Which Hive member would you most like to be trapped in a lift with?

Any of the female ones. I always have a mini chessboard with me just in case a situation like that arises. Getting my arse whipped by a girl at chess is strangely arousing.

BeKind. That would be hilarious.

Also whilst they don't appear to post here anymore I reckon if me and Penny, or me and Mike were stuck in a lift it would be like this.

burrunjor wrote:BeKind. That would be hilarious.

Also whilst they don't appear to post here anymore I reckon if me and Penny, or me and Mike were stuck in a lift it would be like this.

Curious to ask: Who were Penny and Mike?

I can’t imagine the kind of company BeKind would be like in a lift.

Burrunjor and Mike used to do very dirty things to each other with noodle pots and a second hand feather duster. Even I was repulsed!

Bernard Marx wrote:Curious to ask: Who were Penny and Mike?

As far as I know, they were the SJWs of the forum, (or at least started to go increasingly more SJW over time).

Penny is a self-admitted SJW - and still a good friend. I don't choose my friends on the basis of politics.

IRL Penny is extremely talented, affable and smart, and has shown me great kindness over the years.

The forum would have disappeared without Mike at the helm, paying server costs, etc, which allowed it to be a truly free speech platform, instead of dictated by forummotion or Informe rules. These were probably the finest days of any of the iterations of this place.

Mike has been a great personal friend for over a decade now. He's not in the same place politically - at least not in terms of identity politics, but he doesn't have time to fuck about here any more.

Cunnus Maximus wrote:Penny is a self-admitted SJW - and still a good friend. I don't choose my friends on the basis of politics.

IRL Penny is extremely talented, affable and smart, and has shown me great kindness over the years.

The forum would have disappeared without Mike at the helm, paying server costs, etc, which allowed it to be a truly free speech platform, instead of dictated by forummotion or Informe rules. These were probably the finest days of any of the iterations of this place.

Mike has been a great personal friend for over a decade now. He's not in the same place politically - at least not in terms of identity politics, but he doesn't have time to fuck about here any more.

Fair enough. People are often more decent outside of the internet (particularly an insane forum like this one.   )

I wasn't trying to stir up that old drama again, it was really more just an excuse to post that excellent scene from Babylon 5 of two enemies trapped in a lift. (Neither of the characters come off well in the scene so it's no more an insult either way LOL.) Babylon 5 is Ian Levine's new love incidentally. To be fair he is right that it exceeds New Who in every possible way.

I must admit though that a part of me would be interested to hear what Mike thought of series 11?

He may have been politically biased in some ways, but he knew shit DW when he saw it.

burrunjor wrote:

Fair enough. People are often more decent outside of the internet (particularly an insane forum like this one.   )

I wasn't trying to stir up that old drama again, it was really more just an excuse to post that excellent scene from Babylon 5 of two enemies trapped in a lift. (Neither of the characters come off well in the scene so it's no more an insult either way LOL.)  Babylon 5 is Ian Levine's new love incidentally. To be fair he is right that it exceeds New Who in every possible way.

I must admit though that a part of me would be interested to hear what Mike thought of series 11?

He may have been politically biased in some ways, but he knew shit DW when he saw it.

Firstly, yes, Babylon 5 shits turds and worms on NewWho. That said, The Expanse drops a megaton log on both of those shows and does a giant piss over the top of it.

Everyone is politically biased. Even the media lauded 'centrism' is a bias towards the neoliberal status quo.

Mike thought series 11 was a load of shit. He especially hated Kerblam!

He's actually become a formidable debater. I don't even bother contending his points when we discuss stuff any more. Then again, I have very little energy or willingness to truly debate anyone these days. I take more pills than a Roboman on an extended lunch break and it's taken its toll.

There's also the possibility that I'm just too old to care whether I get the final word any more. Arguing on the Internet for as long as I have has become akin to taking the same train journey every day for 20 years; eventually, even the scenery becomes mundane, the chairs flat and lifeless, and the sound of the train an irrepressible irritant.

Cunnus Maximus wrote:Penny is a self-admitted SJW - and still a good friend. I don't choose my friends on the basis of politics.

IRL Penny is extremely talented, affable and smart, and has shown me great kindness over the years.

The forum would have disappeared without Mike at the helm, paying server costs, etc, which allowed it to be a truly free speech platform, instead of dictated by forummotion or Informe rules. These were probably the finest days of any of the iterations of this place.

Mike has been a great personal friend for over a decade now. He's not in the same place politically - at least not in terms of identity politics, but he doesn't have time to fuck about here any more.

