RTD interview at BBCi
MHW
BBC website. One question revealed an interesting result:
"What's the daftest thing you've seen written about the new series?
Oh, how long have you got? Just go and read your own message boards. I went
there once; never again. Dear God, the loneliness."
I can only imagine what he would make of the various Usenet Who groups...
Full interview at http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/features/tdavies.shtml
.
--
MHW
JerryD
> I can only imagine what he would make of the various Usenet Who groups...
>
> Full interview at http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/features/tdavies.shtml
> .
>
So no Bandrils in the new series? Drat. ;)
Daibhid Ceannaideach
>From: "MHW" pabl...@yahoo.com
>Date: 19/12/03 18:43 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <brvd3p$82hfq$1...@ID-178149.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>Just a quick heads up: there's a new interview with Russell T. Davies at the
>BBC website. One question revealed an interesting result:
>
>"What's the daftest thing you've seen written about the new series?
>
>Oh, how long have you got? Just go and read your own message boards. I went
>there once; never again. Dear God, the loneliness."
>
>I can only imagine what he would make of the various Usenet Who groups...
Actually, the magic of Google tells me he made five posts to radw in 1999. All
in off-topic threads discussing QaF (and Century Falls).
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Joe: What do you think *you* can do?
The Doctor: Resist them. Surprise them. Oh, and possibly perform a few show
tunes.
-Doctor Who: Scream of the Shalka
Pete Galey
> Just a quick heads up: there's a new interview with Russell T. Davies
> at the BBC website.
How depressing that he rates Buffy the Vampire Slayer so highly... :-( I
really hope when the new series is made that it doesn't show...
Pete
--
www.petergaley.com/tmf/ The Thunder Mountain Files
www.petergaley.com/bg/ Bipedal Giraffes!
JerryD
> really hope when the new series is made that it doesn't show...
>
> Pete
's okay.....He rates Doctor Who even more highly, I suspect. ;)
Jim Vowles
> MHW wrote:
> > Just a quick heads up: there's a new interview with Russell T. Davies
> > at the BBC website.
>
> How depressing that he rates Buffy the Vampire Slayer so highly... :-( I
> really hope when the new series is made that it doesn't show...
Whereas I see it as a very good thing. Buffy's a popular show that
balances humor and drama very well, appeals to a diverse audience, and
has garnered plenty of critical acclaim. It's been my experience that
most of the folks who think ill of it have never actually watched it.
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
> How depressing that he rates Buffy the Vampire Slayer so highly... :-( I
> really hope when the new series is made that it doesn't show...
Whereas, as far as I'm concerned, there's no recent TV series I could that
new Doctor Who will resemble more than "Buffy". Not in terms of the actual
content, obviously, but in terms of the quality of the writing: the
strength of the dialogue, characters, and storylines. The ability to so
expertly balance thrills and chills with humour and emotional resonance.
In other words, all the things that made the Hinchcliffe/Holmes era of
Doctor Who so successful, but brought up to date.
If new Doctor Who can be half as successful in that regard as "Buffy" was,
I'll be one very happy viewer.
Shannon
--
| Shannon Patrick Sullivan | sha...@mun.ca |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
/ Doctor Who: A Brief History of Time (Travel) go.to/drwho-history \
\__ We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars __/
cko...@stny.rr.com
>If new Doctor Who can be half as successful in that regard as "Buffy" was,
>I'll be one very happy viewer.
>
I've never really watched "Buffy," but one of the best sci-fi shows of
recent years was "Firefly." It's such a shame it got screwed over by Fox.
The more I read and learn, the more I love and appreciate Russell
Davies. And I haven't even seen one episode of the new series yet. ;)
Chris
ZC TGS
Vowles) wrote:
>Whereas I see it as a very good thing. Buffy's a popular show that
>balances humor and drama very well, appeals to a diverse audience, and
>has garnered plenty of critical acclaim.
Same here.
Buffy and Angel are two well written enjoyable shows which appeal to
both adults and children, men and women.
>It's been my experience that
>most of the folks who think ill of it have never actually watched it.
Or those who have barely watched it.
.
Pete Galey
Well, I don't know how it's perceived in the US, but here in the UK it's
very much a cult thing. What's more, it's self-consciously culty in its
writing, in terms of references and pastiches of other cult things. I want
Doctor Who to be a mainstream success again, but I fear it's been so long
since it was that no-one's really sure how to do it.
