WHY

[Sci]

If they EVER let Hack Whedon near Doctor Who, the show would be dead to me. I need proper writing, not pop-culture-laced,choreographed tweeny fights...

The Five and Three Doctors are "anniversary shows", not gimmicks. If you want to classify multiple Docs crossing over, then The Two Doctors would be a "gimmick". And it was awful, so that should be a shining example how cosmetic gimmick ideas only work for those who want said gimmicks. Doctor Who's writing is light-years above most everything else on television right now. Certainly a lifetime beyond anything Whedon ever put on paper. So, unlike subpar material that relies on weekly gimmicks in an attempt to save itself from irrelevance, Doctor Who just tells a good, solid story. No puppets, or musicals. Just good stories. And that's worked for them for almost fifty-years. I believe in the old adage, if it's not broke...

Here you go, buddy. I know you sometimes miss posts in a rush to (hopefully) be heard. You take your time. If you don't understand where I made my points and stated my facts, look into getting a tutor. I don't have the time or patience to explain every detail to you...

None of that addresses the fact that you did not accurately describe the content of Whedon's work.

 

[Neroon]

Sci and The .... let me put this bluntly. Back off. You have each made your points. Over and over. So now that your disagreement has more than run its course, let's move on to other subjects and hopefully simmer down before either of you gets an infraction.

You each have valuable contributions to make to this forum, so I'd hate to see either of you miss any of that time.

 

[Captain Pike]

Hey, a fez!

 

[Shatnertage]

A few that's bigger than the Tardis!

 

[The Wormhole]

Doctor Who has been telling the same 2 or 3 stories over and over again for decades. They don't vary much. There are formulas, and the writers stick passionately to them.

The same can be said about Star Trek. TOS, TNG, and DS9 may have been different compared to each other, but Voyager and Enterprise were pretty much the same formula from TNG. In fact, the very same stories are told over and over again. Hell, by Enterprise I think they were just re-writing previous scripts but changing character names. Yes, that's both sarcasm and an exaggeration, but it emphasises my point.

He explicitly said that he did not know enough about Buffy to comment, and then he said that they did a musical episode as throw-away filler because they had 20 episodes a season. I pointed out to him that "Once More, With Feeling," while gimmicky, was not a throwaway episode, because it advanced the seasonal arc. Hence, by his own admission, he was speaking from ignorance, and the facts blatantly contradicted his notion that the musical was done as a throwaway.

I knew I was treading on thin ice when I made the comment about Buffy, however, I believe that, commentary on Buffy aside the point I made was still valid. That a show that does 20 episodes a season has more wiggle room to try different things outside the standard formula than a show that has 13 episodes (or possibly less) a season.

 

[DWF]

Yeah, bullshit. Hell, The Five Doctors didn't even air on the anniversary.

Yes it did and here in the United States at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Doctors

 

[Starkers]

Would I want the Doctor to become a woman? No.

Would I want a female version of the Doctor (like Romana)? Yes.

Would I want a show that focused on a female version of the Doctor? Certainly. Heck, depending on the actress I may actually prefer watching it to the parent series.

Nicely put, and succinct too (some people on this board could learn a lot from you! )

There was that link earlier to Sydney Newman's plans for a female Doctor in the 80s, someone underneath had posted that River Song proves a female Doctor could work!

Wrong, River Song proves that a character like River Song could work, she's nothing like the Doctor. Romana is far closer to the ideal of the Doctor than River (Who's more Jack Harkness than anyone else in Who)

As for the whole Buffy/Who conversation, I like em both, but Who is a simpler basic idea that leads itself to multiple intepretation. Buffy meanwhile was limited by the nature of its world and got quite tired by the end, and also quite depressing--which is a shame as in its heyday it balanced humour and tragedy quite well, but by the end got way too wrapped up in its own mythology.)

As for Whedon he is neither a hack nor a genius yet is capable of being both (remind you of anyone?) but over the years my appreciation of his talents has faded somewhat (oh look its another almost supernaturally strong arse kicking woman, oh and there's the character with a pithy comeback for every occasion etc etc... it's a bit like oh look there's another female character with a harriden for a mum and either no dad or a wimp for a dad).

 

[EJA]

If Whedon ever does write for Dr Who, I just hope he doesn't try to make it too much like Buffy, i.e. include a lot of supernatural and magical elements. The Whoniverse simply isn't like that, as stated in DW "The Daemons" and SJA "The Eternity Trap." Everything has a sci-fi explanation.

 

[Starkers]

Zombie thread!

I doubt Whedon ever will end up writing a Who episode, but never say never as they say...

 

[The]

My opinion of him and his work hasn't changed. So, still hoping never...

 

[Starkers]

Him writing a one off episode wouldn't bother me, him becoming showrunner would give me great cause for concern...

 

[The]

Yeah, okay, I could bend for a one-off. I mean, if we can survive Fear Her and The Doctor's Daughter, the scale could take one more nugget of feces...

 

[Marc]

or one set in the production offices with the cast playing the writers and producers and we find out Matt really IS the Doctor!

They did something along these lines with one of the Unbound Stories - Deadline (iirc) with Sir Derek Jacobi.

 

[Lindley]

If Whedon ever does write for Dr Who, I just hope he doesn't try to make it too much like Buffy, i.e. include a lot of supernatural and magical elements. The Whoniverse simply isn't like that, as stated in DW "The Daemons" and SJA "The Eternity Trap." Everything has a sci-fi explanation.

Buffy is already a spiritual cousin of Doctor Who anyway. Both take a similar "monster is just there to showcase the characters" approach to storytelling.

 

[Sci]

Zombie thread!

I doubt Whedon ever will end up writing a Who episode, but never say never as they say...

Well, Jane Espenson, who was one of Whedon's main writers on Buffy, is now one of the writers for Torchwood: The New World, so I wouldn't be surprised if Russell T. Davies and Joss Whedon cross paths one day. Who knows?

 

[Australis]

Imagine if they were co-showrunners?!

 

[Starkers]

Fandom would implode...

 

[DWF]

Fandom would implode...

Again?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

If Whedon ever does write for Dr Who, I just hope he doesn't try to make it too much like Buffy, i.e. include a lot of supernatural and magical elements. The Whoniverse simply isn't like that, as stated in DW "The Daemons" and SJA "The Eternity Trap." Everything has a sci-fi explanation.

Didn't Tom Baker fight Vampires?

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Yes, but old, dusty crones, not young, seductive warriors.