Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Moffat says critics too stupid to understand how clever he is
26 views
Skip to first unread message
The Coca Cola Kid
May 22, 2012, 8:27:25 PM5/22/12
to
In a recent interview, the Grand Moff talks about how he falls into bouts of
depression whenever people say that his work is 'far too clever'. Between
this, and another article, that quoted him as saying that erratic and
unpredictable broadcast schedules are a good thing, it makes me wonder if
Steven Moffat is losing it, or Digital Spy wants us to think that he is
losing it, or both?
There are certainly some clever ideas in Moffat's writing, but
oft-times the execution of those ideas, especially since he took over as the
show-runner, hides how clever they are. The emphasis often feels totally
off. Events that should have an important emotional impact, on both the
audience and the characters, are often glossed over, relegated to a
voice-mail exposition on a DVD extra, or completely ignored. The little
payoff that we do get on-screen often feels like too little, too late, while
he is throwing out the next random idea that we are already dubious about
him actually following through on.
If Russell Davies was the show's equivalent of PT Barnum, the best that
Steven Moffat has been able to muster, so far, is an impression of J
Wellington Wimpy.
depression whenever people say that his work is 'far too clever'. Between
this, and another article, that quoted him as saying that erratic and
unpredictable broadcast schedules are a good thing, it makes me wonder if
Steven Moffat is losing it, or Digital Spy wants us to think that he is
losing it, or both?
There are certainly some clever ideas in Moffat's writing, but
oft-times the execution of those ideas, especially since he took over as the
show-runner, hides how clever they are. The emphasis often feels totally
off. Events that should have an important emotional impact, on both the
audience and the characters, are often glossed over, relegated to a
voice-mail exposition on a DVD extra, or completely ignored. The little
payoff that we do get on-screen often feels like too little, too late, while
he is throwing out the next random idea that we are already dubious about
him actually following through on.
If Russell Davies was the show's equivalent of PT Barnum, the best that
Steven Moffat has been able to muster, so far, is an impression of J
Wellington Wimpy.
Michael Ann Sullivan
May 22, 2012, 10:54:33 PM5/22/12
to
It all makes perfect sense if you sit down, pay attention and think about
it.
Duggy
May 23, 2012, 1:32:17 AM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 10:27 am, "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
wrote:
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> In a recent interview, the Grand Moff talks about how he falls into bouts of
> depression whenever people say that his work is 'far too clever'.
Surely that's critics saying he's too clever, not himself.
> depression whenever people say that his work is 'far too clever'.
===
= DUG.
===
Ignis Fatuus
May 23, 2012, 5:12:18 AM5/23/12
to
as a teenage doctor.
The Silence was a brilliant idea totally ruined by a complete lack of
development.
Moffat's 'ideas' are sound but his writing is lazy and unimaginative
(since he took control). The season one finale was just a static
pageant with very little story. The season 2 finale had more story
crammed into one episode.
My own view is that, at his best, he writes slowly, and can't keep up
with the demands of delivering half a season's worth of scripts. But
at the same time the scripts he's commissioned from other writers have
been weak and unsatisfactory. The only story from the last two years
that's worked for me was The Doctor's Wife, although The Wedding of
River Song was an improvement on the rest. But the Wardrobe was pure
unwatchable dross.
The Doctor
May 23, 2012, 8:12:37 AM5/23/12
to
In article <jphate$jp0$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
War is declared.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
That church which changes with the times cannot also be abiding in Christ
The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
That church which changes with the times cannot also be abiding in Christ
The Coca Cola Kid
May 23, 2012, 7:49:49 PM5/23/12
to
"The Doctor" wrote in message news:jpik7l$opd$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
Doctor Who? Do you think that he is telling a coherent story, or that he
ever intends to tie up all of the loose ends, and plot holes, that were left
dangling, since he took over? If he does, then I will gladly take back what
I said about him, but all that I have been hearing since the season finale
of Moffat's first season is the equivalent of 'I will gladly pay you
Tuesday, for a hamburger today.'
I do not mind that the whole story is bigger than what can fit into
fourteen televised episodes, or that some events are implied to take place
off-screen. That is why I think that expanded novelisations, that give us
more story and character detail would be a good idea. But, for some reason,
they seem averse to this. Which is odd, because a) the types of stories
being told since Moffat took over would greatly benefit from this, and b)
they would probably sell well, especailly if well written.
>The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If Russell Davies was the show's equivalent of PT Barnum, the best
>> that
>>Steven Moffat has been able to muster, so far, is an impression of J
>>Wellington Wimpy.
>
>War is declared.
What is your assessment of Moffat's performance, as the show-runner of
>> If Russell Davies was the show's equivalent of PT Barnum, the best
>> that
>>Steven Moffat has been able to muster, so far, is an impression of J
>>Wellington Wimpy.
>
>War is declared.
Doctor Who? Do you think that he is telling a coherent story, or that he
ever intends to tie up all of the loose ends, and plot holes, that were left
dangling, since he took over? If he does, then I will gladly take back what
I said about him, but all that I have been hearing since the season finale
of Moffat's first season is the equivalent of 'I will gladly pay you
Tuesday, for a hamburger today.'
I do not mind that the whole story is bigger than what can fit into
fourteen televised episodes, or that some events are implied to take place
off-screen. That is why I think that expanded novelisations, that give us
more story and character detail would be a good idea. But, for some reason,
they seem averse to this. Which is odd, because a) the types of stories
being told since Moffat took over would greatly benefit from this, and b)
they would probably sell well, especailly if well written.
The Coca Cola Kid
May 23, 2012, 8:29:37 PM5/23/12
to
"Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message
news:am9pr7pqldv9hb52l...@4ax.com...
really was convincing as a centuries-old alien... until they decided that he
should be written as the 940 year-old virgin, and directed him to act that
way.
>The Silence was a brilliant idea totally ruined by a complete lack of
>development.
>
>Moffat's 'ideas' are sound but his writing is lazy and unimaginative
>(since he took control). The season one finale was just a static
>pageant with very little story. The season 2 finale had more story
>crammed into one episode.
>
>My own view is that, at his best, he writes slowly, and can't keep up
>with the demands of delivering half a season's worth of scripts. But
There is also the fact that he is not fully committed to the development and
production of Doctor Who, since he is simultaneously spending at least as
much time on other projects such as the remakes of old Sherlock Holmes
stories.
>at the same time the scripts he's commissioned from other writers have
>been weak and unsatisfactory. The only story from the last two years
>that's worked for me was The Doctor's Wife, although The Wedding of
>River Song was an improvement on the rest.
Have to disagree, here. IMHO, the other writers' stories have been very
strong or weak, depending upon the writer. It seems that, compared to RTD,
Moffat has been relatively hands-off when it comes to re-writing, or asking
for massive re-writes of, others' scripts, so that they were able to rise
(Nye, Curtis, MacRae, Whithouse) or fall (Gatiss, Chibnall, Thompson,
Graham) on their own merits.
> But the Wardrobe was pure unwatchable dross.
The Wardrobe episode felt like it was written on pure auto-pilot.
news:am9pr7pqldv9hb52l...@4ax.com...
>River Song was a brilliant idea totally ruined by casting Matt Smith
>as a teenage doctor.
Matt Smith did not come across as a teenage doctor in his first stories. He
>as a teenage doctor.
really was convincing as a centuries-old alien... until they decided that he
should be written as the 940 year-old virgin, and directed him to act that
way.
>The Silence was a brilliant idea totally ruined by a complete lack of
>development.
>
>Moffat's 'ideas' are sound but his writing is lazy and unimaginative
>(since he took control). The season one finale was just a static
>pageant with very little story. The season 2 finale had more story
>crammed into one episode.
>
>My own view is that, at his best, he writes slowly, and can't keep up
>with the demands of delivering half a season's worth of scripts. But
production of Doctor Who, since he is simultaneously spending at least as
much time on other projects such as the remakes of old Sherlock Holmes
stories.
>at the same time the scripts he's commissioned from other writers have
>been weak and unsatisfactory. The only story from the last two years
>that's worked for me was The Doctor's Wife, although The Wedding of
>River Song was an improvement on the rest.
strong or weak, depending upon the writer. It seems that, compared to RTD,
Moffat has been relatively hands-off when it comes to re-writing, or asking
for massive re-writes of, others' scripts, so that they were able to rise
(Nye, Curtis, MacRae, Whithouse) or fall (Gatiss, Chibnall, Thompson,
Graham) on their own merits.
> But the Wardrobe was pure unwatchable dross.
The Coca Cola Kid
May 23, 2012, 8:32:43 PM5/23/12
to
"Michael Ann Sullivan" wrote:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9Q5baJ223M
>
>It all makes perfect sense if you sit down, pay attention and think about
>it.
ROTFLMAO!
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9Q5baJ223M
>
>It all makes perfect sense if you sit down, pay attention and think about
>it.