Luckily for you ;-) I would drag this off-topic by criticising Buffy, but I
*do* watch it. Moreover, I don't think particularly ill of it - it can be
amusing, prettily shot, and a fair way to spend 45 minutes; but when an
intelligent professional tv writer says "Joss Whedon raised the bar for
every writer - not just genre/niche writers, but every single one of us" it
seems clear to me that the show is being called upon to punch considerably
above its weight.
Actually, I will very briefly go off-topic for a moment, but I promise
that'll be it: recently during another discussion, Dave Kennedy criticised
Margaret Atwood, or more specifically her supporters, for labelling as
ground-breaking something that had been done to death because, not being SF
readers, they weren't familiar with the previous treatments. Fair enough.
But this cuts both ways. Genre writing and television is often unduly
praised for introducing into the genre something that mainstream fiction has
been doing for years, in some cases centuries. Listening to some of the
praise of BtVS, you could imagine it was the first TV programme with female
leads; or the first prime-time show to feature a lesbian relationship; or
the first story to feel equally at ease looking at teen angst / the
difficulties of growing up, alongside monsters and magic. Not only can I not
think of anything particularly innovative about BtVS, I can't even think of
much that was unconventional.
And that's before we even get onto the ethical problems I have with a show
where the hero actually goes out looking for sapient individuals to kill
without necessarily waiting for them to do anything bad first...
Anyhoo, to bring this back on topic: if RTD wants to look for inspiration
for the new series, he need look no further than the stories that made it to
the last round of Finn's contest this year (yep, even Alien Bodies). They
combine drama and humour well, have potentially broad appeal, and they've
got that Dr. Who bloke in them that we all enjoy reading about so much.
Dave Stone
> Whereas, as far as I'm concerned, there's no recent TV series I could that
> new Doctor Who will resemble more than "Buffy". Not in terms of the actual
> content, obviously ...
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Rework any Buffy script to give Giles a bit more air-time, toss in a
reference to the library being the inside of a TARDIS stuck on Earth and
you've *got* Doctor Who.
Okay, so this incarnation of the Doctor is content to take a more
passive and advisory role, leaving the more active and physical heroics
to his assistants - but so what? Go down that road and it's an invalid
character trait of he doesn't wear a big flappy scarf.
The point is that you could come up with a perfectly *valid* version of
Who by reworking maybe ten percent of the existing Buffy text, the
majority of that spent changing the names with a spellchecker. Hardly
the chalk-and-cheese situation that those who've never watched the show
seem to think.
Mind you, I have no idea how you could work in the idea of a stuffy old
Council looking over the guy's shoulder ...
--
What's another word for tentacle? You'll never guess.
http://www.pseudopod.demon.co.uk/cv.html
Steven Kitson
>Rework any Buffy script to give Giles a bit more air-time, toss in a
>reference to the library being the inside of a TARDIS stuck on Earth and
>you've *got* Doctor Who.
Except that 'Doctor Who' was never a thinly-veiled tiresome adolescence
metaphor with 'Dawson's Creek' angst. Simply having a wise old mentor
figure doth not 'Doctor Who' make...
--
And eyes full of tinsel and fire
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
> Except that 'Doctor Who' was never a thinly-veiled tiresome adolescence
> metaphor with 'Dawson's Creek' angst.
That's good -- neither was "Buffy".
JerryD
>>metaphor with 'Dawson's Creek' angst.
>
>
> That's good -- neither was "Buffy".
Yeah, it was a rape metaphor instead. ;)
-JerryD,
hopin' he's not the only one who watched episodes from season 7....
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
>>>Except that 'Doctor Who' was never a thinly-veiled tiresome adolescence
>>>metaphor with 'Dawson's Creek' angst.
>>
>> That's good -- neither was "Buffy".
> Yeah, it was a rape metaphor instead. ;)
Sometimes, yeah -- that's kind of my point. "Buffy" was sometimes a
metaphor for adolescence, but it also served as a metaphor for a lot of
other things. That's what helped create the sort of emotional resonance I
alluded to earlier -- most "Buffy" episodes weren't _just_ fantastical
runabouts, but also offered a more personal meaning. That's the sort of
mature writing that I hope to see in the new Doctor Who series.
