Login

Username

Password



Not a rebel yet?
CLICK HERE to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one from Orac HERE.

Current User Info

· Lurkers Lurking: 8

· Rebels Active: 0

· Total Rebels: 918
· Newest Rebel: CarolinaJones

Login Help

If you are having problems logging in, please bear in mind that if you originally registered at the site before 8th January 2014 and you haven't re-registered since that date your old login details will no longer work. If this is the case, please re-register, preferably with your former username. If you are having trouble with the registration process itself, try looking HERE and HERE for help and advice. If you need further assistance, please do CONTACT us.

Current Poll

Who is your Favourite Guest Rebel?

Avalon - (Project Avalon)
Avalon - (Project Avalon)
18% [17 Votes]

Selma - (Horizon)
Selma - (Horizon)
5% [5 Votes]

Tyce - (Bounty)
Tyce - (Bounty)
15% [14 Votes]

Norm One - (Redemption)
Norm One - (Redemption)
2% [2 Votes]

Bek - (Shadow)
Bek - (Shadow)
6% [6 Votes]

Kasabi - (Pressure Point)
Kasabi - (Pressure Point)
19% [18 Votes]

Hal Mellanby - (Aftermath)
Hal Mellanby - (Aftermath)
14% [13 Votes]

Hunda - (Traitor)
Hunda - (Traitor)
5% [5 Votes]

Deva - (Blake)
Deva - (Blake)
9% [9 Votes]

Other
Other
6% [6 Votes]

Votes: 95
Login to vote.
Started: 09 July 2016

Polls Archive

Forum Activity

Newest Articles

B7 Images

+ Cookies +

The Horizon website uses cookies to allow user log-in and navigation. The site does not host advertising that requires the use of third-party cookies. Registering as a member of this site implies your consent to the use of cookies.

View Thread

 Print Thread
Doctor Who Is Dead
JustBrad
With the casting of Bradley Walsh, we have now turned the Capaldi era format, and the Classic Who format, on their heads.

We have a father figure companion and a young female Doctor.

Whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, you have to admit that so drastically altering the format of a winning show is a risk. Will it pay off?
 
dragonq
I would offer an opinion if I had any idea who this person even was. The world is so bizarre at the moment, I really don't know what to say about a heap of things.

Have come to the conclusion that I'm a Classic Who fan who sporadically enjoys the new version of the show. I cannot see what improvement any of this strange messing around brings the programme's format.
 
Grade Four Ignorant
JustBrad wrote:With the casting of Bradley Walsh, we have now turned the Capaldi era format, and the Classic Who format, on their heads.


At this point, his casting is only a rumour. He's got previous, though, having played a villain in The Sarah Jane Adventures. He's also been well-established as a serious actor, given his work with Law & Order: UK.

Besides which, the arrival of a comedian playing a companion has a rich pedigree of being hailed as the doom of the show. Catherine Tate and Matt Lucas both faced much hand-wringing and turned out to be amazing.
 
Vanessa Doffenshmirtz
JustBrad wrote:

With the casting of Bradley Walsh, we have now turned the Capaldi era format, and the Classic Who format, on their heads.

We have a father figure companion and a young female Doctor.

Whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, you have to admit that so drastically altering the format of a winning show is a risk. Will it pay off?




For me, it's got to be better than the drooling females who have been companions in the New Who. Never-mind the retro-fitting of Sarah Jane into that mould..

Donna and Bill were much better companions for me. Amy was fine while she was with Rory but still tended to have unrequited romantic feelings from time to time.
I used to be such a sweet sweet thing
Till they got a hold of me.
 
Gauda Cheese
Vanessa Doffenshmirtz wrote:

JustBrad wrote:

With the casting of Bradley Walsh, we have now turned the Capaldi era format, and the Classic Who format, on their heads.

We have a father figure companion and a young female Doctor.

Whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, you have to admit that so drastically altering the format of a winning show is a risk. Will it pay off?




For me, it's got to be better than the drooling females who have been companions in the New Who. Never-mind the retro-fitting of Sarah Jane into that mould..

