You are not connected. Please login or register

Why is New Who Immune to Critical Backlash

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

It really annoys me when I see things like Batman and Robin get trashed and universally regarded as franchise killers. Whilst B&R is of course utter shit, why don't the dregs of New Who like Dark Water/Death in Heaven and Last of the Time Turds not get the same hate from critics?

Joel Schumacher apologised for Batman and Robin, Sam Raimi apologised for Spider-Man 3, yet Steven Moffat actually considers Missy to be one of his greatest moments!

Do you think its because the Fitzroy cucks have the media sewn up with their mates like Caitlin Moron or are people just stupid?

View user profile

Tanmann

Tanmann
Dick Tater
I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Because from the workplace to the yoga groups to the night clubs we have lived in a dystopian happiness cult since arguably the late 90's. Which means being in any way a negative complainer who can't fit in with the fun crowd is now severely frowned upon and treated as a sign of being a defective undesirable person somehow.

I'll admit to my shame even I tried going along with it, and found myself thinking that way about unhappy outsiders who didn't go along with it.

Fans have had to try harder to escape that image of just being a bunch of rigid anoraks watching a dated, often po-faced sci-fi show that probably none of their fun-loving work colleagues would ever be interested in because there'd be no 'fun' in it for them.

So naturally many of the elitist fans feel cultishly obliged to sing the show's praises as making the show a shared sense of fun in a way that myth would have it, hasn't happened since Tom Baker's heyday.

Any complaints marks them out as the killjoys, unable to go with the moment of fun. So that's why everything gets praised insipidly. And if you challenge that happy image, you quickly realize how furiously radicalized and fanatical many of these 'happy' fans really are.

Perhaps Batman and Robin took place before that happiness cult really came to dominate everything. And also maybe fans weren't willing to make the concession that after two or three successful Batman movies that were gothic and dark enough, it 'suddenly' needed to be all camp and ridiculously comical and fun again in order to win back the mainstream audience.

With New Who coming back from the wilderness, it was a different story.

View user profile
@burrunjor wrote:It really annoys me when I see things like Batman and Robin get trashed and universally regarded as franchise killers. Whilst B&R is of course utter shit, why don't the dregs of New Who like Dark Water/Death in Heaven and Last of the Time Turds not get the same hate from critics?

Joel Schumacher apologised for Batman and Robin, Sam Raimi apologised for Spider-Man 3, yet Steven Moffat actually considers Missy to be one of his greatest moments!  

Do you think its because the Fitzroy cucks have the media sewn up with their mates like Caitlin Moron or are people just stupid?

The 1995 Judge Dredd film is another example of this- nobody seems to have a good word to say about it - Stallone, the director, Dredd creators/writers and the majority of JD fans all line up to stick the boot in.  Yet as to why NuWho's worst moments aren't similarly castigated is beyond me - perhaps because Doctor Who is still perceived as a children's show in certain circles and it would appear rather mean-spirited and churlish to criticise a kiddies' favourite. But I'm probably wrong...

View user profile
I think it's also a case of Emperor's New Clothes and a desperate refusal by the current generation to admit that culture has gone down the toilet and is now reduced to endless rehashes of stuff that was better done 20-50 years ago. It's sad really.

View user profile

Tanmann

Tanmann
Dick Tater
@Queen Angvia wrote:The 1995 Judge Dredd film is another example of this- nobody seems to have a good word to say about it - Stallone, the director, Dredd creators/writers and the majority of JD fans all line up to stick the boot in.  Yet as to why NuWho's worst moments aren't similarly castigated is beyond me

I think maybe another difference might be that the 90's Judge Dredd movie seemed a one-chance shot to translate the comic right, and as such people felt more comfortable judging it as a failure as a complete package that did not (in the words of Fathead) 'deliver'.

Whereas New Who, even if it started wrong, always seemed to taunt the promise that it might over the course of the series, deliver the kind of Doctor Who we'd been waiting for soon.

Certainly it seemed to play with the idea that the Doctor had come back slightly 'wrong' and needed time to come right again, and The Unquiet Dead, Dalek, The Empty Child, Girl in the Fireplace and Blink seemed like false dawns that we might be getting our patience rewarded more and more soon. Infact I distinctly remember after complaining about Love & Monsters, some RTD sycophant telling me I'm ungrateful for not appreciating that I sometimes get 'my' Doctor Who half the time and so why should I 'selfishly' begrudge the annoying soap business half a season that the masses apparently want.