As for such metaphors being "tiresome"... well, that's in the eye of the
beholder, obviously, but personally I think that's nuts. ;-)
And with regard to the "Dawson's Creek angst" comment, I think it's fair
to say that anyone who'd make such a comparison either didn't watch
"Buffy" very much, or utterly failed to understand it. One of the great
things about the show was that it largely eschewed soap opera theatrics,
and instead featured far more honest and genuine interpersonal dynamics.
JerryD
> beholder, obviously, but personally I think that's nuts. ;-)
>
> And with regard to the "Dawson's Creek angst" comment, I think it's fair
> to say that anyone who'd make such a comparison either didn't watch
> "Buffy" very much, or utterly failed to understand it. One of the great
> things about the show was that it largely eschewed soap opera theatrics,
> and instead featured far more honest and genuine interpersonal dynamics.
>
> Shannon
>
At it's best, sure. I think actually one useful comparison between Buffy
and DW that may explain why they both have such rabid fanbases in their
own ways, is the fact that both series had episodes and stories that
were just abominable (and I'd argue that there was some soap operaish
stuff that crept into buffy in the last two seasons, esp. with Spike)but
as an original grounding, and where they drew their strength from, was
real people in these situations. (the genuine interpersonal dynamics
you're talking about, perhaps). And when the stories are good, they're
REALLY good.
plus they both had evil alternate universes.
you heard it here first.
Alyson Hannigan===Nicholas Courtney.
John Campbell Rees
in message <bs02ua$8ata8$1...@ID-217239.news.uni-berlin.de> wrote:
> MHW wrote:
> > Just a quick heads up: there's a new interview with Russell T. Davies
> > at the BBC website.
>
> How depressing that he rates Buffy the Vampire Slayer so highly... :-( I
> really hope when the new series is made that it doesn't show...
We can but pray that Russell T. Davies manages to build a team of
writers for the new series that are the equal of the team the Joss
Whedon had at Mutant Enemy Production. Have you seen "Firefly"? If
the new series is as good as that series, I will be over the moon, dong
ma.
--
"Like shooting flies with a laser cannon, the aims a bit tricky, but
it certainly deals with the flies." - Lord Miles Vorkosigan.
>From "Komarr" by Lois McMaster Bujold
Read my Blog at http://www.20six.co.uk/Vorcampbel
JerryD
>>How depressing that he rates Buffy the Vampire Slayer so highly... :-( I
>>really hope when the new series is made that it doesn't show...
>
>
> We can but pray that Russell T. Davies manages to build a team of
> writers for the new series that are the equal of the team the Joss
> Whedon had at Mutant Enemy Production. Have you seen "Firefly"? If
> the new series is as good as that series, I will be over the moon, dong
> ma.
>
I see you're keeping your expectations low.... ;)
Pete Galey
> We can but pray that Russell T. Davies manages to build a team of
> writers for the new series that are the equal of the team the Joss
> Whedon had at Mutant Enemy Production. Have you seen "Firefly"? If
> the new series is as good as that series, I will be over the moon,
> dong ma.
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I have seen Firefly, and
found it dull, predictable, with flat, stock characters, slow plotting, and
often ludicrous dialogue. The CGI wasn't bad and that "companion" character
was, er, nice to look at, but that was it... I'd rank it a rung below
Andromeda it terms of current scifi tv.
So I guess I'm just not a Whedon fan, full stop...
Peeeet
Dave Stone
> Except that 'Doctor Who' was never a thinly-veiled tiresome adolescence
> metaphor with 'Dawson's Creek' angst. Simply having a wise old mentor
> figure doth not 'Doctor Who' make...
If that was all - or even in significant part - what Buffy was, you
might have a point. As it is, it wasn't and you don't. The in-show
dynamic had a lot more depth and complexity than that - in the same way
that the title itself was a joke on people who make snap-judgements
based on titles.
Indeed, it's this basic sense of depth and complexity that most people
are responding to, here, as opposed to my personal and more extreme
thought-exercise of direct cut-and-paste. This lifts the debate off from
the level of nit-picking specifics, and onto the level of whether or not
one gets a simple fact - i.e. if anybody wants to suggest, seriously,
that New Who should *not* be thematically dense, involving and extremely
well-written, then they're self-evidently on a hiding to nothing.