Thanks for the clarification, Cunnus. To be clear, I never had the intent of mocking any of them for their political leanings. To be perfectly honest, I don’t prefer to give a fuck about where one leans politically anymore, identity politics or otherwise- it’s more to do with the individual at hand and how they present their arguments. I used to be an uptight twat a few years ago who thought I knew everything in spite of knowing fuck all, and I’d rather not deviate back to that closed-minded perspective (even though I occasionally do at the worst of times, though eventually come to acknowledge it).

I too know quite a few lovely people in real life who differ from my own political views, and that’s always a good thing. It enables for civilised discussion and debate, and doesn’t allow for the superficial qualities of others to impede one’s perception of them. I don’t tend to criticise people (writers, directors, producers etc) in the entertainment industry (or real life) for their politics on this forum or elsewhere- I criticise them for the quality of their output or arguments, or at least try to approach it that way.

I’d rather not echo the modern media’s idiotic tendencies to trivialise all political arguments in the most reactionary possible way (which the NuWho production team do themselves, not dissimilar to the Sun, the Mail and the Express). It’s all just vacuous and baseless noise at this point with little genuine analysis at play.

Bernard Marx wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, Cunnus. To be clear, I never had the intent of mocking any of them for their political leanings. To be perfectly honest, I don’t prefer to give a fuck about where one leans politically anymore, identity politics or otherwise- it’s more to do with the individual at hand and how they present their arguments. I used to be an uptight twat a few years ago who thought I knew everything in spite of knowing fuck all, and I’d rather not deviate back to that closed-minded perspective (even though I occasionally do at the worst of times, though eventually come to acknowledge it).

I too know quite a few lovely people in real life who differ from my own political views, and that’s always a good thing. It enables for civilised discussion and debate, and doesn’t allow for the superficial qualities of others to impede one’s perception of them. I don’t tend to criticise people (writers, directors, producers etc) in the entertainment industry (or real life) for their politics on this forum or elsewhere- I criticise them for the quality of their output or arguments, or at least try to approach it that way.

I’d rather not echo the modern media’s idiotic tendencies to trivialise all political arguments in the most reactionary possible way (which the NuWho production team do themselves, not dissimilar to the Sun, the Mail and the Express). It’s all just vacuous and baseless noise at this point with little genuine analysis at play.

We can all get a bit sanctimonious and pompous at times. It's natural. We all have ego. Even if you try to suppress it, it will always bubble up to the surface in conflict or high-stress situations. Whether that means we are forgetting or remembering ourselves is an argument for another day.

Our identities are related to questions of bias and objectivity too. There's a myth that emotional disengagement necessarily makes one more objective. Yet, there's nothing objective about ignoring your own feelings and those of others around you. I believe more in EQ these days than I used to. The key seems to be balance. I'm still not particularly good at it, but I'm better than I used to be.

Interesting point re: writers. For me it's whether they overtly conflate their political leanings with their writings. I honestly don't mind if their messages are delivered in an allegorical and indirect way - even if I don't agree. What does irk me is the lack of craft in which many current writers demonstrate their political leanings. There is writing that leads to reflection, and writing that patronisingly bashes the audience over the head; telling them what to think, and what to feel.

There's also a real issue, as you say, with the way shows are 'sold' to audiences in the current era. Rather than simple inclusivity and good character development, we have a situation where representation has become paramount - from both a marketing and character-defining standpoint. That's not to say there wasn't a type of 'whiteness' that purveyed the history of Western film and television, but the way to fix that isn't to fixate on other identities in a way that's invidious.

What I'm saying is: smother me in black, gay, trans, disabled characters all you want, but don't let their characters be defined by said identities. Their identities should neither be incidental, nor central to what they bring to the plot, and there should be no rules as to what they can and can't be in any medium.

Oh, and as for the question, my answer is Ronnie.

I've known him a long time over various iterations of this forum and on other media. I feel guilty about not fully replying to his last PM. (sorry mate, I'll get round to it!)

Absolutely solid, A* geezer who 100% deserves the happiness that has bestowed itself on him over the last few years or so.

Cunnus Maximus wrote:Penny is a self-admitted SJW - and still a good friend. I don't choose my friends on the basis of politics.

IRL Penny is extremely talented, affable and smart, and has shown me great kindness over the years.

The forum would have disappeared without Mike at the helm, paying server costs, etc, which allowed it to be a truly free speech platform, instead of dictated by forummotion or Informe rules. These were probably the finest days of any of the iterations of this place.