Did Lawrence Miles create that?
The Coca Cola Kid
May 23, 2012, 8:33:51 PM5/23/12
to
"Michael Ann Sullivan" wrote:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9Q5baJ223M
>
>It all makes perfect sense if you sit down, pay attention and think about
>it.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9Q5baJ223M
>
>It all makes perfect sense if you sit down, pay attention and think about
>it.
The Coca Cola Kid
May 23, 2012, 9:33:27 PM5/23/12
to
that the show is often trying so hard to look cool and clever, that it
forgets (or fails) to actually be cool and clever. Moffat is either
completely misunderstanding or misinterpreting those criticisms,
implying that the critics are against being clever and do not
appreciate his cleverness.
The Coca Cola Kid
May 23, 2012, 9:35:55 PM5/23/12
to
Trapped in Google Groups, On May 23, 12:32 am, Duggy
<p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 10:27 am, "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On May 23, 10:27 am, "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In a recent interview, the Grand Moff talks about how he falls into
> > bouts of
> > depression whenever people say that his work is 'far too clever'.
>
> > bouts of
> > depression whenever people say that his work is 'far too clever'.
>
Charles E. Hardwidge
May 23, 2012, 11:26:14 PM5/23/12
to
"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jpk39v$pfg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Some critics are saying that, but, more often that not, their point is
> that the show is often trying so hard to look cool and clever, that it
> forgets (or fails) to actually be cool and clever. Moffat is either
> completely misunderstanding or misinterpreting those criticisms, implying
> that the critics are against being clever and do not appreciate his
> cleverness.
Moffat's had too much easy success in a relatively weak environment and the
high profile of the Doctor Who brand name and weak management play into that
so although Moffat isn't performing the fault isn't entirely his.
RTD never corrected Moffat's scripts which I think was a mistake as his
earlier scripts certainly needed at least a little work. His stand out
script Girl in the Fireplace had strong issues in places. Blink was a
gimmick dragged out and turned into a joke told once too often. If Moffat
had been corrected earlier and discouraged from obsessing ideas to
destruction perhaps there's a possibility he would've learned the value of
shaping episodes and stories across a series? Then there's the issues of
management and interaction with audiences. The last series tried but failed
to execute as well as it could on the production side and Moffat's public
communications have suffered from foot in mouth. Better editing and
producing would help correct that which would mean a new person in the hot
seat and Moffat being moved sideways to a purely writing role. On the
surface it may be a step down and wound Moffat's pride but overall I think
it's both better for Moffat and the Who franchise.
Being able to blow my own trumpet by saying "told you so" if the next series
blows out has its appeal but ultimately I'd rather see a better show and
people do well. Not asking for perfect but avoiding avoidable mistakes
helps. (If only I could listen to my own advice I'd be a gazillionaire.)
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
news:jpk39v$pfg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Some critics are saying that, but, more often that not, their point is
> that the show is often trying so hard to look cool and clever, that it
> forgets (or fails) to actually be cool and clever. Moffat is either
> completely misunderstanding or misinterpreting those criticisms, implying
> that the critics are against being clever and do not appreciate his
> cleverness.
high profile of the Doctor Who brand name and weak management play into that
so although Moffat isn't performing the fault isn't entirely his.
RTD never corrected Moffat's scripts which I think was a mistake as his
earlier scripts certainly needed at least a little work. His stand out
script Girl in the Fireplace had strong issues in places. Blink was a
gimmick dragged out and turned into a joke told once too often. If Moffat
had been corrected earlier and discouraged from obsessing ideas to
destruction perhaps there's a possibility he would've learned the value of
shaping episodes and stories across a series? Then there's the issues of
management and interaction with audiences. The last series tried but failed
to execute as well as it could on the production side and Moffat's public
communications have suffered from foot in mouth. Better editing and
producing would help correct that which would mean a new person in the hot
seat and Moffat being moved sideways to a purely writing role. On the
surface it may be a step down and wound Moffat's pride but overall I think
it's both better for Moffat and the Who franchise.
Being able to blow my own trumpet by saying "told you so" if the next series
blows out has its appeal but ultimately I'd rather see a better show and
people do well. Not asking for perfect but avoiding avoidable mistakes
helps. (If only I could listen to my own advice I'd be a gazillionaire.)
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
The Doctor
May 23, 2012, 11:37:58 PM5/23/12
to
In article <jpjt32$cbm$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
My answer in yes, just like he is in Sherlock. You have to look
at the whole season to understand it.
This is like the KEy to Time.
at the whole season to understand it.
This is like the KEy to Time.
The Doctor
May 23, 2012, 11:38:54 PM5/23/12
to
In article <jpjvdl$h8h$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>The Silence was a brilliant idea totally ruined by a complete lack of
>>development.
>>
>>Moffat's 'ideas' are sound but his writing is lazy and unimaginative
>>(since he took control). The season one finale was just a static
>>pageant with very little story. The season 2 finale had more story
>>crammed into one episode.
>>
>>My own view is that, at his best, he writes slowly, and can't keep up
>>with the demands of delivering half a season's worth of scripts. But
>
>There is also the fact that he is not fully committed to the development and
>production of Doctor Who, since he is simultaneously spending at least as
>much time on other projects such as the remakes of old Sherlock Holmes
>stories.
>
>>at the same time the scripts he's commissioned from other writers have
>>been weak and unsatisfactory. The only story from the last two years
>>that's worked for me was The Doctor's Wife, although The Wedding of
>>River Song was an improvement on the rest.
>
>Have to disagree, here. IMHO, the other writers' stories have been very
>strong or weak, depending upon the writer. It seems that, compared to RTD,
>Moffat has been relatively hands-off when it comes to re-writing, or asking
>for massive re-writes of, others' scripts, so that they were able to rise
>(Nye, Curtis, MacRae, Whithouse) or fall (Gatiss, Chibnall, Thompson,
>Graham) on their own merits.
>
>> But the Wardrobe was pure unwatchable dross.
>
>The Wardrobe episode felt like it was written on pure auto-pilot.
>
The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message
>news:am9pr7pqldv9hb52l...@4ax.com...
>>River Song was a brilliant idea totally ruined by casting Matt Smith
>>as a teenage doctor.
>
>Matt Smith did not come across as a teenage doctor in his first stories. He
>really was convincing as a centuries-old alien... until they decided that he
>should be written as the 940 year-old virgin, and directed him to act that
>way.
>
He has a garnddaughter named Susan you know.
>news:am9pr7pqldv9hb52l...@4ax.com...
>>River Song was a brilliant idea totally ruined by casting Matt Smith
>>as a teenage doctor.
>
>Matt Smith did not come across as a teenage doctor in his first stories. He
>really was convincing as a centuries-old alien... until they decided that he
>should be written as the 940 year-old virgin, and directed him to act that
>way.
>
>>The Silence was a brilliant idea totally ruined by a complete lack of
>>development.
>>
>>Moffat's 'ideas' are sound but his writing is lazy and unimaginative
>>(since he took control). The season one finale was just a static
>>pageant with very little story. The season 2 finale had more story
>>crammed into one episode.
>>
>>My own view is that, at his best, he writes slowly, and can't keep up
>>with the demands of delivering half a season's worth of scripts. But
>
>There is also the fact that he is not fully committed to the development and
>production of Doctor Who, since he is simultaneously spending at least as
>much time on other projects such as the remakes of old Sherlock Holmes
>stories.
>
>>at the same time the scripts he's commissioned from other writers have
>>been weak and unsatisfactory. The only story from the last two years
>>that's worked for me was The Doctor's Wife, although The Wedding of
>>River Song was an improvement on the rest.
>
>Have to disagree, here. IMHO, the other writers' stories have been very
>strong or weak, depending upon the writer. It seems that, compared to RTD,
>Moffat has been relatively hands-off when it comes to re-writing, or asking
>for massive re-writes of, others' scripts, so that they were able to rise
>(Nye, Curtis, MacRae, Whithouse) or fall (Gatiss, Chibnall, Thompson,
>Graham) on their own merits.
>
>> But the Wardrobe was pure unwatchable dross.
>
>The Wardrobe episode felt like it was written on pure auto-pilot.
>
Duggy
May 24, 2012, 7:54:25 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 11:33 am, The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
wrote:
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> Some critics are saying that, but, more often that not, their point is
> that the show is often trying so hard to look cool and clever, that it
> forgets (or fails) to actually be cool and clever.
But it's not Moffatt saying it. Making your claim a lie.
> that the show is often trying so hard to look cool and clever, that it
> forgets (or fails) to actually be cool and clever.
===
= DUG.
===
The Coca Cola Kid
May 24, 2012, 8:40:34 AM5/24/12
to
'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stupid
people about the fact the shows are complicated and clever, but (it is
a) huge international hit... We make no apology. Do not expect to do
the ironing; sit down, pay attention and think about it.