The trouble is, RTD just had too much power and control over the show, and loved having the power to canonically troll the fanbase in the show every chance he got. And whilst for a time it looked like Moffat was going to be different, it soon turned out he was far worse and we were better off under RTD.

View user profile

Commander Maxil

Commander Maxil
Dick Tater
@burrunjor wrote:Whilst B&R is of course utter shit,


Not really.

The movie deserves my undying respect just for this:




Mmmm


Schumacher's Batman FTW!


_________________
Why is New Who Immune to Critical Backlash Giphy
View user profile
The show has been so politicised now and its not just The Chibbers. This politicisation has given it a rather fanatical fan base for whom its as much a source of political support as tv entertainment. I think that is at least part of the reason the show seems to be so immune from criticism.

From its very early days the jumped on the back of a noisy, gobby political bandwagon that championed minority politics and which drowned out what i would call more traditional values. It called for positive endorsement of minority or identity politics. Even to simply avoid politics altogether in stories was considered to be endorsing a corrupt status quo. This it made it very hard to criticise the show without risk of being shouted down in the most vehement manner. The situation has evolved since 2005 but its merely emphasised such things more and more over the years. The bandwagon has also become more vocal and confident in its political discourse. If a prime time show like New Who is seen to be on side then its "one of us" so to speak and gets defended almost as a political ally.

    RTD emphasised the role of the companion, sometimes even seeming to sideline the Doctor. He also repeatedly tried to raise the profile of gay characters;
    Moffat did the same, particularly with Jenna but also playing around with gender politics - Missy and other timelords in one of his gallifrey based stories;
    Chib-balls then went the whole hog with a female doctor and crass political story lines which lacked the subtlety of political stories in the classical era.

In this respect i thought RTDs era was okay. The political themes he touched on were usually done well.

Moffat's feminism got worse as the years passed. Once Rory and Amy were gone it was down hill with very soft, barely legal brakes.

Chib's went off a cliff at full throttle. But try repeating that too often on the internet.

View user profile
@Commander Maxil wrote:
@burrunjor wrote:Whilst B&R is of course utter shit,


Not really.

The movie deserves my undying respect just for this:




Mmmm


Schumacher's Batman FTW!

I see your point and its very clearly and powerfully made.

But take that scene out and i think Burrunjor's is even stronger.

View user profile

Commander Maxil

Commander Maxil
Dick Tater
All he said what that it was shit.



B&R is a magnificent visual piece and that's an undeniable fact. The cinematography is absolutely breathtaking, far greater than the cinematography in the Burton films. The set design is truly striking as is the expert use of colours and shadows to create a magnificent eye-catching display that still impresses today. Watching Uma Thurman having a ball whilst playing the deliciously evil Poison Ivy never fails to make me grin. Elliot Goldenthal improves upon his previous score for B&F and delivers his best work for the franchise also.

There are some emotional moments with the great Michael Gough that highlight just how magnificent and enduring he was in the role as Alfred. Alicia Silverstone and Chris O'Donnell also give good performances and have a great deal of chemistry together.


Schumacher should not have apologized for a damn thing. He made an entertaining film that ticked all of my personal boxes of what I want from a Batman movie. I think some people just want everything to be dark, po-faced, humorless, gritty and depressing. I mean, I'd rather watch B&R any day of the week compared to The Dark Knight Rises or Man of Steel.


_________________
Why is New Who Immune to Critical Backlash Giphy
View user profile

Tanmann

Tanmann
Dick Tater
@Commander Maxil wrote:There are some emotional moments with the great Michael Gough that highlight just how magnificent and enduring he was in the role as Alfred. Alicia Silverstone and Chris O'Donnell also give good performances and have a great deal of chemistry together.


Schumacher should not have apologized for a damn thing.

I can actually take or leave the film. I could probably sit through it today and probably get reasonably involved in it. Certainly watching it at 15 in the cinema, even though I thought its dialogue was pretty lame, I can appreciate it wasn't anywhere near a horrible cinema experience in the way The Last Jedi was.

I agree about the cinematography being impressive, though I suspect that's why it prompted a lot of backlash from fans who felt it had so much potential to be more, but which seemed squandered on a baffling onslaught of cliches that come very early and quickly indeed.

There are some nice emotional moments there with Alfred, but for me I think by that time it'd been such a string of one liners that it seemed a bit late to start taking seriously one of the few bits of actual conversation in the film. Or at least it felt like it was from a different film entirely.

I think consistency is the problem. Joel is a very good director but I sense he was letting himself indulge a bit too much here.

Sod it. I think I'll give the film another look.