I've thought of another flaw in the Giles-as-Doc idea, though: how the
hell are we supposed to believe that the Doctor could *ever* be called
something like a 'Watcher'? :-)
Steven Kitson
>Steven Kitson <ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Except that 'Doctor Who' was never a thinly-veiled tiresome adolescence
>> metaphor with 'Dawson's Creek' angst. Simply having a wise old mentor
>> figure doth not 'Doctor Who' make...
>the level of nit-picking specifics, and onto the level of whether or not
>one gets a simple fact - i.e. if anybody wants to suggest, seriously,
>that New Who should *not* be thematically dense, involving and extremely
>well-written, then they're self-evidently on a hiding to nothing.
You miss my point. You say 'thematically dense, involving and extremely
well-written' as if those are each one-dimensional scales, that you can be
either thematically dense or not thematically dense, and there's no
difference in what themes you deal with.
Involving? Well, I suppose that's a matter of personal opinion. Extremely
well-written? Well, well-written, anyway, and yes, thematically dense. But
not all well-writen things are well-written in the same way, and not all
things that are thematically dense are dense in the same way. I'd love to
see a well-written 'doctor Who', bu I'd love it to be ell-written in the
way that 'State of Play' was well-written or 'Ultraviolet' was
well-written, not the way that 'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer' was
well-written; I'd love it to be thematically dense, but not to deal with
tedious growing-up and teenage analogies. I'd love to see 'Doctor Who' be
thematically dense but I can think of few things worse that it catching
the Hollywood disease of everything having to be about 'family' and
everyone having to come to understand each other and help each other
through and talk about things and coming-of-age and rites-of-passage and
blah de blah de blah.
It's the difference between 'Blake's 7' and 'Star Trek'. How many
tepisodes can you remember about Avon's relationship with his
mother? Okay, not how much of 'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer' was spent on the
tedious minutiae of how the Summers family felt about each other?
Both may have been well-written, but please, please, let's not have
'Doctor Who' go down that route. Thematically deep, oh yes please, but
for goodness' sake not the themes in 'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer'!
cko...@stny.rr.com
>I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I have seen Firefly, and
>found it dull, predictable, with flat, stock characters, slow plotting, and
>often ludicrous dialogue. The CGI wasn't bad and that "companion" character
>was, er, nice to look at, but that was it... I'd rank it a rung below
>Andromeda it terms of current scifi tv.
>
Wow. You *sure* you saw the same show I did? ;)
Predictable it was not - unlike, say, recent "Trek," they broke rules
and took risks. The witty dialogue was no different than what a few
intelligent friends might think up. And the "stock characters" often got
turned on their heads to become something totally different than what
you expected.
Still, different tastes make the world interesting.
Chris
JerryD
>
> Predictable it was not - unlike, say, recent "Trek," they broke rules
> and took risks. The witty dialogue was no different than what a few
> intelligent friends might think up. And the "stock characters" often got
> turned on their heads to become something totally different than what
> you expected.
>
> Still, different tastes make the world interesting.
>
Chalk me up as another person who was bored off his arse by the show. as
you say though, different tastes make the world interesting, and I'd
rather have mediocre sci-fi on tv than say, 'The O.C.'
Pete Galey
> Predictable it was not - unlike, say, recent "Trek," they broke rules
> and took risks. The witty dialogue was no different than what a few
> intelligent friends might think up. And the "stock characters" often
> got turned on their heads to become something totally different than
> what you expected.
Which rules did it break exactly? The only risk I can think of was to not
bother to make the protagonists sympathetic, and that's not necessarily a
sound risk to take. And where were these character twists? I'm genuinely
interested to know if there's something in the show I missed, lord knows
there isn't enough imaginative tv drama out there for me to dismiss
something out of hand that others rave about; but in the entire pilot I
enjoyed one line of dialogue, and the subsequent episodes I didn't find a
big improvement (I downloaded the ep using my naughtiness, so unlike many
people I watched them in a sensible order).
In deference to the current discussion on modish, I've decided not to
include a gratuitous Who reference to close this post ;-)
cko...@stny.rr.com
>Which rules did it break exactly? The only risk I can think of was to not
>bother to make the protagonists sympathetic, and that's not necessarily a
>sound risk to take. And where were these character twists?
>
Tell you what - let me get through the DVDs, take some notes and I'll
get back to you. ;) (I haven't really watched since they were first
broadcast.)
