Negativity

[thessalian]

Dear dis_connection:

Yes, we all get that you do not like the new Doctor Who. You hate the scripts. You hate the acting. You hate the plotlines. You hate absolutely every damn thing about it. It depresses you, it galls you, it twists inside your guts like acid-resistant millipedes every time you watch it. Every time. Without fail. You find no redeeming features with the new Who. At all. Okay. We get it.

Now, a question for you: why, then, are you still watching it?

sclerotic_rings tends to point people at a Biblical proverb about how the dog returneth to its own vomit at around this point, but I'm a little less literary about it. Look, I'll grant you that I don't like the new Who very much either. However, it comes on at my house every Saturday evening without fail on the grounds that dodgyhoodoo has a higher tolerance when it comes to this sort of thing. He doesn't expect as much from it. While there are a lot of things that twist the knife and turn him into a ranting slavering critique-beast (The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie, for instance), Doctor Who is not one of them. Mostly because he doesn't think it's all that bad. I mean, really doesn't think it's all that bad.

I think it's all that bad, personally. I think it's getting better, partially because Tennant is kind of working out a way to make that manic act work in the part (kind of. Sort of. Maybe), but I really do think it's all that bad. The deal with the werewolves ... okay, that sucked. Rose trying to force Queen Victoria to say the famous "We are not amused" line ... sucked. The Anthony Stewart Head plot was ripped directly from The Tomorrow People. Tennant's a nutjob and let's face it -- Eccleston, with his 'daft old face', has more charisma in his left pinky-toe than Tennant has in his entire Cocker-wannabe body. It's unsubtle as hell. In short, particularly in comparison with last season, it blows dead goats for nickels. I agree with you there. Still, I've learned to at least develop a mild appreciation for it, for two reasons:

1) It predominantly suffers in comparison to last season, when you had the charismatic Eccleston, the stunning revelation that Billie Piper can act, and the sheer *squee* factor of "It's BACK!"

2) It is still far and away better than just about any other fucking thing on TV right now.

Let's look at point 2. Let's see; what's on TV these days? You know what? I have no damn clue, because I don't watch it, because most of it seems to suck. There are the never-ending 'dramas' (read: soaps) -- Brookside Close may be a distant memory, but we've still got Eastenders, where they had to resurrect a fucking dead man to get ratings; Coronation Street, which had to turn a villainous character psychopathic to get ratings; Emmerdale, which just seems to be happy with its core viewers or has vanished off the air, I'm not sure which; Hollyoaks fucking sensational teenybopper sex-n-drugs bullshit; and let's not even get started on the Antipodean shit that predominantly appealed to bored sixth formers on lunch break. There are the 'docu-dramas' that Channel Four keeps advertising that turn all manner of basic shit into an hour-long AV tabloid. Picking apart Shakespeare like the Da Vinci Code people? The guy with the Jack the Ripper hoax? And of course, Channel Four is the worst purveyor of "Top 100" programmes since VH-1. And let's not forget 'reality TV'; Big Brother seems to have decided that the 'circus freak tent' is the way to go this year, and then there's allowing a working MP who's supposed to be minding his constituency into the Celebrity Big Brother house (way to fill us with confidence in our ever-failing government), and I don't know if they're still doing "I'm a Celebrity; Get Me Out of Here!" but honestly, if they are, I want it to turn into Lord of the Flies...

But you see, I don't watch any of this. I don't bother, because I know it won't be worth my time and I will be sitting there feeling like, "There's an hour of my life I'm never getting back". I watch Lost, because I'm desperately curious. I watch Invasion, because it's actually worth watching. And, provided I don't feel that the episode sucks complete baboon arse, I will watch Doctor Who. I watched the Cybermen two-parter, for example, because I had never actually seen the original Cybermen and given that corone insisted that they were far scarier than Daleks (okay, even in this incarnation, NO), I thought I ought to. But I sat out the time-window thing and the werewolf one because I didn't want to waste my time watching something I obviously wasn't going to enjoy, and would just piss me off so I'd have to rant like a ranting thing while knowing all the while that what I was really ranting about was not having Eccleston in the title role.