View user profile
@Commander Maxil wrote:All he said what that it was shit.



B&R is a magnificent visual piece and that's an undeniable fact. The cinematography is absolutely breathtaking, far greater than the cinematography in the Burton films. The set design is truly striking as is the expert use of colours and shadows to create a magnificent eye-catching display that still impresses today. Watching Uma Thurman having a ball whilst playing the deliciously evil Poison Ivy never fails to make me grin. Elliot Goldenthal improves upon his previous score for B&F and delivers his best work for the franchise also.

There are some emotional moments with the great Michael Gough that highlight just how magnificent and enduring he was in the role as Alfred. Alicia Silverstone and Chris O'Donnell also give good performances and have a great deal of chemistry together.


Schumacher should not have apologized for a damn thing. He made an entertaining film that ticked all of my personal boxes of what I want from a Batman movie. I think some people just want everything to be dark, po-faced, humorless, gritty and depressing. I mean, I'd rather watch B&R any day of the week compared to The Dark Knight Rises or Man of Steel.

Some good points from all involved here.

For the record I prefer my Batman with a bit of camp. My favourite versions of Batman are the 70s one and the DCAU version, both of which have lots of camp. (One Batman comic from the 70s Brave and the Bold collection I just bought has Batman ask Wonder Woman and Batgirl to pretend to be in love with him in public so he can trick a badguy into thinking his mind is off the case, but it backfires when they actually fall in love with him! That's how stupid the plot is. Its hilarious!)

The problem with B&R was that in terms of the camp it was a sequel to three very serious Batman films. Okay Batman Forever was a bit goofy, but still in all 3 films Batman is a tormented, dark character who violently kills his enemies. To see him then show up at public events like a celebrity and brandish a bat credit card and wear bat skates seems jarring and makes a mockery of the previous films.

"Hey tonight our host is that psycho vigilante who blew people up and threw a guy off a building."

Dark Water/Death in Heaven is much worse than B&R and Moffat is much more unlikable than Joel Schumacher who seems quite modest about his work and a lot less lazy. B&R is not mean spirited or pandering to hateful bigots. However it actually has a lot of the same problems as DW/DIH.

1/ It features laughable versions of iconic and beloved villains. Arnies Mr Freeze and Gomez's Master. Whilst both may be funny, when you think how excellent both villains can be, the fact that they did that with them is a joke.

See here for what great characters both are. (You already know that about the Master, but still its always good to remind ourselves what that cunt Moffat destroyed.)





This is what both stories reduced them too.





2/ Both reduce another great villain to being the lumbering sidekick. Bane a villain who can bring Batman to his knees in the comic, is just a thug who shouts "BOMB!" "BOMB!", whilst the Cybermen are tools of Missy who mince like the gay regiment out of Monty Python and do the air hostess salute.

3/ Very sloppy direction like the lingering shots of the lead actors buttocks when putting the suits on in B&R which they must have known looked silly, and Rachel Talalalalalalay forgetting that the Doctor, Kate and the others were watching Missy killing Osgood on a screen that covered the entire wall they were facing.

4/ Both feature a villain beaten by their own stupidity. Poison Ivy keeps a plant that eats her as her chair and forgets that she can control it "CURSES!". Missy meanwhile gives the Doctor an army of Cybermen with no failsafe.

5/ Both focus on tedious soap opera dirge like Alfred's illness and Danny/Clara crap.

6/ Both's tone is all over the place. We have a man dying of a terminal illness mixed in with Bat skates and Bat Credit Cards and Bat Nipples, and in DIH we have psychopathic killings, mixed in with Santa showing up.

Difference is Joel Schumacher was taken off the franchise and slagged off. Moffat is actually able to consider that his greatest achievement.

TBH that's one of the things I hate him the most for. He must know that Missy fucks up the Masters character. Now I'm not sayiing he has to apologise for her. (Though he fucking should!) Still he could at least acknowledge that it was a different take, but the cunt acts as though the only people who dislike her are bigots.

For that reason alone B&R is less hateful, but its still flawed hugely. The only good thing both did was inspire hilarious parodies later, the Cyber Brig theme, and the Batman and Robin Musical. "Batman you son of a bitch." Though I don't like it when they call Alicia Silverstone fat. She looked great.

View user profile

ClockworkOcean

ClockworkOcean
Dick Tater
@burrunjor wrote:Rachel Talalalalalalay forgetting that the Doctor, Kate and the others were watching Missy killing Osgood on a screen that covered the entire wall they were facing.

