Doctor Who [12]

Oh, dear. The popularity line again.- Blue

For a lawyer thats a poor equating of arguments Blue.

The post about its critical reception was putting the evidence in opposition to Amaries assertion that the series was as equally disliked as liked- when that is clearly not the case.

It makes no attempt to apply popularity to any other argument or defence.

Although in a broader point it is quite important for a tv show that survives as a popular mass entertainment to be popular. That Who can be popular and deliver episodes like Heaven Sent is why its lasted 52 years.

But let's not get popularity and critical respect mixed up. The American show "Home Improvement" was very popular, but it's many 'awards' were mainly kid's choice award, and award for favorite actor. Critics largely pooh-poohed it (rightly so).

Who seems to be getting lots of critical attention, possibly more than popular attention these days.

Yet it has a larger global audience, and is shown in more countries than at any time in its history. And for the first time ever it is the BBC Worldwide top program for sales (its been the lead drama one for a while now).

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The post about its critical reception was putting the evidence in opposition to Amaries assertion that the series was as equally disliked as liked- when that is clearly not the case.

No one asserted that brah

'some say nay, some say yeah' is an equally balanced sentence- by implication it says that the two sides are equal. That seems perfectly clear to me. When in reality the two sides are not equal and more accurately it should have said, 'a few say nay, most say yeah' which is clearly not an equally balanced sentence.

'a few say nay, most say yeah' isn't true. Most people don't watch Who at all.

You reading that into her post might have made sense if the topic being discussed at that point was the relative numbers of people who liked/didn't like recent Who, which it wasn't. Rather, the topic was reviews that Amarië had read. And it's not like Amarië was basing her decision to put off watching the show on the numbers involved -- she specifically mentioned your posts about the show as one of the things that contributed to her decision. As I'm sure we both remember from TH, even positive reviews can contain information about a film/show that is off-putting.

More to the point, however, I feel that you come across as needlessly aggressive whenever people question Moffat, and while I get that there's a long history to this dispute, I find it really uncomfortable to read. Reminds me of people who used to jump down my throat for not liking PJ's LOTR as much as I was "supposed to".

It's almost as bad as my bitchin' about rap music.

Almost.

I have no problem with anyone who dislikes Moffats writing- it the continuous underhanded insidious and implied discrediting with no backup evidence or honest forthright argument. And when I do give the evidence to show the contrary I am accused of the sort of stuff you have just accused me of.

Its not like the sort of remark Amarie made- thinly veiled criticism just for the sake of it and to provoke (which it must be in this case as she has not actually watched the series under discussion) is anything new from a few folks.

Proper debate, proper critique, and proper evidence I have no problem with. But denigrating someone's work, or often here their person, just because you don't like something they have written is not the same thing. And I will continue to aggressively oppose that every time.

Uh...



Dude, I mean ... dude. "Denigrating someone's work, or ... their person." Have you read any of your posts about PJ recently? Like, literally any single one of them?

Fuck you. I have never said anything about Pj as a person which was not clearly in jest. Things said here about Moffat personaly are not said in any fashion as a jest.

I have always defended PJ's work prior to LoTR's as well as his skill as a director and I still like the films of his I liked before he made LotR's as highly as I always did.
I never opposed him directing Who either though I do have concerns about what he should do and how wide a brief.
And these are views I have always stated on here about PJ. In fact its not the first time I have had to write almost this exact paragraph explaining my often stated position on PJ.

The difference in personal slurs against Moffat as a person, and statements which simply contradict all the known facts then a refusal to provide any back up of evidence for it is of a different sort entirely.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Fuck you. I have never said anything about Pj as a person which was not clearly in jest. Things said here about Moffat personaly are not said in any fashion as a jest.

Even if I were to concede that all of your comments about PJ were obvious jokes -- which I absolutely do not -- the above quote is a huge backpedal from your position of 13 minutes previously when you deplored the practice of "denigrating someone's work". Moving the goalposts like that is no way to have a "proper debate", as you put it. Though my main point, as mentioned previously, is that coming at people so aggressively and consistently is not really conducive to a pleasant or respectful discussion environment either. I do not think that you are trying to chase anyone out of the Who thread, but at some point, I think it behooves all of us to stop and examine our own behavior if we repeatedly receive the same observation or criticism from multiple people.

Amarië wrote:Nope. Saw the first episode and it still feels like a boring chore to see the rest. I haven't read anything here that entices me to watch anything. Maybe when Finrod is done with his Blacklist.

I just thought of your post on The Changing of the Guard story thread regards Moffat! Am I paranoid? But... Well.. You don't seem to even like Moffat!!!!

Eldorion wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Fuck you. I have never said anything about Pj as a person which was not clearly in jest. Things said here about Moffat personaly are not said in any fashion as a jest.

Even if I were to concede that all of your comments about PJ were obvious jokes -- which I absolutely do not -- the above quote is a huge backpedal from your position of 13 minutes previously when you deplored the practice of "denigrating someone's work". Moving the goalposts like that is no way to have a "proper debate", as you put it. Though my main point, as mentioned previously, is that coming at people so aggressively and consistently is not really conducive to a pleasant or respectful discussion environment either. I do not think that you are trying to chase anyone out of the Who thread, but at some point, I think it behooves all of us to stop and examine our own behavior if we repeatedly receive the same observation or criticism from multiple people.