Mike has been a great personal friend for over a decade now. He's not in the same place politically - at least not in terms of identity politics, but he doesn't have time to fuck about here any more.

I'm pleased to hear Mike's gotten better again.

As for the question, I dunno.... Rob.

Cunnus Maximus wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, Cunnus. To be clear, I never had the intent of mocking any of them for their political leanings. To be perfectly honest, I don’t prefer to give a fuck about where one leans politically anymore, identity politics or otherwise- it’s more to do with the individual at hand and how they present their arguments. I used to be an uptight twat a few years ago who thought I knew everything in spite of knowing fuck all, and I’d rather not deviate back to that closed-minded perspective (even though I occasionally do at the worst of times, though eventually come to acknowledge it).

I too know quite a few lovely people in real life who differ from my own political views, and that’s always a good thing. It enables for civilised discussion and debate, and doesn’t allow for the superficial qualities of others to impede one’s perception of them. I don’t tend to criticise people (writers, directors, producers etc) in the entertainment industry (or real life) for their politics on this forum or elsewhere- I criticise them for the quality of their output or arguments, or at least try to approach it that way.

I’d rather not echo the modern media’s idiotic tendencies to trivialise all political arguments in the most reactionary possible way (which the NuWho production team do themselves, not dissimilar to the Sun, the Mail and the Express). It’s all just vacuous and baseless noise at this point with little genuine analysis at play.

We can all get a bit sanctimonious and pompous at times. It's natural. We all have ego. Even if you try to suppress it, it will always bubble up to the surface in conflict or high-stress situations. Whether that means we are forgetting or remembering ourselves is an argument for another day.

Our identities are related to questions of bias and objectivity too. There's a myth that emotional disengagement necessarily makes one more objective. Yet, there's nothing objective about ignoring your own feelings and those of others around you. I believe more in EQ these days than I used to. The key seems to be balance. I'm still not particularly good at it, but I'm better than I used to be.

Interesting point re: writers. For me it's whether they overtly conflate their political leanings with their writings. I honestly don't mind if their messages are delivered in an allegorical and indirect way - even if I don't agree. What does irk me is the lack of craft in which many current writers demonstrate their political leanings. There is writing that leads to reflection, and writing that patronisingly bashes the audience over the head; telling them what to think, and what to feel.

There's also a real issue, as you say, with the way shows are 'sold' to audiences in the current era. Rather than simple inclusivity and good character development, we have a situation where representation has become paramount - from both a marketing and character-defining standpoint. That's not to say there wasn't a type of 'whiteness' that purveyed the history of Western film and television, but the way to fix that isn't to fixate on other identities in a way that's invidious.

What I'm saying is: smother me in black, gay, trans, disabled characters all you want, but don't let their characters be defined by said identities. Their identities should neither be incidental, nor central to what they bring to the plot, and there should be no rules as to what they can and can't be in any medium.

Brilliant response. This is exactly what I refer to when I mention passive audience spectatorship- when writers and directors prioritise coaxing a superficial emotional reaction from their audience as opposed to inviting them to reflect on the subtext of the narrative. NuWho is full of it from day 1, sacrificing nuance for superficial bombast and emotional overtones lacking in any intelligent sentiment beyond “You will cry!” (or as you refer to it, “emotional incontinence”).

What baffles me the most is how people misinterpret it as “emotional depth”, when all it does is pummel the audience with simplistic emotional undertones coercing them to experience one emotion, serving as the opposite of “depth”. Emotion should be elicited through the audience’s own experiences with the art as opposed to the art telling them to experience it. It’s less to do with the politics at hand as opposed to the craft presented, and whether the writing is nuanced or complex enough to ensure as such. And I agree on EQ as well- I’d argue that emotional intelligence is intrinsic to how we interact with others and understand those around us, even if some balance is required.

And yes- characters shouldn’t be defined by their sexual identities, as it further trivialises those superficial qualities and restricts any genuine nuance. I always assumed that the purpose of equality was to ensure that people weren’t judged or assessed through such qualities, and were instead judged for their individual identities as people as opposed to mere symbols related to one insignificant aspect of their personality. Equality, and therefore progress, is supposed to transcend that, surely?