Not to mention the two armed guards who just stared blankly and let it happen when there was clearly more than enough time to shoot her, and who were also for some reason stationed behind the restraining table, shielding their prisoner from the line of fire. Apologists always claim that Missy must have hypnotised them off-screen, but we've never seen any evidence that the NuWho Master even has hypnotic powers. If he did, why wouldn't he have used them on the hospital staff in World Enough and Time rather than spend well over a decade disguised as a janitor?

@burrunjor wrote:Both's tone is all over the place. We have a man dying of a terminal illness mixed in with Bat skates and Bat Credit Cards and Bat Nipples, and in DIH we have psychopathic killings, mixed in with Santa showing up.

The jarring tonal inconsistency beginning with Death in Heaven and continuing into Series 9 is probably the main reason I gave up on the show in 2015. The Magician's Apprentice is the worst offender. The first ten minutes hold so much promise, then it just devolves into an utter shitshow with the infamous tank scene and Missy at her absolute worst. It all makes Moffat's cheap, patronising shock value "did I really just destroy the TARDIS and kill of half the main cast?" cliffhanger all the more insulting. We're seriously expected to believe the Daleks as a credible threat and feel genuine tension with Missy prancing around making sexual innuendos about them? What in the world was Moffat thinking? That's what his ideal sequel to Genesis of the Daleks looks like?


_________________
Why is New Who Immune to Critical Backlash Stamps11
View user profile
Not to mention the two armed guards who just stared blankly and let it happen when there was clearly more than enough time to shoot her, and who were also for some reason stationed behind the restraining table, shielding their prisoner from the line of fire.

Yes I've taken that scene apart many times, but what the hell I'll do it again.

Missy threatens to kill everyone and no guard reacts. Worse she puts on lipstick SHOWING that she got free and no one reacts. Also one of them doesn't react when the other is shot LOL LOL LOL LOL

Also how did Missy escape? I mean WTF did the Master suddenly gain teleporting powers? How did she appear behind Osgood from 10 feet away! How did she deposit handcuffs from 10 feet away. Its literally like Moffat couldn't be arsed to think of a way for her to escape.

Added to that so much of its sloppy. As I've pointed out before the 3W institute changes from being a top secret base to being one everyone knows about 3 times.

First its a public place that advertises what it does. Hence the advert of Missy telling everyone that they will have the best death. Then Chang asks Clara and Capaldi if they want to know what the place does, showing its top secret.

Then after that he says that after the discovery of the dead being aware was revealed there was a scandal and this place was set up, so its public again. Then after that its revealed to be a top secret base that no one knew about as it was stashed in ST Pauls and was bigger on the inside than the outside. Makes you wonder how Chang didn't twig something was up when he went to work each morning.

Then after that it goes back to being public as the Doctor says Missy made it up as a scam for the rich to get bodies.

This is what I'm always saying though. Leaving aside the fact that Mofftwat utterly destroyed the Master, and his cowardly, shameful pandering to the hateful feminist audience. The story is just such a sloppily made piece of television it should be held up in every bit as much contempt as B&R, in fact more, much, much more.

Apologists always claim that Missy must have hypnotised them off-screen, but we've never seen any evidence that the NuWho Master even has hypnotic powers. If he did, why wouldn't he have used them on the hospital staff in World Enough and Time rather than spend well over a decade disguised as a janitor

This is what Moffat fanboys always do. Tanman will attest to what a fucking nightmare they were on the now deleted IMDB board. They'd justify anything just because it was written by Mofftwat.

The funniest was when they tried to make out that Missy didn't want to shag the Doctor, she was just messing with him. Despite the fact that Moffat and Gomez said that she was in love with him, and she admits it in her final story, even if that were true that's still shit.

LOL the Masters latest scheme is to change into a woman and kiss the Doctor to sexually confuse him? Yeah really dastardly.

It seems the Masters on the level of that Billy Connelly joke about the guy getting off with the big babe who then says "MY NAME'S FRITZ AND THESE ARE NOT REAL TITS AND I'M WITH THE CIA" (Though I've noticed they seem to change the goal posts as when you point this out, they then go to the Roger Delgado wanted to fuck Jon Pertwee argument. Big Grin )

View user profile


PHWOOAR!!

View user profile

Commander Maxil

Commander Maxil
Dick Tater
TheWatcher wrote:

PHWOOAR!!

So damn tasty! I've always loved that shot of her butt.

She's 42 now and still looking just as delicious as she did back then.


_________________
Why is New Who Immune to Critical Backlash Giphy
View user profile
@Commander Maxil wrote:
TheWatcher wrote:

PHWOOAR!!