Two things I liked off the top of my head, though:
-> Technology (how things work) wasn't a main focus - so it wasn't an
easy way out of any of the plots.
-> Characters seemed able to learn and grow after each episode - no
"reset button."
>In deference to the current discussion on modish, I've decided not to
>include a gratuitous Who reference to close this post ;-)
>
OK, if you won't, I will: ST:ENT recently did a Western-type episode
(set on another planet, but with all the Western trappings). After "The
Gunfighters," do you think a Western episode might work for the new DW?
Chris
Pete Galey
> ST:ENT recently did a Western-type episode
> (set on another planet, but with all the Western trappings). After
> "The Gunfighters," do you think a Western episode might work for the
> new DW?
Oh, absolutely - the Doctor's practically a less violent man-with-no-name
already ;-) . Actually, there's a bit of a western flavour to one or two of
the recent Jeremiah episodes... the problem with The Gunfighters was to go
for western pop-culture imagery rather than western mythology, so it came
out a bit hackneyed.
JerryD
>
> Oh, absolutely - the Doctor's practically a less violent man-with-no-name
> already ;-) . Actually, there's a bit of a western flavour to one or two of
> the recent Jeremiah episodes... the problem with The Gunfighters was to go
> for western pop-culture imagery rather than western mythology, so it came
> out a bit hackneyed.
>
> Pete
Agreed, especially given the amount of lore and downright morbid or
spooky tales about the old west.
even some straight historicals could work well, if they were played
properly.
and I'd love to see a Doctor Vs. The Donner party scenario.......... :)
Ian K (N)
Pete Galey <pete...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Jim Vowles wrote:
> > "Pete Galey" <pete...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:<bs02ua$8ata8$1...@ID-217239.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >> MHW wrote:
> >>> Just a quick heads up: there's a new interview with Russell T.
> >>> Davies at the BBC website.
> >>
> >> How depressing that he rates Buffy the Vampire Slayer so highly...
> >> :-( I really hope when the new series is made that it doesn't show...
> >
> > Whereas I see it as a very good thing. Buffy's a popular show that
> > balances humor and drama very well, appeals to a diverse audience, and
> > has garnered plenty of critical acclaim. It's been my experience that
> > most of the folks who think ill of it have never actually watched it.
> Well, I don't know how it's perceived in the US, but here in the UK it's
> very much a cult thing. What's more, it's self-consciously culty in its
> writing, in terms of references and pastiches of other cult things. I
> want Doctor Who to be a mainstream success again, but I fear it's been
> so long since it was that no-one's really sure how to do it.
Buffy is very much a cult show, as I define a cult show as something that
appeals to a minority of the possible audience or requires the viewer to
have a detailed understanding of past story events in order to understand
the current story. Doctor Who started as a cult show aimed at children but
has matured into a mainstream institution that's watched by a wide variety
of people. This needs to be observed in the new show otherwise they will
alienate part of there audience or put off the more casual viewer of
Doctor Who because they are unable to keep track of what is going on.
Where Doctor Who can learn from Buffy is in the area of style and
presentation. It needs to loose the over lit sets and the dull
unimaginative camera work and direction. This I believe is one area The
TVM got rite on the whole.
As long as Mr Davies keeps the continuity references to a minimum remains
true to the concept of the show and lets interesting imaginative stories
rule he won't go far wrong. It would be nice to see Robert Shearman write
something for it as well.
Regards
Ian K
Tymelord
news:1g69ne3.qjusrhr2qaaaN%da...@anotherwordfortentacle.demon.co.uk...
>
> Mind you, I have no idea how you could work in the idea of a stuffy old
> Council looking over the guy's shoulder ...
[cough]TimeLords[/cough]
Tymelord
(who thinks Travers could have made a pretty good Borusa)
--
http://tymelord.kicks-ass.net/
(Tymelord's Website)
http://zap.to/crossovers/
(The Dr Who Crossover Adventures)
------------------
Give him a fire an he'll be warm for the evening;
Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Dave Stone
> I'd love to see 'Doctor Who' be
> thematically dense but I can think of few things worse that it catching
> the Hollywood disease of everything having to be about 'family' and
> everyone having to come to understand each other and help each other
> through and talk about things and coming-of-age and rites-of-passage and
> blah de blah de blah.