You can't get away from politics. You can't get away from the PM trying to give this country over to mob rule. You shouldn't try. But really, with all the things in the world that are going wrong, why ruin your times for entertainment by watching a programme you obviously don't like so that you have yet one more thing to rant about? Why not find a different programme, one that you like, and rave positively instead? Or at least as well? I may go on long, vituperative rants about things I can't stand (the Star Wars prequels, Hostel, the second Harry Potter movie and how overrated the LotR films were, to name a few), but at least in the middle of all that ranting, I can stop and go, for example, "Yay Silent Hill!"

And yes, I am probably going to see the Da Vinci Code. I expect to rant about this, but if I do, I just won't go see it again. So no dog returning to its own vomit here, thank you.

Comments

[dis-connection.livejournal.com]

Dear thessalian,

Well, that's the most elaborate and eloquent "shut the hell up" I've ever received.

To put my comments about the Cyberman two-parter in some kind of context, I actually enjoyed the Girl in the Fireplace episode - which I admit, I didn't rant positively about, but only because I was very short of time that week - and I have to say that David Tenant is actually winning me over as the season progresses. So while it's correct to say I found nothing of any value whatsoever in "Rise of the Cybermen" or "The Age of Steel", I am not so entrenched in my opinions of the series as a whole.

The problem I have with the new Who, the thing that gets me angry enough to spew a paragraph or two of bile across my LJ every Monday morning - is that it has *so* much potential. Chris Ecclestone showed us that a modern, dynamic, tortured Doctor could be not only watchable, but positively mesmerising - and while Tenant is no match for the Ninth Doctor, he's been stratospherically better than I predicted he would be in the role. Billie Piper, as you say, has been a great discovery. The special effects have been, in part, engaging and impressive, and God knows the thing has had enough money thrown at it. It's prime-time BBC1 skiffy, for crying out loud, and it has the talent, the drive and the cash behind it to make it something really special - so why the hell isn't it?

And that's the rub. If it was great, like Lost or (I'm told, having never seen it) Invasion, then that would be fine. If it sucked abominably, like ST:Enterprise or most of SG-1, then that would be fine too, because I wouldn't watch the damn thing. But this is Who, and Who is a special case. Every damn week it sets me up, gets me interested, gets me excited, and then breaks my heart. When you make the point that it's better than 95% of the stuff on TV, you're exactly right - exactly! But the problem is that it's in the top 5% when it should be in the top 0.001%.

It should be better, and there's no reason it's not, and that makes me angry.

But perhaps you're right: maybe I should take more time to praise the worthy as well as castigating the unworthy. Therefore, allow me to squee the following: "yay Lost, yay House, yay CSI:NY!"

Yours, in a spirit of moderated grouchiness and dawning cheerfulness,

dis_connection

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

Dear dis_connection

That actually wasn't a "Shut the hell up"; that was honest curiosity, which you have quite admirably addressed. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate on your point of view.

Maybe it should be better. And it was. We will always have "Good to meet you, Rose. Run for your life!". (Well, we certainly will at Sourcebook Central 2.0, because I bought dodgyhoodoo the box set for Christmas.) I think someone once said "Nothing gold can stay"; the BBC, like every other network out there, has the same goal in mind -- ratings. The more viewers, the better. But gearing Doctor Who to a mainstream audience is never going to work, because frankly, Doctor Who is never going to be mainstream. It needs what Ecclestone gave it (that elusive modern half-manic, half-snarky lilt that makes Joss Whedon's work so popular) and that's now gone, replaced by the sorts of things that make Eastenders popular; connect-the-dots storylines, vaguely painful monologues, an overabundance of drama and the occasional really painful running gag.

In short, it's not special because it's mainstream. The reason Invasion (and seriously, if you like Lost, find a way to see Invasion from the beginning; it's like Lost with answers and without Jack) is special is because it doesn't care if it loses you midway through an episode; it doesn't care if you don't quite get a bit of dialogue. It's confident that you'll figure it out and if you can't, then you shouldn't be watching. The reason Firefly rocked so hard is because it didn't care if it offended you; it just said, "This is how it is". Angel S5 worked because it didn't give a shit if the network didn't like the "Power corrupts and not even the heroes are immune" message.