'Audiences like complexity. They follow intricately plotted soap
operas all the time. It depresses me when people say, "It's all far
too clever."'
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/22/doctor-who-steven-moffat-critics-stupid_n_1536284.html
The Coca Cola Kid
May 24, 2012, 8:42:30 AM5/24/12
to
On May 23, 10:38 pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <jpjvdl$h8...@speranza.aioe.org>,
like a virgin.
> In article <jpjvdl$h8...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Matt Smith did not come across as a teenage doctor in his first stories. He
> >really was convincing as a centuries-old alien... until they decided that he
> >should be written as the 940 year-old virgin, and directed him to act that
> >way.
>
> He has a garnddaughter named Susan you know.
>
That makes it all the more the stranger that they decided to write him
> >Matt Smith did not come across as a teenage doctor in his first stories. He
> >really was convincing as a centuries-old alien... until they decided that he
> >should be written as the 940 year-old virgin, and directed him to act that
> >way.
>
> He has a garnddaughter named Susan you know.
>
like a virgin.
Charles E. Hardwidge
May 24, 2012, 5:29:53 PM5/24/12
to
"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3be9a044-e9c1-4401...@n8g2000pbv.googlegroups.com...
> Here are Moffat's words:
>
> 'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stupid
> people about the fact the shows are complicated and clever, but (it is
> a) huge international hit... We make no apology. Do not expect to do
> the ironing; sit down, pay attention and think about it.
> 'Audiences like complexity. They follow intricately plotted soap
> operas all the time. It depresses me when people say, "It's all far
> too clever."'
>
> Source:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/22/doctor-who-steven-moffat-critics-stupid_n_1536284.html
"Complicated and clever" and "huge international hit" are bold claims but
can unravel if you dig a little deeper. There's "clever" and clever, and
"hit" and hit. Moffat doesn't give much clue that he understands this. In
fact, Moffat is using the same type of argument bankers used when they were
raking in money like bandits before the crash. We know what happened next
and are still extricating ourselves from that mess.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
news:3be9a044-e9c1-4401...@n8g2000pbv.googlegroups.com...
> Here are Moffat's words:
>
> 'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stupid
> people about the fact the shows are complicated and clever, but (it is
> a) huge international hit... We make no apology. Do not expect to do
> the ironing; sit down, pay attention and think about it.
> 'Audiences like complexity. They follow intricately plotted soap
> operas all the time. It depresses me when people say, "It's all far
> too clever."'
>
> Source:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/22/doctor-who-steven-moffat-critics-stupid_n_1536284.html
can unravel if you dig a little deeper. There's "clever" and clever, and
"hit" and hit. Moffat doesn't give much clue that he understands this. In
fact, Moffat is using the same type of argument bankers used when they were
raking in money like bandits before the crash. We know what happened next
and are still extricating ourselves from that mess.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Duggy
May 24, 2012, 6:22:44 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 10:40 pm, The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
wrote:
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> On May 24, 6:54 am, Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here are Moffat's words:
> 'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stupid
> people about the fact the shows are complicated and clever,
He never said "critics".
> Here are Moffat's words:
> 'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stupid
> people about the fact the shows are complicated and clever,
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
May 24, 2012, 6:24:38 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 10:42 pm, The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> On May 23, 10:38 pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
> > In article <jpjvdl$h8...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> > The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Matt Smith did not come across as a teenage doctor in his first stories. He
> > >really was convincing as a centuries-old alien... until they decided that he
> > >should be written as the 940 year-old virgin, and directed him to act that
> > >way.
>
> > He has a garnddaughter named Susan you know.
>
> That makes it all the more the stranger that they decided to write him
> like a virgin.
You can have the personality of a virgin and not be a virgin.
> On May 23, 10:38 pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
> > In article <jpjvdl$h8...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> > The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Matt Smith did not come across as a teenage doctor in his first stories. He
> > >really was convincing as a centuries-old alien... until they decided that he
> > >should be written as the 940 year-old virgin, and directed him to act that
> > >way.
>
> > He has a garnddaughter named Susan you know.
>
> That makes it all the more the stranger that they decided to write him
> like a virgin.
===
= DUG.
===
The Doctor
May 24, 2012, 6:30:37 PM5/24/12
to
solar penguin
May 25, 2012, 5:27:03 AM5/25/12
to
point in his life.
FishFood
May 25, 2012, 8:47:08 AM5/25/12
to
Only the doctor should understand the doctor.
Duggy
May 25, 2012, 8:54:52 AM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 7:27 pm, solar penguin <solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Never? That's unlikely. He probably said the word "critics" at some
> point in his life.
Prove it.
> Never? That's unlikely. He probably said the word "critics" at some
> point in his life.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
May 25, 2012, 8:55:51 AM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 10:47 pm, FishFood <d...@home.com> wrote:
===
= DUG.
===
> Duggy wrote:
> > You can have the personality of a virgin and not be a virgin.
> > You can have the personality of a virgin and not be a virgin.
> ha ha... our time lord is a complicated man, a walking enigma.
> Only the doctor should understand the doctor.
You don't know real people like that?
> Only the doctor should understand the doctor.
===
= DUG.
===
BruceWhite
May 26, 2012, 4:48:25 AM5/26/12
to
On May 23, 8:27 am, "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
wrote:
RTD: crap aliens like the Judood and Slithorax. But the best human
characters such as Rose and Wilfred Mott.
He was a soap-opera writer not an SF writer.
Moffat is the opposite: good aliens but hopeless with human
characters. The whole Pond Family (Amelia, Rory, River and teenage
Mels) are not believable.
wrote:
characters such as Rose and Wilfred Mott.
He was a soap-opera writer not an SF writer.
Moffat is the opposite: good aliens but hopeless with human
characters. The whole Pond Family (Amelia, Rory, River and teenage
Mels) are not believable.
The Coca Cola Kid
May 26, 2012, 6:13:30 PM5/26/12
to
"Duggy" wrote in message
news:0bcb84a2-f300-4325...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...
Either way, it is drastically different from the personality traits that we
saw in 2010. Despite any other problems, in that season, Matt Smith shone
with most the material that he was given, and belied criticisms that he was
too young to play the part. Making him an awkward, virgin-type character
plays right into them.
And, it is not as well suited to his acting skills, IMO.
news:0bcb84a2-f300-4325...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...
saw in 2010. Despite any other problems, in that season, Matt Smith shone
with most the material that he was given, and belied criticisms that he was
too young to play the part. Making him an awkward, virgin-type character
plays right into them.
And, it is not as well suited to his acting skills, IMO.
The Coca Cola Kid
May 26, 2012, 6:30:12 PM5/26/12
to
"Duggy" wrote in message
news:4641094c-abd4-4808...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
And your point is...? In this case, backlash = criticism. Criticism comes
from critics.
news:4641094c-abd4-4808...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
from critics.
The Doctor
May 26, 2012, 6:47:49 PM5/26/12
to
The Coca Cola Kid
May 26, 2012, 7:16:33 PM5/26/12
to
"The Doctor" wrote in message news:jprmil$pdu$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>>Either way, it is drastically different from the personality traits that
>>we
>>saw in 2010. Despite any other problems, in that season, Matt Smith shone
>>with most the material that he was given, and belied criticisms that he
>>was
>>too young to play the part. Making him an awkward, virgin-type character
>>plays right into them.
>> And, it is not as well suited to his acting skills, IMO.
>
>As you view it.
Virgin?
>>Either way, it is drastically different from the personality traits that
>>we
>>saw in 2010. Despite any other problems, in that season, Matt Smith shone
>>with most the material that he was given, and belied criticisms that he
>>was
>>too young to play the part. Making him an awkward, virgin-type character
>>plays right into them.
>> And, it is not as well suited to his acting skills, IMO.
>
>As you view it.
Mr.Smartypants
May 26, 2012, 8:52:06 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 5:16 pm, "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "The Doctor" wrote in messagenews:jprmil$pdu$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
He most certainly is although he's always hinting that at some point
he had some kind of sex with something or other.
wrote:
> "The Doctor" wrote in messagenews:jprmil$pdu$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
he had some kind of sex with something or other.
The Doctor
May 27, 2012, 8:04:46 AM5/27/12
to
In article <84ad6de6-0198-451a...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Mr.Smartypants <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On May 26, 5:16=A0pm, "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> "The Doctor" =A0wrote in messagenews:jprmil$pdu$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>t
>> >>we
>> >>saw in 2010. Despite any other problems, in that season, Matt Smith sho=
>r
>> >>plays right into them.
>> >> =A0 =A0 And, it is not as well suited to his acting skills, IMO.
