Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
2012
unknownj
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14934-2261126,00.html

Where to start?!!

"I do this, you understand, as a hyper-committed fan — a fan who has cried during every episode"

I should jolly well hope not - several of them were neither tear-jerkers, nor were they hilariously funny.. So either the writer here is in some way emotionally damaged, or she is in the business of making false claims to misrepresent her commitment to being a fan. Either way, what follows is not worth all that much..

"In a nutshell, this series has dropped hints about two, fairly large, subjects. The first is how all the other Time Lords on Gallifrey came to die — Satan accused the Doctor of being “the killer of his own people”, which is a fairly serious accusation, coming from the Devil."

I don't think calling somebody "the killer of his own people" is a hint, nor is this new information. Perhaps this hyper-committed fan should have spent less time weeping, and more time paying attention to the plot of the first series, which quite clearly explains that the Doctor is responsible for the resolution of the time war, which is what caused the mutual destruction of his people and the Daleks. This was a crucial point in the first series, as it defined Christopher Ecclestone's character.

"The second has been the Doctor’s private life, including his childhood (“Such a lonely child,” Madame Pompadour murmured, reading his mind in The Girl in the Fireplace) and own, totally unexpected fatherhood (“I was one [A DAD] once,” he said, apropos of nothing, in Fear Her.)"

Well let's see.. The Doctor's childhood was approximately 900 years in his personal past, so I don't think it's entirely relevant. It's just another throwaway remark intended to make him more mysterious, and also exists as a plot device to show the closeness between the two of them. It didn't need elaboration. As for his 'unexpected fatherhood', on November 23rd 1963 we were introduced to a character called Susan, and her grandfather 'The Doctor'. I would hardly call this remark, 43 years later, unexpected. Where does the writer presume that grandchildren come from, if not via children? Of course The Doctor is a parent, he's always been one, this is not new information either.

"No one has ever gone into the Doctor’s past much — and with 800- odd years under his belt, there’s going to be some interesting stuff."

Oh, but they have, and it went horribly wrong.. Silver Nemesis anyone? All attempts to write a backstory have looked contrived and just cheapened the brand.

From this point, the writer just gets a bit silly..

"Well, with that lot floating around in the mix, a viewer could be forgiven for thinking that there was going to be a pretty amazing season climax — something that needed to be spread over four episodes, say, and cover the Doctor’s intriguing childhood (..)"

Why? How would that serve the plot? Would we better understand the character? Do we need to? Is this a soap opera now?

"presumably stupendous years as a young adult where he KILLED HIS WHOLE PLANET"

As a young adult? The Time Lords were destroyed sometime after Sylvester McCoy, hardly a young adult.. Has this cretin even watched the original series?

"and then a later period, where he had a child — the only other Gallifreyan, or half-Gallifreyan, in the universe — and then lost/abandoned it."

Why would it have to be later anyway? Assume you knew nothing about anything (as this writer does), you still wouldn't presume that he'd had a child after the Time War.. He had a Grandchild in the 60s, Susan 'Foreman', played by Carol Ann Ford, who decided to stay on Earth after the Dalek invasion in 2150.. Any suggestions that she is not his biological granddaughter are revisionist fallacies, dreamed up by idiot fanboys with nothing better to do.. They subscribe to the "If we aren't having sex, then The Doctor can't be either" school of thought, and lord knows these people aren't getting any.. I'm actually quite grateful to RTD for sticking with the original version of events, rather than the nonsense in subsequent novelisations..

"Viewers could easily presume that they were being prepared for looking into the dark heart of the lonely Time Lord."

Only stupid viewers. Sorry, but there was never any indication that this would be the case, except to those people who are obviously mistaking Science Fiction for some sort of touching soap opera.

"Instead, the tedious Daleks — who did the series finale last year.."

o noes! Silly writers, they've accidentally re-used the most popular villain in the show's history! What were they thinking?! There should be rules, no consecutive season finales, and no more than two episodes in a rolling 12 months (and no more than one in any given three month period). Ooh, and... you see where I'm going with this. I think "So what?" sums it up best.

"..are coming to have a run-of-the-mill fist-fight with the whatever Cybermen, in what will be little more than an intergalactic, souped up version of Robot Wars"

So says somebody who, by her own admission, has not been permitted to watch the episode in advance. Quite why they decided to go to press on a Monday with an article written about something that happened on Saturday, written on Friday without any foreknowledge, I do not know. I don't think there was anything run-of-the-mill about the episode, myself.

"then I’ll be left without any more Who between now and Christmas. I can’t say I’m best pleased about it"

I believe the relevant phrase, in Internet parlance, is "o rly?" This article does not sound like it's written by somebody who has paid attention to the new series, or who has any knowledge of the old series, or who seems to enjoy the show at all. A throwaway "Aw, I'll be sad it's gone" doesn't detract from the fact that this woman is in no sense of the word a "fan", except perhaps in the sense that she seems to be blowing an awful lot of air.

Now, the important question is - where can I find a job where they'll pay me to write about things I have no knowledge of, before they've happened, without performing any sort of research or getting anybody to check whether I'm talking bollocks?

  • 1
If she's crying at every episode... perhaps she's pregnant and overly hormonal.

That article is a bit... crazy and yeah, neglects everything we already know about the Doctor from previous episodes. Like... first the Doctor already has at least one grandchild, after that we're introduced to Romana who happens to be OMG also Gallifreyan and looking at the first incarnation of the Doctor... he may not have had any kind of intriguing childhood - we're introduced to what appears to be an elderly man - perhaps implying that he's managed to not get killed or do anything too exciting and dangerous for a heck of a long time.

It sounds like the writer hasn't considered that the Doctor *travels through time* and is incredibly long lived so to an outside view things don't necessarily occur in any kind of sense-making order.

"then I’ll be left without any more Who between now and Christmas. I can’t say I’m best pleased about it"

Perhaps she could pick up a few copies of...say previous Doctor Who episodes? Or watch Casanova instead if she's only a fan of David Tennant.

"Now, the important question is - where can I find a job where they'll pay me to write about things I have no knowledge of, before they've happened, without performing any sort of research or getting anybody to check whether I'm talking bollocks?"

The Sun?

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account