Donna and Bill were much better companions for me. Amy was fine while she was with Rory but still tended to have unrequited romantic feelings from time to time.


That they did that to SJS really irked me.
http://stwco.word... Stuff and things written by me.

My podcast: http://GATM.buzzs...
 
JustBrad
I have to admit that while I will watch, my enthusiasm for New Who is at an all time low. This is not necessarily about the casting, but PC remains one of my all time favorite actors, a truly gifted talent, and yet there were episodes that even he could not save.

Recently I've been watching Classic Who from the Tom Baker era, and finding that I enjoy it far more than I have enjoyed New Who for along time. Odd, given my fondness for Capaldi.

Here's hoping the new team has some new ideas, or failing that, goes back to the old ideas.
 
JustBrad
Vanessa Doffenshmirtz wrote:




For me, it's got to be better than the drooling females who have been companions in the New Who. Never-mind the retro-fitting of Sarah Jane into that mould..

Donna and Bill were much better companions for me. Amy was fine while she was with Rory but still tended to have unrequited romantic feelings from time to time.


I agree with all of that. My only concern is that we will now have drooling male companions.
 
Zenrac
dragonq wrote:

I could see this coming a mile off. I'm not particularly happy for a whole raft of reasons, but I agree wholeheartedly with President Solvite's remark that this decision is a symptom of a more general malaise.

I'm not going to be rude about an actress whom I've never heard of: she will quite probably play the part as it is given her very well. As to whether I will watch it or not, I'm undecided. My relationship with the modern Dr Who series has been up and down from its inception; I tend to watch it for a while, then get really annoyed and give up for a time. The first time this happened was when Billie Piper and David Tennant started making goo goo eyes at each other, and it's been a revolving door ever since. I thought Peter Capaldi was an astonishingly good doctor, perhaps the best in the show's history with regards his performance, but he was poorly served with the direction taken by the show's producers, some of the scripts, and his companions (have there ever been less interesting companions than Clara and her boyfriend?). For all his merits, I have to confess that I have not watched to the end of Capaldi's episodes, and casting a female doctor is not going to make me start watching again with screams of delight.

Being a fan of a certain age, who watched the programme go down the gurgler the first time, I have a strange sense of deja vu. Let's make a checklist as we circle the plug hole. A poor casting decision in the lead role. (In fairness, Colin Baker is excellent in Big Finish, so he can't take the all the blame for the awfulness of his performance on tv). A hated producer who would not let go and who insisted on shoe-horning his own vision into the programme against its history. Substandard scripts. Falling ratings. Sound familiar? There is also an unbelievable arrogance on the part of a lot of people, many of whom are vocal in online forums, that none of this matters and if you don't go along with the decision you are somehow not a fan, or you are just plain sexist and a contemptuous person whose opinion doesn't matter. This morning I spent a bit of time reading some of the comments in my Facebook feed, and the general response to anyone who expressed disagreement was:

1. You are sexist (I am right, I am morally superior, you don't agree with me, let's just shut down the debate by name calling)

2. Time Lords are gender fluid and always have been (I am sorry, but I have been watching the show since about 1971, and until they decided to make the Master a female, I don't recall this being in any way canonical)

3. Goodbye, you won't be missed.

Number 3 is the most arrogant and dangerous reaction of all. The fact is that when people stop watching, they WILL be missed, because Doctor Who is a tv show, and tv shows are expensive to make and need viewers. If you make a radical change to an established format, you are gambling on the fact that the radical change will create more viewers than it will drive away, and I am afraid I just can't see that happening. Much as I liked Peter Capaldi's performance, there were plenty of viewers who were very vocal about the fact that they didn't want to watch an older Doctor. Of course, it can be argued that the Doctor has several times been an older gentleman, and argued with much more confidence than any claims that the doctor has always been gender fluid, but those sort of arguments don't wash with the average viewer. I was personally very happy when Peter Capaldi was cast, but I can also accept that there were a lot of people who were not, and that their willingness to continue watching is just as important as mine (and as I mentioned, even I haven't watched through to the end, and I liked him). The sad fact is that the show haemorrhaged viewers during his tenure, particularly during the last season (dare I say it, the lesbian companion probably didn't help) and it is in a weaker position now than it was when he took over. To turn around and make a controversial casting choice at this point in its history seems like a perilous thing to do. It may be the start of a turnaround, but I suspect it may also be its undoing if it alienates the 90% of the iceberg who are not fans, but silent viewers who have always understood the doctor to be a male part, and who are exasperated rather than enthusiastic about someone else's agenda for the show.

And this leads me to another point. The real issue here is not the fact that they have cast a female doctor. We don't need a female doctor. We need good parts for women, written for women. Don't shoehorn a woman into a male part: create fantastic roles for actresses to really make their marks in. One of the most interesting parts for a woman in a science fiction show in the last twenty years (and a middle aged woman at that) was that of Laura Roslin in Battlestar Galactica. I like to watch shows with parts like that. Whether I will like watching a female doctor is another matter entirely.


That is, simply put, an outstanding post that pretty much encapsulates my feelings on this subject matter. I've not seen it described better anywhere on the interweb. Bravo, indeed.

I completely agree with the notion that shutting a conversation down with the age-old, boring, 'It's my way or the highway' standard internet reply from the bully boys, goes against the ethos of freedom of speech, and is a clear sign of intellectual arrogance, at best, and at worst, a world ignorance championship medal winner.

Name calling because someone disagrees with you is about as hollow as it comes. That is why my own internet contribution in such regard is minimal these days. It is why I have no social media accounts now. Even Facebook has gone to the great deleted items folder in the sky. Maybe it is because I am getting older that my tolerance levels for such modern-day, crass and ridiculous behaviour is diminishing rapidly (entirely possible) or maybe it simply because the killing of open debate has always been a dagger to the heart for me. Could be either. Or both.

There are roles that are perfectly suited for a man, and to point that out (as a male of the species) does not make one a sexist or a misogynist. Some things just work. I would be equally aghast if someone had the audacity to bring back the character of Ripley in the Alien universe and make that character a man as part of some awful reboot. And I would feel exactly the same should someone revive Prime Suspect and rewrite the character of DCI Tennison as a male. Two fantastically strong female characters, something we need more of from original writers so we don't have to force a square peg into a round hole just so we can have a woman in a part to appease the banner waivers who seem to think everything needs petitioning.

I am also right there with the contributors here who remember classic Who fondly. Just the other day I watched 'The Talons Of Weng-Chiang' on DVD for the first time in years and it blew me away, as it always has. One of the finest classic Who stories/productions of all time, even with the epic failure that was the giant rat. That said, it was all part of the charm. Phillip Hinchcliffe and Robert Holmes completely nailed it, and at that time Tom baker was in full flow as the Doctor. I have always been a fan/study of 19th century Victorian London history, so that story quenched my thirst, relatively speaking.

Not only should Holmes go down as a genre genius, he should go down (although, sadly, he probably won't) as a literal genius within his chosen profession.

To then have to see how modern Who has gone is just gut-wrenching, really. Ecclestone did a pretty good job, but as soon as the whole timey-wimey, lovey-dovey thing happened during the Tennant era, I switched off. Smith's era was spotty at best, too, so when I saw that Capaldi had been given the role I was suddenly interested and hopeful again. Some of his first season was pretty decent, by modern standards, but it was soon apparent that the producers and writers were going to completely waste the man's talents. And they did. Shocking really. Peter could have been the next Baker (Tom) in terms of impact and style had he been written for in that manner. He wasn't, unfortunately, and I often sat there cringing, embarrassed for the man, watching him appear frustrated in his own portrayal because he simply couldn't do anything more with it as that was all he was left to go on - substandard dross.

I will watch at Christmas and watch the first few in the autumn of 2018 to see how it pans out as I like to give everything a fair go, even if in the pit of my stomach I already have the feeling I will be severely disappointed.

I always ask myself if it is simply down to me getting older - if it is simply down to me having such great memories as a child that I won't allow myself to find any modern interpretation acceptable. Or that I am attempting to hold these things up against my love of B7 (unfairly). But it isn't that with this subject matter at all. It just isn't very good.

I have been a lurker here for some time, an oversight on my part for not joining in earlier. So I rectified that and joined up, and here I am. Thanks for having me.

Nice to finally be on-board, officially.
 
Travisina
Welcome on board, Zenrac! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on New Who - I expect there are many here who agree with those views.
Twitter: @TravisinaB7
Tumblr: tumblr
There's no point being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes
 
Zenrac
Travisina wrote:

Welcome on board, Zenrac! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on New Who - I expect there are many here who agree with those views.


Thanking you kindly.

As you get older you do tend to see certain things through rose coloured glasses, but in this instance, I think so-called progress is anything but, sadly.
 
sweevo
I don't mind seeing a female Doctor - after all, it's something new (the Master became Missy, so why not the Doc?). I'd like to see a silent Doctor for the 14th incarnation (not mute, just not very willing to speak, instead relying on body language, facial expressions and natural noises to communicate/interact, much like in a silent movie).
 
Zenrac
sweevo wrote:

I don't mind seeing a female Doctor - after all, it's something new (the Master became Missy, so why not the Doc?). I'd like to see a silent Doctor for the 14th incarnation (not mute, just not very willing to speak, instead relying on body language, facial expressions and natural noises to communicate/interact, much like in a silent movie).


Unfortunately, I don't think would ever be implemented now as the younger generations wouldn't have the patience to stay with that - not enough interaction. Not enough going on. Too much to decipher. They want it quick, they want it loud, they want it action-packed and they want it now, and obviously so.

You look at any website aimed at the youngsters and they almost all have videos attached to the words on the page, together with lots of flash-based imagery, adverts pinging everywhere for that instant hit to keep the kids interested. A page that is filled with nothing but words that the older generations would be only too happy to read, would be swapped out instantly by the kids these days. "I'm not reading through that lot. What, no pictures? No video? Nothing happening there."

I think the same would happen visually without a programme full of wordage. The kids would have no time for that kind of subtlety, and it's the younger generations predominantly that these shows are now aimed at.

And should a female lead go on to be a success then I would be happy to enjoy it if everything that went with it was Who as it should be. It isn't the fact a woman is in the role I object to, it's the reason that she is there in the first place. It feels forced to keep the bleeding hearts satisfied so the BBC can push a particular agenda instead of worrying about the standard of writing and production, the very thing that is actually letting it down.

We shall see how it pans out in due course.
 
steveothen
Its weird, i'm both a dr who fan & a blakes 7 fan, but DW fans are so nasty & bitchy, i remember now why i stopped being friends with Dw fans years ago, the bitching is incredible, i dared to offer my opinion up, on gallifrey base, that i am dead against a female Dr, as i think it will do nothing to improve the show & is one , big, far-fetched, step to far, & i'm practically hounded of there !, they turn on you like a bunch of hyenas !, i find B7 fans much more friendly & well-mannered, DW fans are like a bunch of ( verbal ) football hooligans.
 
dragonq
steveothen wrote:

Its weird, i'm both a dr who fan & a blakes 7 fan, but DW fans are so nasty & bitchy, i remember now why i stopped being friends with Dw fans years ago, the bitching is incredible, i dared to offer my opinion up, on gallifrey base, that i am dead against a female Dr, as i think it will do nothing to improve the show & is one , big, far-fetched, step to far, & i'm practically hounded of there !, they turn on you like a bunch of hyenas !, i find B7 fans much more friendly & well-mannered, DW fans are like a bunch of ( verbal ) football hooligans.


Itís a much bigger fandom. Blakeís 7 fandom is small, itís hard to form packs, and as outlets are fewer itís important people get along. And it has had its moments.
 
Zenrac
Nothing worse than the pack mentality or the forming of little cliques, filled with nastiness and venom. Glad to see that doesn't happen on here. Looks like all the folk from this fandom that attend events together do so with no attitude and no superiority complex attached. A breath of fresh air.