Mr.Smartypants <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On May 26, 5:16=A0pm, "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> "The Doctor" =A0wrote in messagenews:jprmil$pdu$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> >The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>> >>Either way, it is drastically different from the personality traits tha=
>t
>> >>we
>> >>saw in 2010. Despite any other problems, in that season, Matt Smith sho=
>ne
>> >>with most the material that he was given, and belied criticisms that he
>> >>was
>> >>too young to play the part. Making him an awkward, virgin-type characte=
>> >>with most the material that he was given, and belied criticisms that he
>> >>was
>r
>> >>plays right into them.
>> >> =A0 =A0 And, it is not as well suited to his acting skills, IMO.
>>
>> >As you view it.
>>
>> Virgin?
>
>
>He most certainly is although he's always hinting that at some point
>he had some kind of sex with something or other.
Whoosh!
>> >As you view it.
>>
>> Virgin?
>
>
>He most certainly is although he's always hinting that at some point
>he had some kind of sex with something or other.
meowmix
May 28, 2012, 9:26:15 AM5/28/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 22:30:37 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>In article <jpm98f$66f$1...@dont-email.me>,
>Charles E. Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3be9a044-e9c1-4401...@n8g2000pbv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Here are Moffat's words:
>>>
>>> 'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stupid
>>> people about the fact the shows are complicated and clever, but (it is
>>> a) huge international hit... We make no apology. Do not expect to do
>>> the ironing; sit down, pay attention and think about it.
>>> 'Audiences like complexity. They follow intricately plotted soap
>>> operas all the time. It depresses me when people say, "It's all far
>>> too clever."'
>>>
>>> Source:
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/22/doctor-who-steven-moffat-critics-stupid_n_1536284.html
>>
>>"Complicated and clever" and "huge international hit" are bold claims but
>>can unravel if you dig a little deeper. There's "clever" and clever, and
>>"hit" and hit. Moffat doesn't give much clue that he understands this. In
>>fact, Moffat is using the same type of argument bankers used when they were
>>raking in money like bandits before the crash. We know what happened next
>>and are still extricating ourselves from that mess.
>>
>>--
>>Charles E. Hardwidge
>>
>
>what about Sherlock a la Moffat/Gatiss?
moffat is no doubt holding gatiss back. cut the moffat cretin free while you can, gatiss.
>In article <jpm98f$66f$1...@dont-email.me>,
>Charles E. Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3be9a044-e9c1-4401...@n8g2000pbv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Here are Moffat's words:
>>>
>>> 'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stupid
>>> people about the fact the shows are complicated and clever, but (it is
>>> a) huge international hit... We make no apology. Do not expect to do
>>> the ironing; sit down, pay attention and think about it.
>>> 'Audiences like complexity. They follow intricately plotted soap
>>> operas all the time. It depresses me when people say, "It's all far
>>> too clever."'
>>>
>>> Source:
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/22/doctor-who-steven-moffat-critics-stupid_n_1536284.html
>>
>>"Complicated and clever" and "huge international hit" are bold claims but
>>can unravel if you dig a little deeper. There's "clever" and clever, and
>>"hit" and hit. Moffat doesn't give much clue that he understands this. In
>>fact, Moffat is using the same type of argument bankers used when they were
>>raking in money like bandits before the crash. We know what happened next
>>and are still extricating ourselves from that mess.
>>
>>--
>>Charles E. Hardwidge
>>
>
>what about Sherlock a la Moffat/Gatiss?
meowmix
May 28, 2012, 9:26:15 AM5/28/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:12:18 +0100, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:27:25 -0500, "The Coca Cola Kid"
><thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In a recent interview, the Grand Moff talks about how he falls into bouts of
>>depression whenever people say that his work is 'far too clever'. Between
>>this, and another article, that quoted him as saying that erratic and
>>unpredictable broadcast schedules are a good thing, it makes me wonder if
>>Steven Moffat is losing it, or Digital Spy wants us to think that he is
>>losing it, or both?
>> There are certainly some clever ideas in Moffat's writing, but
>>oft-times the execution of those ideas, especially since he took over as the
>>show-runner, hides how clever they are. The emphasis often feels totally
>>off. Events that should have an important emotional impact, on both the
>>audience and the characters, are often glossed over, relegated to a
>>voice-mail exposition on a DVD extra, or completely ignored. The little
>>payoff that we do get on-screen often feels like too little, too late, while
>>he is throwing out the next random idea that we are already dubious about
>>him actually following through on.
>> If Russell Davies was the show's equivalent of PT Barnum, the best that
>>Steven Moffat has been able to muster, so far, is an impression of J
>>Wellington Wimpy.
>
>Moffat's 'ideas' are sound but his writing is lazy and unimaginative
>(since he took control). The season one finale was just a static
>pageant with very little story. The season 2 finale had more story
>crammed into one episode.
>
>My own view is that, at his best, he writes slowly, and can't keep up
>with the demands of delivering half a season's worth of scripts. But
>unwatchable dross.
>On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:27:25 -0500, "The Coca Cola Kid"
><thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In a recent interview, the Grand Moff talks about how he falls into bouts of
>>depression whenever people say that his work is 'far too clever'. Between
>>this, and another article, that quoted him as saying that erratic and
>>unpredictable broadcast schedules are a good thing, it makes me wonder if
>>Steven Moffat is losing it, or Digital Spy wants us to think that he is
>>losing it, or both?
>> There are certainly some clever ideas in Moffat's writing, but
>>oft-times the execution of those ideas, especially since he took over as the
>>show-runner, hides how clever they are. The emphasis often feels totally
>>off. Events that should have an important emotional impact, on both the
>>audience and the characters, are often glossed over, relegated to a
>>voice-mail exposition on a DVD extra, or completely ignored. The little
>>payoff that we do get on-screen often feels like too little, too late, while
>>he is throwing out the next random idea that we are already dubious about
>>him actually following through on.
>> If Russell Davies was the show's equivalent of PT Barnum, the best that
>>Steven Moffat has been able to muster, so far, is an impression of J
>>Wellington Wimpy.
>
>River Song was a brilliant idea totally ruined by casting Matt Smith
>as a teenage doctor.
>
>as a teenage doctor.
>
>The Silence was a brilliant idea totally ruined by a complete lack of
>development.
they should have been scary, which sadly they where far from. the ood where more scary than them and they where lame.
>development.
>Moffat's 'ideas' are sound but his writing is lazy and unimaginative
>(since he took control). The season one finale was just a static
>pageant with very little story. The season 2 finale had more story
>crammed into one episode.
>
>My own view is that, at his best, he writes slowly, and can't keep up
>with the demands of delivering half a season's worth of scripts. But
>at the same time the scripts he's commissioned from other writers have
>been weak and unsatisfactory. The only story from the last two years
>that's worked for me was The Doctor's Wife, although The Wedding of
>River Song was an improvement on the rest. But the Wardrobe was pure
>been weak and unsatisfactory. The only story from the last two years
>that's worked for me was The Doctor's Wife, although The Wedding of
>unwatchable dross.
meowmix
May 28, 2012, 9:26:15 AM5/28/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 19:29:37 -0500, "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message
>news:am9pr7pqldv9hb52l...@4ax.com...
>"Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message
>news:am9pr7pqldv9hb52l...@4ax.com...
>>River Song was a brilliant idea totally ruined by casting Matt Smith
>>as a teenage doctor.
>
>>as a teenage doctor.
>
>Matt Smith did not come across as a teenage doctor in his first stories. He
>really was convincing as a centuries-old alien... until they decided that he
>should be written as the 940 year-old virgin, and directed him to act that
>way.
mixing this with the reply below about mofet being lazy... i get: mofat pops off down to the video shop for his weekly fix of
>really was convincing as a centuries-old alien... until they decided that he
>should be written as the 940 year-old virgin, and directed him to act that
>way.
crap films^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H (lets try and give him some street cred) cult classics, and rents the classic about a
400 year old virgin vampire (i wish i could remember the name of it, count rockula or something like that), while watching it
he thinks 'i've got it, dr who can be a 900 year old virgin'. and there we have matt smith.
>>The Silence was a brilliant idea totally ruined by a complete lack of
>>development.
>>
>>Moffat's 'ideas' are sound but his writing is lazy and unimaginative
>>(since he took control). The season one finale was just a static
>>pageant with very little story. The season 2 finale had more story
>>crammed into one episode.
********
>>(since he took control). The season one finale was just a static
>>pageant with very little story. The season 2 finale had more story
>>crammed into one episode.
>>My own view is that, at his best, he writes slowly, and can't keep up
>>with the demands of delivering half a season's worth of scripts. But
>
>There is also the fact that he is not fully committed to the development and
>production of Doctor Who, since he is simultaneously spending at least as
>much time on other projects such as the remakes of old Sherlock Holmes
>stories.
>
>production of Doctor Who, since he is simultaneously spending at least as
>much time on other projects such as the remakes of old Sherlock Holmes
>stories.
