neil gaimens doctor who episode
- Thread starter chris.ph
- Start date
Oooh, oooh, I've been reading synopses and the official website. Oh, I can't WAIT to watch this one! 
And yes, I know that five smileys is not a flattering indication of my mental state.
After the average The Curse of the Black Spot, I really, really am looking forward to The Doctor's Wife!
I am jumping up and down with excitement behind the computer screen. Take it as read that I am doing that.
And yes, I know that five smileys is not a flattering indication of my mental state.
After the average The Curse of the Black Spot, I really, really am looking forward to The Doctor's Wife!
I am jumping up and down with excitement behind the computer screen. Take it as read that I am doing that.
Sjoerd3000 said:
It was great! I hope Neil will write some more episodes in the future
I hope Neil will write some more episodes in the future
EDIT: It was Tony, and the link is here:
http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/gaiman-on-doctor-who-future-19960.htm
Penfold said:
Enjoyed that one, now all we need is for Sir Terry to write an episode.
This episode was brilliant though, going to watch it again later today.
The Mad Collector said:
Penfold said:
Enjoyed that one, now all we need is for Sir Terry to write an episode.
This episode was brilliant though, going to watch it again later today.
http://www.sfx.co.uk/2010/05/03/guest-b ... octor-who/
Sjoerd3000 said:
The Mad Collector said:
Penfold said:
Enjoyed that one, now all we need is for Sir Terry to write an episode.
This episode was brilliant though, going to watch it again later today.
http://www.sfx.co.uk/2010/05/03/guest-b ... octor-who/
That's it. I issue a challenge to Terry Pratchett. Regardless of whether he is interested in writing for the program or not, I want him to write a story, if only to show us how Doctor Who and its storytelling could be improved by his presence.
And by the way, Terry, they aren't all deus ex machinas. There are foreshadowings some of the time. And as for the science fiction being soft, Terrance Dicks, who has done more writing than you, cheerfully stated Clarke's Law. And you use the reverse of Clarke's Law so many times in your writings, it isn't funny.
I didn't read any despising in that piece. Rather, I read a critical opinion of a program that he feels doesn't live up to it's potential.
I quote: 'And yet, I will watch again next week because it is pure professionally-written entertainment, even if it helps sometimes if you leave your brain on a hook by the door. It’s funny, light-hearted, knows when to use pathos and capable of wonderful moments'
I saw Pirates of the Caribbean 3 over the weekend. I know it's no masterpiece and it has it's flaws but I enjoyed it nonetheless.
His main gripes seem to be that:
- the quality of the writing is inconsistent. He mentions some great episodes (like Blink) and some awful ones (his pick 'Partners in Crime'). I agree, and the last two episodes are examples of both - the horrible Black Spot versus the great Gaiman adventure.
- People call it science fiction and he disagrees. I can't say I agree with that, it's feels pedantic. He does have a point about the plausibility of some of the tech stuff though, especially the magic wand sonic screwdriver. Then again, we're talking about a show with a time-travelling police box
- Deus ex Machinas and the Doctor's omnipotency. Can't say I blame him for mentioning this, the moments of tension in the show are usually when what happens is out of his hands and depends on the humans/aliens' decisions or actions. I'm sure you've got many examples of moments where this isn't the case though
Now, I've loved shows and seen them deterioriate over time (for example My Name is Earl, How I Met Your Mother, The Simpsons). I still watch them, they still entertain me, but they're not as good as they were in my opinion. Others may disagree and I'd argue with them about it. However, I'd hope their arguments wouldn't include things like 'who has done more writing than you' - Ed Wood made more movies than Stanley Kubrick, that doesn't make him more (or less!) qualified to comment on any movie-related subject. I've also loved shows throughout their full run, like Lost and Deep Space Nine. But I know that those shows had their problem episodes that I'd rather skip on a rewatch.
I do agree that criticizing something is easy, doing it better yourself is hard. Then again, didn't Neil Gaiman say something in an interview that he would like to write another episode again if the story fitted? A story written out of spite or just to prove something doesn't feel right
Don't read Terry's post as a personal attack on you. Read it as one writer's critical opinion on a show.
I quote: 'And yet, I will watch again next week because it is pure professionally-written entertainment, even if it helps sometimes if you leave your brain on a hook by the door. It’s funny, light-hearted, knows when to use pathos and capable of wonderful moments'
I saw Pirates of the Caribbean 3 over the weekend. I know it's no masterpiece and it has it's flaws but I enjoyed it nonetheless.
His main gripes seem to be that:
- the quality of the writing is inconsistent. He mentions some great episodes (like Blink) and some awful ones (his pick 'Partners in Crime'). I agree, and the last two episodes are examples of both - the horrible Black Spot versus the great Gaiman adventure.
