Re: BeKind & Terrance Dicks

Commander Maxil wrote:Cornell is the biggest twat of all.

They all are. Cornell certainly is, though, and his scripts are rubbish. Father’s Day was schmaltzy bollocks that possessed no maturity or nuance in how it explored its issues (not to mention the obnoxious sentimentality), as was Human Nature. Why people praise him is simply a mystery (I know I’m ranting a little here, but this has rather annoyed me).

Oh- and I read Sandifer’s review of Inferno, which missed the point of the story in every conceivable way. So you’re saying that no character on the parallel Earth is conceivably capable of redemption just because they’ve grown up in a fascist society? Situational upbringings are not the same as predispositional qualities, you muppet! ‘Elizabeth’ Shaw is presented as a potentially intelligent and intuitive individual akin to Liz from our own universe, albeit one confined to the society she lives in. One the cataclysm starts and the Doctor shows her another way, she rejects said society due to her predispositional qualities. Likewise, just because the Brigadier reminds the Doctor of his ‘other self’, it doesn’t mean the Doctor should outright reject him, as no path is explicitly set ‘So free will is not an illusion after all’. Moreover, the Doctor trying to destroy the drill in a crude manner represents both his sheer desperation after witnessing the calamities on the other world, and his frustration at the ‘ape-like’ (as referred to by Stahlman in reference to Benton) human race and their capacity for impulsively destroying themselves. As a result, the Doctor ironically submits to such ‘ape like’ impulses himself, indicative of the psychological impact of project Inferno. Why does she not understand this?

I can only take so much moronic shite, so I’ll not read any more.

I missed all the fun, but parody accounts are for people with too much time on their hands.
And yeah, this thread is probably a feast for the troll.

I googled Sandifer.
I'm glad that people like him exist. It's me feel grateful to be who I am. Lol

Bernard Marx wrote:
I can only take so much moronic shite, so I’ll not read anymore.

Shame cos I enjoyed watching you dismantle that

Rawkuss wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:
I can only take so much moronic shite, so I’ll not read anymore.

Shame cos I enjoyed watching you dismantle that

I’ll consider dismantling more at some point, perhaps. Though there’s probably too much else to dismantle as it is.

On that note about Cornell, I might write a review on Human Nature in the ‘Which Who stories have you watched lately’ thread soon. It won’t be entirely negative, but I have quite a few scathing things to say about it.

Bernard Marx wrote:

Rawkuss wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:
I can only take so much moronic shite, so I’ll not read anymore.

Shame cos I enjoyed watching you dismantle that

I’ll consider dismantling more at some point, perhaps. Though there’s probably too much else to dismantle as it is.

On that note about Cornell, I might write a review on Human Nature in the ‘Which Who stories have you watched lately’ thread soon. It won’t be entirely negative, but I have quite a few scathing things to say about it.

If you could that would be great. Since reading the TVS round table discussion between him , Moffat, Andy Lane and ANOther I find Cornell particularly annoying. I found his criticisms of Old Who more annoying than Moffat's.

Or maybe i just need to get out more ...


:-)

stengos wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:

Rawkuss wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:
I can only take so much moronic shite, so I’ll not read anymore.

Shame cos I enjoyed watching you dismantle that

I’ll consider dismantling more at some point, perhaps. Though there’s probably too much else to dismantle as it is.

On that note about Cornell, I might write a review on Human Nature in the ‘Which Who stories have you watched lately’ thread soon. It won’t be entirely negative, but I have quite a few scathing things to say about it.

If you could that would be great. Since reading the TVS round table discussion between him , Moffat, Andy Lane and ANOther I find Cornell particularly annoying. I found his criticisms of Old Who more annoying than Moffat's.

Or maybe i just need to get out more ...


:-)

Cornell seems particularly self-loathing there, and it’s no wonder so many of his written works strive for coerced sentimentality, angst and immaturity (well, based on his TV stories- I’ve not read the VNAs, though based on how some here have described them, they’re probably even more so). I think he, RTD, Moffat etc simply never understood the programme at its core, as burrunjor has astutely acknowledged many times on this forum.

I think Human Nature escaped major criticism by many classic fans at the time due to the fact that it seems to pledge a more sophisticated story on the surface (both due to the period setting and the reserved performances from the cast when compared to most RTD scripts), but I’ve realised how shallow it actually is upon re-watches, and how smug the script often is.

Human Nature was well-cast, produced and directed. And yet the more I think about it, the money and resources probably could've been better spent on adapting H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds properly.

Tanmann wrote:Human Nature was well-cast, produced and directed. And yet the more I think about it, the money and resources probably could've been better spent on adapting H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds properly.