Point taken. I still think that even something totally specific like
'The Body' would be perfectly valid - the episode where a companion has
to come to terms with the sudden death of etc. - but, obviously, it
would be a valid variation on a theme rather than the core of any New
Who.
(I could also go on for quite some while about how BtVS actually
*subverts* the family-and-hugs trope you dislike - but the place for
that would be alt.fan.buffy or whatever it is.)
That said, I think we still disagree on the matter of basic
sensibilities. Purely for the sake of argument, lets just say that the
format for New Who is something like this ...
The Doctor has been stuck in turn-of-the-twenty-first-century London by
the Time Lords, because it has been invaded by the shapeshifting,
lymph-eating Zargoglobulans from Praxis Twelve, who are wandering around
in human form and could be anybody. This invasion has also lain the way
open for other, different alien species, who seem to turn up every
couple of weeks and have to be dealt with. The Doctor has to stay on
Earth until the Zargoglobulans have been defeated and some vital
component of his TARDIS retrieved. In this he's helped by a top-secret
paramilitary Taskforce set up to deal with alien threats, the spunky
girl-journalist who was investigating them and a couple of kids who just
wandered into the crossfire ...
And so on. And so forth. Given a basic scenario like that, I'd far
rather see it as the jumping-point for making jokes, playing around with
the central characters and just generally having fun than as a vehicle
for the turgid and deathly-dull manicheism of an Ultraviolet - a show
that brought absolutely everything to the table *but* the fun. Certain
people with the same name as me might like to listen to a sermon, but
I'd rather dance.
The sensibilities of a Spooks with a few more laughs could be good,
though ...
Steven Kitson
>Steven Kitson <ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> I'd love to see 'Doctor Who' be
>> thematically dense but I can think of few things worse that it catching
>> the Hollywood disease of everything having to be about 'family' and
>> everyone having to come to understand each other and help each other
>> through and talk about things and coming-of-age and rites-of-passage and
>> blah de blah de blah.
>Point taken. I still think that even something totally specific like
>'The Body' would be perfectly valid - the episode where a companion has
>to come to terms with the sudden death of etc. - but, obviously, it
>would be a valid variation on a theme rather than the core of any New
>Who.
Certainly 'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer' does many things well and many of
the techniques would be welcome in any new 'Doctor Who', if not the whole
ethos. But I think you hit the nail on the head with...
>That said, I think we still disagree on the matter of basic
>sensibilities.
[...]
>And so on. And so forth. Given a basic scenario like that, I'd far
>rather see it as the jumping-point for making jokes, playing around with
>the central characters and just generally having fun than as a vehicle
>for the turgid and deathly-dull manicheism of an Ultraviolet - a show
>that brought absolutely everything to the table *but* the fun.
... because I think we are coming from almost exactly opposite positions
on this one. It's not that I have anything against fun per se, but 'Buffy,
the Vampire slayer' always struck me as a comedy-horror show, with the
'comedy' definitely coming first. Whereas I'd prefer new 'Doctor Who' to
take itself rather more seriously and, when it does use comedy (as it
presumably will) to do so in a way that doesn't undermine itself.
I think we're just looking for different things.
Jim Vowles
> "Dave Stone" <da...@anotherwordfortentacle.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1g69ne3.qjusrhr2qaaaN%da...@anotherwordfortentacle.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > Mind you, I have no idea how you could work in the idea of a stuffy old
> > Council looking over the guy's shoulder ...
>
> [cough]TimeLords[/cough]
>
Exactly. There's plenty of parallels...and many places where both
shows have played with the same toys, poked fun at the same
stereotypes, and more or less built on the same archetypal situations.
-Jim
Daibhid Ceannaideach
>"Dave Stone" <da...@anotherwordfortentacle.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> Mind you, I have no idea how you could work in the idea of a stuffy old
>> Council looking over the guy's shoulder ...
>
>[cough]TimeLords[/cough]
Erm, yes. I think Dave might have been aiming for sarcasm here...
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Joe: What do you think *you* can do?
The Doctor: Resist them. Surprise them. Oh, and possibly perform a few show
tunes.
-Doctor Who: Scream of the Shalka
Daibhid Ceannaideach
>Date: 22/12/03 14:59 GMT Standard Time
> It's not that I have anything against fun per se, but 'Buffy,
>the Vampire slayer' always struck me as a comedy-horror show, with the
>'comedy' definitely coming first.