Identitarian philosophies as we are seeing in so much of modern mainstream media (and especially NuWho) seem too fucking stupid to get this, and instead opt for patronisingly awful narrative decisions such as depicting the First Doctor as a chauvinist, undermining Capaldi’s Doctor in the name of pseudo-progressivism through the pitiful Missy character, or having Jodie’s fucking awful iteration of the Doctor let a suffocating spider dwindle to its imminent death all whilst the Trump caricature retains the moral high ground, all whilst Chibnall still portrays her as the hero. Passive audience spectatorship of the absolute worst kind. How blissfully fucking idiotic, and we’re supposed to get behind this and blindly agree with it in the name of some egotistical self-righteousness on the part of the NuWho production team, or be labelled an alt-right sexist bigot. That’s not just bad art- it’s bad art that thinks it’s brilliant under a dysfunctional guise of superiority. How contemptible.

Bernard Marx wrote:Brilliant response. This is exactly what I refer to when I mention passive audience spectatorship- when writers and directors prioritise coaxing a superficial emotional reaction from their audience as opposed to inviting them to reflect on the subtext of the narrative. NuWho is full of it from day 1, sacrificing nuance for superficial bombast and emotional overtones lacking in any intelligent sentiment beyond “You will cry!” (or as you refer to it, “emotional incontinence”).

What baffles me the most is how people misinterpret it as “emotional depth”, when all it does is pummel the audience with simplistic emotional undertones coercing them to experience one emotion, serving as the opposite of “depth”. Emotion should be elicited through the audience’s own experiences with the art as opposed to the art telling them to experience it. It’s less to do with the politics at hand as opposed to the craft presented, and whether the writing is nuanced or complex enough to ensure as such. And I agree on EQ as well- I’d argue that emotional intelligence is intrinsic to how we interact with others and understand those around us, even if some balance is required.

Well I think the narrative (and it always comes down to some kind of narrative) is that it's 'emotional depth' in the sense of being a step-up from Classic Who, which is painted as having an old-fashioned, unrewarding emotional detachment or almost never taking the time to make its characters anything more than archetypes or disposable ciphers, and indeed perhaps wouldn't have worked as a show if it had treated its heroes and villains as real people with real emotional responses.

Unless of course a 'genius' like RTD made it work. Which is of course the propaganda. Doctor Who was, we are told, unworkable because it's so old fashioned, unless someone like RTD made it work.

I don't doubt that there are examples where Classic Who was lacking something in the emotional stakes, whether we're talking of how Adric's death gets bizarrely glossed over, or how UNIT soldiers were treated like canon fodder. There was a kernel of truth to the complaint, and explaining why the show still worked for us and engaged regardless, in that climate seemed difficult, and the undertone was always that we were 'fan' enough to, and the modern general public would not be so accommodating.

But this just seemed to be the constant narrative, pushed to ridiculous levels. Despite accepting those failings of Classic Who, I still sensed something was getting distorted when reviews of School Reunion somehow made out that Sarah got more development in those 45 minutes than she ever did in the Classic era.

I just knew that was bullshit, and that there was a hell of a lot we learned about Sarah and her strength of character even in stories like Brain of Morbius and Seeds of Doom. And in general I knew that emotional moments in Doctor Who were not as unprecedented as the RTD zombies kept making out. Unfortunately even Elisabeth Sladen herself seemed to voice this belief that she was written for better as a character now under RTD.

For that matter, all the talk of how RTD had brought the companions' families into the picture for the first time, seemed to almost wilfully erase Evil of the Daleks and Keeper of Traken from history. And as for showing the impact of a companions' abduction on the family.... maybe Doctor Who had never done that before, but films like Flight of the Navigator had done it earlier and better than RTD had. But no-one seemed to consider that argument. The narrative was always about it being the anti-RTD fans who had never looked beyond the show, even though for RTD's cheerleaders to ignore that other family sci-fi had done RTD's approach better, was itself myopic.

It might be that those fans who always invested in the classic show think that it now has emotional depth because it enriches their immersion experience of the show's universe. And maybe for them, Tennant was the Doctor they wished they had in the 1970's. Namely a Doctor who showed them it was okay to cry.

(which I'm at a bit of a disconnect from because I always remembered Tom's Doctor shedding tears in Genesis when he thinks Sarah and Harry have been blown up- it's only in one moment where he's shot from behind in the crowd of Thals as the Minister gives his victory speech, but it does look from that angle like Tom's eyes have been glistening with tears- an impression perhaps strengthened by the original video cover illustration).