So damn tasty! I've always loved that shot of her butt.

She's 42 now and still looking just as delicious as she did back then.

On a side note, at the time of filming, she was apparently getting grief from the press for a supposed weight gain.

View user profile
@Queen Angvia wrote:The 1995 Judge Dredd film is another example of this- nobody seems to have a good word to say about it - Stallone, the director, Dredd creators/writers and the majority of JD fans all line up to stick the boot in.  Yet as to why NuWho's worst moments aren't similarly castigated is beyond me - perhaps because Doctor Who is still perceived as a children's show in certain circles and it would appear rather mean-spirited and churlish to criticise a kiddies' favourite. But I'm probably wrong...
I'm a huge Dredd fan and the film does spectacularly fail to get the character of Dredd right, Stallone was woefully miscast and the storyline all wrong, but it's not completely without merit.

It's mega-city looks wonderful and much more in tune with the comics than the more recently acclaimed Karl Urban Dredd movie, as indeed so is the costume and bike. The Angel Gang are nicely realised too and the surprise appearance of Hammerstein another fan-pleasing moment.

But Stallones mouth full of golfballs "Uh am da looore!" - do me a fucking favour.

Yes, it's a turkey, but does have a few glimmerings of merit.

The only reason perhaps why Fatheads Doctor Who didn't receive as much criticism for it's failings is because after over 15 years patience for it come back, I guess fans were so desperate for it to succeed you could have gift wrapped a turd in a box with the Doctor Who logo and they'd have still happily devoured it.


_________________



Why is New Who Immune to Critical Backlash Laugh410
View user profile http://www.thefuckingobvious.com

Commander Maxil

Commander Maxil
Dick Tater
TheWatcher wrote:
@Commander Maxil wrote:
TheWatcher wrote:

PHWOOAR!!

So damn tasty! I've always loved that shot of her butt.

She's 42 now and still looking just as delicious as she did back then.

On a side note, at the time of filming, she was apparently getting grief from the press for a supposed weight gain.


I remember a Simpsons episode where they referred to her as "fatgirl." Really wasn't very pleasant at all. She looked phenomenal in the film and I don't see why a bunch of tossers needed to go after her like that. lowlifes.


_________________
Why is New Who Immune to Critical Backlash Giphy
View user profile
@Rob Filth wrote:
@Queen Angvia wrote:The 1995 Judge Dredd film is another example of this- nobody seems to have a good word to say about it - Stallone, the director, Dredd creators/writers and the majority of JD fans all line up to stick the boot in.  Yet as to why NuWho's worst moments aren't similarly castigated is beyond me - perhaps because Doctor Who is still perceived as a children's show in certain circles and it would appear rather mean-spirited and churlish to criticise a kiddies' favourite. But I'm probably wrong...
I'm a huge Dredd fan and the film does spectacularly fail to get the character of Dredd right, Stallone was woefully miscast and the storyline all wrong, but it's not completely without merit.

It's mega-city looks wonderful and much more in tune with the comics than the more recently acclaimed Karl Urban Dredd movie, as indeed so is the costume and bike. The Angel Gang are nicely realised too and the surprise appearance of Hammerstein another fan-pleasing moment.

But Stallones mouth full of golfballs "Uh am da looore!" - do me a fucking favour.

Yes, it's a turkey, but does have a few glimmerings of merit.

The only reason perhaps why Fatheads Doctor Who didn't receive as much criticism for it's failings is because after over 15 years patience for it come back, I guess fans were so desperate for it to succeed you could have gift wrapped a turd in a  box with the Doctor Who logo and they'd have still happily devoured it.

There are some nice stylistic touches to the '95 Dredd film (some awful ones, too  - the glitzy/bling of the Judge uniforms, the flying Lawmaster bikes, etc), the first half hour is very promising and it's nice to see Maurice Roeves (Androzani's Stotzy) in one scene.  The trouble is, I like Dredd stories to be full of black humour and satire - none of which is really on show in either film. Maybe the upcoming telly series will rectify this and we'll finally get the live action JD we deserve!

View user profile

Commander Maxil

Commander Maxil
Dick Tater
I just love it because of Rob Schneider, to be honest.


_________________
Why is New Who Immune to Critical Backlash Giphy
View user profile

Tanmann

Tanmann
Dick Tater
@Commander Maxil wrote:I remember a Simpsons episode where they referred to her as "fatgirl." Really wasn't very pleasant at all.

The Simpsons should've ended on Season 8.

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum