Are you taking this personally? Did I insult your hero?
Less so that than that I found your comment irrational, motivated by a desire to engage in anonymous mean-spiritedness towards an artist, and just plain full of nonsense. (I'm not particularly interested in any of Davies's other shows, so I'm not sure how he could qualify as a "hero" to me.)
An ill-remembered children's show? Wrong.
Oh, yes, I'm sure that the original series is remembered with complete earnestness and respect by critics and audiences alike for its
sophisticated storytelling, subtle acting, and remarkable production values, right up there next to such groundbreaking television programs as
The Outer Limits,
The Twilight Zone,
All in the Family,
Hill Street Blues, and
M*A*S*H*.
Some of the most brilliant actors in England? Wrong again.
Christopher Eccleston? David Tennant? Penelope Wilton? Simon Pegg? Anthony Stewart Head? Sophia Myles? Jessica Hynes? John Simm? Catherine Tate? Bernard Cribbins? Alex Kingston?
Sir Derek Jacobi?
I mean, c'mon, if nothing else, you've got to give the man Sir Derek Jacobi. The man holds
two knighthoods for his acting career.
The episodes you cite, most are complete crap.
No, most are at least fun and enjoyable, and some, like "Midnight" or "Utopia," are downright brilliant.
Critically acclaimed? As you may or may not be aware, critics are simply people who, rightly or wrongly, get paid for their opinions. And that's all they are. Opinions.
Yes, but unlike, say, random people such as you and I on the Internet, they know what they're talking about and their opinions
matter.
Nominations and awards? Big deal. Plenty of people win awards. And quite often, undeservedly so.
OBE? Again, big deal. Plenty of people get OBEs, MBEs, etc etc. Again, means nothing.
Uh-huh. Sure.
If the man thinks a hero needs a gun, device or magic wand to be a hero, then obviously he lacks the intelligence to write a character that doesn't need to rely on such devices.
He said no such thing; you're completely misreading what Davies said. What he DID say was that it is difficult to find a way, without relying overly much on the sonic screwdriver, to consistently write a character that overcomes adversaries who wield powerful weapons such as a gun without wielding guns himself. Davies engaged in self-criticism, in essence -- acknowledging that he relies too much on the sonic screwdriver but not knowing how to avoid that without using other, deadlier weapons to overcome the power of deadly weapons.
It would be completely fair to say that Davies relies too much upon the sonic screwdriver. I think he does as well, and so does Davies. But Davies raises a valid point when he says that it is very difficult to present plausible scenarios in which the Doctor can overcome gun-wielding weapons whilst not wielding a gun himself if he does not use the sonic screwdriver. To take that and twist it into, "Davies thinks that a needs a gun to be a hero!" is irrational -- either a deliberate misrepresentation of Davies's words or a fundamental failure to comprehend them, and one apparently motivated by a desire to engage in an anonymous, mean-spirited ad hominem attack upon the man instead of a reasoned, reasonable, critique of his work.