Often, yes. But "The Body", which the other Dave mentioned, is probably the
most *serious* piece of "telefantasy" I've ever seen. It's about death. Not
about getting bitten by vampires or zapped by Daleks, but about what happens
when someone important just isn't there any more, and there isn't even a baddie
you can swear revenge on. It's deeply moving stuff, and the fact it can manage
it in a series where the main character gets brought back to life all the time
is astonishing.
>Whereas I'd prefer new 'Doctor Who' to
>take itself rather more seriously and, when it does use comedy (as it
>presumably will) to do so in a way that doesn't undermine itself.
GK Chesterton: "Some people think that I am not serious but only funny, because
they think that funny is the opposite of serious. Funny is the opposite of not
funny and of nothing else."
I don't know if Josh Whedon is familiar with the quote (I'm prepared to bet
Russell is), but they both seem to be aware of its truth.
Steven Kitson
>>From: Steven Kitson ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>the Vampire slayer' always struck me as a comedy-horror show, with the
>>'comedy' definitely coming first.
>Often, yes. But "The Body", which the other Dave mentioned, is probably the
>most *serious* piece of "telefantasy" I've ever seen. It's about death. Not
>about getting bitten by vampires or zapped by Daleks, but about what happens
>when someone important just isn't there any more, and there isn't even a baddie
>you can swear revenge on. It's deeply moving stuff, and the fact it can manage
>it in a series where the main character gets brought back to life all the time
>is astonishing.
Myeh. I saw 'The Body' and I don't get this huge praise that gets heaped
on it. I mean yes, it's very good, it's well-written, it's powerful, but
it's not the best thing since television. It's not as 'deeply moving' as,
say, the bedroom scene in 'Edge of Darkness'.
>>Whereas I'd prefer new 'Doctor Who' to
>>take itself rather more seriously and, when it does use comedy (as it
>>presumably will) to do so in a way that doesn't undermine itself.
>GK Chesterton: "Some people think that I am not serious but only funny, because
>they think that funny is the opposite of serious. Funny is the opposite of not
>funny and of nothing else."
>
>I don't know if Josh Whedon is familiar with the quote (I'm prepared to bet
>Russell is), but they both seem to be aware of its truth.
It may be true, but it's irrelevant. It's perfectly possible, as
Chesterton says, to be funny and serious at the same time; it's perfectly
possible for a drama series to be funny without undermining itself.
'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer' undermines itself. The old 'Doctor Who' series
(as we shall have to get used to calling it!) does sometimes too, in its
more out and out pantomime moments.
My hope for the new series is that it will be funny without undermining
itself. Basically I think 'Doctor Who' only works, especially the humour
only works, when it's played absolutely straight. That doesn't mean 'not
funny' -- 'The Office' is an example of something hugely funny that's
played totally straight -- but it does mean not coming across like a
comedian telling a story with one foot always outside his character,
sharing a wink with the audience, saying 'isn't this really ludicrous? i
mean, really?'.
'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer' is intended, right from the title, to be a
send-up of all those horror movie cliches, starting with the blonde girl
who gets killed in the first reel and going on from there. That is its
raison d'etre. It _also_ does metaphorical stuff about teenage life and it
_also_ tries to make serious points about death occasionally, but it's
first and foremost a piss-take. It's what Dave identified when he praised
its 'fun'. But it means that the show is always looking slightly sideways
at itself, never able quite to take itself completely seriously (and it
means that episodes like 'The Body' always feel slightly out of place with
the world of 'the police in Sunnydale are deeply stupid'.
Whereas I hope that the new 'Doctor Who' will be first and foremost
intended not to have fun with the cliches, not to send up the genre, but
to send small children cowering behind the sofa, and give adults
disquieting thoughts. Not that there won't be humour, that's an
indispensible part of the mix: but it won't take over and it certainly
won't undermine the main part of the enterprise, which is the generation
of the sort of nightmares that scar you for life in anyone under fifteen,
and quite a few over that age too (I was actually getting worried that the
loss of 'Doctor Who' meant that a whole generation was growing up not
knowing sheer abject terror -- hopefully that will be rectified!).
With Russel T. Davies in charge I'm actually quite optimistic about
this. This is, after all, the man who wrote 'Century Falls'.