- People call it science fiction and he disagrees. I can't say I agree with that, it's feels pedantic. He does have a point about the plausibility of some of the tech stuff though, especially the magic wand sonic screwdriver. Then again, we're talking about a show with a time-travelling police box
- Deus ex Machinas and the Doctor's omnipotency. Can't say I blame him for mentioning this, the moments of tension in the show are usually when what happens is out of his hands and depends on the humans/aliens' decisions or actions. I'm sure you've got many examples of moments where this isn't the case though
Now, I've loved shows and seen them deterioriate over time (for example My Name is Earl, How I Met Your Mother, The Simpsons). I still watch them, they still entertain me, but they're not as good as they were in my opinion. Others may disagree and I'd argue with them about it. However, I'd hope their arguments wouldn't include things like 'who has done more writing than you' - Ed Wood made more movies than Stanley Kubrick, that doesn't make him more (or less!) qualified to comment on any movie-related subject. I've also loved shows throughout their full run, like Lost and Deep Space Nine. But I know that those shows had their problem episodes that I'd rather skip on a rewatch.
I do agree that criticizing something is easy, doing it better yourself is hard. Then again, didn't Neil Gaiman say something in an interview that he would like to write another episode again if the story fitted? A story written out of spite or just to prove something doesn't feel right
Don't read Terry's post as a personal attack on you. Read it as one writer's critical opinion on a show.
Well, I got the impression at times, particularly when he was interviewed about Red Dwarf (during the launch of Back to Earth), that he...hate is too strong a word (and I guess so is despising) that he...I'm trying to find the right term here. He thought that Red Dwarf was both better, and harder science fiction. The latter isn't really in dispute, but Red Dwarf still has pretty soft science fiction most of the time.
I feel like he is looking down on it, and when I look at Pratchett's earlier works, I feel like it's the pot calling the kettle black. And while there are many parts of Doctor Who you can criticise, I feel he should look back at some of the older stories. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Terry Pratchett, I just hate the way he voices his opinion in this matter. This is far from an ad hominem attack, or else I'd burn my Discworld books. Still, could be worse. Nigel Kneale was even more scathing in his opinion. And then there's Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw who, I feel, if he gave up video game reviewing and took up writing full time, he would certainly rival Pratchett. But he's also got not just a chip on his shoulder, but a full fish and chips meal.
I'll address those issues individually:
1. There is a very real reason why the writing is inconsistent. It's a serial television show, written by a variety of writers. There are pressures of time and budget on both script writers and script editors as well. Sometimes this can be a good thing, sometimes this can be a bad thing.
2. It does tend to get close to the line, but ultimately, I do have to disagree. Doctor Who is science fiction, or else close to the Star Wars realm of space fantasy.
3. I do have to agree to a certain degree, but there is really no way around this. Tom Baker actually stated that if you thought about it, there was no way the Doctor would die, for production/storyline reasons, so the best thing to do is to make it as perilous as possible. However, deus ex machinas are all too-often used.
Pratchett isn't the only one to notice this. Yahtzee and another guy did a podcast recently where, at one point, they discuss the failings of modern Who.
Agreed. I think The Simpsons needs to be put down. It jumped the shark over a decade ago. Sorry, what new thing did I make up? Fed the alligator or something?
Doctor Who had and sometimes still has the same problem of going stale or silly. However, part of the brilliance of the time travel format is that there is a certain amount of variety, with locations and stories being limited by only imaginations and budgets. Problem is, there is more of the latter and a little less of the former nowadays. But it is still a format that can be refreshed and renewed more easily than, say, a sitcom.
Actually a story written as a challenge could be done well. American Graffiti was written by George Lucas because Francis Ford Coppola challenged him to write a sentimental comedy.
As for writing something out of spite, I don't want him to do any such thing. I want him to prove that he can do better, despite the fact that he dislikes the show's deus ex machina stuff.
I didn't read it quite as a personal attack, but rather as an attack on something that I enjoyed. It's a real berserk button for me. Has been for years. Sorry, saw red and didn't get the tone, but I feel that Pratchett, given that he didn't watch as much of the old series, is a little underqualified to criticise Doctor Who.
Anyway, can we move right along here? I don't want to start any more BS. I certainly don't want to upset you, Willem.
I feel like he is looking down on it, and when I look at Pratchett's earlier works, I feel like it's the pot calling the kettle black. And while there are many parts of Doctor Who you can criticise, I feel he should look back at some of the older stories. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Terry Pratchett, I just hate the way he voices his opinion in this matter. This is far from an ad hominem attack, or else I'd burn my Discworld books.
Still, could be worse. Nigel Kneale was even more scathing in his opinion. And then there's Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw who, I feel, if he gave up video game reviewing and took up writing full time, he would certainly rival Pratchett. But he's also got not just a chip on his shoulder, but a full fish and chips meal.
