Getting-A-Bit-Rough-Is-It?

[parma_violets]

Like a lot of magazines, Doctor Who Magazine puts a little easter egg in the small print on its credits/contents page consisting of a little skit or piece of nonsense to make the readers laugh, which it usually does. Not this time, though:

What if... the internet had existed in 1967: "Innes Lloyd must go now! And his fey agenda! Who is this '

Comments

[jakiri]

I have no idea if this entry is mocking people who don't like some of the changes that the series has undergone, or whether it's mocking the people who mock the people who don't like some of the changes.

[parma_violets]

The entry, or the quote from DWM? The quote from DWM is doing the first one, and this entry is doing the second.

[trav28]

I adore new Who, I think RTD is a talented guy and Moffat is spot on. Does that make me a bad person?

Oh...and I hate "super fans". They're more nauseating than the ring piece of a pig suffering from the exploding squits.

[parma_violets]

I adore new Who, I think RTD is a talented guy and Moffat is spot on. Does that make me a bad person?

Oh, dear God, no! I'd never disparage someone for holding an opinion that's contrary to mine. Which is why I get so wound up when I read something like that DWM piece, which seems to be saying that a certain opinion is by definition invalid.

[iainjclark]

I think those jokes sound entirely innoccuous, personally. It's hardly cutting-edge satire to point out that more or less every era has fans who hate the current direction. Particularly a show with as may eras as Doctor Who. :-)

(Oh, and just to show how out of Doctor Who fandom I actually am, what's the 'silly name' reference in relation to?)

[parma_violets]

It could very easily be a parody of the style of debating, rather than the opinions - you know, all that "Davies is killing the show, forty-three years of television is being ruined, never as good as it was back in 1963 anyway" stuff - but it's not really clear. I think that, if they couldn't make it a bit more apparent what they were making fun of, they should have canned it altogether and left it as a private joke among the staff. Coupled with the remarkably uncritical reviews for new season episodes they've been running recently, it left a fairly sour taste in my mouth.

(Even I'm not sure about the silly name reference. Perhaps people have been saying Martha sounds a bit too old-fashioned for the hip young thrusting 21st century girl the new companion will probably turn out to be?)

[violetcreme]

But Steven is right in a way, you can't have an asexual Doctor in New Who really can you ? which is essentially what he's saying. Whether certain factions (and I know little about what factions there are, I'm just guessing) like the Doctor/Rose squee that goes on - it's popular, profitable and equals ratings. I don't think that's a bad thing, I doubt there would be NewWho without it to be honest. It's no good wanting something that just isn't on screen or viable to be on screen. Unless that's not what you're saying, in which case I'm off to have a cheese sandwhich...

[parma_violets]

I don't really disagree with the text of the message - though I have a fairly low tolerance towards 'romantic interest of the week' stories in any series, because they usually end up making the hero look fickle and shallow - it's the way it's put across, which smells a bit of "you'll take what you get and like it too". I mean, just because the new series is being made in a certain way doesn't mean it's sacrosanct, or that you can't say that some of the decisions made in it don't appeal to you. It's not above criticism just because it exists, though I sometimes wonder if some of the writers think it is.

[violetcreme]

Actually oddly enough, I've just found a fabulous article by Paul Cornell that addresses the *exact* same thing that I'm going to put up, probably at the weekend.

I think there's a certain trait of that in all writers though. You write something, you produce it, you live it 24/7 and it's difficult to fully understand the mindset of 8 million diverging viewpoints on it. I remember Chris Carter had the exact same attitude (and it eventually cost him his franchise in my opinion) - in fact he said in an interview that the fans "didn't know what was good for them" with regards to his new characters. In other words, "I'm giving this to you and you don't like it ? well fuck you, you idiots!" I don't think RTD et al are there yet, but the success of New Who has got to provoke that in some way.

FWIW, I don't think that was what Steven was saying. I think he was just being obvious - you may want it, but it's not what's happened, so.....

[parma_violets]

Yeah, I remember Joss Whedon saying something similar during the late stages of Buffy about how he didn't give his fans what they wanted, he gave them what they needed. And everyone was like "We need plot holes?"

I'd be interested to read Cornell's article. I don't think the Who writing staff are crazed egomaniacs (well, maybe the odd one...), but it does make you terribly nostalgic for the days when Philip Hinchcliffe and Robert Holmes presided over an even more popular incarnation of the show and managed to avoid any embarrassing outbursts.

[cpt_buggernuts]

Are you me from the past?

[parma_violets]

Hahaha, well excavated!

I do agree with your standpoint there - I agreed with it then, after they aired a series I generally liked, and I agree with it now, after a season that seems to get worse and worse the more I think about it. The superfans seem to have been extra-defensive this year; the reviews in DWM would often include at least a token nitpick, just to show objectivity, but this season only the most gushing praise will do.