Geoffrey Bayldon giving probably the worst performance
>> >of his career, and the joke monster.
>>
>> Still no evidence of slapstick in the story.
>
>The "you're standing on my scarf" bit. All that smart-arsed stuff
>about the Doc reading Teach Yourself Tibetan. The Doc jumping down the
>pit for no apparent reason. The Creature from the Pit is a cheap,
>nasty story that uses humour as an excuse for its own lazymindedness,
>and it's ten times worse than anything the New Series has broadcast
>(except Doomsday).
>
I thought it was obvious that the Doc jumped down the pit to help
Romana out. Adrasta had just said "Now Doctor, now I have you both,
now you're bound to be co-operative" which could imply she had
intended to torture Romana to get answers from the Doctor.
Undboubtedly the Doctor acted impulsively and possibly recklessly but
the ending put him in danger knowing people had previously died who
had fallen into the pit so had you wanting to tune in next week and
also betrayed some knowledge of the Doctor. He would not do it if it
led to certain death. That is how I read it at the time and still do.
Indeed in the later scenes with Romana and Adrasta would, to me, bear
this out where it is Romana who Adrasta is having to interrogate.
The comedy may be smartarsed but it is definately not slapstick.
Graduate Humour I have seen it referred to and I think that is pretty
much on the money and Adams influence.
I am also surprised at the comment it is a nasty story. It is a basic
tale of power corrupting.
>> >Nightmare of Eden - you could tell that
>> >was being taken seriously, particularly with Tom Baker's seemingly ad-libbed
>> >comedy moments.
>>
>> Apart from the infamous "Oh my arms....." scene it is pretty much
>> played straight and there is an excellent message in the story. The
>> scene where Tryst tries to excuse what he has done and the Doctors
>> reaction is bloody brilliant.
>
>I'd agree here, Nightmare of Eden is well-intentioned, but it's
>incompetently made. I don't mind that at all, I love it, but the
>standard of acting and direction is dreadful in a way that nuWho never
>is.
>
I think the direction is to blame. Lewis Fiander, who is not a bad
actor, was allowed to get away with such an OTT performance that it
really took some of the menace of the character away.
The direction was poor, I would agree with that.
>> >City of Death. If RTD had featured John Cleese and Eleanor
>> >Bron, you'd have blasted him. The story rarely takes itself seriously.
>>
>> >Nope, Dr Who under Graham Williams was far sillier than it's ever been under
>> >RTD.
>>
>> Totally wrong.
>>
>> Burping wheelie bins, farting aliens, Pavements slabs giving blow
>> jobs, camp bodyswaps and so on. NuWho owes alot to the Williams era
>> and the first two series especially were silly. RTD is on record as
>> saying the last series was too dark and that will be changed.- Hide quoted text -
>
>I agree that NuWho owes a lot to Williams, and I hate this apologia
>that runs "Well to show you how rubbish it is I'm going to slag off
>another period in the show's history." It's just that, as far as I'm
>concerned, both eras have silliness of different kinds which works
>well on someoccasions, badly on others.
Undoubtedly that is the case. I actually like Love and Monsters and
some of the silliness. I liked TSOD and TLOTTL for instance. With the
exception of, say, season 7 Doctor Who has never been played straight
as such.
Stephen Wilson
"Mike Morris" <nyder_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cc9517bd-d32c-4b70...@c49g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Actually, I'm kinda playing Devil's Advocate here. I loved the Williams'
era. I loved the shows I picked on above. There have been a few silly
stories from the pen of RTD. However, I'm just trying to show that Aggy's
claims are way OTT. Dr Who has *always* had silly stories. I really don't
think they're any sillier now than at any other time. I also think Aggy
spends way too much time looking for ways to hate the new show.
Wayne J. Kinsella
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Burping wheelie bins, farting aliens, Pavements slabs giving blow
>>> jobs, camp bodyswaps and so on. NuWho owes alot to the Williams era
>>> and the first two series especially were silly. RTD is on record as
>>> saying the last series was too dark and that will be changed.- Hide
>>> quoted >text -
>>
>>I agree that NuWho owes a lot to Williams, and I hate this apologia
>>that runs "Well to show you how rubbish it is I'm going to slag off
>>another period in the show's history." It's just that, as far as I'm
>>concerned, both eras have silliness of different kinds which works
>>well on someoccasions, badly on others.
>
>Actually, I'm kinda playing Devil's Advocate here. I loved the Williams'
>era. I loved the shows I picked on above. There have been a few silly
>stories from the pen of RTD. However, I'm just trying to show that Aggy's
>claims are way OTT. Dr Who has *always* had silly stories. I really don't
>think they're any sillier now than at any other time. I also think Aggy
>spends way too much time looking for ways to hate the new show.
>
>
>
Aggy's problem is he seems to be obsessed with RTD's sexuality. He may
have a good point or two to make but as someone, it may have been Ian
Salsbury said to him when he made a comment about Russell T Gayvies,
he loses peoples interest in his points at that point.
Bazza
<snip>
>
> Actually, I'm kinda playing Devil's Advocate here. ...
Bloody hell Stephen that's not like you!!! lol
Baz
Bazza
"hulahoop" <sween...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d5eabce-a4a7-4133...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I'm surprised that Aggy hasn't yet complained that the inclusion of Bernard
Cribbins character isn't a direct continuity error to the Tom Campbell
character he played in "Daleks Invasion Earth 2150 AD" in 1966....
That was my biggest gripe.
Baz
Agamemnon
"Bazza" <bazz...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fQRcj.41945$S37....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
For all you know he might be the same character, given that VOD is set in
2008. Former cop turned newspaper seller.
>
> Baz
>
Bazza
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
named Wilfred Mott!
Perhaps Tom Cambell was so upset after his adventure with the Daleks that
once he returned to his own time he changed his identity and packed in his
job as a copper and decided on a career as a newspaper seller instead?
Baz
Agamemnon
After having a go at being a rock promoter in the 1970's, of course.
> Baz
>
Bazza
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
Cribbins played a rock promoter in Dr Who?
Bazza
hulahoop
> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bazza" <bazza2...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:k7Ycj.42062$S37....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> >> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>
> >>> "Bazza" <bazza2...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>news:fQRcj.41945$S37....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> >>>> "hulahoop" <sweeney...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
One of the recent McGann audios on BBC7, not brilliant but OK.
Possibly called the Horror of Glam Rock, but I cannot be arsed to
check and I am sure someone will confirm or correct it
Regards
H
Agamemnon
Regards>>>
Yes.
<<<H>>>
pbo...@aol.com
Remind me how often people got killed in those shows, again?
> Look at Heroes which is totally stupid (like the arrangement of
>
> > your DNA can make you travel in space and time) but at least it takes
> > itself
> > seriously and doesn't ridicule itself like Gayvies does in every episode
> > he
> > writes.
>
> <<<Which is actually one of the things that its critics have tended to
> complain about - whereas most of the superhero cartoons it's derived
> from have more of a sense of humour (look at the Spiderman films).
> Humour sells more effectively than sex or celebrities, and generally
> makes for a better product than either.>>>
>
> Twaddle. If people want humour they can watch a comedy. Why should they have
> it inflicted on them in a serious drama by and idiot who doesn't know how to
> write intelligently?
Firstly, Doctor Who is not and never has been a 'serious drama'.
Secondly, it has always had kids as a major part of its audience and
kids like humour in their shows. Thirdly, humour has always had a
place in good drama, just as drama has always had a place in good
sitcoms. A well-written show isn't a one-dimensional stereotype that
has to be pigeonholed as 'sitcom', 'drama' or whatever, with no
elements of any other style being introduced. Even Heroes had the
occasional humour moment - think of some of Hiro's discussions with
Ando, or Eccleston's character's treatment of Peter.
> > > take itself utterly seriously, Agamemnon appears to be excluded from
> > > this not-so-select band). That's not the sense I get from this episode
> > > or the similar scenes in the last Christmas one - it's the very fact
> > > that they are presented as jokes for the audience to laugh at is much
> > > more a case of respecting the audience enough to expect them to
> > > appreciate the joke. And that's what an in-joke is, after all - joking
>
> > They are not good jokes. They are cheep Music Hall gags relying in
> > ridiculous unbelievable and outdated stereotypes.
>
> <<<Huh? It's an 'unbelievable and outdated stereotype' that Doctor Who
> features alien invasions of London, as parodied in this episode, or
> that the public is assumed to be oblivious to all of them, as parodied
> last year? Or are you straying away from the subject at hand for the
> sake of raving generally?>>>
>
> The stereo types I was referring to were the insulting comic social
> stereotypes used by Gayvies.
The characters were stereotypes, to be sure, but what was "insuilting"
or "comical" about them?
> > > with someone who's in on the gag. Yes, it's self-parody, but what's
> > > wrong with that?
>
> > Everything, since it's supposed to be about people putting their lives on
> > the line, which Gayvies simply doesn't get.
>
> <<<People put their lives on the line all the time in real life, while
> still being able to maintain a sense of humour. Or do you suppose
> that, say, soldiers never tell jokes?>>>
>
> Gayvies was not telling jokes. He was doing slapstick gags and using
> insulting comic social stereo types behaving like idiots in serious
> situations.
Uh? You seem to be straying from the point yet again on some random
diatribe. I didn't notice any slapstick in this episode or 'comic
social stereo types [sic]', and the point originally raised was about
the Bernard Cribbens bit making fun of the absurdity of continual
'London in peril' plots.
> <<<You really are a nutcase, aren't you? How does he do either? How does
> supposing the queen would evacuate a building that was about to be hit
> by a falling spaceship constitute 'mocking her'? Or suggesting that>>>
>
> It was the way it was done that was insulting. Gayvies used her as a cartoon
> stereotype in the same way the woman in the Tom and Jerry cartoons is
> showing by only showing the bottom of her legs,
Ah, I'm starting to see the source of the confusion - you really have
no idea what the word 'stereotype' means, do you? The Tom and Jerry
woman wasn't a stereotype because we only saw the bottom of her legs,
she was a stereotype because she was portrayed as constantly yelling
and whacking Tom with a broom - the implication being that she was a
classic loudmouithed housewife. That had nothing to do with which bits
of her were shown; that was done for humour reasons. Yes, of course
the Queen scene was done for the humoiur, and yes it played with the
stereotype that she likes corgis and waves at people, but it was
anything but insulting. The Queen was the subject of the joke, but she
wasn't the butt of it - nothing in the scene made fun of her as a
character. She was just placed in a funny situation. I actually
thought it was a very affectionate portrayal.
but with corgies instead of
> Tom.