And being nasty, shutting down a unique opinion, and being part of a pack, hounding out any individual, just kills conversation dead, on the spot. The phrase 'end of' attached to a comment has me leaving and not returning.

Dissenting viewpoints are important, as long as those opinions are put in a pleasant, considered manner. They make you reassess and reconsider, something that is good for your mind.
 
steveothen
Zenrac wrote:

Nothing worse than the pack mentality or the forming of little cliques, filled with nastiness and venom. Glad to see that doesn't happen on here. Looks like all the folk from this fandom that attend events together do so with no attitude and no superiority complex attached. A breath of fresh air.

And being nasty, shutting down a unique opinion, and being part of a pack, hounding out any individual, just kills conversation dead, on the spot. The phrase 'end of' attached to a comment has me leaving and not returning.

Dissenting viewpoints are important, as long as those opinions are put in a pleasant, considered manner. They make you reassess and reconsider, something that is good for your mind.


I completely agree, i come on here & i feel like i'm in the company of well-balanced adults, over on gallifrey base its madness, you get completely trolled/hounded of if you dare have your own opinion, the nastiness & bitchiness is incredible, i've said over there that i don't agree with a female Dr & there on you like a pack of alley cats !, but i remember from the 80's how Snydey & bitchy Dr who fans were.
I come on here & i feel like we're all treating each other with respect.
 
Zenrac
It doesn't help when it is all undertaken online, from behind a keyboard. People lose all sense of perspective and respect. They figure they can just say what they like because there is no consequence involved. I prefer face to face contact with other humans as often as possible so you can see facial expressions, gauge humour more easily, and generally get a feel of the other person, or people. It is too easy to just rip into others from the comfort of one's laptop or phone.

As I have taught my children over the years, just because I hold an opinion, it doesn't make me right, or wrong, it just makes it my opinion. We all have one, so listen, digest and discard at your leisure, but never slate someone for having their opinion in the first place or because you don't agree.

Basic rules of conversational engagement.
 
President Solvite
This is why I tend to shun social media, as a rule it seems to polarise opposing sides into like minded cliques who are convinced that their grass is greener and woe betide any 'fool' that suggests otherwise. It does have some benefits granted but I fear it has been more of a divisive tool than one of happy union. (Ref. recent elections, referendums and many other splendid examples)

Give me a pub with sensible bar prices and a good mix of fans chatting face to face over facebook and discussion boards any day.. Oh how I miss our old local meeting groups. Before the internet, before the dark times, before the Empire. Grin
 
http://nothingsforgotten.freeforums.net/
President Solvite
**SNIPPAGE **

I think the same would happen visually without a programme full of wordage. The kids would have no time for that kind of subtlety, and it's the younger generations predominantly that these shows are now aimed at.

And should a female lead go on to be a success then I would be happy to enjoy it if everything that went with it was Who as it should be. It isn't the fact a woman is in the role I object to, it's the reason that she is there in the first place. It feels forced to keep the bleeding hearts satisfied so the BBC can push a particular agenda instead of worrying about the standard of writing and production, the very thing that is actually letting it down.

We shall see how it pans out in due course.


Agreed

Is it just me or perhaps the show 'W1A' is not a 'mock-u-mentary' at all? Smile

If you haven't seen W1A I heartily recommend it, like Yes Minister I suspect it's scarily close to the truth.
 
http://nothingsforgotten.freeforums.net/
Travisina
President Solvite wrote:
Give me a pub with sensible bar prices and a good mix of fans chatting face to face over facebook and discussion boards any day.. Oh how I miss our old local meeting groups. Before the internet, before the dark times, before the Empire. Grin

Ah, those were the days...
When Horizon newsletters used to come out 4 times a year (or 3, or 2) and you had to wait months for your article/review/comments to appear in print - and even more months for people to respond. Try explaining that to the younglings of today!
Twitter: @TravisinaB7
Tumblr: tumblr
There's no point being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes
 
Jump to Forum:
Orac rendered this page in 0.43 seconds
9,486,143 unique visits since 8th January 2014