Dave Stone
> Erm, yes. I think Dave might have been aiming for sarcasm here...
Sarcasm?
Me?
Dave Stone
> Myeh. I saw 'The Body' and I don't get this huge praise that gets heaped
> on it. I mean yes, it's very good, it's well-written, it's powerful, but
> it's not the best thing since television. It's not as 'deeply moving' as,
> say, the bedroom scene in 'Edge of Darkness'.
On the subject of The Body - I don't think it was meant to be moving as
such, so much as invoking that bleak and crawling tedium one feels while
waiting for a real-life ambulance to arrive. (I think the man says as
much on the DVD-commentary.) An honest attempt to explore and affect
than tug-at-the-strings move.
Edge of Darkness, pure diamond - and pure black *farce* from start to
finish in an almost entirely Chestertonian way. That lovely double-act
with the, wossname, State Security guys and their basis of funding; the
running cancer gag; that, um, gobsmacking and utterly human little
instant in the bedroom scene ... pure play, in the sense of mucking
around and having fun in the playground, but playing to a point. The
ultimate in 'funny' isn't a huge laugh - it's something smacking you
between the eyes so hugely and precisely that it leaves you stunned.
I would personally get down on my knees and give thanks if New Who had
precisely those sensibilities - but something on that level might prove
almost impossible to pull off, no matter how good the people involved.
Bokman7757
>But it means that the show is always looking slightly sideways
>at itself, never able quite to take itself completely seriously (and it
>means that episodes like 'The Body' always feel slightly out of place with
>the world of 'the police in Sunnydale are deeply stupid'.
Except that line is explained in a serious, plausible way- they're looking the
other way because the Mayor doesn't want the truth getting out about this town.
I don't think BUFFY goes nearly as far as you say- it's about as consistent and
believable as any good TV fantasy. Sure, there's lots of witty banter, but
there are plenty of genuine threats too. It's telling that as the finale was
creeping up, fans were wondering just who would live and who would die- script
immunity was not guaranteed, no more than it was in WHO, anyway. (And where
Sunnydale's cops any stupider than the average UNIT soldier?)
I mean, by comparison you can look at THE AVENGERS, which does undermine itself
frequently around the time that Emma Peel shows up. (The Dr. Keel episodes
which don't exist anymore were apparently grittier, and to a certain extent
Cathy's era was too.) Steed and Peel don't change, nobody important ever dies,
and there's never really any doubt that our heroes will come out unscathed and
set things right.
Bokman7757
>Buffy is very much a cult show, as I define a cult show as something that
>appeals to a minority of the possible audience
Wouldn't that include just about all TV apart from maybe ROOTS and the MASH
finale? I mean, FRASIER's practically a cult now- it gets decent ratings but I
don't know many people who watch it as faithfully as I. Everything's getting
fragmented now.
Bokman7757
>but 'Buffy,
>the Vampire slayer' always struck me as a comedy-horror show, with the
>'comedy' definitely coming first.
I'd say it's more action-comedy-horror, prioritized in that order. "The Body"
may get singled out for seriousness, but it wasn't really an exception- the
show went for the achingly tragic pretty often (see, well, all of Season 2.)
Emmemm
> I mean, by comparison you can look at THE AVENGERS, which does
undermine itself
> frequently around the time that Emma Peel shows up. (The Dr. Keel
episodes
> which don't exist anymore were apparently grittier, and to a certain
extent
> Cathy's era was too.) Steed and Peel don't change, nobody important
ever dies,
> and there's never really any doubt that our heroes will come out
unscathed and
> set things right.
That's not the draw or the point of the show any more, by that stage.
The tantalising revelation of the mystery (and jsut *how* the villain
will be foiled, and with what flourish of style) is.
Just as it always was about revealing mysteries in Who...
Doctor Who without a mystery would be like Buffy with wisecracking
lesbians.
--
Frankymole
Bokman7757
> Steed and Peel don't change, nobody important
>ever dies,
>> and there's never really any doubt that our heroes will come out
>unscathed and
>> set things right.
>
>That's not the draw or the point of the show any more, by that stage.
I know, but I was just using that as an example of a not-serious, very
self-undermining show, as compared to BUFFY where there are wisecracks but
characters do change and die and there's uncertainty about outcomes.