And of course this is where the narrative plays in. That fans who don't like RTD's approach, only wanted it to remain the old way and remain emotionally detached because they skew older heterosexual male and have a macho-minded insecurity about acknowledging emotional sensitivities. Which of course feeds into the propaganda that some fans charged with bringing it back would've done all the wrong things with it by wanting it to remain that old fashioned way, and therefore we had to thank the stars for RT bloody D.

The other issue of course is that the show dictating how the audience feel and ordering them to cry on cue, is sadly exactly what said sycophants want. Principally they want the audience to remain a captive one at all costs, and regardless how low the show stoops to keep them almost cultishly captive to the show. Because they're raging with the insecurity that if those viewers aren't held captive and stop watcching, it'll be ratings falls and cancellation again, just like the 1980's.

Pepsi Maxil wrote:Any of the female ones.

WHAT female ones?

Cunnus Maximus wrote:Oh, and as for the question, my answer is Ronnie.

I've known him a long time over various iterations of this forum and on other media. I feel guilty about not fully replying to his last PM. (sorry mate, I'll get round to it!)

Absolutely solid, A* geezer who 100% deserves the happiness that has bestowed itself on him over the last few years or so.

Wow, thanks mate.

Don't worry about the PM. I can never keep track either.

Ronnie wrote:

Pepsi Maxil wrote:Any of the female ones.

WHAT female ones?

Mullauna and Vulnavia. I'm not sure about Kaijuko and I don't think it would be polite to ask "what gender are you, blud?" It is none of my business really. Either way, the member has great taste in chicks.

Pepsi Maxil wrote:Mullauna and Vulnavia.

Who? They sound like Mike Moorcock characters.

Pepsi Maxil wrote: I'm not sure about Kaijuko

A grand says he's a man.

burrunjor wrote:BeKind. That would be hilarious.

Also whilst they don't appear to post here anymore I reckon if me and Penny, or me and Mike were stuck in a lift it would be like this.

Brilliant scene. Those two actors were what made that show sthg special imho. Any revival without either of them would run the risk of being a flop for me. Sadly Andreas Katsulas passed away some time ago.

Ronnie wrote:

Pepsi Maxil wrote:Mullauna and Vulnavia.

Who? They sound like Mike Moorcock characters.    

They're not regular posters. I used to assume every member on here was a bloke before I encountered them.

I'd love to be stuck in a lift with you. We could listen to my custom made 80s synth-pop playlist to pass the time. You wouldn't want to leave

Naturally there would be a fair exchange of musical tastes. An experience from which you would benefit the most.

Being trapped with Burrunjor would be interesting. He generally has a lot to say about various subjects so I'd never be bored. I can imagine us listening to music and talking about the women we admire.

Pepsi Maxil wrote:Being trapped with Burrunjor would be interesting. He generally has a lot to say about various subjects so I'd never be bored. I can imagine us listening to music and talking about the women we admire.

Aww thanks, I feel the same way. To be fair that would be no different to the Hive.

Right now I'm on a Buffython, so I hope you wouldn't mind me prattling on about that

burrunjor wrote:

Pepsi Maxil wrote:Being trapped with Burrunjor would be interesting. He generally has a lot to say about various subjects so I'd never be bored. I can imagine us listening to music and talking about the women we admire.

Aww thanks, I feel the same way. To be fair that would be no different to the Hive.

Right now I'm on a Buffython, so I hope you wouldn't mind me prattling on about that

Aw that's nice. I think more would be said in real life about certain things. There's only so much you can say on The Hive. Real life conversations tend to take many different turns depending on what the other person adds to it. It's a very fast and natural thing compared to online conversations where you have to prepare your post carefully before you send it.

No, not at all. I honestly wouldn't mind.

Pepsi Maxil wrote:

burrunjor wrote:

Pepsi Maxil wrote:Being trapped with Burrunjor would be interesting. He generally has a lot to say about various subjects so I'd never be bored. I can imagine us listening to music and talking about the women we admire.

Aww thanks, I feel the same way. To be fair that would be no different to the Hive.

Right now I'm on a Buffython, so I hope you wouldn't mind me prattling on about that

Aw that's nice. I think more would be said in real life about certain things. There's only so much you can say on The Hive. Real life conversations tend to take many different turns depending on what the other person adds to it. It's a very fast and natural thing compared to online conversations where you have to prepare your post carefully before you send it.

No, not at all. I honestly wouldn't mind.

True, but at times you can say things online you'd never get away with in person

Buffy is awesome. Eliza Dushku was the Dana Delorenzo of her day. (Not saying Eliza's past it to be clear, she just doesn't seem to do much acting anymore. I'm not sure but I think she's retired?)