I don't think Joss Whedon gets it right all the time, not by far (though i don't share most people's concerns about Penny's death because for me it was meant to be extraordinarily exploitative from the beginning and i just thought it was fitting for that story that he'd used that particular cliche we've seen a million times -on the other hand, i do see why people got angry about it and probably is me reading it all wrong) but i do agree that it's time writers and producers try at least. also, i think they should learn from their mistakes-
-and in that RTD is EPIC FAIL. he just makes the same mistakes over and over. and i'm convinced that if you try to explain to him he won't see what's wrong with Ianto's death. i bet for him it's A GOOD THING, i bet he thinks he is giving him a hero's death or some shit (since i haven't seen the episode, i don't know the tone of the whole thing, tho). like when he didn't understand why people got upset about the Doctor's treatment of Martha in season 3. he is just blind to the readings people make of his writing choices. and when you are writing prime-time telly, well, it's a good think to be aware of how the audience might react to what you write, at least have a vague idea. because otherwise you can be in a mess you never intended to be in.
Ah, no, I see what you mean. See, I read it as attempting to clearly subvert the genre it was aiming rather than subverting-by-embodiment re: Penny's 'disposable woman' death, which was why it (for me as a reader/viewer) failed). At the time, it didn't bother me, but then it rankled. I think we need more TV that actively subverts, rather than faux or meta-subverts. The ironic joke is easier, but surely that's just sidestepping rather than addressing the problem?
Yeah on the RTD stuff. The 'Heroic Sacrifice' route is used by quite a proportion of the 'dead queer on tv' tropes as well, which is why I think it's so tired. (And yeah on Martha in S3-- though I got into DW so late that I already knew what was going to happen, so I wasn't living through it, it didn't have as much of an impact because I expected it, as it were).
Well, some of the writers of my favourite shows-- The Wire and the Sopranos in particular come to mind, have outright said things like 'we don't believe in always giving the audience what they want, right now', that sometimes greater value and purpose can be gained through delay and *not* gratifying short-term audience desire, and I completely agree. TV at its best works in an arena of give and take, and it can be incredible when shows surprise you, subvert you, challenge you. But: DW and TW don't quite work along the same lines, they are prime-time, popular TV, but, more importantly, if you're going to set out to fuck with your audience in whatever way-- you really do have to be prepared to pay up. To deliver. That's the other side of the contract between creator and consumer, and that's a contract that all "art" makes with their audience. (Longwinded way of saying: no, I don't quite buy the 'artistic integrity' defence on this one.)
The ironic joke is easier, but surely that's just sidestepping rather than addressing the problem?
I agree with that. And see? I'm too dumb to properly discuss Joss Whedon but I enjoyed Dr.Horrible in that capacity of "subverting-by-embodiment" but I was also the first to say back in the day that it could have been something infinitely better if it hadn't limited by its own "birth of a villain" vocation. mainly because letting Penny die still thinking that Captain Hammer was the hero is incredibly excruciating for me as an audience. But on the whole Dr.Horrible issue i was on the side of those who actually liked it.
no, I don't quite buy the 'artistic integrity' defence on this one
see, I'm the first one who wants tv shows that don't give audience what they want (but what they need) but that's not the case here. the writers of Doctor Who and Torchwood are not bothering the viewers on purpose or with a plan, they actually don't know what they are doing. they make things up as they go. they write in an rush (both the season 3 finale and the season 4 finale were written in a rush, i believe).
and it's a shame. because i'm actually one of those few people that believe that, given the time and the proper editing, RTD can turn in very good scripts. I still think "The Second Coming" is a brilliant show. i have extreme fondness for "Casanova". there are scripts of his in the Whovers among my favourites of the new show ("Gridlock" for example).
so not even the lack of talent is an excuse in this case. they should think harder what they are going to do.
anyway, why are you getting me worked up about Ianto's death? i hated the guy!
-and in that RTD is EPIC FAIL. he just makes the same mistakes over and over. and i'm convinced that if you try to explain to him he won't see what's wrong with Ianto's death. i bet for him it's A GOOD THING, i bet he thinks he is giving him a hero's death or some shit (since i haven't seen the episode, i don't know the tone of the whole thing, tho). like when he didn't understand why people got upset about the Doctor's treatment of Martha in season 3. he is just blind to the readings people make of his writing choices. and when you are writing prime-time telly, well, it's a good think to be aware of how the audience might react to what you write, at least have a vague idea. because otherwise you can be in a mess you never intended to be in.
Reply
Yeah on the RTD stuff. The 'Heroic Sacrifice' route is used by quite a proportion of the 'dead queer on tv' tropes as well, which is why I think it's so tired. (And yeah on Martha in S3-- though I got into DW so late that I already knew what was going to happen, so I wasn't living through it, it didn't have as much of an impact because I expected it, as it were).
Well, some of the writers of my favourite shows-- The Wire and the Sopranos in particular come to mind, have outright said things like 'we don't believe in always giving the audience what they want, right now', that sometimes greater value and purpose can be gained through delay and *not* gratifying short-term audience desire, and I completely agree. TV at its best works in an arena of give and take, and it can be incredible when shows surprise you, subvert you, challenge you. But: DW and TW don't quite work along the same lines, they are prime-time, popular TV, but, more importantly, if you're going to set out to fuck with your audience in whatever way-- you really do have to be prepared to pay up. To deliver. That's the other side of the contract between creator and consumer, and that's a contract that all "art" makes with their audience. (Longwinded way of saying: no, I don't quite buy the 'artistic integrity' defence on this one.)
Reply
I agree with that. And see? I'm too dumb to properly discuss Joss Whedon but I enjoyed Dr.Horrible in that capacity of "subverting-by-embodiment" but I was also the first to say back in the day that it could have been something infinitely better if it hadn't limited by its own "birth of a villain" vocation. mainly because letting Penny die still thinking that Captain Hammer was the hero is incredibly excruciating for me as an audience. But on the whole Dr.Horrible issue i was on the side of those who actually liked it.
no, I don't quite buy the 'artistic integrity' defence on this one
see, I'm the first one who wants tv shows that don't give audience what they want (but what they need) but that's not the case here. the writers of Doctor Who and Torchwood are not bothering the viewers on purpose or with a plan, they actually don't know what they are doing. they make things up as they go. they write in an rush (both the season 3 finale and the season 4 finale were written in a rush, i believe).
and it's a shame. because i'm actually one of those few people that believe that, given the time and the proper editing, RTD can turn in very good scripts. I still think "The Second Coming" is a brilliant show. i have extreme fondness for "Casanova". there are scripts of his in the Whovers among my favourites of the new show ("Gridlock" for example).
so not even the lack of talent is an excuse in this case. they should think harder what they are going to do.
anyway, why are you getting me worked up about Ianto's death? i hated the guy!
Reply
It's all part of my devious queer agenda! :D
Reply
Leave a comment