Oh dear. Still a very feisty thread, I see.

I don't know Moffat. He seems friendly and enthusiastic. But his good intentions -  I assume they are good - does not seem to translate fully onto the screen. Who is then to be blamed when things read differently than intended?

To be more precise, as I should have been instead of saying it like some inside joke; Your Amarie did, in that section of the story, remind me of the similar looking and tropy- or extremely different and unique, depending on your view- villains of Moffat's who.

That said though, I see your laugh in the face and the fuck you and you should both know your Admin is watching.

And while I in Admin mode, I want something to be made clear. Any broad side attacks as the one Semiramis received in here will not be tolerated. This thread is not likely to simmer down to a polite tea party with extra sugar and fresh cookies, but we shall be VERY aware of whom we are talking or yelling at. This is not up for debate.

Page pwn!

Yeah, things can get a bit overheated. I guess the unwritten rule about everyone being expected to pull back and reflect on things before things get far too far. out of hand apply here. Sometimes we get a bit too fired up for whatever reason, but it's also worth remembering that we are, at heart, all friends and have always calmed down and moved on again as if nothing negative had occurred. That's the Forumshire way.

Oi! Oi! whats all this?!!!! its clearly stated in reg.1 sub clause 234 of the Forumshire rools that you cant have an incendiary Who thread argument without the principal Moffat hater. ie, Me.


((((((bloody hell have I missed it!)))))

Ooh, what wicked rebuttals 'twixt Petty and Eldo!

Dr Who does bring out the wicked in people, that's true. If you exchange passioniate or testy for wicked, that is...

Mrs Figg wrote:Oi! Oi! whats all this?!!!! its clearly stated in reg.1 sub clause 234 of the Forumshire rools that you cant have an incendiary Who thread argument without the principal Moffat hater. ie, Me.


((((((bloody hell have I missed it!)))))

I only ignore the rules, Julia, I don't enforce them!

Is this some sort of agressive church I've walked in on? Calm down....

Well, I'll be the first to admit my last comment on the Who thread was neither constructive nor very nice. And for that I am sorry. That is probably an effect of me not being in all that great a mood these days in general, but also of my feelings on Moffats work in general and Doctor Who in particular. So, I thought I'd try to say a couple of words as to why.

In it's basics it's very simple. I don't rate Moffat as a writer, nor have I ever. I find his writing particularly for Who, on the most part has flattered to deceive and at times completely failed at the most basic demand of any writing, being comprehensible. At any rate, I don't think it has ever impressed me in the way it seems to have a lot of people. And this is kind of the problem. I find Moffats writing in general not to be anything special, and at times outright problematic. So, the seeming broad deification that seems to go on around him as a character and as a writer, by a lot more people than Petty, rubs me the wrong way.

The sad part of this is that my disillusion with Moffat and his work has lead to a fall out, on my part, with Doctor Who as a tv-show. Now, I never rated RtD, nor liked his tenure as a showrunner, but I was kind of hopeful that things would get better under Moffat. To me, it did not. Moffat has driven me up the wall with his writing. And in particular with the disjointed and confusing end of season specials he has put out. Which seemed, to my mind, to show Moffat incapability of writing the large monumental end of show specials he seemed to think the show demanded. Being able to write clever narratives is all very good, but it does not help when you can't do simple when simple is what is needed.

The cyberman special at the end of the last season was in this regard the final straw for me and effectively ended my interest in the show. It was all I felt was wrong with the show and Moffats writing, and I found very little to redeem it.

When will I see a Doctor Who episode again? I have no idea. (And that's coming from someone who does in general share your positive view of Cipaldi.) Chris Chibnall does not fill me with any sense of anticipation, and to be honest I might rate his writing even less than I do Moffats. He doesn't seem to have this deification by adoring fans going on though, which makes me less likely to make my disenchantment known.

All in all, I hope you know noone on here begrudges you loving Who's current setup, Petty. We might just not all agree on it. It's far away from being the worst thing on television, that would easily be Game of Thrones on an expectation/result basis, but it's not something that enthuses me. However much it might enthuse someone else.

I'm not sure when I'll make a comment on a Who related matter again, because my interest for it seems to have faded. Perhaps the previous will make my previous comments on the issue a bit more understandable. If I have not been all that nice about it.. Well, I am sorry. I guess it was a consequence of frustration. I do normally try to be though, and prefer to be, nice about things. Even what I might disagree with someone about.

I do agree that openly stating negativity about something someone else love is neither very nice, nor very productive. On the whole it's rather pointless. Because if you have a tv show you love, particularily having gone through a rather painful disenchantment with my own previous favourite show, I'm really very happy for you.

So while we might disagree on Who in the continuing, I do hope we don't have to fall out over it.

We could take the easy option and just blame you, Blue, but I know Amarie will say something like: "The easiest option is not always the best option." And I guess she'd probably be right. Just the same, I'll argue for the option at the next Forumshire Council meeting, if you like. 

But for the time being, chill. Everyone is to blame, no one is to blame, yarda yarda yarda... We'll survive. Even if it's just Amarie and me left in the Council jacuzzi in the end. Things could be worse, I guess. 

Don't beat yourself up Blue. Leave that to me.