>
>>at the same time the scripts he's commissioned from other writers have
>>been weak and unsatisfactory. The only story from the last two years
>>that's worked for me was The Doctor's Wife, although The Wedding of
>>River Song was an improvement on the rest.
>
>>been weak and unsatisfactory. The only story from the last two years
>>that's worked for me was The Doctor's Wife, although The Wedding of
>>River Song was an improvement on the rest.
>
>Have to disagree, here. IMHO, the other writers' stories have been very
>strong or weak, depending upon the writer. It seems that, compared to RTD,
>Moffat has been relatively hands-off when it comes to re-writing, or asking
>for massive re-writes of, others' scripts, so that they were able to rise
>(Nye, Curtis, MacRae, Whithouse) or fall (Gatiss, Chibnall, Thompson,
>Graham) on their own merits.
i think if moffat is going to prove his metal, the beeb should give him licence to write his own sci fi tv series. that way
>strong or weak, depending upon the writer. It seems that, compared to RTD,
>Moffat has been relatively hands-off when it comes to re-writing, or asking
>for massive re-writes of, others' scripts, so that they were able to rise
>(Nye, Curtis, MacRae, Whithouse) or fall (Gatiss, Chibnall, Thompson,
>Graham) on their own merits.
we can all see if he's any good or not.
>> But the Wardrobe was pure unwatchable dross.
>
meowmix
May 28, 2012, 9:26:15 AM5/28/12
to
>===
>= DUG.
>===
The Doctor
May 28, 2012, 10:46:57 AM5/28/12
to
The Doctor
May 28, 2012, 10:47:51 AM5/28/12
to
meowmix
May 28, 2012, 6:25:35 PM5/28/12
to
meowmix
May 28, 2012, 6:27:26 PM5/28/12
to
The Doctor
May 28, 2012, 7:09:26 PM5/28/12
to
meowmix
May 29, 2012, 5:54:37 AM5/29/12
to
an excellent job.
The Doctor
May 29, 2012, 10:29:22 AM5/29/12
to
Mr.Smartypants
May 29, 2012, 12:40:43 PM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 8:29 am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <c679s7l1j6sjrqodtv7vqnl459ljoir...@4ax.com>,
> In article <c679s7l1j6sjrqodtv7vqnl459ljoir...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
> >On Mon, 28 May 2012 23:09:26 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
> >>In article <6qu7s79kfraoltfvc4j1qgl7cgr4483...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
> meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
> >On Mon, 28 May 2012 23:09:26 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
> >>meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:47:51 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
> >>>>In article <3mu6s79f0v7ufhogf9td7suf3d6l3vs...@4ax.com>,
> >>>On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:47:51 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
> >>>>meowmix <meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
> >>>>>On Thu, 24 May 2012 22:30:37 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
> >>>>>>In article <jpm98f$66...@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>On Thu, 24 May 2012 22:30:37 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Charles E. Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:3be9a044-e9c1-4401...@n8g2000pbv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>> Here are Moffat's words:
>
> >>>>>>>> 'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stupid
> >>>>>>>> people about the fact the shows are complicated and clever, but (it is
> >>>>>>>> a) huge international hit... We make no apology. Do not expect to do
> >>>>>>>> the ironing; sit down, pay attention and think about it.
> >>>>>>>> 'Audiences like complexity. They follow intricately plotted soap
> >>>>>>>> operas all the time. It depresses me when people say, "It's all far
> >>>>>>>> too clever."'
>
> >>>>>>>> Source:
> >>>>>>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/22/doctor-who-steven-moffat-c...
>
> >>>>>>>> Here are Moffat's words:
>
> >>>>>>>> 'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stupid
> >>>>>>>> people about the fact the shows are complicated and clever, but (it is
> >>>>>>>> a) huge international hit... We make no apology. Do not expect to do
> >>>>>>>> the ironing; sit down, pay attention and think about it.
> >>>>>>>> 'Audiences like complexity. They follow intricately plotted soap
> >>>>>>>> operas all the time. It depresses me when people say, "It's all far
> >>>>>>>> too clever."'
>
> >>>>>>>> Source:
>
> >>>>>>>"Complicated and clever" and "huge international hit" are bold claims but
> >>>>>>>can unravel if you dig a little deeper. There's "clever" and clever, and
> >>>>>>>"hit" and hit. Moffat doesn't give much clue that he understands this. In
> >>>>>>>fact, Moffat is using the same type of argument bankers used when they were
> >>>>>>>raking in money like bandits before the crash. We know what happened next
> >>>>>>>and are still extricating ourselves from that mess.
>
> >>>>>>>--
> >>>>>>>Charles E. Hardwidge
>
> >>>>>>what about Sherlock a la Moffat/Gatiss?
>
> >>>>>moffat is no doubt holding gatiss back. cut the moffat cretin free while you can, gatiss.
>
> >>>>Same with Doctor Who?
>
> >>>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
>
> >>Getting RTD back is a step backwards.
>
> >better yet, get someone new in who actualy likes dr who and cares about it. i'm sure there are plenty of people who could do
> >an excellent job.
>
> No Atheists or Communists need not apply.
> --
How about Aggy for the job?
> >>>>>>>"Complicated and clever" and "huge international hit" are bold claims but
> >>>>>>>can unravel if you dig a little deeper. There's "clever" and clever, and
> >>>>>>>"hit" and hit. Moffat doesn't give much clue that he understands this. In
> >>>>>>>fact, Moffat is using the same type of argument bankers used when they were
> >>>>>>>raking in money like bandits before the crash. We know what happened next
> >>>>>>>and are still extricating ourselves from that mess.
>
> >>>>>>>--
> >>>>>>>Charles E. Hardwidge
>
> >>>>>>what about Sherlock a la Moffat/Gatiss?
>
> >>>>>moffat is no doubt holding gatiss back. cut the moffat cretin free while you can, gatiss.
>
> >>>>Same with Doctor Who?
>
> >>>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
>
> >>Getting RTD back is a step backwards.
>
> >better yet, get someone new in who actualy likes dr who and cares about it. i'm sure there are plenty of people who could do
> >an excellent job.
>
> No Atheists or Communists need not apply.
> --
The Doctor
May 29, 2012, 3:16:55 PM5/29/12
to
In article <1755f4a7-aea7-4916...@ra8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Mr.Smartypants <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 28 May 2012 23:09:26 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The =
>> >>meowmix =A0<meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>> >>>On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:47:51 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (Th=
>> >>>>meowmix =A0<meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>On Thu, 24 May 2012 22:30:37 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (=
>(it is
>> >>>>>>>> a) huge international hit... We make no apology. Do not expect t=
>lotted soap
>> >>>>>>>> operas all the time. It depresses me when people say, "It's all =
>far
>> >>>>>>>> too clever."'
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Source:
>> >>>>>>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/22/doctor-who-steven-moff=
>at-c...
>>
>> >>>>>>>"Complicated and clever" and "huge international hit" are bold cla=
>ims but
>> >>>>>>>can unravel if you dig a little deeper. There's "clever" and cleve=
>r, and
>> >>>>>>>"hit" and hit. Moffat doesn't give much clue that he understands t=
>his. In
>> >>>>>>>fact, Moffat is using the same type of argument bankers used when =
>they were
>> >>>>>>>raking in money like bandits before the crash. We know what happen=
Mr.Smartypants <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On May 29, 8:29=A0am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> In article <c679s7l1j6sjrqodtv7vqnl459ljoir...@4ax.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> meowmix =A0<meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>> In article <c679s7l1j6sjrqodtv7vqnl459ljoir...@4ax.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mon, 28 May 2012 23:09:26 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The =
>> >>meowmix =A0<meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>> >>>On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:47:51 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (Th=
>> >>>>meowmix =A0<meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>On Thu, 24 May 2012 22:30:37 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (=
>The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>In article <jpm98f$66...@dont-email.me>,
>> >>>>>>Charles E. Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>news:3be9a044-e9c1-4401...@n8g2000pbv.googlegroups.=
>>
>> >>>>>>In article <jpm98f$66...@dont-email.me>,
>> >>>>>>Charles E. Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>com...
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Here are Moffat's words:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> 'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stupid
>> >>>>>>>> people about the fact the shows are complicated and clever, but =
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Here are Moffat's words:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> 'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stupid
>(it is
>> >>>>>>>> a) huge international hit... We make no apology. Do not expect t=
>o do
>> >>>>>>>> the ironing; sit down, pay attention and think about it.
>> >>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0'Audiences like complexity. They follow intricately p=
>> >>>>>>>> the ironing; sit down, pay attention and think about it.
>lotted soap
>> >>>>>>>> operas all the time. It depresses me when people say, "It's all =
>far
>> >>>>>>>> too clever."'
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Source:
>> >>>>>>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/22/doctor-who-steven-moff=
>at-c...
