Revelation of the Daleks - Is the Doctor's lack of involvement a problem...

stengos wrote:

Pepsi Maxil Foley wrote:I liked Sayle until I read interview of him where he slagged off Hale and Pace. He just came across as bitter.

H&P were funny. Their show was "must see" entertainment.

Totally agree. I've watched every series of their sketch show countless times. I can't believe how underrated they are these days.

Tanmann wrote:

Rob Filth wrote:I was merely observing that you are a tiresome dullard who agonisingly labours the same point in every single thread.

You weren't 'merely observing' anything.

You actually felt the need to throw several tantrums in my thread in the hope of getting noticed by me.

Besides, if I was such a bore, why would you feel the need to still bitch about me for ten years?

Most people who bore me, I just avoid and don't dwell on. I don't go to war with them.

"Go to war with them"

Oh, the melodrama! Don't be so ridiculous, it's not like I have stockpiles of WMD's which you evidently worship and demonise a scriptwriter for decades over for making critical social commentary upon!

And I'm not bitching ABOUT you personally, I'm bitching about your bitching.

Get some perspective.

It's not like I obsessively data-profile you from social media sites from decades ago in order to throw girly ad hominem strops over when a terminally flawed point of view which you seem to generalise and champion as being a populist one is challenged.

Rob Filth wrote:Oh, the melodrama! Don't be so ridiculous, it's not like I have stockpiles of WMD's which you evidently worship and demonise a scriptwriter for decades over for making critical social commentary upon!

Yes it was a serious critical social commentary on WMD's.

That's why the Doctor in it keeps giving tongue-baths to the 'noble' side who are planning to actually press the button.

Rob Filth wrote:It's not like I obsessively data-profile you from social media sites from decades ago in order to throw girly ad hominem strops over when a terminally flawed point of view which you seem to generalise and champion as being a populist one is challenged.

Oh.... so you *were* trying to argue then?  

So what challenge to my views have you offered that expose those flaws then?

All I've seen from you is that you seem to think it's somehow an achievement that an anti-war story leaves you not giving a shit about any of the human deaths. You keep saying they 'got what they deserved' in war, which implies you think war *is* a means to justice.

You also keep invoking a lot of bullshit whataboutism to suggest that because the superpowers were poised to nuke each other and potentially destroy the planet at the time, it somehow justifies the show turning itself into a crank suicide cult too (gee, how dare the BBC not want to make it anymore!).

I just don't see you as capable of doing anything but blindly agreeing with a story that embarrasses its own case.

Tanmann wrote:Yes it was a serious critical social commentary on WMD's.

That's why the Doctor in it keeps giving tongue-baths to the 'noble' side who are planning to actually press the button.

If the Silurians & Sea Devils hadn't turned up, it was quite apparent that the humans were fully capable and willing to cause their own extinction with WMD's with any any nudging from them.

Tanmann wrote:Oh.... so you *were* trying to argue then?  

So what challenge to my views have you offered that expose those flaws then?

No, I wasn't arguing, I'm not prepared to give you the option to torturously labour your idiotic opinion for the 50 thousandth time as you do on every single fucking thread you contribute to.

You're a one-note bore who falls back on ad hominem attacks when your view is challenged, so why would I want to argue with someone so tiresomely predictable?

Tanmann wrote:All I've seen from you is that you seem to think it's somehow an achievement that an anti-war story leaves you not giving a shit about any of the human deaths. You keep saying they 'got what they deserved' in war, which implies you think war *is* a means to justice.

Why the hell SHOULD anyone feel any empathy with a bunch of cunts with WMD's who are intent on causing extinction on the planet?

The humans are every bit as despicable as the Silurians/Sea Devils.

The fact that the Doctor even bothers to save the planet from nuclear destruction given the utter selfishness and immaturity of the protagonists is noble.

Tanmann wrote:You also keep invoking a lot of bullshit whataboutism to suggest that because the superpowers were poised to nuke each other and potentially destroy the planet at the time, it somehow justifies the show turning itself into a crank suicide cult too (gee, how dare the BBC not want to make it anymore!).

 How is the Doctor saving the planet from extinction endorsing a "crank suicide cult" you moron?

Seems that those who espouse ownership of such devices and Mutually Assured Destruction are the "crank suicide cult" to me.

Tanmann wrote:I just don't see you as capable of doing anything but blindly agreeing with a story that embarrasses its own case.

and I don't see you as being capable of doing anything but embarrassing yourself by advertising your own immaturity as to not understand a morally complex adult storyline. 

Stick to the Williams/Adams cbeebies stories, they'll tax your brain less.

Rob Filth wrote:If the Silurians & Sea Devils hadn't turned up, it was quite apparent that the humans were fully capable and willing to cause their own extinction with WMD's with any any nudging from them.

So what about any hypotheticals about what if the Silurians hadn't turned up?

They did turn up.

No, I wasn't arguing, I'm not prepared to give you the option to torturously labour your idiotic opinion for the 50 thousandth time as you do on every single fucking thread you contribute to.

You seem to be arguing now though.