I didn't notice her hitting corgis with her broom.
She was only included in the story for the laughs and served not
> purposed whatsoever to the plot.
So what? That doesn't make the joke an insult of any kind.
> <<<she might be concerned about her dogs in the process? And goodness
> knows where the rest of this random gibberish is coming from. As for
> taking people's deaths seriously, that rather relies on the actor
> playing the part of whoever's being killed and the way that death is
> scripted. If you see someone sacrificing her life because she has
> nothing left to live for after her husband has died, how does that
> become any less moving or serious because of a totally unconnected
> joke about people evacuating London in case of another Christmas
> invasion, or whatever? Most people's minds are sufficiently complex
> that they can register and respond differently to different stimuli.>>>
>
> No real person would have sacrifice her life in such a manner for a bunch of
> strangers. It was totally ridiculous.
Um, did you miss what happened earlier in the scene, with her husband
falling to his death? She sacrificed her life because, as she said
herself, she didn't have anything left to live for. If you want to
criticise an episode, your criticisms might carry more weight if they
were (a) relevant, and (b) indicated that you'd actually watched and
understood the plot. It's Doctor Who for goodness sake - it's far from
intellectually demanding. So I'm uinsure quite why you have such a
severe comprehension problem.
> Does he thing by doing this he is appealing to US viewers? He's an
>
> > idiot if he does and is insulting everyone in this country. When did Heros
> > insult the US president in such a manner?
>
> <<<Well, portraying a president as a psychotic genocidal maniac is
> probably somewhat more insulting than supposing the Queen would try to
> get her corgis out of Buckingham Palace if it was about to be hit by a
> spaceship...>>>
>
> Since the US president is psychotic genocidal maniac how can it be
> insulting?
Are my eyes deceiving me? Did Agamemon just ... make a joke? Say it
isn't so!
> <<<Well, considering how ignorant he was of Earth in general...>>>
>
> The fact is that he was not ignorant of Earth. He know it existed and there
> is no reason why he would have got the facts in such a mess since there were
> very few of them to learn.
Um? There's an awful lot to be learned about Earth.
The impression given was that he learned them
> from a source (the info androids) which got them wrong itself and that is
> totally unbelievable.
He said he'd learned them from some travelling tutor - pay attention.
No, it's not very believable, but again - it was a joke. In this case
one that was rather overdone and not all that good, and your
criticisms of the inconsistency aren't without merit (yes, a tour
guide ought to have known the exchange rate), but if you want your
comments to be taken seriously you need to make more sensible comments
generally or the occasional salient point will get lost amidst the
laughter at your other lines.
> <<<You weren't expected to believe it - it was a joke. London was empty
> because it was more convenient for the story than to have people
> wondering at everyone teleporting in and out. Davies could have come
> up with a contrived explanation he wanted people to take seriously,
> but instead he played it as a joke - with better results.>>>
>
> The joke was not funny and totally unnecessary. There is no reason why they
> couldn't have had them appear in the corner of a crowded street so that no
> one noticed them, since they do it all the time in Star Trek when visiting
> primitive planets.
But then they'd have had to pay the extras...
> be a tour guide but not know what the names
>
> > of countries were,
>
> <<<Well, he was only meant to be a tour guide to London, but did you miss
> the bit where it was made plain he lied about his credentials to his
> employer?>>>
>
> So what. Why wasn't he asked questions about Earth society during his job
> interview?
If his job was only to show people London, why would he have been
asked anything about other countries? And believe it or not, a lot of
people who get throuigh interview tend to be bad at their jobs.
> <<<He wasn't given the money. He programmed the card himself to give him
> a particular balance.>>>
>
> No, the card already had that programmed into it by the credit company.
That's not what was said in the script. It wasn't actually a real
credit card from a real Earth institution, and it wasn't real money on
his homeworld - what the fellow said was that he wasn't sure how much
money he'd need, so he decided to put a million pounds in. |The Doctor
had nothing to do with it. You really have trouble thinking outside
the box, don't you?
Phil
Bazza
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
Baz
Wayne J. Kinsella
wrote:
>>> I missed that reference Aggs....please enlighten me as to when Bernard
>>> Cribbins played a rock promoter in Dr Who?
>>>
>>> Bazza- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> <<<One of the recent McGann audios on BBC7, not brilliant but OK.
>> Possibly called the Horror of Glam Rock, but I cannot be arsed to
>> check and I am sure someone will confirm or correct it
>>
>> Regards>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> <<<H>>>
>As I don't purchase McCoy items I haven't heard of this story.
>
>Baz
>
Your taste does you credit Bazza but it is a McGann one and is rather
good. Una Stubbs is also in it.
As it was commissioned by BBC7 it is, technically, canon too !!!!
The Face of Po
Wayne J Kinsella got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:38:50 GMT, "Bazza" <bazz...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I missed that reference Aggs....please enlighten me as to when Bernard
> >>> Cribbins played a rock promoter in Dr Who?
> >>>
> >>> Bazza- Hide quoted text -
> >>>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >>
> >> <<<One of the recent McGann audios on BBC7, not brilliant but OK.
> >> Possibly called the Horror of Glam Rock, but I cannot be arsed to
> >> check and I am sure someone will confirm or correct it
> >>
> >> Regards>>>
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> <<<H>>>
> >As I don't purchase McCoy items I haven't heard of this story.
>
> good. Una Stubbs is also in it.
I thought it was alright, but I was a bit disappointed that it didn't
live up to the silliness of the name. And I was annoyed that someone
spoke over the glam rock arrangement of the theme tune at the end -
*almost* annoyed enough to buy the CD.
--
Remove caps to communicate more easily.
Happiness will prevail
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bc3554da-a208-442f...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Er.. well, let me thinkg. Rentaghost was about a bunch of dead people, so
that would be all the time, and the Doctor Emu and the Dustbins serial was a
hundred times better than what Gayvies presented us with this Christmas. In
fact it's probably got the idea of the whealy bin in Rose from.
> Look at Heroes which is totally stupid (like the arrangement of
>
> > your DNA can make you travel in space and time) but at least it takes
> > itself
> > seriously and doesn't ridicule itself like Gayvies does in every episode
> > he
> > writes.
>
> <<<Which is actually one of the things that its critics have tended to
> complain about - whereas most of the superhero cartoons it's derived
> from have more of a sense of humour (look at the Spiderman films).
> Humour sells more effectively than sex or celebrities, and generally
> makes for a better product than either.>>>
>
> Twaddle. If people want humour they can watch a comedy. Why should they
> have
> it inflicted on them in a serious drama by and idiot who doesn't know how
> to
> write intelligently?
<<<Firstly, Doctor Who is not and never has been a 'serious drama'.>>>
Poppycock. It was commissioned by the BBC as a serious educational family
drama.
<<<Secondly, it has always had kids as a major part of its audience and
kids like humour in their shows. Thirdly, humour has always had a>>>
More bullshit. Kids only like humour in shows that are supposed to be
comedies or cartoons, not in dramas. Only adults will tolerate humour in
dramas on the condition that it is intelligent humour, not Gayvies Music
Hall Slapstick and insulting comic stereotypes.
<<<place in good drama, just as drama has always had a place in good
sitcoms. A well-written show isn't a one-dimensional stereotype that>>>
More nonsense. Humour only has a place in satire, not drama, and this has
been the rule since Aristophanes. Situation comedies are not dramas by
definition. They are comedies derived from the characters reaction to a
particular situation which runs counter to the expected reaction if it were
a drama, and have always been this way since they were invented by Menander.
<<<has to be pigeonholed as 'sitcom', 'drama' or whatever, with no
elements of any other style being introduced. Even Heroes had the>>>
Oh look at who is talking about one-dimensional stereotypes when this is the
only thing that Gayvies uses.
<<<occasional humour moment - think of some of Hiro's discussions with
Ando, or Eccleston's character's treatment of Peter.>>>
What Heroes uses is INTELLIGENT humour NOT MUSIC HALL SLAPSTICK or insulting
comic stereo types like RTD. Why do you think Eccleston quit Doctor Who
because his character was made too "fay".
> > > take itself utterly seriously, Agamemnon appears to be excluded from
> > > this not-so-select band). That's not the sense I get from this episode
> > > or the similar scenes in the last Christmas one - it's the very fact
> > > that they are presented as jokes for the audience to laugh at is much
> > > more a case of respecting the audience enough to expect them to
> > > appreciate the joke. And that's what an in-joke is, after all - joking
>
> > They are not good jokes. They are cheep Music Hall gags relying in
> > ridiculous unbelievable and outdated stereotypes.
>
> <<<Huh? It's an 'unbelievable and outdated stereotype' that Doctor Who
> features alien invasions of London, as parodied in this episode, or
> that the public is assumed to be oblivious to all of them, as parodied
> last year? Or are you straying away from the subject at hand for the
> sake of raving generally?>>>
>
> The stereo types I was referring to were the insulting comic social
> stereotypes used by Gayvies.
<<<The characters were stereotypes, to be sure, but what was "insuilting"
or "comical" about them?>>>
EVERYTHING. There was the insulting stereotype of two dim fat idiots married
to each other, which ridiculed fat people, marriage, and the working class.
There was the insulting Del Boy conman stereotype which insulted the viewers
intelligence that they would fall for such a con and reputable business men
like Richard Branson, Stelios Hajigiannis who founded their own airlines and
working class people like Alan Sugar who built up their businesses to become
successful out of nothing as being idiots. On top of that there was the
insulting airhead stereotype of Kylie Minogue and whatshisname from Keeping
Up Appearances, again insulting working class people as being dim and unable
to learn simple information or know the value of money. Then there was the
insulting Yuppie stereotype who only cared about himself and how much money
he could make. There was also the insulting parody of the Queen only caring
about her corgis as opposed to her staff. The insulting Captain of the
Titanic stereotype who didn't give a damn about the lives of his passengers
but only his only family. The insulting stereotypes of the ships crew which
were totally and utter incompetent to let such a person take the ship over
in the first place, and allow killer robots on board. The insulting way the
Doctor behave towards all the passengers saying I'm a 903 year old Timelord
and you're so stupid that you can't help yourselves, so you better follow me
as your God if you want to stay alive. And the insulting Newspaper seller
stereotype standing in the middle of an empty street selling newspapers to
thin air.