Invasion looks set to hit climax and denoeument. Angel got canned. And Firefly didn't even get to finish a season before it was consigned to the slushpile where it later became a movie that, while good, cut out so much of what made Firefly special. And Doctor Who went from that 'something really special' to yet another marketable product. I will repeat: nothing gold can stay. And yes, it's sad, but not all the blame should go to the show -- a little should be reserved for the bods in charge of the networks.

I must see House. I must start watching CSI again (except Miami. I hated Miami. The blonde with the Southern accent annoyed me to tears). But it's good to see you *squee*. You wouldn't want to look entirely like a grouchy old bear; it would take some of the punch from your very enjoyable vitriol.

Yours,

thessalian

[dis-connection.livejournal.com]

My very dear thessalian,

I agree absolutely with your conclusion that Who stumbles because it's pandering to the prime-time BBC audience who can't be arsed flicking over after Strictly Dance Thingy. If it was just a little bit worse, or if I could somehow put aside my fondness for the Who universe, then I'd be a lot happier...

Oh, and since "it's like Lost with answers and without Jack" sounds very much like my definition of TV heaven, I'll be tracking down a DVD of Invasion as soon as possible! In the same vein, I strongly recommend House - the quality of the writing is the equal of anything on TV right now, even (my personal favourite show ever) The West Wing.

So perhaps, from now on, I'll try and spend a little more time praising the great and the good, and just accept that, sadly, Who ain't what it used to be...

Most cordially yours,

dis_connection

[thm.livejournal.com]

Mr. dis_connection:

I've written this further down, but it bears repeating:

Dr. Who started out, thirty years ago, as a populist venture. (I.e., as something for the family to enjoy.) Times have changed, but the fact that the BBC are once again selling it as something for a wide audience should be no surprise. After all, that's how it lasted - its popularity. Yeah, it did become a more specialist product as time went on, and look what happened - it died. Stone dead for how many years?

Just a thought.

[dis-connection.livejournal.com]

True enough, though I would draw a clear distinction between "popular" and "popularist". Lost, for example, is enormously popular, but is also wilfully obscure and convoluted. Star Trek: Voyager was popularist, but failed to significantly connect with it's audience. Unlike the kind of isolationist fanboy who stops liking things as soon as they had audience figures in double-digits, I have no problem with Doctor Who being popular - and, as I said above, it's great to see some properly-funded prime-time skiffy on the BBC - but they aren't going to ensure it's success by desperately clutching at the lowest common denominator.

Who is, first, last and always, a science fiction show, and it is at it's best when it is true to itself.

[thm.livejournal.com]

Fair enough; being to populist wouldn't do it any good, either. Really, it's a matter of balance; not too specialised, and not too dumb.

[sclerotic-rings.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, that passage is Proverbs 26:11, and it's particularly appropriate here. (I regularly bitch about George Lucas's lack of directorial ability, and I'm not going to enable him by giving any money whatsoever to watch Episode Three.)

[thm.livejournal.com]

You should've watched the fireplace one; it was really good. Tennant is no Ecclestone, but he's doing a good job. But that's a difference of opinion.

And lastly, a thought to digest; Dr. Who started out, thirty years ago, as a populist venture. Times have changed, but the fact that the BBC are once again selling it as something for a wide audience should be no surprise. After all, that's how it lasted - its popularity.

Just a thought.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

Meh, I'd agree to disagree on that one. While it was and is for an audience (all TV is), it wasn't (and shouldn't be) really for a 'mainstream' one. It was what was classically known as 'cult' TV, which, when it nods to 'culture', seems to mean 'counterculture' more often than not. I think the primary problem wtih the good Doctor at the minute is that it seems to be trying to appeal to all possible worlds; on the one hand, trying desperately to keep the die-hard fans and the sci-fi fanatics happy while on the other hand, trying to keep it light and fluffy and 'dramatic' (read, soap-opera-like) enough to appeal to the larger portion of the audience. Science fiction doesn't work that way. Either people watch it for the monsters and laser fights, or they watch it for plot ... and monsters and laser fights. They do not watch it for cheap running gags and big dramatic departure scenes every episode. But that's a point of view.