SomeCallMeEnglishGiraffe wrote: Bernard Marx wrote:Thought I’d bump this thread up again, as something else has occurred to me.
The likes of Verity Lambert, Barry Letts, Philip Hinchcliffe etc never went out of their way to directly trivialise or publicise their involvement in the production of the programme, and generally remained unknown faces within the general public. In contrast, RTD trivialised his image and involvement in the programme to an abundant degree, behind the camera and elsewhere. Not only did he take the liberty of script editing every story and writing well over half himself (as with Moffat and Chibnall, where the position of showrunner had replaced that of producer), but various newspapers would label the programme as “Russell T Davies’ Doctor Who”, whilst RTD himself would feature in front of the camera in featurettes such as Confidential and reinforce the paramount nature of his involvement via describing the decisions made as “fantastic”, “bonkers” and “brilliant”.
Such forms of ego-driven hyperbole were rarely in use when TruWho was publicised and produced, and I wonder if said hyperbole contributed to NuWho’s initial major mainstream success and popularity amidst the more vacuous corners of the media. This is something that Moffat and Chibnall would also come to exhibit, and I’m wondering if such repetitive hyperbole came to overshadow the obvious flaws of countless stories in the case of the general public, and depicted the programme as akin to the “brilliant” success the NuWho production team seemed so desperate to evoke. Of course, the timelessness of one’s work will always overshadow personalities, hence why NuWho’s success has been so short term when compared to TruWho’s.
To be fair (and this is a thin to be fair), this is less of NewWho's showrunners being egocentric, and more of the times when behind the scenes become more dominant. It's not exactly new for NewWho to have more emphasis on the showrunners being interviewed, and them talking about their works, for better or worse.
No, it isn’t. But I’m wondering if that approach and that commitment to personality may have contributed to NuWho’s initial success. There were certainly scenarios where RTD would feed the press with Tabloid-baiting statements, which seemed less associated with the artistic merits of his works and more to do with enhancing the noise in the media associated with the programme.
See this:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2009/dec/23/doctor-who-russell-davies-tennantIt’s one thing to discuss the merits and mechanisms behind one’s scripts, and what inspired them creatively and intellectually, but referencing something akin to the X-Factor as a main influence seems less associated with creative inspiration and more with popularist appeal, thus contributing to the hyperbole I referred to earlier “If we could have the voice at the beginning of the X Factor introducing each episode, I would do it”.
Similarly, this interview between RTD and Verity Lambert highlights the difference between both their approaches in discussing Doctor Who:
https://www.gamesradar.com/uk/from-the-sfx-archive-russell-t-davies-meets-verity-lambert/Examine RTD’s use of exaggerated exclamations and phrases of brevity “Marvellous! “Radical!” “They must have thought you were bananas!” It’s a technique that clearly works, hence why RTD is often labelled a “genius” by particular corners of the media. I’m not debasing him for it per se, but as Tanmann points out, it does signal a populist approach and a desire to be heard and accepted by the Philistines as opposed to listened to. See how Lambert’s responses contrast considerably to RTD’s.
Of course, information concerning behind the scenes information will be more in demand in today’s digital age, but notice how the NuWho commentaries are generally extremely sycophantic, whereas the TruWho commentaries tend to be considerably more scathing and more concerned about the craft on display. Such a sycophancy contributes to the notion of the NuWho production team being less concerned about the quality of the stories at hand, and more with their perception and popularity.
See the commentary for Love and Monsters, where Julie Gardner discusses how “superb” the direction is and how “detailed and brilliant” certain shots are (one including a less than two second shot of Elton’s roof which is itself compressed and reveals little), and where the cast collectively describe the Absorbaloff as “scary” and a “brilliant creation”. And then see the commentary for The Silurians, where Terrence Dicks and Barry Letts remark on particular cliffhangers being weak, criticisms that are difficult to come by when the NuWho production team discuss their stories. It’s one thing to the artist to discuss their works, but if they spend most of their discussion on hyperbolic sychophancy, it tends to result in a less engaging and informed interview or discussion as far as I’m concerned.
Home