You're a one-note bore who falls back on ad hominem attacks when your view is challenged, so why would I want to argue with someone so tiresomely predictable?

You're the one who felt the need to spoil this thread that was meant to be about a different story altogether.

Why the hell SHOULD anyone feel any empathy with a bunch of cunts with WMD's who are intent on causing extinction on the planet?

So you're saying the writer or script-editor who's trying to convey the horrors of war and get the viewers to care doesn't have to do his job properly?

The fact that the Doctor even bothers to save the planet from nuclear destruction given the utter selfishness and immaturity of the protagonists is noble.

The only noble hero here is the Hexacromite Gas.

The Doctor was just the obstacle to its use.

Seems that those who espouse ownership of such devices and Mutually Assured Destruction are the "crank suicide cult" to me.

Then what does that make the Doctor for singing praises for the side most determined to press the button?

and I don't see you as being capable of doing anything but embarrassing yourself by advertising your own immaturity as to not understand a morally complex adult storyline. 

                         

Do stop pretending Warriors of the Deep is anything remotely mature or intelligent.

It's clear it deals with the horrors of war in the most crassly infantile way by saying to the children (and fans who think like children).... yes, terrible things happen in war, but only to 'bad' people, and only 'bad' people don't listen to the Doctor, so no reason to care or worry kids.

It's fine kids... if there's a war, just be the Doctor and you'll have instant immunity from being shot, and 'bad' people who've no reason to like you will take bullets for you regardless.

It's what's called the 'just world' fallacy, where kids reassure themselves bad things never happen to good people, so they can ignore the unjust horrors of the real world.

Stick to the Williams/Adams cbeebies stories, they'll tax your brain less.

You mean I'll have to perform less mental gymnastics to appreciate nonsense about how 'war-prolonging is peace-making' and 'criminal negligence is nobility'?

I think I'd rather die than submit to that madness.

I've watched far more mature stuff than Warriors of the Deep. Such as Hotel Rwanda, which I watched around the same time, back in 2006.

Warriors is definitely not in that league. Infact it's exposed all the more as trash by the comparison.

Seeing Hotel Rwanda certainly puts in perspective what genocidal militias actually do and how unreachable they are to reason, and what a criminally negligent joke the UN can be.

To go from seeing that to Warriors, really reveals how revolting it is to see the Doctor now sucking up to a genocidal militia and being determined to protect them.... from their victims.

It really brings home what utter trash the show had become by then, and how low it had sunk from its golden age.

Most fans probably wouldn't appreciate that though. Hotel Rwanda wasn't out in 1984, so they'd probably only be of a mind to compare it to previous Silurian stories.

Not actual cinema that mattered.

Did you really just type all of that unaided or were you just toying with several cans of alphabetti spaghetti in a large bowl?

Rob Filth wrote:Did you really just type all of that unaided or were you just toying with several cans of alphabetti spaghetti in a large bowl?

Dodging again, I see....?

Tanmann wrote:

Rob Filth wrote:Did you really just type all of that unaided or were you just toying with several cans of alphabetti spaghetti in a large bowl?

Dodging again, I see....?

No, it's just that I can't be arsed with your repetitive circular long-winded claptrap, it all amounts to the same thing - your utter inability to understand mature morally complex themes and arguments where there aren't any "good guys" or "bad guys".

Rob Filth wrote:your utter inability to understand mature morally complex themes and arguments where there aren't any "good guys" or "bad guys".

I shouldn't have to understand Warriors of the Deep's so-called 'moral complexity' about how somehow genocidal militas are 'noble' or criminal negligence is somehow 'heroic', any more than I should have to understand what the Flat-Earthers believe.

Both can be equally dismissed as being the domain of utter cranks.

It's just sadly in one case, said cranks were allowed a say in the show's creative direction.

Tanmann wrote:

Rob Filth wrote:your utter inability to understand mature morally complex themes and arguments where there aren't any "good guys" or "bad guys".

I shouldn't have to understand Warriors of the Deep's so-called 'moral complexity' about how somehow genocidal militas are 'noble' or criminal negligence is somehow 'heroic', any more than I should have to understand what the Flat-Earthers believe.

Both can be equally dismissed as being the domain of utter cranks.

It's just sadly in one case, said cranks were allowed a say in the show's creative direction.

No it's sadly the case that in the real world the real cranks hold the means of life and death over all of us with fucking stupid genocidal weapons and we allow them to get away with it.

Rob Filth wrote:No it's sadly the case that in the real world the real cranks hold the means of life and death over all of us with fucking stupid genocidal weapons and we allow them to get away with it.

So your defence is 'there's some other cranks somewhere else in the world, so that justifies the show making itself a domain for cranks too...'?

Tanmann wrote:

Rob Filth wrote:No it's sadly the case that in the real world the real cranks hold the means of life and death over all of us with fucking stupid genocidal weapons and we allow them to get away with it.

So your defence is 'there's some other cranks somewhere else in the world, so that justifies the show making itself a domain for cranks too...'?

How many Doctor Who fans do you know that stockpile WMD's?