Doctor Who [11]

Yeah, because he has nothing to do with this show of course..

The 5 year head-writer/producer..

I have no idea what that is in reference to as it seems entirely disjointed from what precedes it.

What has him being show runner for 5 years got to do with him thinking it was a good idea to introduce the sunglasses so kids who cant afford the screwdriver toy can legitimately play as the Doctor?

Him talking about and praising the show doesn't include his work on it?

The five year head-writer/producer of course has nothing to do with the show, so his praise of the show can't entail his own work on it, of course..

I'll try to remember that.

Given your seeming dislike of the man personally, I would think you would have seen a lot more of him, in which case you would be more than aware of how he speaks of the show and refers to it- as the thing he grew up watching, as the show that inspired him to be a writer, as the the show that will long outlast him and go on after he is long gone.
In every instance where he refers to the show itself he does so in the bigger context- the only reason to assume on this one occasion he is for some reason not is to cheaply slag him off.

To be honest I don't get or understand this need to hate a person whose writing you don't like- I don't like RTD's take on Who for the most part but I have no ill feelings towards the man personally, I have never questioned his genuine intentions, his genuine life long love of the show, or his importance in its revival.
The need to vilify a person you do not know just to try to score cheap points seems unbelievably trivial to me and needlessly petty and personal.

Yeah, let's label me as someone not liking him. And that being the hysterical side of the argument.

Because logically Stephen Moffat is of course the most wonderful human being to walk the earth. That's the view anyone sensible would take, right?

And I still think pushing kids before you to make points on your critics is pretty low.

Yeah, let's label me as someone not liking him.- Blue

I am not- its in all your posts about him. Personal slurs, insults, attacks on him as a person.
The actual critical analysis of his work is shocking in its absence- attacks on him as a person, abundant.

'And I still think pushing kids before you to make points on your critics is pretty low. '

You hit the nail there- 'I still think'- you may do but it seems to me to come entirely from your own prejudice here- becuase you are reversing something to make it fit your agenda.

Moffat was asked about the sunglasses- he explained why he did it. So any kid can play at being the Doctor without needing an expensive toy.
You are turning that round to say he is using children to attack his critics rather than it was his genuine motivation (and we have no reason to think otherwise) given as a reason to a direct question.
He is not attacking his critics, he is responding to his critics asking him a direct question about it. That his critics find the answer uncomfortable because its a damn good reason to do it, is not his issue, its theirs.

Hahahaha.. God.. You know I would pick on the continued "prejudice"s and "personal slurs, insults, attacks" if you weren't making my case so well for me.

I'm sorry Petty, you are so far on the other side of the chasm on any discussion on Moffat you could probably not even hear me calling you.

When you realize and admit that you play a partisan role in any discussion on Moffat, perhaps we can have a serious discussion. (That would entail leaving the labelling tactics behind too though.) As long as you keep presenting yourself as the moderate middle of the road guy, we really don't have much to talk about on this.

Lets revise just this conversaiton then Blue-

'from Moffat yet where he doesn't come across as smarmy and self satisfied'- personal attack, two of them.
'he most self satisfied man in television'- personal attack
'praising his own ideas'- implying he is egotistical as a negative, personal slur
'pushing kids before him in his conflict with his critics'- making an accusation questioning his character based on no evidence and reversal of what he actually said.

I see no critical analysis of his work here, nothing pertinent to his writing or in fact really to anything- you just saw an excuse to make personal attacks on Moffat. There is nothing else there.

'When you realize and admit that you play a partisan role in any discussion on Moffat, perhaps we can have a serious discussion.'

I have never made any bones nor hidden my admiration for Moffats writing- and on his writing I will defend that corner in discussion- thats not what is happening with you here Blue however, you are not debating the mans work but the man himself- and I find that, as I have said before wrong and something that should be opposed no matter who the person under attack is in such circumstances.
Playing the man not the ball is not acceptable in any circumstances- its just really low and the last refuge of those who have nothing substantial to say on the real topic- the work.

Anyone know how reliable Rotten Tomatoes is as guide to films and TV?

Series 9 overall of Who is currently rated 100% With 'average tomatometer at 89% and Average audience score 87%.