>>
>> >>>>>>>"Complicated and clever" and "huge international hit" are bold cla=
>ims but
>> >>>>>>>can unravel if you dig a little deeper. There's "clever" and cleve=
>r, and
>> >>>>>>>"hit" and hit. Moffat doesn't give much clue that he understands t=
>his. In
>> >>>>>>>fact, Moffat is using the same type of argument bankers used when =
>they were
>> >>>>>>>raking in money like bandits before the crash. We know what happen=
>ed next
>> >>>>>>>and are still extricating ourselves from that mess.
>>
>> >>>>>>>--
>> >>>>>>>Charles E. Hardwidge
>>
>> >>>>>>what about Sherlock a la Moffat/Gatiss?
>>
>> >>>>>moffat is no doubt holding gatiss back. cut the moffat cretin free w=
>> >>>>>>>and are still extricating ourselves from that mess.
>>
>> >>>>>>>--
>> >>>>>>>Charles E. Hardwidge
>>
>> >>>>>>what about Sherlock a la Moffat/Gatiss?
>>
>hile you can, gatiss.
>>
>> >>>>Same with Doctor Who?
>>
>> >>>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
>>
>> >>Getting RTD back is a step backwards.
>>
>> >better yet, get someone new in who actualy likes dr who and cares about =
>>
>> >>>>Same with Doctor Who?
>>
>> >>>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
>>
>> >>Getting RTD back is a step backwards.
>>
>it. i'm sure there are plenty of people who could do
>> >an excellent job.
>>
>> No Atheists or Communists need not apply.
>> --
>
>
>How about Aggy for the job?
Maybe or Charles.
>> >an excellent job.
>>
>> No Atheists or Communists need not apply.
>> --
>
>
>How about Aggy for the job?
The Coca Cola Kid
May 29, 2012, 9:32:58 PM5/29/12
to
"meowmix" wrote in message
news:6qu7s79kfraoltfvc...@4ax.com...
>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
decisions made from people higher up at the BBC, that he is just trying to
spin. Unfortunately, in cases like this, he ends up making it look worse,
rather than better. I mean, come on, who seriously thinks that erratic and
unpredictable scheduling is good for the longevity of any show? Scheduling
has absolutely nothing to do with the 'freshness' of a show. It really begs
the question whether the BBC still sees Doctor Who as its flag-ship show.
As far as being clever, I believe that the old adage is 'show, not
tell'. Just take a look at how other series that have complex,
multi-threaded story-lines are written. The good ones will keep you
entertained with intelligent story-lines in the fore-ground, as well as in
the back-ground. They either give a satisfying conclusion to the questions
raised in each episode, season, etc., or they build on those questions to
move the plot forward. Current Doctor Who, on other hand, does the opposite,
starving the audience of meaningful answers, and meaning in general.
Sometimes, it even explicitly tells them to forget about the old questions
that were raised, and expects them to keep coming back and get excited about
new questions that *might* be answered, and *might* be clever, rather than a
total cop-out like the resolutions of the the last two series finales.
Of course, no matter who is the lead writer on the show, there will
still be the idiots at the BBC who think that it ought to be aimed primarily
at eight-year-olds with 'ADHD' and, despite want they may want us to think,
the writers on the show do not have that much veto power.
news:6qu7s79kfraoltfvc...@4ax.com...
>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>meowmix wrote:
>>>moffat is no doubt holding gatiss back. cut the moffat cretin free while
>>>you can, gatiss.
>>Same with Doctor Who?
>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
To be fair, there are a number is issues that are way beyond his control,
>>>moffat is no doubt holding gatiss back. cut the moffat cretin free while
>>>you can, gatiss.
>>Same with Doctor Who?
>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
decisions made from people higher up at the BBC, that he is just trying to
spin. Unfortunately, in cases like this, he ends up making it look worse,
rather than better. I mean, come on, who seriously thinks that erratic and
unpredictable scheduling is good for the longevity of any show? Scheduling
has absolutely nothing to do with the 'freshness' of a show. It really begs
the question whether the BBC still sees Doctor Who as its flag-ship show.
As far as being clever, I believe that the old adage is 'show, not
tell'. Just take a look at how other series that have complex,
multi-threaded story-lines are written. The good ones will keep you
entertained with intelligent story-lines in the fore-ground, as well as in
the back-ground. They either give a satisfying conclusion to the questions
raised in each episode, season, etc., or they build on those questions to
move the plot forward. Current Doctor Who, on other hand, does the opposite,
starving the audience of meaningful answers, and meaning in general.
Sometimes, it even explicitly tells them to forget about the old questions
that were raised, and expects them to keep coming back and get excited about
new questions that *might* be answered, and *might* be clever, rather than a
total cop-out like the resolutions of the the last two series finales.
Of course, no matter who is the lead writer on the show, there will
still be the idiots at the BBC who think that it ought to be aimed primarily
at eight-year-olds with 'ADHD' and, despite want they may want us to think,
the writers on the show do not have that much veto power.
Mr.Smartypants
May 30, 2012, 1:24:30 AM5/30/12
to
On May 29, 1:16 pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <1755f4a7-aea7-4916-b93b-971558d89...@ra8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
I'd like to see Aggy get the job (nothing personal Charles) because
Aggy's laws of physics are more interesting than the real ones and I
want to see how he works pussycats into the leading roles which I'm
sure he will do.
> In article <1755f4a7-aea7-4916-b93b-971558d89...@ra8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Aggy's laws of physics are more interesting than the real ones and I
want to see how he works pussycats into the leading roles which I'm
sure he will do.
The Laughing Dalek
May 30, 2012, 3:05:29 AM5/30/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 05:40:34 -0700 (PDT), The Coca Cola Kid
<thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 24, 6:54 am, Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 11:33 am, The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
<thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 24, 6:54 am, Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Some critics are saying that, but, more often that not, their point is
>> > that the show is often trying so hard to look cool and clever, that it
>> > forgets (or fails) to actually be cool and clever.
>>
>> But it's not Moffatt saying it. Making your claim a lie.
>
>Here are Moffat's words:
>
>'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stupid
>people about the fact the shows are complicated and clever, but (it is
>Here are Moffat's words:
>
>'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stupid
>a) huge international hit... We make no apology. Do not expect to do
>the ironing; sit down, pay attention and think about it.
> 'Audiences like complexity. They follow intricately plotted soap
>operas all the time. It depresses me when people say, "It's all far
>too clever."'
>
>Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/22/doctor-who-steven-moffat-critics-stupid_n_1536284.html
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable statement to me, but then I
actually watch the program and I've never had any problem following
any of the plot points, I find it creditable that he does not go for
lowest common denominator trash like RTD did at times (see the series
2, 3, & 4 openers)
Personally I think S6 is the strongest of all the post '05 series so
far and I eagerly await S7.
The Doctor
May 30, 2012, 8:05:33 AM5/30/12
to
The Doctor
May 30, 2012, 8:06:00 AM5/30/12
to
In article <4fe80f35-ea83-4b95...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Mr.Smartypants <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On May 29, 1:16=A0pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> In article <1755f4a7-aea7-4916-b93b-971558d89...@ra8g2000pbc.googlegroups=
>> >> >On Mon, 28 May 2012 23:09:26 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (T=
>he =3D
>> >> >>meowmix =3DA0<meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:47:51 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca =
>(Th=3D
>> >> >>>>meowmix =3DA0<meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>On Thu, 24 May 2012 22:30:37 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.c=
>a (=3D
>ps.=3D
>pid
>> >> >>>>>>>> people about the fact the shows are complicated and clever, b=
>ut =3D
>> >(it is
>> >> >>>>>>>> a) huge international hit... We make no apology. Do not expec=
>t t=3D
>icately p=3D
>> >lotted soap
>> >> >>>>>>>> operas all the time. It depresses me when people say, "It's a=
>ll =3D
>> >far
>> >> >>>>>>>> too clever."'
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Source:
>> >> >>>>>>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/22/doctor-who-steven-m=
>off=3D
>> >at-c...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>"Complicated and clever" and "huge international hit" are bold =
>cla=3D
>> >ims but
>> >> >>>>>>>can unravel if you dig a little deeper. There's "clever" and cl=
>eve=3D
>> >r, and
>> >> >>>>>>>"hit" and hit. Moffat doesn't give much clue that he understand=
>s t=3D
>> >his. In
>> >> >>>>>>>fact, Moffat is using the same type of argument bankers used wh=
>en =3D
>> >they were
>> >> >>>>>>>raking in money like bandits before the crash. We know what hap=
>pen=3D
>e w=3D
>ut =3D
Mr.Smartypants <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On May 29, 1:16=A0pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> In article <1755f4a7-aea7-4916-b93b-971558d89...@ra8g2000pbc.googlegroups=
>> >On May 29, 8:29=3DA0am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> >> In article <c679s7l1j6sjrqodtv7vqnl459ljoir...@4ax.com>,
>>
>> >> meowmix =3DA0<meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>> >> In article <c679s7l1j6sjrqodtv7vqnl459ljoir...@4ax.com>,
>>
>> >> >On Mon, 28 May 2012 23:09:26 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (T=
>he =3D
>> >> >>meowmix =3DA0<meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:47:51 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca =
>(Th=3D
>> >> >>>>meowmix =3DA0<meow.mix@FUCK_OFF_SPAMMER_meow.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>On Thu, 24 May 2012 22:30:37 +0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.c=
>a (=3D
>> >The Doctor) wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>In article <jpm98f$66...@dont-email.me>,
>> >> >>>>>>Charles E. Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>>>>>>news:3be9a044-e9c1-4401...@n8g2000pbv.googlegrou=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>In article <jpm98f$66...@dont-email.me>,
>> >> >>>>>>Charles E. Hardwidge <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>"The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>ps.=3D
>> >com...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Here are Moffat's words:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> 'There has been a weird backlash among, I presume, fairly stu=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Here are Moffat's words:
>>
>pid
>> >> >>>>>>>> people about the fact the shows are complicated and clever, b=
>ut =3D
>> >(it is
>> >> >>>>>>>> a) huge international hit... We make no apology. Do not expec=
>t t=3D
>> >o do
>> >> >>>>>>>> the ironing; sit down, pay attention and think about it.
>> >> >>>>>>>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0'Audiences like complexity. They follow intr=
>> >> >>>>>>>> the ironing; sit down, pay attention and think about it.
>icately p=3D
>> >lotted soap
>> >> >>>>>>>> operas all the time. It depresses me when people say, "It's a=
>ll =3D
>> >far
>> >> >>>>>>>> too clever."'
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Source:
>> >> >>>>>>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/22/doctor-who-steven-m=
>off=3D
>> >at-c...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>"Complicated and clever" and "huge international hit" are bold =
>cla=3D
>> >ims but
>> >> >>>>>>>can unravel if you dig a little deeper. There's "clever" and cl=
>eve=3D
>> >r, and
>> >> >>>>>>>"hit" and hit. Moffat doesn't give much clue that he understand=
>s t=3D
>> >his. In
>> >> >>>>>>>fact, Moffat is using the same type of argument bankers used wh=
>en =3D
>> >they were
>> >> >>>>>>>raking in money like bandits before the crash. We know what hap=
>pen=3D
>> >ed next
>> >> >>>>>>>and are still extricating ourselves from that mess.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>--
>> >> >>>>>>>Charles E. Hardwidge
>>
>> >> >>>>>>what about Sherlock a la Moffat/Gatiss?
>>
>> >> >>>>>moffat is no doubt holding gatiss back. cut the moffat cretin fre=
>> >> >>>>>>>and are still extricating ourselves from that mess.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>--
>> >> >>>>>>>Charles E. Hardwidge
>>
>> >> >>>>>>what about Sherlock a la Moffat/Gatiss?
>>
>e w=3D
>> >hile you can, gatiss.
>>
>> >> >>>>Same with Doctor Who?
>>
>> >> >>>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
>>
>> >> >>Getting RTD back is a step backwards.
>>
>> >> >better yet, get someone new in who actualy likes dr who and cares abo=
>>
>> >> >>>>Same with Doctor Who?
>>
>> >> >>>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
>>
>> >> >>Getting RTD back is a step backwards.
>>
>ut =3D
>> >it. i'm sure there are plenty of people who could do
>> >> >an excellent job.
>>
>> >> No Atheists or Communists need not apply.
>> >> --
>>
>> >How about Aggy for the job?
>>
>> Maybe or Charles.
>> --
>
>
>I'd like to see Aggy get the job (nothing personal Charles) because
>Aggy's laws of physics are more interesting than the real ones and I
>want to see how he works pussycats into the leading roles which I'm
>sure he will do.
Are you certain?
>> >> >an excellent job.
>>
>> >> No Atheists or Communists need not apply.
>> >> --
>>
>> >How about Aggy for the job?
>>
>> Maybe or Charles.
>> --
>
>
>I'd like to see Aggy get the job (nothing personal Charles) because
>Aggy's laws of physics are more interesting than the real ones and I
>want to see how he works pussycats into the leading roles which I'm
>sure he will do.
The Doctor
May 30, 2012, 8:06:51 AM5/30/12
to
Mr.Smartypants
May 30, 2012, 10:28:08 AM5/30/12
to
On May 30, 6:06 am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <4fe80f35-ea83-4b95-9eef-b4957ef6d...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Yes.
> In article <4fe80f35-ea83-4b95-9eef-b4957ef6d...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
solar penguin
May 30, 2012, 1:55:50 PM5/30/12
to
The Doctor wrote:
> In article <jq3tci$fjm$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> The Coca Cola Kid <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"meowmix" wrote in message
> >news:6qu7s79kfraoltfvc...@4ax.com...
> >>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> >>>meowmix wrote:
> >>>>moffat is no doubt holding gatiss back. cut the moffat cretin free while
> >>>>you can, gatiss.
> >>>Same with Doctor Who?
> >>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
> >
> > Of course, no matter who is the lead writer on the show, there will
> >still be the idiots at the BBC who think that it ought to be aimed primarily
> >at eight-year-olds with 'ADHD' and, despite want they may want us to think,
> >the writers on the show do not have that much veto power.
> >
>
> Get someone who knows what they are doing.
> --
They won't get you then.
> >still be the idiots at the BBC who think that it ought to be aimed primarily
> >at eight-year-olds with 'ADHD' and, despite want they may want us to think,
> >the writers on the show do not have that much veto power.
> >
>
> Get someone who knows what they are doing.
> --
solar penguin
May 30, 2012, 3:50:06 PM5/30/12
to
The Doctor
May 30, 2012, 4:03:28 PM5/30/12
to
Mr.Smartypants
May 31, 2012, 1:45:53 AM5/31/12
to
Mr.Smartypants
May 31, 2012, 1:55:11 AM5/31/12
to
On May 30, 2:03 pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <e7208fe2-f65b-4dd6-883d-f4dba041f...@q2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> >> In article <jq3tci$fj...@speranza.aioe.org>,
good belly laugh.
> In article <e7208fe2-f65b-4dd6-883d-f4dba041f...@q2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> >> In article <jq3tci$fj...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> >> The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >"meowmix" wrote in message
> >> >news:6qu7s79kfraoltfvc...@4ax.com...
> >> >>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> >> >>>meowmix wrote:
> >> >>>>moffat is no doubt holding gatiss back. cut the moffat cretin free while
> >> >>>>you can, gatiss.
> >> >>>Same with Doctor Who?
> >> >>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
>
> >> > Of course, no matter who is the lead writer on the show, there will
> >> >still be the idiots at the BBC who think that it ought to be aimed primarily
> >> >at eight-year-olds with 'ADHD' and, despite want they may want us to think,
> >> >the writers on the show do not have that much veto power.
>
> >> Get someone who knows what they are doing.
> >> --
>
> >They won't get you then.
>
> Who said I was applying?
> --
No one did, but you should apply anyway. Give the nobs at the Beeb a
> >> >"meowmix" wrote in message
> >> >news:6qu7s79kfraoltfvc...@4ax.com...
> >> >>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> >> >>>meowmix wrote:
> >> >>>>moffat is no doubt holding gatiss back. cut the moffat cretin free while
> >> >>>>you can, gatiss.
> >> >>>Same with Doctor Who?
> >> >>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
>
> >> > Of course, no matter who is the lead writer on the show, there will
> >> >still be the idiots at the BBC who think that it ought to be aimed primarily
> >> >at eight-year-olds with 'ADHD' and, despite want they may want us to think,
> >> >the writers on the show do not have that much veto power.
>
> >> Get someone who knows what they are doing.
> >> --
>
> >They won't get you then.
>
> Who said I was applying?
> --
good belly laugh.
solar penguin
May 31, 2012, 4:14:55 AM5/31/12
to
to give it more attention and not make it crap.
The Doctor
May 31, 2012, 7:47:20 AM5/31/12
to
In article <476c9e1a-06bc-414e...@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Mr.Smartypants <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On May 30, 2:03=A0pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> In article <e7208fe2-f65b-4dd6-883d-f4dba041f...@q2g2000vbv.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>re will
>> >> >still be the idiots at the BBC who think that it ought to be aimed pr=
>imarily
>> >> >at eight-year-olds with 'ADHD' and, despite want they may want us to =
Mr.SmartyPants is a luser lurker stalker.
Mr.Smartypants <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On May 30, 2:03=A0pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> In article <e7208fe2-f65b-4dd6-883d-f4dba041f...@q2g2000vbv.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> solar penguin =A0<solar.peng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >The Doctor wrote:
>>
>> >> In article <jq3tci$fj...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> >> The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >"meowmix" =A0wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >The Doctor wrote:
>>
>> >> In article <jq3tci$fj...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> >> The Coca Cola Kid <thecocacola...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >news:6qu7s79kfraoltfvc...@4ax.com...