Willem said:
His main gripes seem to be that:
- the quality of the writing is inconsistent. He mentions some great episodes (like Blink) and some awful ones (his pick 'Partners in Crime'). I agree, and the last two episodes are examples of both - the horrible Black Spot versus the great Gaiman adventure.
- People call it science fiction and he disagrees. I can't say I agree with that, it's feels pedantic. He does have a point about the plausibility of some of the tech stuff though, especially the magic wand sonic screwdriver. Then again, we're talking about a show with a time-travelling police box
- Deus ex Machinas and the Doctor's omnipotency. Can't say I blame him for mentioning this, the moments of tension in the show are usually when what happens is out of his hands and depends on the humans/aliens' decisions or actions. I'm sure you've got many examples of moments where this isn't the case though
- the quality of the writing is inconsistent. He mentions some great episodes (like Blink) and some awful ones (his pick 'Partners in Crime'). I agree, and the last two episodes are examples of both - the horrible Black Spot versus the great Gaiman adventure.
- People call it science fiction and he disagrees. I can't say I agree with that, it's feels pedantic. He does have a point about the plausibility of some of the tech stuff though, especially the magic wand sonic screwdriver. Then again, we're talking about a show with a time-travelling police box
- Deus ex Machinas and the Doctor's omnipotency. Can't say I blame him for mentioning this, the moments of tension in the show are usually when what happens is out of his hands and depends on the humans/aliens' decisions or actions. I'm sure you've got many examples of moments where this isn't the case though
1. There is a very real reason why the writing is inconsistent. It's a serial television show, written by a variety of writers. There are pressures of time and budget on both script writers and script editors as well. Sometimes this can be a good thing, sometimes this can be a bad thing.
2. It does tend to get close to the line, but ultimately, I do have to disagree. Doctor Who is science fiction, or else close to the Star Wars realm of space fantasy.
3. I do have to agree to a certain degree, but there is really no way around this. Tom Baker actually stated that if you thought about it, there was no way the Doctor would die, for production/storyline reasons, so the best thing to do is to make it as perilous as possible. However, deus ex machinas are all too-often used.
Pratchett isn't the only one to notice this. Yahtzee and another guy did a podcast recently where, at one point, they discuss the failings of modern Who.
Agreed. I think The Simpsons needs to be put down. It jumped the shark over a decade ago. Sorry, what new thing did I make up? Fed the alligator or something?
Doctor Who had and sometimes still has the same problem of going stale or silly. However, part of the brilliance of the time travel format is that there is a certain amount of variety, with locations and stories being limited by only imaginations and budgets. Problem is, there is more of the latter and a little less of the former nowadays. But it is still a format that can be refreshed and renewed more easily than, say, a sitcom.
Willem said:
I do agree that criticizing something is easy, doing it better yourself is hard. Then again, didn't Neil Gaiman say something in an interview that he would like to write another episode again if the story fitted? A story written out of spite or just to prove something doesn't feel right
As for writing something out of spite, I don't want him to do any such thing. I want him to prove that he can do better, despite the fact that he dislikes the show's deus ex machina stuff.
I didn't read it quite as a personal attack, but rather as an attack on something that I enjoyed. It's a real berserk button for me. Has been for years. Sorry, saw red and didn't get the tone, but I feel that Pratchett, given that he didn't watch as much of the old series, is a little underqualified to criticise Doctor Who.
Anyway, can we move right along here? I don't want to start any more BS.
I certainly don't want to upset you, Willem.
I'm not upset!
Can't think why I didn't include Pratchett as an example by the way. In my opinion, his best books are between Reaper Man and Jingo, including both. Everything before was good practice and finetuning, most of what follows feels like a re-tread to me (with the exception of Going Postal). Many of you disagree, and you're all fools for it
I've only watched Doctor Who from the relaunch with Christopher Eccleston on and I don't think I've seen any episode more than once so I'm not as tuned into the mythology and history of the show as others. Still, if anything I'd say the show has matured with the latest reincarnation (although that's probably mostly due to Steven Moffat taking over).
Back to the show itself: anyone know if the girl was called Idris for a reason? Somehow, Astrid would have been appropriate considering what happens.
Can't think why I didn't include Pratchett as an example by the way. In my opinion, his best books are between Reaper Man and Jingo, including both. Everything before was good practice and finetuning, most of what follows feels like a re-tread to me (with the exception of Going Postal). Many of you disagree, and you're all fools for it
I've only watched Doctor Who from the relaunch with Christopher Eccleston on and I don't think I've seen any episode more than once so I'm not as tuned into the mythology and history of the show as others. Still, if anything I'd say the show has matured with the latest reincarnation (although that's probably mostly due to Steven Moffat taking over).
Back to the show itself: anyone know if the girl was called Idris for a reason? Somehow, Astrid would have been appropriate considering what happens.