Do you know if the WotW tv film is still going to happen Tanmann? Its got a page on IMDB, it will have a period setting (Edwardian i think) and they list Rafe Spall as playing the lead man in it but the BBC seem reticent about mentioning a premier year let alone date.

stengos wrote:

Tanmann wrote:Human Nature was well-cast, produced and directed. And yet the more I think about it, the money and resources probably could've been better spent on adapting H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds properly.

Do you know if the WotW tv film is still going to happen Tanmann? Its got a page on IMDB, it will have a period setting (Edwardian i think)  and they list Rafe Spall as playing the lead man in it but the BBC seem reticent about mentioning a premier year let alone date.

Ah, I've not been following that up. I hope it happens, and I hope it's good. I think we've yet to see a version of Wells' story onscreen that's true to the original letter and spirit. Hopefully this will be it.

But it kind of struck me that the things that seemed so appealing about Human Nature as a TV story (the setting, the invasion of a small town, crises of faith) were, if not derivative of Wells' story, could be found in revisiting it just as easily.

Bernard Marx wrote:

Rawkuss wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:
I can only take so much moronic shite, so I’ll not read anymore.

Shame cos I enjoyed watching you dismantle that

I’ll consider dismantling more at some point, perhaps. Though there’s probably too much else to dismantle as it is.

On that note about Cornell, I might write a review on Human Nature in the ‘Which Who stories have you watched lately’ thread soon. It won’t be entirely negative, but I have quite a few scathing things to say about it.

I hope you do, I despise Human Nature/Family of Blood. Prior to Death in Heaven it was my least favourite story.

I honestly think the only reason its popular is because it exploits the WW1 setting and has a moving scene at the end with the soldiers. Thing is though that scene isn't connected to the rest of the story. Its just tossed in there to get people crying which is pretty easy, considering WW1 was so horrible.

Human Nature is shit for the following reasons.

1/ Why does the Doctor run away? He can best these aliens easier than having a fart right? So why not at the start overpower them and imprison them somewhere where they'll just die peacefully of natural causes if he wants to be humane? Why let these psychos go running about all of time and space?

Also why doesn't he just stay in the TARDIS until they die? He says that they can't find the TARDIS to Martha, so just stay there and wait them out.

Why go to one period when they are time travellers? He could live there for 100 years and then when he leaves its only been 2 seconds from their perspective? Also why doesn't he just use his nose ventriloquism that he does at the end to hide from them?

Why choose to become a human, thereby giving Martha the heinous task of getting to know and then murdering a human, and why make himself vulnerable if the aliens come along? If ONE watch gets lost or snatched by the aliens that's that. He is endangering all of time and space and for what? To be kind to aliens that he later tortures?

2/ Why hide in the early 20th century? If he has to become a human.

In that time humans could easily deal with some punk ass aliens, and Martha could live a comfortable life. Instead he chooses a period where humans will be killed easily by aliens, and the entire history of the earth could be changed dramatically, and Martha will basically have to be his slave!

3/ The acting is awful IMO. Tennant is at his whiniest, Joan is too poh faced, and the guy playing the villain is awful. Look at the stupid faces he pulls.

4/ The ending is quite possibly the stupidest moment in the shows history. To start with where the hell did he get those powers?

What the Doctor can trap people in mirrors now? Also why would wrapping someone in unbreakable chains make them live forever? Are they enchanted? Also wouldn't throwing someone into a black hole just kill them?

Also why the hell would the Doctor condemn people to an eternity of torture? It becomes even more hypocritical when two weeks later he's hugging his psycho archenemy, and don't even get me started on his attempts to help Davros who tried to blow up everything!

Rawkuss wrote:I wish I didn't.

El or Liz, formerly Phil, runs a blog that's occasionally published as a book series, Tardis Eruditorium. I guess they could best be summed up as a professional fan. BeKind is a parody of her.

http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/author/phil/tardis-eruditorum/

Is Be Kind a parody of her though? Apart from his recent post about Terrance Dicks and white men, I'd say that BeKind's posts are perfectly in line with Sandifier. Remember this is a woman who basically said critics of Pissy, Kissy, Missy should be doxxed.

burrunjor wrote:

Rawkuss wrote:I wish I didn't.

El or Liz, formerly Phil, runs a blog that's occasionally published as a book series, Tardis Eruditorium. I guess they could best be summed up as a professional fan. BeKind is a parody of her.

http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/author/phil/tardis-eruditorum/

Is Be Kind a parody of her though? Apart from his recent post about Terrance Dicks and white men, I'd say that BeKind's posts are perfectly in line with Sandifier. Remember this is a woman who basically said critics of Pissy, Kissy, Missy should be doxxed.