But I have never used the site, though I've heard of it, so dont know how generally accurate it is. Anyone use Rotten Tomatoes?

I trust it probably 85-95% of the time for movies (ones with a significant number of reviews that is). Television ratings are a newer feature of the site, and I don't have much experience with watching a show and then reading its reviews on RT and then judging whether the rating it got was appropriate.

What you really need to do though Petty, is to look at the "Average Rating" that is found with the Percentage Fresh score. That gives you a more balanced idea of how highly people have rated a film or tv show than simply going off of the Percentage.

Breaking Bad, however, has 126 reviews and a 95% Fresh rating (78% for season 1, and then 100 the rest of the way). So that's something. It actually started with 8.3 in its first season, and then steadily increased to 9.3, 9.2, 9.4 and then to 9.8. As far as a weighted score (a significant number of critics), Season 5 of Breaking Bad is the best reviewed season of television on Rotten Tomatoes (and probably most other places, for that matter.)


As for films, they generally get overly positive reviews right before they are released, and then drop by anywhere from 5-15%. I'm not sure what happens with tv series as they come out.

The last two seasons of Doctor Who have 8.1/10 ratings. Season 8 has a 91%, while season 9 is 100%.
The problem is with these is that they aren't very inclusive. Only 23 critics have reviewed Season 8, and only 18 have reviewed season 9. As for the audience reviews, this will only include people who have logged into the website after (presumably) having seen the show and will, therefore, be biased toward a certain demographic. I'm pretty sure that means that the audience reception is biased in a positive way, but I'm not certain.

P.S.
I just looked it up, and Rotten Tomatoes does not really indicate any change of quality from seasons 1-4 and season 5 of Game of Thrones. The only indication is an 11% drop in audience "Fresh" reviews, and a drop from 4.7/5 to 4.3/5 from the previous season (with season 1 being the second lowest audience rating at 4.6). As one of the crabbit many who was increasingly more upset with how Season 5 turned out, I find this aspect of Rotten Tomatoes to be utterly incompetent.

I'm pretty sure that means that the audience reception is biased in a positive way, but I'm not certain.- Forest

Well they are Who 'fans' many of whom seemingly only tune in week after week to say how terrible it is- so I see why you'd be uncertain!

But thanks for the breakdown- its one of these sites you hear cited a lot in the media but I've never actually looked into it.

Well yeah, I was going to say that I didn't know what Figgs did with the rest of her spare time, but as the audience ratings were pretty high that joke didn't work as well as it could have.

I wrangle eels in my spare time. but my main hobby is Scotshobbit baiting.

Bloody Northern lassies!


as the audience ratings were pretty high- Forest

No way to judge for me how accurate the site might be but it is interesting that they are almost exactly the same sort of scores as the average score on the Gallifrey Base polls, and the average BBC AI's.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Anyone know how reliable Rotten Tomatoes is as guide to films and TV?

Series 9 overall of Who is currently rated 100% With 'average tomatometer at 89% and Average audience score 87%.

But I have never used the site, though I've heard of it, so dont know how generally accurate it is. Anyone use Rotten Tomatoes?

Well the Tomatometer just measures how many critics liked a film (or TV show, but they're best known for films). A meh 2.5/5 review, if RT's editors deem it to be positive, will count the same thing as an OMGOMGOMG 5/5 review. They also give an average rating, which takes into account how much reviewers liked a season. S9 is currently at 8.1/10. The 89% figure is the average for all nine seasons so far.

I personally find RT's methodology less helpful than a weighted average like Metacritic (though both suffer from the problem of trying to boil criticism down to simple numbers), but there is an additional problem with TV review aggregating, which Forest alludes to. Most TV reviewing these days is done episode-to-episode, and so reviewers who don't care much for a show will often not stick around long. By the ninth season of something, you're left with not much by the fanboys. The content of these reviews beyond the score does not factor into RT's calculations unless they need to determine if something with a score at the mid-point of a scale (eg, 5/10) should be considered positive or negative. However, if you actually read these reviews, they're mostly trash that just summarizes the events of an episode and maybe if you're lucky shares a couple of the reviewer's opinions.

-------

http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/viewtopic.forum?t=1231