Series 12

What connects a missing astronaut in the Indian Ocean, birds behaving strangely in Peru and a US naval officer who washes up on a Madagascan beach? Team TARDIS investigate.

Bernard Marx wrote:I can’t say I agree entirely there. As someone who was introduced to the series via NuWho and fell in love with it via the show’s central premise, my stance has certainly changed over time due to my obtaining a more critical perspective. Hell, it did so at a much younger age than I currently am, and I was capable of recognising NuWho for what it was by 2012. As a result, even the stuff I really enjoyed at the time and got me into the series (the Smith era) has been gradually dwindling in my estimations over time, to the point where I am less an advocate for it now than I was when I first joined, and why I am starting to actively dislike large portions of it. I think it’s perfectly possible for people to change their minds upon discussing such eras objectively, regardless of whatever bias they may have- it won’t always happen, but for those open minded enough, it’s certainly a possibility. I’ve also come away disliking films I initially really liked after listening to arguments elsewhere arguing for their lack of quality (The Force Awakens being a prime example).

Besides, there’s also the case of having a soft spot for a certain era, whilst also recognising it for potentially being utter shit. I can enjoy a story rather a lot whilst still recognising it to be rubbish (The Keys of Marinus, Creature from the Pit, Silver Nemesis, etc). Concerning the JNT stories- after discussing them with you on this forum, and recognising the inherent narrative failures of particular stories (mainly Warriors and Resurrection), my opinion of them has indeed lessened, and these sort of discussions can provide clarity to one’s perspective that someone may not have considered before. Of course, this doesn’t mean that upmost flexibility is a good idea- discourse and discussion should be overt on both sides of the argument- but I think it’s possible for certain fans to be open to listening to different perspectives, regardless of their own prior stance. It’s easier to speak to those who agree, yes, but not impossible for one to be open to new perspectives.

Team TARDIS

Tanmann wrote:I've been denouncing and poking holes in the JNT stories for years, but at the end of the day, other fans who liked them are still going to do so and be resistant to being swayed.

Pepsi Maxil wrote:

Team TARDIS

Urgh.

Boofer wrote:

Tanmann wrote:I've been denouncing and poking holes in the JNT stories for years, but at the end of the day, other fans who liked them are still going to do so and be resistant to being swayed.

Yeah, all I do now when you go on one of your rants about the 80s is roll my eyes and have a little chuckle to myself.

Seems pointless recovering old ground. Everyone knows where you stand on the JNT era i.e. steel-capped shoe, grinding your freshly ejaculated phlegm into the pavement like it's a mini-myrka.  

Indrid Mercury wrote:Okay. I have a disturbing feeling this is gonna turn into another ''Everyone argues over JNT'' thread so can we curb it please?

iank wrote:We could if a certain someone who'll remain nameless would stop bringing it up in every fucking thread.

iank wrote:  Indeed. I mean, I've thought Warriors and Resurrection were shit for years. So? There's shit in the 60s and the 70s too. Not likely to impact any reasonable, sane person's view of the decade as a whole.

I love the narcissism inherent in the comment, that other people are being unreasonable in not immediately leaping on the JNT-bashing bandwagon because he says so

Tanmann wrote:

iank wrote:  Indeed. I mean, I've thought Warriors and Resurrection were shit for years. So? There's shit in the 60s and the 70s too. Not likely to impact any reasonable, sane person's view of the decade as a whole.

The difference is simple.

Unlike Warriors or Twin Dilemma, the worst stuff of the 60's/70's wasn't a case of the show suddenly deciding to pick the most ridiculous hill to die on and expecting the zealots of the fanbase to take care of the dissent.

?

Pepsi Maxil wrote:Warriors did very little damage to the series. Grade probably never even saw it at the time and I doubt anyone at the BBC was thinking of that story specifically  when they decided to put the show on hiatus. It was a bad story, not a nail in a mythical coffin. The show was very quick to recover from it.

iank wrote:More fantasy. You can never accept the reality that Who was one of a number of shows axed purely to save money for other things and because of the desire to have a "new era" at the BBC. Everything else was invention after the fact.

iank wrote:I just cannot comprehend the obsession with it. No one's saying it's a good story. As with Resurrection, it's a ham-fisted attempt to replicate the success of Earthshock that fails completely (the latter only getting away with it for most fans because it's Daleks and it's better made).
It's the notion that it's some kind of turning point or evil political statement that truly boggles me. No, it's just a shit script. The only turning point in 80s Who was the hiatus, which was itself solely caused by bean-counting and a lack of comprehension about the show's popularity and the love its fans had for it by those running the BBC.