Not sure what you are suggesting here. The opposite of parody is the genuine article surely?

Do you have a citation for this doxxing thing cos that seems extreme even for her!

I always remember her claim that if Talons is your favourite story then you don't care about racism.

Rawkuss wrote:

burrunjor wrote:

Rawkuss wrote:I wish I didn't.

El or Liz, formerly Phil, runs a blog that's occasionally published as a book series, Tardis Eruditorium. I guess they could best be summed up as a professional fan. BeKind is a parody of her.

http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/author/phil/tardis-eruditorum/

Is Be Kind a parody of her though? Apart from his recent post about Terrance Dicks and white men, I'd say that BeKind's posts are perfectly in line with Sandifier. Remember this is a woman who basically said critics of Pissy, Kissy, Missy should be doxxed.

Not sure what you are suggesting here. The opposite of parody is the genuine article surely?

Do you have a citation for this doxxing thing cos that seems extreme even for her!

I always remember her claim that if Talons is your favourite story then you don't care about racism.

I meant that BeKind is no more ridiculous than she is. I believe Tanman has a link to the article where she basically says transphobic people (which equates to not liking that abomination) Should be blocked.

Sandifier is an utter joke and a coward. I don't want to think what kind of moron would donate to her patreon.

burrunjor wrote:I meant that BeKind is no more ridiculous than she is. I believe Tanman has a link to the article where she basically says transphobic people (which equates to not liking that abomination) Should be blocked.

Sandifier is an utter joke and a coward. I don't want to think what kind of moron would donate to her patreon.

It was here she said, not long after Dark Water aired that fans who walked over Missy should be publically named and shamed:

"And to their credit, they played nice and clipped usernames, thus avoiding publicly naming and shaming people for their actions, not that publicly naming and shaming the person who said that they felt "as though something sacred has been violated" because the Master was a woman now would have been in the least bit unreasonable."

http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/us-vs-gallifreybase-vs-th3m/

I was kind of a follower of her blog up to that point (I think her reviews on the Davison stories were pretty spot on), but after that I started to put some serious distance from her blog. Thinking it was the domain of the accusatory and unreasonable now (that, and my interest in Doctor Who overall had taken a massive knock thanks to that bloody awful finale).

There's nothing I despise more than a cowardly bully.

From my experience, it’s very difficult to find a genuinely astute Doctor Who reviewer online who hasn’t either become misguided over time or made some sort of absurd statement. There are a few I like, though not too many.

Based on Sandifer’s crap review of Inferno, it seems evidential enough to indicate a Who reviewer lacking in genuine critical faculties even before taking Death in Heaven into account. Or did she actually write any decent reviews?

Bernard Marx wrote:From my experience, it’s very difficult to find a genuinely astute Doctor Who reviewer online who hasn’t either become misguided over time or made some sort of absurd statement. There are a few I like, though not too many.

Based on Sandifer’s crap review of Inferno, it seems evidential enough to indicate a Who reviewer lacking in genuine critical faculties even before taking Death in Heaven into account. Or did she actually write any decent reviews?  

I'd say she was at her best when sinking her teeth into the stupidity of the Saward and Levine approach.

But I've come to realize her politics tend to lend her toward the politics of envy. That as far as she's concerned, any white male writer who isn't helping her cause doesn't deserve the kudos fandom lavishes them with, and is subject to her double standards, meaning that RTD gets a pass for his worst egocentric or fanwank indulgences in a way she absolutely refuses to grant for Terrance Dicks.

Tanmann wrote:

stengos wrote:

Tanmann wrote:Human Nature was well-cast, produced and directed. And yet the more I think about it, the money and resources probably could've been better spent on adapting H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds properly.

Do you know if the WotW tv film is still going to happen Tanmann? Its got a page on IMDB, it will have a period setting (Edwardian i think)  and they list Rafe Spall as playing the lead man in it but the BBC seem reticent about mentioning a premier year let alone date.

Ah, I've not been following that up. I hope it happens, and I hope it's good. I think we've yet to see a version of Wells' story onscreen that's true to the original letter and spirit. Hopefully this will be it.

This autumn according to this article from yesterday: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/film-tv/news/eleanor-tomlinson-runs-from-martian-in-war-of-the-worlds-image-38480071.html

I have just seen that it's written by Peter Harness

Rawkuss wrote:This autumn according to this article from yesterday: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/film-tv/news/eleanor-tomlinson-runs-from-martian-in-war-of-the-worlds-image-38480071.html

Excellent!

That's a great promo photo!