> > > with someone who's in on the gag. Yes, it's self-parody, but what's
> > > wrong with that?
>
> > Everything, since it's supposed to be about people putting their lives
> > on
> > the line, which Gayvies simply doesn't get.
>
> <<<People put their lives on the line all the time in real life, while
> still being able to maintain a sense of humour. Or do you suppose
> that, say, soldiers never tell jokes?>>>
>
> Gayvies was not telling jokes. He was doing slapstick gags and using
> insulting comic social stereo types behaving like idiots in serious
> situations.
<<<Uh? You seem to be straying from the point yet again on some random
diatribe. I didn't notice any slapstick in this episode or 'comic
social stereo types [sic]', and the point originally raised was about>>>
The scenes with the robots limbs coming off when the doors were slammed on
them was slapstick. The scene where the Doctor uses his sonic penis
extension to pop the Champagne cork on the opposite table was slapstick. The
queen's legs following her corgis was slapstick. Every scene the dwarf was
in was slapstick.
<<<the Bernard Cribbens bit making fun of the absurdity of continual
'London in peril' plots.>>>
> <<<You really are a nutcase, aren't you? How does he do either? How does
> supposing the queen would evacuate a building that was about to be hit
> by a falling spaceship constitute 'mocking her'? Or suggesting that>>>
>
> It was the way it was done that was insulting. Gayvies used her as a
> cartoon
> stereotype in the same way the woman in the Tom and Jerry cartoons is
> showing by only showing the bottom of her legs,
<<<Ah, I'm starting to see the source of the confusion - you really have
no idea what the word 'stereotype' means, do you? The Tom and Jerry
woman wasn't a stereotype because we only saw the bottom of her legs,
she was a stereotype because she was portrayed as constantly yelling
and whacking Tom with a broom - the implication being that she was a
classic loudmouithed housewife. That had nothing to do with which bits
of her were shown; that was done for humour reasons. Yes, of course
the Queen scene was done for the humoiur, and yes it played with the
stereotype that she likes corgis and waves at people, but it was
anything but insulting. The Queen was the subject of the joke, but she>>>
Of course it was insulting, just like the re-edit of her photo shoot which
got the BBC in trouble with Ofcom.
<<<wasn't the butt of it - nothing in the scene made fun of her as a>>.
Yes she was.
<<<character. She was just placed in a funny situation. I actually
thought it was a very affectionate portrayal.>>>
Rubbish. She was portrayed and an arrogant uncaring celebrity who only cared
about her dogs and how many people waved at her, and not her staff.
but with corgies instead of
> Tom.
<<<I didn't notice her hitting corgis with her broom.>>>
She was only included in the story for the laughs and served not
> purposed whatsoever to the plot.
<<<So what? That doesn't make the joke an insult of any kind.>>>
See above.
> <<<she might be concerned about her dogs in the process? And goodness
> knows where the rest of this random gibberish is coming from. As for
> taking people's deaths seriously, that rather relies on the actor
> playing the part of whoever's being killed and the way that death is
> scripted. If you see someone sacrificing her life because she has
> nothing left to live for after her husband has died, how does that
> become any less moving or serious because of a totally unconnected
> joke about people evacuating London in case of another Christmas
> invasion, or whatever? Most people's minds are sufficiently complex
> that they can register and respond differently to different stimuli.>>>
>
> No real person would have sacrifice her life in such a manner for a bunch
> of
> strangers. It was totally ridiculous.
<<<Um, did you miss what happened earlier in the scene, with her husband
falling to his death? She sacrificed her life because, as she said>>>
Another piece of slapstick. The walk across an unstable bridge where
everyone knows someone one will fall off.
<<<herself, she didn't have anything left to live for. If you want to>>>
So she becomes an insulting stereo type of an dim witted fat working class
person that can't find anything to live for because she is an idiot and
working class, and the same goes for the Kylie character at the end.
<<<criticise an episode, your criticisms might carry more weight if they
were (a) relevant, and (b) indicated that you'd actually watched and
understood the plot. It's Doctor Who for goodness sake - it's far from
intellectually demanding. So I'm uinsure quite why you have such a
severe comprehension problem.>>>
It's Rentaghost or Basil Bruch not Doctor Who anymore.
> Does he thing by doing this he is appealing to US viewers? He's an
>
> > idiot if he does and is insulting everyone in this country. When did
> > Heros
> > insult the US president in such a manner?
>
> <<<Well, portraying a president as a psychotic genocidal maniac is
> probably somewhat more insulting than supposing the Queen would try to
> get her corgis out of Buckingham Palace if it was about to be hit by a
> spaceship...>>>
>
> Since the US president is psychotic genocidal maniac how can it be
> insulting?
<<<Are my eyes deceiving me? Did Agamemon just ... make a joke? Say it
isn't so!>>>
No, the US president IS a psychotic genocidal maniac.
> <<<Well, considering how ignorant he was of Earth in general...>>>
>
> The fact is that he was not ignorant of Earth. He know it existed and
> there
> is no reason why he would have got the facts in such a mess since there
> were
> very few of them to learn.
<<<Um? There's an awful lot to be learned about Earth.>>>
Twaddle. Even a 4 or 5 year old child could have gotten those simple facts
right after only one day at nursery school.
The impression given was that he learned them
> from a source (the info androids) which got them wrong itself and that is
> totally unbelievable.
<<<He said he'd learned them from some travelling tutor - pay attention.>>>
Yer, yer, yer, yet another insulting stereotype, in the manner of Frank
Spencer who can't hold a single job down that involves interacting with out
people in a coherent manner.
<<<No, it's not very believable, but again - it was a joke. In this case
one that was rather overdone and not all that good, and your
criticisms of the inconsistency aren't without merit (yes, a tour
guide ought to have known the exchange rate), but if you want your
comments to be taken seriously you need to make more sensible comments
generally or the occasional salient point will get lost amidst the
laughter at your other lines.>>>
> <<<You weren't expected to believe it - it was a joke. London was empty
> because it was more convenient for the story than to have people
> wondering at everyone teleporting in and out. Davies could have come
> up with a contrived explanation he wanted people to take seriously,
> but instead he played it as a joke - with better results.>>>
>
> The joke was not funny and totally unnecessary. There is no reason why
> they
> couldn't have had them appear in the corner of a crowded street so that no
> one noticed them, since they do it all the time in Star Trek when visiting
> primitive planets.
<<<But then they'd have had to pay the extras...>>>
Use CGI or use an actual crowded street.
> be a tour guide but not know what the names
>
> > of countries were,
>
> <<<Well, he was only meant to be a tour guide to London, but did you miss
> the bit where it was made plain he lied about his credentials to his
> employer?>>>
>
> So what. Why wasn't he asked questions about Earth society during his job
> interview?
<<<If his job was only to show people London, why would he have been
asked anything about other countries? And believe it or not, a lot of
people who get throuigh interview tend to be bad at their jobs.>>>
His job was to show people the Earth and he couldn't even get the facts
about the UK right either, as if countries didn't exist where he came from.
> <<<He wasn't given the money. He programmed the card himself to give him
> a particular balance.>>>
>
> No, the card already had that programmed into it by the credit company.
<<<That's not what was said in the script. It wasn't actually a real
credit card from a real Earth institution, and it wasn't real money on
his homeworld - what the fellow said was that he wasn't sure how much
money he'd need, so he decided to put a million pounds in. |The Doctor
had nothing to do with it. You really have trouble thinking outside
the box, don't you?>>>
Since everyone that teleported to Earth was issued with the same cards long
before that, what I said was entirely correct. The credit company programmed
the card when its computer was linked to the ship, irrespective of who told
it the amount, otherwise how could it have been valid on Earth?
<<<Phil>>>
AGw. (Usenet)
> There was the insulting stereotype of two dim fat idiots married
> to each other, which ridiculed fat people, marriage, and the working class.
> There was the insulting Del Boy conman stereotype which insulted the viewers
> intelligence that they would fall for such a con and reputable business men
> like Richard Branson, Stelios Hajigiannis who founded their own airlines and
> working class people like Alan Sugar who built up their businesses to become
> successful out of nothing as being idiots. On top of that there was the
> insulting airhead stereotype of Kylie Minogue and whatshisname from Keeping
> Up Appearances, again insulting working class people as being dim and unable
> to learn simple information or know the value of money. Then there was the
> insulting Yuppie stereotype who only cared about himself and how much money
> he could make. There was also the insulting parody of the Queen only caring
> about her corgis as opposed to her staff. The insulting Captain of the
> Titanic stereotype who didn't give a damn about the lives of his passengers
> but only his only family. The insulting stereotypes of the ships crew which
> were totally and utter incompetent to let such a person take the ship over
> in the first place, and allow killer robots on board. The insulting way the
> Doctor behave towards all the passengers saying I'm a 903 year old Timelord
> and you're so stupid that you can't help yourselves, so you better follow me
> as your God if you want to stay alive. And the insulting Newspaper seller
> stereotype standing in the middle of an empty street selling newspapers to
> thin air.
You have maybe have bits of one or two reasonable points in there, but
you do such a fine job of burying them in utter stupidity that I doubt
anyone will even bother reading what you've written. You add 2 and 2
together to make several million, then present that as evidence for
some outrageous statement that no sensible person would take seriously
for a second... assuming they could even make any sense out of it in
the first place. What the hell has Richard Branson got to do with
anything?!
And if the series is so downright offensive in your eyes, and winds
you up so much, then why do you bother watching it? Oh, of course,
you continue to watch it *because* it winds you up so much.
Still, this must all keep you off the streets, at least for some of
the time, so that's a bonus for society at large.
--
AGw.
Agamemnon
"AGw. (Usenet)" <fred...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5d363d00-116a-400e...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Gayvies was insulting decent entrepreneurs by portraying them as con
merchants and at the same time he was insulting the general public by
portraying them as gullible fools and complete and utter idiots. That's what
Richard Branson has to do with it.
>
> And if the series is so downright offensive in your eyes, and winds
> you up so much, then why do you bother watching it? Oh, of course,
> you continue to watch it *because* it winds you up so much.
I have the right to watch it since I paid for it, and to expect quality
drama not insulting pantomime music hall parody.
>
> Still, this must all keep you off the streets, at least for some of
> the time, so that's a bonus for society at large.
Idiot.
>
>
> --
> AGw.
Stephen Wilson
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>
>
> Gayvies was insulting decent entrepreneurs by portraying them as con
> merchants and at the same time he was insulting the general public by
> portraying them as gullible fools and complete and utter idiots. That's
> what Richard Branson has to do with it.
But Aggy dear, most entrepreneurs *are* con merchants. How do you think they
get to the top? Just try asking Mike Oldfield what his opinion is of
Virgin...
And the general public *are* gullible fools. Oh, and when I talk about the
general public, I include yourself in that group.
>> And if the series is so downright offensive in your eyes, and winds
>> you up so much, then why do you bother watching it? Oh, of course,
>> you continue to watch it *because* it winds you up so much.
>
> I have the right to watch it since I paid for it, and to expect quality
> drama not insulting pantomime music hall parody.
You have the right to watch whatever you wish, so long as you've paid the
license fee. Most of the stuff you seem to enjoy is insulting pantomime
music hall parody. Bilge such as Are You Being Served and 'Allo 'Allo. And
no doubt you loved Hi De Hi and other sit coms of that ilk.
Wayne J. Kinsella
I wonder what Ian Levine would have thought if they ever used THAT
arrangement on the show.
Agamemnon
>
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:dtudnRQuwvR...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>>
>> Gayvies was insulting decent entrepreneurs by portraying them as con
>> merchants and at the same time he was insulting the general public by
>> portraying them as gullible fools and complete and utter idiots. That's
>> what Richard Branson has to do with it.
>
> But Aggy dear, most entrepreneurs *are* con merchants. How do you think
> they get to the top? Just try asking Mike Oldfield what his opinion is of
> Virgin...
So I am right then and Gayvies was deliberately insulting Richard Branson
and Virgin Airways by using pantomime music hall parody.
>
> And the general public *are* gullible fools. Oh, and when I talk about the
> general public, I include yourself in that group.
Poppycock.
>
>>> And if the series is so downright offensive in your eyes, and winds
>>> you up so much, then why do you bother watching it? Oh, of course,
>>> you continue to watch it *because* it winds you up so much.
>>
>> I have the right to watch it since I paid for it, and to expect quality
>> drama not insulting pantomime music hall parody.
>
> You have the right to watch whatever you wish, so long as you've paid the
> license fee. Most of the stuff you seem to enjoy is insulting pantomime
> music hall parody. Bilge such as Are You Being Served and 'Allo 'Allo. And
> no doubt you loved Hi De Hi and other sit coms of that ilk.
Idiot. Are You Being Served, 'Allo 'Allo and Hi De Hi are all Situation
Comedies and that is completly different from pantomime music hall parody
which is what Gayvies has turned Doctor Who into instead of intelligent
family drama which is what I paid for.
pbo...@aol.com
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bc3554da-a208-442f...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Dec, 23:50, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:490ddc17-c29b-47b2...@j64g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
> > On 26 Dec, 20:11, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> > > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:4611831d-807d-4e9f...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On 26 Dec, 17:48, "Jeremiah Harbottle" <harbo...@ukfsn.org.REMOVETHIS>
> > > > wrote:
> > Gayvies thinks its a comedy show. He thinks it's Basil Brush, Rentaghost
> > or
> > Rod Hull and Emu.
>
> <<<Remind me how often people got killed in those shows, again?>>>
>
> Er.. well, let me thinkg. Rentaghost was about a bunch of dead people, so
> that would be all the time,
You do realise there's a difference between people being dead and
seeing people get killed? Especially when something like Rentaghost
portrays being dead as something not terribly final.
and the Doctor Emu and the Dustbins serial was a
> hundred times better than what Gayvies presented us with this Christmas. In
> fact it's probably got the idea of the whealy bin in Rose from.
Um...what does that have to do with the question?
> <<<place in good drama, just as drama has always had a place in good
> sitcoms. A well-written show isn't a one-dimensional stereotype that>>>
>
> More nonsense. Humour only has a place in satire, not drama, and this has
> been the rule since Aristophanes. Situation comedies are not dramas by
> definition. They are comedies derived from the characters reaction to a
> particular situation which runs counter to the expected reaction if it were
> a drama, and have always been this way since they were invented by Menander.
I'm not sure I can add anything to this that would make this self-
parody seem any more ridiculous than it already does.
> <<<occasional humour moment - think of some of Hiro's discussions with
> Ando, or Eccleston's character's treatment of Peter.>>>
>
> What Heroes uses is INTELLIGENT humour NOT MUSIC HALL SLAPSTICK or insulting
> comic stereo types like RTD.
What is more intelligent about Ando telling Hiro "If you mention capes
and tights, I'm going home" and Bernard Cribbens' character telling
the Doctor that people had evacuated London because of past alien
attacks? Both are in-jokes that play on the traditions of their series/
genre, thrown in there to appeal to fans.
Why do you think Eccleston quit Doctor Who
> because his character was made too "fay".
Has Eccleston ever gone on record explaining his reasons for leaving
Dr Who?
> > The stereo types I was referring to were the insulting comic social
> > stereotypes used by Gayvies.
>
> <<<The characters were stereotypes, to be sure, but what was "insuilting"
> or "comical" about them?>>>
>
> EVERYTHING. There was the insulting stereotype of two dim fat idiots married
> to each other, which ridiculed fat people, marriage, and the working class.
Right, let me try and untangle what passes for a thought process here:
Two of the characters - of the 'good guys' no less - were fat. This
ridicules fat people. Somehow this is even the case despite one of the
other characters being portrayed as unpleasant precisely because he
insulted them for being fat.
These characters were married. Somehow the idea that a fat person
might marry another fat person (or for that matter that a 'dim idiot'
might marry another 'dim idiot') ridicules marriage. This is despite
the fact that the two characters were portrayed as being so devoted to
each other that one didn't care that his wife had blown all their
money, and the other regarded her life as being worthless without her
husband.
These characters were working class. Somehow this insults the working
class, despite said unpleasant character being portrayed as unpleasant
precisely because he insulted them for being working class, despite
the fact that they were among the ones who did something useful to
help (repairing the robot that gave the Doctor some information) and
that the 'dim idiot' woman had the courage to cross a bridge she was
terrified of crossing in order to save the others.
Ah, I see. It's not 'stereotype' you don't know the meaning of, it's
'insult', which seems to include 'portrayals of any kind, however
positive'. The only people being insulted were those like the
unpleasant snob, the ones who can't see that the fact that someone is
fat, uneducated and apparently not terribly bright doesn't devalue
them or make them useless.
> There was the insulting Del Boy conman stereotype which insulted the viewers
> intelligence that they would fall for such a con and reputable business men
> like Richard Branson, Stelios Hajigiannis who founded their own airlines
Or Robert Maxwell who founded his own newspaper... Believe it or not,
crooked businessmen exist, and they make money precisely because
people fall for it. In any case, in this story there was no 'con' -
the passengers weren't duped, they took a trip that went where it was
advertised. They just hadn't bargained on a genocidal maniac being in
charge, and why should they have?
and
> working class people like Alan Sugar who built up their businesses to become
> successful out of nothing as being idiots.
What are you raving about? Are you really incapable of seeing past an
accent? Nothing in the plot or character had anything to do with the
fact that someone with a cockney accent was cast in the part, and
someone who plans a scheme to destroy his competitors while hiding out
in safety is probably not an "idiot".
On top of that there was the
> insulting airhead stereotype of Kylie Minogue
I'm not sure how you can say this. Kylie's character did nothing for
most of the story, not enough to tell whether she was an 'airhead' or
not - she worked out fairly quickly that she could get down to save
the Doctor using the teleporter (which she shouldn't have been able
to, what with the shielding over that level and everything), and
characters who sacrifice themselves heroically can rarely be said to
be "insulted" by that portrayal.
and whatshisname from Keeping
> Up Appearances, again insulting working class people as being dim and unable
> to learn simple information or know the value of money.
There's a difference between being ignorant and being dim. This fellow
seemed to have no problem learning anything, he'd just been
misinformed.
Then there was the
> insulting Yuppie stereotype who only cared about himself and how much money
> he could make.
Insulting to whom, precisely? The only people likely to be insulted
are those who fit that stereotype, and that was rather the point. But
all of this yet again strays from the point at hand - you asserted
that the stereotypes were "comical", yet you still haven't suggested
where the comedy lay.
There was also the insulting parody of the Queen only caring
> about her corgis as opposed to her staff.
Her staff were carrying the corgis... This was a joke - the Queen is
associated with corgis, not with random people in palace uniforms.
There wouldn't have been any humour without the corgis. And in any
case, there is still no 'insult' here at all.
The insulting Captain of the
> Titanic stereotype who didn't give a damn about the lives of his passengers
> but only his only family.
You really don't get the "stereotype" idea, do you? "Character trait"
does not equal "stereotype" - for something to be a stereotype it has
to play up to prejudices and expectations people have. How many people
expect ship captains to sink their vessels to provide for their
families? Your bizarre definition of a stereotype would make any and
all characterisations a stereotype - and there's nothing here as
stereotypical as, say, an overweight bespectacled geeky office worker
with a fondness for Star Trek.
The insulting stereotypes of the ships crew which
> were totally and utter incompetent to let such a person take the ship over
> in the first place, and allow killer robots on board.
Um, the only crewman we saw interacting with the captain tried to stop
him. "Take the ship over"? He was the captain - he was in charge to
begin with, placed there no doubt by Max Capricorn. The robots weren't
killers originally, only programmed that way once they were in place.
The insulting way the
> Doctor behave towards all the passengers saying I'm a 903 year old Timelord
> and you're so stupid that you can't help yourselves, so you better follow me
> as your God if you want to stay alive.
Yes, this was pretty bad (and I'm not too impressed that Davies has
taken the '900 year old' thing exactly literally - i.e. to mean he was
exactly 900 in the first season). But not because of any 'stereotypes'
or insult (we already know the Doctor's arrogant, for a start), but
because it was a lazy way to put the Doctor in charge.
And the insulting Newspaper seller
> stereotype standing in the middle of an empty street selling newspapers to
> thin air.
Now that you mention it, it is a bit daft that he was still in his
booth, but again there's nothing 'insulting' about it - just another
contrived plot device from a mediocre writer.
> > Gayvies was not telling jokes. He was doing slapstick gags and using
> > insulting comic social stereo types behaving like idiots in serious
> > situations.
>
> <<<Uh? You seem to be straying from the point yet again on some random
> diatribe. I didn't notice any slapstick in this episode or 'comic
> social stereo types [sic]', and the point originally raised was about>>>
>
> The scenes with the robots limbs coming off when the doors were slammed on
> them was slapstick.
Um, no. You get the same scene in films from Night of the Living Dead
through the Alien films to Jurassic Park - it's just a monster movie
standard cliche, and it's not meant to have humour value.
The scene where the Doctor uses his sonic penis
> extension to pop the Champagne cork on the opposite table was slapstick.
I don't think I noticed that.
The
> queen's legs following her corgis was slapstick.
Another word you seemingly don't quite grasp. Slapstick means
'physical humour', not just visual gags. Homer Simpson being hit by
things is slapstick; people moving chairs from under someone about to
sit down is slapstick. The Queen following her corgis is not
slapstick.
Every scene the dwarf was
> in was slapstick.
Ah yes, like the bit where the Doctor tripped over in the dwarf's
death scene and sent Kylie flying down into the pit. hold on, that
didn't happen.
> No real person would have sacrifice her life in such a manner for a
bunch
> > of
> > strangers. It was totally ridiculous.
>
> <<<Um, did you miss what happened earlier in the scene, with her husband
> falling to his death? She sacrificed her life because, as she said>>>
>
> Another piece of slapstick. The walk across an unstable bridge where
> everyone knows someone one will fall off.
No one fell off - he fell before they got to the bridge (and she
jumped off deliberately). The problem I had with that scene was that
it seemed to be ripped from the Moria scene in Lord of the Rings
(right down to one of the characters falling with the monster she was
fighting).
> <<<herself, she didn't have anything left to live for. If you want to>>>
>
> So she becomes an insulting stereo type of an dim witted fat working class
> person that can't find anything to live for because she is an idiot and
> working class, and the same goes for the Kylie character at the end.
Uh, no, because she's in emotional distress and probably not thinking
clearly. Though if she had been thinking clearly, she would likely
have realised that if she didn't do something about the robot, it
would kill them and then kill her, so that whatever happened she would
probably die and her best option was to make sure as few other people
died as possible in the process.
> <<<criticise an episode, your criticisms might carry more weight if they
> were (a) relevant, and (b) indicated that you'd actually watched and
> understood the plot. It's Doctor Who for goodness sake - it's far from
> intellectually demanding. So I'm uinsure quite why you have such a
> severe comprehension problem.>>>
>
> It's Rentaghost or Basil Bruch not Doctor Who anymore.
That would make it even more bewildering that you seem unable to grasp
it.
> > <<<Well, portraying a president as a psychotic genocidal maniac is
> > probably somewhat more insulting than supposing the Queen would try to
> > get her corgis out of Buckingham Palace if it was about to be hit by a
> > spaceship...>>>
>
> > Since the US president is psychotic genocidal maniac how can it be
> > insulting?
>
> <<<Are my eyes deceiving me? Did Agamemon just ... make a joke? Say it
> isn't so!>>>
>
> No, the US president IS a psychotic genocidal maniac.
*sigh* Too much to hope for, I suppose. Maybe you need to refresh your
memory of satire - ask Aristophanes for some hints.
> > <<<Well, considering how ignorant he was of Earth in general...>>>
>
> > The fact is that he was not ignorant of Earth. He know it existed and
> > there
> > is no reason why he would have got the facts in such a mess since there
> > were
> > very few of them to learn.
>
> <<<Um? There's an awful lot to be learned about Earth.>>>
>
> Twaddle. Even a 4 or 5 year old child could have gotten those simple facts
> right after only one day at nursery school.
At a nursery school in England.
> <<<You weren't expected to believe it - it was a joke. London was
empty
> > because it was more convenient for the story than to have people
> > wondering at everyone teleporting in and out. Davies could have come
> > up with a contrived explanation he wanted people to take seriously,
> > but instead he played it as a joke - with better results.>>>
>
> > The joke was not funny and totally unnecessary. There is no reason why
> > they
> > couldn't have had them appear in the corner of a crowded street so that no
> > one noticed them, since they do it all the time in Star Trek when visiting
> > primitive planets.
>
> <<<But then they'd have had to pay the extras...>>>
>
> Use CGI or use an actual crowded street.
One wonders how they actually managed to find a genuinely empty street
anyway.
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
wrote:
Oh, I know, I know! Since I'm actually so short of things to do that I
read the bizarre diatribe. It works like this: Richard Branson runs an
airline, but he hasn't blown any of his planes up. Therefore a
fictional story about a fictional businessman running a fictional
travel company who does try and blow his ship up represents an insult
to Richard Branson, because it implies that a real-world tycoon with
whom this character has nothing at all in common would somehow behave
the way he does. Which is also a stereotype, somehow.
Welcome to Agamemnon's world. I don't know about you, but I'm already
more than ready to leave it...
Phil
Stephen Wilson
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aafef740-d473-4857...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
>Welcome to Agamemnon's world. I don't know about you, but I'm already
>more than ready to leave it...
It's a weird and wonderful place, isn't it? I'm not sure which one is
scarier - Aggy's world or Yads' world...
The Face of Po
> "Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:umrdj.17247$ov2....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> > news:dtudnRQuwvR...@eclipse.net.uk...
> >>
> >>> And if the series is so downright offensive in your eyes, and winds
> >>> you up so much, then why do you bother watching it? Oh, of course,
> >>> you continue to watch it *because* it winds you up so much.
> >>
> >> I have the right to watch it since I paid for it, and to expect quality
> >> drama not insulting pantomime music hall parody.
> >
> > You have the right to watch whatever you wish, so long as you've paid the
> > license fee. Most of the stuff you seem to enjoy is insulting pantomime
> > music hall parody. Bilge such as Are You Being Served and 'Allo 'Allo. And
> > no doubt you loved Hi De Hi and other sit coms of that ilk.
>
> Idiot. Are You Being Served, 'Allo 'Allo and Hi De Hi are all Situation
> Comedies and that is completly different from pantomime music hall parody
> which is what Gayvies has turned Doctor Who into instead of intelligent
> family drama which is what I paid for.
Have you found some method of paying your licence fee that allows you to
request what types of programs you want it to be spent on?
The Doctor
Sing God Save the Queen yourself. Tell us if you like to sing the Anthem.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Merry CHRISTmas 2007 and Happy New Year 2008! CHRIST is the reason for the season!
The Face of Po
> Sing God Save the Queen yourself.
Because nobody else will?
> Tell us if you like to sing the Anthem.
(Singing)
Hold your breath and count to ten
So good to be so fucked up, oh yeah
I'm in love with the rock 'n' roll world
Yes, I like to sing that Anthem.
Stephen Wilson
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:fl5m3p$5cr$8...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> In article <ugsdj.17282$ov2....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>,
> Stephen Wilson <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>><pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:aafef740-d473-4857...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Welcome to Agamemnon's world. I don't know about you, but I'm already
>>>more than ready to leave it...
>>
>>It's a weird and wonderful place, isn't it? I'm not sure which one is
>>scarier - Aggy's world or Yads' world...
>>
>>
>
> Sing God Save the Queen yourself.
Why? It's a bloody boring song.
>Tell us if you like to sing the Anthem.
I do sing the Anthem every now and then. From Chess.
AGw. (Usenet)
> Gayvies was insulting decent entrepreneurs by portraying them as con
> merchants and at the same time he was insulting the general public by
> portraying them as gullible fools and complete and utter idiots. That's what
> Richard Branson has to do with it.
If you believe that this was what the episode was saying, then you
really are a complete fool.
And of course it's alright in your mind to continually refer
insultingly to Russell T Davies as "Gayvies"...!
> I have the right to watch it since I paid for it, and to expect quality
> drama not insulting pantomime music hall parody.
Normal people don't watch television programmes that three years'
experience have demonstrated that they won't enjoy.
Rhetorical question:
Is there any other television that you persist in watching even though
you know you won't enjoy it?
--
AGw.
AGw. (Usenet)
> Welcome to Agamemnon's world. I don't know about you, but I'm already
> more than ready to leave it...
Personally, I wish he'd just do us all a favour and fuck off.
--
AGw.
AGw. (Usenet)
<stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
Dave is quite clearly barking mad, which I can live with. I could
live with it better if he could not post quite such a quantity of
drivel, and if TopPoster wouldn't pointlessly double the amount of
drivel with his own responses to him.
Aggy is just plain disturbed, though. I suspect he's clinically sane
but quite clearly needs to spend regular time with a psychotherapist.
However, Aggy is so continually and needlessly offensive in both his
opinions and how he expresses them that, subject only to the potential
effect on his family, I would be quite happy to hear that he'd wrapped
his car around a lamppost and would never trouble another soul again.
Dave's presence generally just makes the world a slightly madder
place. Aggy's presence actually makes it a slightly *worse* place.
--
AGw.
AGw. (Usenet)
> Sing God Save the Queen yourself. Tell us if you like to sing the Anthem.
Do you sing the bit about rebellious Scottish knaves?
--
AGw.
Agamemnon
> On Dec 29, 12:39 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>> Gayvies was insulting decent entrepreneurs by portraying them as con
>> merchants and at the same time he was insulting the general public by
>> portraying them as gullible fools and complete and utter idiots. That's
>> what
>> Richard Branson has to do with it.
>
> If you believe that this was what the episode was saying, then you
> really are a complete fool.
You are the fool if you can't see how insulting it was to its audience by
using a Del Boy stereotype and saying that the working class are mindless
dimwits who would fall for the Del Boy patter and that he is the same as
Richard Branson the founder of Virgin Airlines and Stelios Hajigiannis the
founder of Easyjet.
>
> And of course it's alright in your mind to continually refer
> insultingly to Russell T Davies as "Gayvies"...!
Considering that he uses the show to continually promote his gay agenda and
is even stated in The Times, "Bish, bash, monster, bosh, speech about love,
thinly veiled gay references, kissy kissy, bish, bosh, more explosions, back
to the Tardis, Doctor regrets woman he loves dying/ leaving him, Doctor
doubts himself, his mission, then gathers himself, bish, bash, bosh, Tardis
zooms away," he deserves to be called Gayvies.
>
>> I have the right to watch it since I paid for it, and to expect quality
>> drama not insulting pantomime music hall parody.
>
> Normal people don't watch television programmes that three years'
> experience have demonstrated that they won't enjoy.
Normal people don't pay to subscribe to a service that produced insulting
rubbish, but everyone is forced to pay for a Television Licence in order to
watch Television even if its not the BBC therefore they have the right not
to be insulted or treated like idiots.
>
> Rhetorical question:
> Is there any other television that you persist in watching even though
> you know you won't enjoy it?
This is about being insulted by a gay propagandist who holds Doctor Who fans
in contempt.
>
>
> --
> AGw.
The Doctor
Stephen Wilson <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:fl5m3p$5cr$8...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> In article <ugsdj.17282$ov2....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>,
>> Stephen Wilson <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:aafef740-d473-4857...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>Welcome to Agamemnon's world. I don't know about you, but I'm already
>>>>more than ready to leave it...
>>>
>>>It's a weird and wonderful place, isn't it? I'm not sure which one is
>>>scarier - Aggy's world or Yads' world...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sing God Save the Queen yourself.
>
>Why? It's a bloody boring song.
>
>>Tell us if you like to sing the Anthem.
>
>I do sing the Anthem every now and then. From Chess.
>
>
You play Chess? Pawn to King's 4 .
AGw. (Usenet)
> You are the fool if you can't see how insulting it was to its audience by
> using a Del Boy stereotype and saying that the working class are mindless
> dimwits who would fall for the Del Boy patter and that he is the same as
> Richard Branson the founder of Virgin Airlines and Stelios Hajigiannis the
> founder of Easyjet.
There was no "Del Boy stereotype" in the episode.
> Normal people don't pay to subscribe to a service that produced insulting
> rubbish, but everyone is forced to pay for a Television Licence in order to
> watch Television even if its not the BBC therefore they have the right not
> to be insulted or treated like idiots.
And none of that means you *have* to watch something that you don't
enjoy!
After three years of this, only a moron would continue to watch
something they *knew* they weren't going to enjoy. Have you *really*
got nothing better to do with your time?!
--
AGw.
Agamemnon
> On Dec 29, 8:28 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>> You are the fool if you can't see how insulting it was to its audience by
>> using a Del Boy stereotype and saying that the working class are mindless
>> dimwits who would fall for the Del Boy patter and that he is the same as
>> Richard Branson the founder of Virgin Airlines and Stelios Hajigiannis
>> the
>> founder of Easyjet.
>
> There was no "Del Boy stereotype" in the episode.
Yes there was. Kylie pushed him into the ships core at the end.
>
>> Normal people don't pay to subscribe to a service that produced insulting
>> rubbish, but everyone is forced to pay for a Television Licence in order
>> to
>> watch Television even if its not the BBC therefore they have the right
>> not
>> to be insulted or treated like idiots.
>
> And none of that means you *have* to watch something that you don't
> enjoy!
>
> After three years of this, only a moron would continue to watch
> something they *knew* they weren't going to enjoy. Have you *really*
> got nothing better to do with your time?!
>
I have no problem with most of the episodes that are not written by Gayvies.
Gayvies should not be writing for Doctor Who in any capacity.
>
> --
> AGw.
pbo...@aol.com
> "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:6432c577-ab6e-4122...@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 29, 12:39 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> >> Gayvies was insulting decent entrepreneurs by portraying them as con
> >> merchants and at the same time he was insulting the general public by
> >> portraying them as gullible fools and complete and utter idiots. That's
> >> what
> >> Richard Branson has to do with it.
>
> > If you believe that this was what the episode was saying, then you
> > really are a complete fool.
>
> You are the fool if you can't see how insulting it was to its audience by
> using a Del Boy stereotype and saying that the working class are mindless
> dimwits who would fall for the Del Boy patter and that he is the same as
> Richard Branson the founder of Virgin Airlines and Stelios Hajigiannis the
> founder of Easyjet.
>
>
>
> > And of course it's alright in your mind to continually refer
> > insultingly to Russell T Davies as "Gayvies"...!
>
> Considering that he uses the show to continually promote his gay agenda and
> is even stated in The Times, "Bish, bash, monster, bosh, speech about love,
> thinly veiled gay references, kissy kissy, bish, bosh, more explosions, back
> to the Tardis, Doctor regrets woman he loves dying/ leaving him, Doctor
> doubts himself, his mission, then gathers himself, bish, bash, bosh, Tardis
> zooms away," he deserves to be called Gayvies.
You do realise that the opinion of a journalist isn't some sort of
authoritative statement and doesn't have any more weight than anyone
else's just because he's paid to write it on paper rather than
voluntarily putting it up online?
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
> "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:76f54ab9-3220-4217...@v32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 29, 8:28 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
> >> You are the fool if you can't see how insulting it was to its audience by
> >> using a Del Boy stereotype and saying that the working class are mindless
> >> dimwits who would fall for the Del Boy patter and that he is the same as
> >> Richard Branson the founder of Virgin Airlines and Stelios Hajigiannis
> >> the
> >> founder of Easyjet.
>
> > There was no "Del Boy stereotype" in the episode.
>
> Yes there was. Kylie pushed him into the ships core at the end.
By your logic, wouldn't that make him an "Alien Queen stereotype" and
Kylie a "Ripley stereotype"? I'm sure alien queens all over the galaxy
are fuming at the injustice.
> > After three years of this, only a moron would continue to watch
> > something they *knew* they weren't going to enjoy. Have you *really*
> > got nothing better to do with your time?!
>
> I have no problem with most of the episodes that are not written by Gayvies.
Yet they tend to be festooned with the same 'unintelligent' humour,
even actual slapstick (see The Doctor Dances), 'gay references' (same
story), shoddy plotting, 'soap opera' and all the rest you decry.
Which rather suggests you're taking issue not with the content but
with the writer, and coming up with flimsy and usually senseless
excuses just to snipe at him.
Phil
AGw. (Usenet)
> "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:
> 76f54ab9-3220-4217...@v32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > There was no "Del Boy stereotype" in the episode.
>
> Yes there was. Kylie pushed him into the ships core at the end.
Max Capricorn was nothing like Del Boy.
> > After three years of this, only a moron would continue to watch
> > something they *knew* they weren't going to enjoy. Have you *really*
> > got nothing better to do with your time?!
>
> I have no problem with most of the episodes that are not written by Gayvies.
>
> Gayvies should not be writing for Doctor Who in any capacity.
So you claim, although you're clearly not in the majority on that one.
However, you must surely be aware in advance of which episodes are to
be written by him (and someone who so loathed a writer would surely
make the moderate effort required to find out), and his name appears
almost right at the very beginning of the episodes he writes. So at
worst you'd have to suffer a few minutes of a pre-credits sequence
before turning off.
In reality, of course, you just like watching stuff you hate because
on some level you enjoy getting angry, you enjoy mouthing off on this
newsgroup, and you enjoy it when people argue with you. I'm sure a
psychologist could readily explain why you need to do this; I suggest
you get a referral to go and see one.
--
AGw.
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1af5e741-4a31-42fb...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Gayvies can't write serious drama and he can't do intelligent humour or
plot. Moffat can as is shown by Jekyll. All that Gayvies does is insulting
slapstick music hall parody. That is the main issue I have with him. If he
want's to write for Basil Bush then let him write for Basil Brush. His
writing has no place on Doctor Who nor his script supervision which gave us
Fear Her which should have been thrown in the bin the very first instant it
arrived in his office.
Agamemnon
> On Dec 29, 9:01 pm, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>> "AGw. (Usenet)" <freder...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:
>> 76f54ab9-3220-4217...@v32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > There was no "Del Boy stereotype" in the episode.
>>
>> Yes there was. Kylie pushed him into the ships core at the end.
>
> Max Capricorn was nothing like Del Boy.
>
>> > After three years of this, only a moron would continue to watch
>> > something they *knew* they weren't going to enjoy. Have you *really*
>> > got nothing better to do with your time?!
>>
>> I have no problem with most of the episodes that are not written by
>> Gayvies.
>>
>> Gayvies should not be writing for Doctor Who in any capacity.
>
> So you claim, although you're clearly not in the majority on that one.
>
> However, you must surely be aware in advance of which episodes are to
> be written by him (and someone who so loathed a writer would surely
> make the moderate effort required to find out), and his name appears
> almost right at the very beginning of the episodes he writes. So at
> worst you'd have to suffer a few minutes of a pre-credits sequence
> before turning off.
And then I would lose continuity.
>
> In reality, of course, you just like watching stuff you hate because
> on some level you enjoy getting angry, you enjoy mouthing off on this
> newsgroup, and you enjoy it when people argue with you. I'm sure a
POPPYCOCK. I pay for quality drama not insulting music hall parody and
slapstick.
> psychologist could readily explain why you need to do this; I suggest
> you get a referral to go and see one.
IDIOT!
>
>
> --
> AGw.
pbo...@aol.com
> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
Yet in Doctor Who, Moffatt's record includes slapstick like switching
a banana for a gun, gay innuendoes and plots with holes you could
pilot a TARDIS through. If you didn't have some sort of personal
grudge against Davies as a writer, you'd take individual episodes on
their merits, regardless of who wrote them, not excuse the faults of
one writer because he's written stuff you like for unrelated series
yet criticise the exact same faults in Davies' work.
All that Gayvies does is insulting
> slapstick music hall parody. That is the main issue I have with him. If he
> want's to write for Basil Bush then let him write for Basil Brush. His
> writing has no place on Doctor Who nor his script supervision which gave us
> Fear Her which should have been thrown in the bin the very first instant it
> arrived in his office.
His 'script supervision' also included the genius of commissioning
"Human Nature" as a story for David Tennant, for whom it's ideally
suited and who can carry off the 'non-Doctor' character better than I
see any past actor to play the Doctor doing, and Freema Agyeman,
introducing an entire new dynamic between the character and a black
maid that wasn't in the original story at all.
Davies has definite shortcomings. As a writer, he draws on a too-
limited repertoire of plot ideas and situations whether due to lack of
imagination or, as someone put it, 'not being well read'. His humour
has often been misjudged (as demonstrated by his Fuhrer comment) - I
remember a Confidential about the Slitheen episode in which he said he
was sure anyone British would love the farting aliens, which gives an
idea of how much he misjudged the adult portion of his audience, and
his plotting has a tendency to be dominated by a mess of unrelated
plot strands that rarely go anywhere, inexplicable plot contrivances,
and deus ex machina endings. Definitely it's a mistake for him to
insist on monopolising the finales, season openers and specials, and I
think it was a bad move for him to write the Master story last year
since it made for a disappointing reintroduction for the character.
As a director, he's much too formulaic - the structure of the season
with the same number of two-parters every year, placed in the same
part of the season, with the first one always being an alien invasion,
a finale that almost always involves the season's great much-spoiled
revelation, and the first three episodes always being a 'present-past-
future' story structure (usually in that order), and now the 'doctor-
lite' late-season episode as another standard.
And yet, all this aside, I still judge individual Davies episodes on
their merits - he was also behind "Tooth and Claw", one of season
two's strongest episodes, and I'm among the few who liked "Love &
Monsters". And he has proven very good at the job he was hired to do -
but that job is to produce the series, not to write the episodes. I
may get a fair bit of flak for this, but for all its aimlessness and
disjointed story direction, I found the average quality of Torchwood
episodes to be higher than season 2's Who episodes - the better
stories were generally not as good, but the quality of the writing was
more even (even the horrible second episode was no "Fear Her" - skip
the unpleasant, unnecessary sex scenes and it would have been a bog-
standard episode), and I trace a lot of this to the fact that Davies
wrote fewer of the scripts.
Like it or not, Davies has been great for Doctor Who - not for his
usually mediocre input into episodes, and not for making Doctor Who
popular again, but for making Doctor Who an institution again. Anyone
could have brought the series back and made a creditable fantasy show
with the same name, concept and characters (much as people have with
other 'reimagined' series)But for all that the old series was mostly
dreadful, it was a cultural icon throughout its run - mostly something
to be laughed at for being filmed in an old quarry pit all the time,
to be sure, but the longevity of it and of affectionate parodies based
on it (the Doctor was Dead Ringers' most enduring character well over
a decade after the last Who episode of the old series) gave it a
particular place in British TV culture. The original Star Trek is the
most iconic sci-fi creation in TV history, but spin-offs with the
name, though sometimes technically superior to the original, have just
been accepted as new sci-fi shows, of the sort that rarely breaks into
the mainstream and certainly don't define the genre in the public
imagination. Who could very easily have become the same thing; just
another show cashing in nostalgia. Instead, due to Davies' directions,
critical decisions like casting David Tennant and, probably in no
small part, Davies' and the BBC's flair for creating and marketing
spin-offs by the dozen, it's succeeded in inheriting Doctor Who's
legacy as a legend of British mainstream TV.
Phil
Agamemnon
<pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8c296f94-357c-4d6e...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Dec, 21:29, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:bc3554da-a208-442f...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> On 26 Dec, 23:50, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>
>> > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:490ddc17-c29b-47b2...@j64g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
>> > On 26 Dec, 20:11, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>
>> > > <pbow...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:4611831d-807d-4e9f...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > On 26 Dec, 17:48, "Jeremiah Harbottle"
>> > > > <harbo...@ukfsn.org.REMOVETHIS>
>> > > > wrote:
>
>> > Gayvies thinks its a comedy show. He thinks it's Basil Brush,
>> > Rentaghost
>> > or
>> > Rod Hull and Emu.
>>
>> <<<Remind me how often people got killed in those shows, again?>>>
>>
>> Er.. well, let me thinkg. Rentaghost was about a bunch of dead people, so
>> that would be all the time,
>
> You do realise there's a difference between people being dead and
> seeing people get killed? Especially when something like Rentaghost
> portrays being dead as something not terribly final.
Plenty of people were killed in Rentaghost.
>
> and the Doctor Emu and the Dustbins serial was a
>> hundred times better than what Gayvies presented us with this Christmas.
>> In
>> fact it's probably got the idea of the whealy bin in Rose from.
>
> Um...what does that have to do with the question?
It's represents the level of Gayvies writing.
>
>> <<<place in good drama, just as drama has always had a place in good
>> sitcoms. A well-written show isn't a one-dimensional stereotype that>>>
>>
>> More nonsense. Humour only has a place in satire, not drama, and this has
>> been the rule since Aristophanes. Situation comedies are not dramas by
>> definition. They are comedies derived from the characters reaction to a
>> particular situation which runs counter to the expected reaction if it
>> were
>> a drama, and have always been this way since they were invented by
>> Menander.
>
> I'm not sure I can add anything to this that would make this self-
> parody seem any more ridiculous than it already does.
Obviously you don't understand drama or comedy and what distinguishes them
and don't have any since of reality either. I bet you think the characters
in Eastenders and Coronation Street are real people.
>
>> <<<occasional humour moment - think of some of Hiro's discussions with
>> Ando, or Eccleston's character's treatment of Peter.>>>
>>
>> What Heroes uses is INTELLIGENT humour NOT MUSIC HALL SLAPSTICK or
>> insulting
>> comic stereo types like RTD.
>
> What is more intelligent about Ando telling Hiro "If you mention capes
> and tights, I'm going home" and Bernard Cribbens' character telling
> the Doctor that people had evacuated London because of past alien
> attacks? Both are in-jokes that play on the traditions of their series/
> genre, thrown in there to appeal to fans.
Ando was telling Hiro not to do something that would look stupid, whereas
the Bernard Cribbins charecter was telling the Doctor that people had just
done something that was stupid and insulting to the intelligence of the
viewers, since it was unrealistic and unbelievable, the memory of those who
remained in London during the Blitz, and Londoners and British people in
general who do behave in such a childish and idiotic manner in real life.
>
> Why do you think Eccleston quit Doctor Who
>> because his character was made too "fay".
>
> Has Eccleston ever gone on record explaining his reasons for leaving
> Dr Who?
It has been reported that he said the character was too fey.
>
>> > The stereo types I was referring to were the insulting comic social
>> > stereotypes used by Gayvies.
>>
>> <<<The characters were stereotypes, to be sure, but what was "insuilting"
>> or "comical" about them?>>>
>>
>> EVERYTHING. There was the insulting stereotype of two dim fat idiots
>> married
>> to each other, which ridiculed fat people, marriage, and the working
>> class.
>
> Right, let me try and untangle what passes for a thought process here:
>
> Two of the characters - of the 'good guys' no less - were fat. This
> ridicules fat people.
Yes, since they were comic fat people.
>Somehow this is even the case despite one of the
> other characters being portrayed as unpleasant precisely because he
> insulted them for being fat.
Another insulting comic stereotype.
>
> These characters were married. Somehow the idea that a fat person
> might marry another fat person (or for that matter that a 'dim idiot'
> might marry another 'dim idiot') ridicules marriage. This is despite
Yes it does. It makes marriage into seeking out your physical mirror image.
Fats can only marry fats and slims can only marry slims and so on.
> the fact that the two characters were portrayed as being so devoted to
> each other that one didn't care that his wife had blown all their
And that was yet another comic stereotype in action.
> money, and the other regarded her life as being worthless without her
> husband.
REAL PEOPLE YOU DERANGED IDIOT DO NOT BEHAVE LIKE THAT IN A SITUATION LIKE
THAT and to pretend that they do insults the people watching.
>
> These characters were working class. Somehow this insults the working
Yes.
> class, despite said unpleasant character being portrayed as unpleasant
Another insulting stereotype.
> precisely because he insulted them for being working class, despite
> the fact that they were among the ones who did something useful to
> help (repairing the robot that gave the Doctor some information) and
And yet another inconstancy. If these people were supposed to be repair
technicians then why did they behave like idiots. I'll tell you why. Because
Gayvies wants to insult people with an education.
> that the 'dim idiot' woman had the courage to cross a bridge she was
> terrified of crossing in order to save the others.
She was an idiot.
>
> Ah, I see. It's not 'stereotype' you don't know the meaning of, it's
> 'insult', which seems to include 'portrayals of any kind, however
> positive'. The only people being insulted were those like the
Positive? You are totally crazy. It was not positive. IT WAS COMIC!
> unpleasant snob, the ones who can't see that the fact that someone is
> fat, uneducated and apparently not terribly bright doesn't devalue
> them or make them useless.
The people who were insulted were the people watching who could see that
these characters were totally unrealistic and behaved in an idiotic and
unbelievable manner and used in order to poke fun at them and British
society in general in an unsophisticated, demeaning and vulgar manner.
>
>> There was the insulting Del Boy conman stereotype which insulted the
>> viewers
>> intelligence that they would fall for such a con and reputable business
>> men
>> like Richard Branson, Stelios Hajigiannis who founded their own airlines
>
> Or Robert Maxwell who founded his own newspaper... Believe it or not,
Did Robert Maxwell make commercials showing him behaving like a Del Boy
Trotter?
> crooked businessmen exist, and they make money precisely because
If Gayvies wanted to portray a crooked business man then why didn't he make
him behave realistically? No real person in their right mind would have
booked a cruse with such a person after watching the commercials he made.
> people fall for it. In any case, in this story there was no 'con' -
> the passengers weren't duped, they took a trip that went where it was
The were conned into taking a trip to their own deaths.
> advertised. They just hadn't bargained on a genocidal maniac being in
> charge, and why should they have?
Hadn't bargained? Nobody in their right mind would have booked a cruse with
such a person after watching the commercials he made. The situation was
totally unbelievable and was not drama but comic parody.
>
> and
>> working class people like Alan Sugar who built up their businesses to
>> become
>> successful out of nothing as being idiots.
>
> What are you raving about? Are you really incapable of seeing past an
> accent? Nothing in the plot or character had anything to do with the
> fact that someone with a cockney accent was cast in the part, and
> someone who plans a scheme to destroy his competitors while hiding out
> in safety is probably not an "idiot".
He was written and played as an incompetent cockney idiot, thereby insulting
cockneys, genuine business people and the intelligence of the viewers,
obviously not yours since you have no intelligence to insult on top of not
having and sence of real life or drama.
>
> On top of that there was the
>> insulting airhead stereotype of Kylie Minogue
>
> I'm not sure how you can say this. Kylie's character did nothing for
> most of the story, not enough to tell whether she was an 'airhead' or
She took a job on a cruse liner so you could see another planet when the
trip would have only cost her £100 which she could have earned in two days.
She could have even earned it on the dole.
> not - she worked out fairly quickly that she could get down to save
> the Doctor using the teleporter (which she shouldn't have been able
> to, what with the shielding over that level and everything), and
> characters who sacrifice themselves heroically can rarely be said to
> be "insulted" by that portrayal.
She was an idiot and her character was an insult to working class people. No
real person would have behaved the way she did unless they were totally
drunk. Her character was not realistically written and had not believable
motivation to say what she said or do what she do, not even alcohol. She was
an insult.
>
> and whatshisname from Keeping
>> Up Appearances, again insulting working class people as being dim and
>> unable
>> to learn simple information or know the value of money.
>
> There's a difference between being ignorant and being dim. This fellow
> seemed to have no problem learning anything, he'd just been
> misinformed.
How was he misinformed? NOBODY would have been as misinformed about such a
subject except in a really bad situation comedy. The character was totally
unbelievable and insulting to the intelligence of the viewers and to
workings class people in general. The only people who would have failed to
notice this and thought it was realistic behaviour are the self cantered
bigots like Jade Gooddie who obviously has a learning disorder.
>
> Then there was the
>> insulting Yuppie stereotype who only cared about himself and how much
>> money
>> he could make.
>
> Insulting to whom, precisely? The only people likely to be insulted
> are those who fit that stereotype, and that was rather the point. But
The people insulted were the intelligent viewers who had an intellect
greater than Jade Goddies.
> all of this yet again strays from the point at hand - you asserted
> that the stereotypes were "comical", yet you still haven't suggested
> where the comedy lay.
The elements of stereotypes used by Gayvies were not suitable to drama but
to situation comedy and pantomime.
>
> There was also the insulting parody of the Queen only caring
>> about her corgis as opposed to her staff.
>
> Her staff were carrying the corgis... This was a joke - the Queen is
It was an insult. The real Queen would never behave in such a manner.
> associated with corgis, not with random people in palace uniforms.
> There wouldn't have been any humour without the corgis. And in any
> case, there is still no 'insult' here at all.
It was an insult to the Queen and to the viewers who have an IQ greater than
Jade Goodie and know that the Queen would never behave in such a manner.
>
> The insulting Captain of the
>> Titanic stereotype who didn't give a damn about the lives of his
>> passengers
>> but only his only family.
>
> You really don't get the "stereotype" idea, do you? "Character trait"
> does not equal "stereotype" - for something to be a stereotype it has
> to play up to prejudices and expectations people have. How many people
> expect ship captains to sink their vessels to provide for their
The Captain was a stereotypical comic naval captain. No real ships captain
would have talked, acted or captained a ship the way this one did. It was a
character from a bloody pantomime like Dick Whittington.
> families? Your bizarre definition of a stereotype would make any and
> all characterisations a stereotype - and there's nothing here as
> stereotypical as, say, an overweight bespectacled geeky office worker
> with a fondness for Star Trek.
POPPYCOCK.
You have no idea what a stereotype even is.
Hiro had his own individual personality and it was different to that of
Ando. Stereotype are Stereotypes because they do not have a unique
personality of their own but are given a standard personality and standard
lines so you instantly recognise what they are. With a real character you
would have to spend time building up that character before the actually did
anything dramatic as was the case with Hiro and Ando. Gayvies has NEVER
built up a single character in Doctor Who. He has no idea how to do it. He
just pics stereotypes and they are always COMIC stereotypes. If writes a
policeman, then its be one that says 'allo, 'allo, 'allo, what's going on
here then, and not one that behaves like a real police man would behave
like.
>
> The insulting stereotypes of the ships crew which
>> were totally and utter incompetent to let such a person take the ship
>> over
>> in the first place, and allow killer robots on board.
>
> Um, the only crewman we saw interacting with the captain tried to stop
> him. "Take the ship over"? He was the captain - he was in charge to
> begin with, placed there no doubt by Max Capricorn. The robots weren't
> killers originally, only programmed that way once they were in place.
NOBODY WOULD HAVE BEHAVED LIKE THAT IN A REAL LIFE OR A SERIOUS DRAMA!
If Gayvies wanted to write an episode or include a character that was some
deranged captain that wanted to kill his passengers in order for his family
to take the money, and his boss to make a profit from it, then why didn't
write him realistically (or at least near realistically) like in "Speed 2"
which is where he ripped off the entire story from.
>
> The insulting way the
>> Doctor behave towards all the passengers saying I'm a 903 year old
>> Timelord
>> and you're so stupid that you can't help yourselves, so you better follow
>> me
>> as your God if you want to stay alive.
>
> Yes, this was pretty bad (and I'm not too impressed that Davies has
> taken the '900 year old' thing exactly literally - i.e. to mean he was
> exactly 900 in the first season). But not because of any 'stereotypes'
> or insult (we already know the Doctor's arrogant, for a start), but
> because it was a lazy way to put the Doctor in charge.
Wrong. Gayvies has made the Doctor into another of his comic stereotypes.
>
> And the insulting Newspaper seller
>> stereotype standing in the middle of an empty street selling newspapers
>> to
>> thin air.
>
> Now that you mention it, it is a bit daft that he was still in his
> booth, but again there's nothing 'insulting' about it - just another
> contrived plot device from a mediocre writer.
Everything about it is insulting to anyone with an intelligence more than
Jade Goodie's.
>
>> > Gayvies was not telling jokes. He was doing slapstick gags and using
>> > insulting comic social stereo types behaving like idiots in serious
>> > situations.
>>
>> <<<Uh? You seem to be straying from the point yet again on some random
>> diatribe. I didn't notice any slapstick in this episode or 'comic
>> social stereo types [sic]', and the point originally raised was about>>>
>>
>> The scenes with the robots limbs coming off when the doors were slammed
>> on
>> them was slapstick.
>
> Um, no. You get the same scene in films from Night of the Living Dead
> through the Alien films to Jurassic Park - it's just a monster movie
> standard cliche, and it's not meant to have humour value.
Except the scenes with the robots limbs in VOTD were played for laughs,
since unlike Night of the Living Dead, the Alien films and Jurassic Park
which were played and written seriously, VOTD was not.
>
> The scene where the Doctor uses his sonic penis
>> extension to pop the Champagne cork on the opposite table was slapstick.
>
> I don't think I noticed that.
>
> The
>> queen's legs following her corgis was slapstick.
>
> Another word you seemingly don't quite grasp. Slapstick means
> 'physical humour', not just visual gags. Homer Simpson being hit by
> things is slapstick; people moving chairs from under someone about to
> sit down is slapstick. The Queen following her corgis is not
> slapstick.
The slapstick was when the space ship whooshed over her head just missing
her.
Well it wasn't played like that, not written like that.
> have realised that if she didn't do something about the robot, it
> would kill them and then kill her, so that whatever happened she would
> probably die and her best option was to make sure as few other people
> died as possible in the process.
>
>> <<<criticise an episode, your criticisms might carry more weight if they
>> were (a) relevant, and (b) indicated that you'd actually watched and
>> understood the plot. It's Doctor Who for goodness sake - it's far from
>> intellectually demanding. So I'm uinsure quite why you have such a
>> severe comprehension problem.>>>
>>
>> It's Rentaghost or Basil Bruch not Doctor Who anymore.
>
> That would make it even more bewildering that you seem unable to grasp
> it.
You mean it is Rentaghost or Basil Bruch not Doctor Who anymore?
>
>> > <<<Well, portraying a president as a psychotic genocidal maniac is
>> > probably somewhat more insulting than supposing the Queen would try to
>> > get her corgis out of Buckingham Palace if it was about to be hit by a
>> > spaceship...>>>
>>
>> > Since the US president is psychotic genocidal maniac how can it be
>> > insulting?
>>
>> <<<Are my eyes deceiving me? Did Agamemon just ... make a joke? Say it
>> isn't so!>>>
>>
>> No, the US president IS a psychotic genocidal maniac.
>
> *sigh* Too much to hope for, I suppose. Maybe you need to refresh your
> memory of satire - ask Aristophanes for some hints.
Right, this would by like how Aristophanes portrayed Clisthenese as an
effeminate gay, because Clisthenese actually was an effeminate gay. There
fact that he has him dress up in women's clothing is the satire but that
doesn't change the reality that Clisthenese was effeminate.
Jim Vieira
> After three years of this, only a moron would continue to watch
> something they *knew* they weren't going to enjoy. Have you *really*
> got nothing better to do with your time?!
The peoples who's intelligence and "use of time" that I question are people
like you and Stephen Wilson who actually think you are going to someday
"best" that retarded troll. You just keep going back and forth with him,
when it should be clear that he's one of those people that never gives
an inch.. not even a milimeter. He's either outright trolling, or a
beligerant
jackass who will never, EVER be convinced that he is wrong.
You can't beat him. You can prove him wrong and embarrass him, but
he'll just ignore that and keep coming back. He'll ignore tough questions
and just keep pounding away. He thrives on this kind of attention. If
everyone just ignored him and let him be, he would get bored and go
away most likely.
The problem is that some of you are so vain as to think that you will
finally
be the one who puts him in his place and shuts him up. Don't you understand
how trolling works? They WANT you to respond that way. And the best
trolls do it in a manner that makes them look like they are real, honest
people
and not just jumping into a vietnam forum and yelling "baby killer!!".
So why do you guys bother? Do YOU really have nothing better to do
with your time? I killfiled Aggy ages ago and I'm sick to death of
having to still see his retarded rants via people who just CANNOT STOP
ARGUING WITH HIM.
Please for the love of God, let it go people. You cannot beat him.
Jim Vieira
Then killfile him and get on with life. You don't HAVE to respond.