>> >> >>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> >> >>>meowmix wrote:
>> >> >>>>moffat is no doubt holding gatiss back. cut the moffat cretin free=
>> >> >>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> >> >>>meowmix wrote:
> while
>> >> >>>>you can, gatiss.
>> >> >>>Same with Doctor Who?
>> >> >>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
>>
>> >> > =A0 =A0 Of course, no matter who is the lead writer on the show, the=
>> >> >>>>you can, gatiss.
>> >> >>>Same with Doctor Who?
>> >> >>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
>>
>re will
>> >> >still be the idiots at the BBC who think that it ought to be aimed pr=
>imarily
>> >> >at eight-year-olds with 'ADHD' and, despite want they may want us to =
>think,
>> >> >the writers on the show do not have that much veto power.
>>
>> >> Get someone who knows what they are doing.
>> >> --
>>
>> >They won't get you then.
>>
>> Who said I was applying?
>> --
>
>
>No one did, but you should apply anyway. Give the nobs at the Beeb a
>good belly laugh.
Lies chronic liar and satanic illuminati anti-Semitic bigot Mr.Smartypants .
>> >> >the writers on the show do not have that much veto power.
>>
>> >> Get someone who knows what they are doing.
>> >> --
>>
>> >They won't get you then.
>>
>> Who said I was applying?
>> --
>
>
>No one did, but you should apply anyway. Give the nobs at the Beeb a
>good belly laugh.
Mr.SmartyPants is a luser lurker stalker.
john smith
Jun 7, 2012, 1:49:09 PM6/7/12
to
"Mr.Smartypants" wrote in message
news:84ad6de6-0198-451a...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
On May 26, 5:16 pm, "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "The Doctor" wrote in messagenews:jprmil$pdu$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> >The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
> >>Either way, it is drastically different from the personality traits that
> >>we
> >>saw in 2010. Despite any other problems, in that season, Matt Smith
> >>shone
> >>with most the material that he was given, and belied criticisms that he
> >>was
> >>too young to play the part. Making him an awkward, virgin-type character
> >>plays right into them.
> >> And, it is not as well suited to his acting skills, IMO.
>
> >As you view it.
>
> Virgin?
He most certainly is although he's always hinting that at some point
he had some kind of sex with something or other.
He had a threesome with Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler. The clues are all
> >The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
> >>Either way, it is drastically different from the personality traits that
> >>we
> >>saw in 2010. Despite any other problems, in that season, Matt Smith
> >>shone
> >>with most the material that he was given, and belied criticisms that he
> >>was
> >>too young to play the part. Making him an awkward, virgin-type character
> >>plays right into them.
> >> And, it is not as well suited to his acting skills, IMO.
>
> >As you view it.
>
> Virgin?
He most certainly is although he's always hinting that at some point
he had some kind of sex with something or other.
there, if you know where to look!
Mr.Smartypants
Jun 7, 2012, 2:33:45 PM6/7/12
to
and obviously it wasn't that good for the succubus because it tried to
kill him with a bookcase.
The Doctor
Jun 7, 2012, 2:40:53 PM6/7/12
to
In article <nQ5Ar.7081$MP5....@fx27.am4>,
Brutal!
The Doctor
Jun 7, 2012, 2:43:21 PM6/7/12
to
In article <ea1b8586-f433-4f27...@t1g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,
Mr.Smartypants <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Jun 7, 11:49=A0am, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> "Mr.Smartypants" =A0wrote in message
>he
>> > >>was
>> > >>too young to play the part. Making him an awkward, virgin-type charac=
>ter
>> > >>plays right into them.
>> > >> =A0 =A0 And, it is not as well suited to his acting skills, IMO.
Mr.Smartypants <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Jun 7, 11:49=A0am, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> "Mr.Smartypants" =A0wrote in message
>>
>> news:84ad6de6-0198-451a...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On May 26, 5:16 pm, "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "The Doctor" =A0wrote in messagenews:jprmil$pdu$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> news:84ad6de6-0198-451a...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On May 26, 5:16 pm, "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecocacola...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > >The Coca Cola Kid wrote:
>> > >>Either way, it is drastically different from the personality traits t=
>hat
>> > >>we
>> > >>saw in 2010. Despite any other problems, in that season, Matt Smith
>> > >>shone
>> > >>with most the material that he was given, and belied criticisms that =
>> > >>we
>> > >>saw in 2010. Despite any other problems, in that season, Matt Smith
>> > >>shone
>he
>> > >>was
>> > >>too young to play the part. Making him an awkward, virgin-type charac=
>ter
>> > >>plays right into them.
>> > >> =A0 =A0 And, it is not as well suited to his acting skills, IMO.
>>
>> > >As you view it.
>>
>> > Virgin?
>>
>> He most certainly is although he's always hinting that at some point
>> he had some kind of sex with something or other.
>>
>> He had a threesome with Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler. =A0The clues are=
>> > >As you view it.
>>
>> > Virgin?
>>
>> He most certainly is although he's always hinting that at some point
>> he had some kind of sex with something or other.
>>
> all
>> there, if you know where to look!
>
>Well, I figured if he's ever had sex at all, it was with a succubus
>and obviously it wasn't that good for the succubus because it tried to
>kill him with a bookcase.
>
>
>> there, if you know where to look!
>
>Well, I figured if he's ever had sex at all, it was with a succubus
>and obviously it wasn't that good for the succubus because it tried to
>kill him with a bookcase.
>
>
Lies chronic liar and satanic illuminati anti-Semitic bigot Mr.Smartypants .
Mr.SmartyPants is a luser lurker stalker.
Mr.SmartyPants is a luser lurker stalker.
meowmix
Jun 20, 2012, 10:51:35 AM6/20/12
to
The Doctor
Jun 20, 2012, 12:23:14 PM6/20/12
to
meowmix
Jun 25, 2012, 2:42:31 PM6/25/12
to
meowmix
Jun 25, 2012, 2:42:36 PM6/25/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 20:32:58 -0500, "The Coca Cola Kid" <thecoca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"meowmix" wrote in message
>news:6qu7s79kfraoltfvc...@4ax.com...
>>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>>meowmix wrote:
>>>>moffat is no doubt holding gatiss back. cut the moffat cretin free while
>>>>you can, gatiss.
>>>Same with Doctor Who?
>>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
>
>To be fair, there are a number is issues that are way beyond his control,
>decisions made from people higher up at the BBC, that he is just trying to
>spin. Unfortunately, in cases like this, he ends up making it look worse,
he certainly didn't make it look any better. that's for sure.
>"meowmix" wrote in message
>news:6qu7s79kfraoltfvc...@4ax.com...
>>doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>>>meowmix wrote:
>>>>moffat is no doubt holding gatiss back. cut the moffat cretin free while
>>>>you can, gatiss.
>>>Same with Doctor Who?
>>sack moffat, get someone who cares.
>
>To be fair, there are a number is issues that are way beyond his control,
>decisions made from people higher up at the BBC, that he is just trying to
>spin. Unfortunately, in cases like this, he ends up making it look worse,
>rather than better. I mean, come on, who seriously thinks that erratic and
>unpredictable scheduling is good for the longevity of any show? Scheduling
>has absolutely nothing to do with the 'freshness' of a show. It really begs
>the question whether the BBC still sees Doctor Who as its flag-ship show.
it is because they're the sky+ generation and think everyone has sky+. 'hey, when you have sky+, you never have to miss a
program ever again' (yeah right, tell that to my tempramental sky box).
> As far as being clever, I believe that the old adage is 'show, not
>tell'. Just take a look at how other series that have complex,
>multi-threaded story-lines are written. The good ones will keep you
>entertained with intelligent story-lines in the fore-ground, as well as in
>the back-ground. They either give a satisfying conclusion to the questions
>raised in each episode, season, etc., or they build on those questions to
>move the plot forward.
down. i agree with what you are saying, tha kind of story telling expects the audience to pay attention. that's one of the
things i liked about fringe, a long arc story and individual stand alone epps that added to the over all wholeness.
> Current Doctor Who, on other hand, does the opposite,
>starving the audience of meaningful answers, and meaning in general.
>Sometimes, it even explicitly tells them to forget about the old questions
>that were raised, and expects them to keep coming back and get excited about
>new questions that *might* be answered, and *might* be clever, rather than a
>total cop-out like the resolutions of the the last two series finales.
> Of course, no matter who is the lead writer on the show, there will
>still be the idiots at the BBC who think that it ought to be aimed primarily
>at eight-year-olds with 'ADHD' and, despite want they may want us to think,
>the writers on the show do not have that much veto power.
40 odd minutes.
The Doctor
Jun 25, 2012, 4:02:39 PM6/25/12
to
0 new messages