Freema Talks About Surviving Dr. Who

[The Mirrorball Man]

As for critics and reviewers "knowing what they're talking about", no more so than you or I. Again, they just get paid for their opinions. We don't.

It's a skill, though, isn't it? Tailors are not people who just incidentally happen to get paid for their sewing services. They're better at it than the average joe. Lifeguards are not just paid to swim, they're good swimmers. The reasons critics and reviewers get paid for their opinions is that they're simply better at expressing them than, well, you are.

 

[Chris227]

I'm pretty sure a lot of critics enjoyed the original series too. Harlan Ellison wrote a lengthly essay (That was on some of the American editions of Doctor Who) on how he enjoyed Doctor Who (Admittingly, this was written during Tom's era), and I know Ellison isn't the nicest guy in the Universe, but it's a still pretty good appraisal of the classic show. DWF has part of that intro in his sig.

 

[Brendan Moody]

in Britain the show has always been a huge sucess.

No. In Britain the classic series (which I love, like I love all Doctor Who) was a huge success for twelve months in the mid-sixties and three years in the mid-seventies. For the other twenty-plus years it ranged between a moderate success and an embarassing failure. It came close to cancellation in 1966, in 1969, and probably other times that I'm not remembering; certainly the ratings were that bad again by the end of Tom Baker's run or in season 22. By 2003, when RTD's version was gearing up, BBC research showed that kids remembered it as that embarassing tacky show their parents used to watch, and adults remembered it as that embarassing tacky show they used to watch as kids.

Even when it was cancelled, there were numerous attempts to revive it (and a huge public outcry during the initial cancellation, the hiatus), and a well-selling novel line.

All of which indicate that it had a devoted fanbase and was recognized by various professionals as a concept with potential. That doesn't change the fact that the classic series was, in fact, ill-remembered by the general public, as Sci says. It was an institution everyone remembered but almost no one cared about.

You really must do more research, apart from viewing a few so-so episodes like "Dragonfire" and "Survival" you should see stuff like "Pyramid Of Mars" (Which inspired the satan two-parter and even used the same actor as the bad guy) "Caves of Androzani" "Genesis of the Daleks" etc. Sure they still look low-budget, but they are well-written and well-acted. Even some of the sillier episodes ("City of Death") have a lot of stuff to recommend them. Sure, Doctor Who is low-budget, but a lot of BBC stuff is, even stuff like "I, Claudius" (With Jacobi) was shot on videotape and obviously cutting corners.

None of this, or your (or my) other opinions on the series, has anything to do with the factual accuracy of Sci's comments about how the show was received and remembered.

 

[Winterwind]

As for critics and reviewers "knowing what they're talking about", no more so than you or I. Again, they just get paid for their opinions. We don't.

It's a skill, though, isn't it? Tailors are not people who just incidentally happen to get paid for their sewing services. They're better at it than the average joe. Lifeguards are not just paid to swim, they're good swimmers. The reasons critics and reviewers get paid for their opinions is that they're simply better at expressing them than, well, you are.

You know, if you based everything on what you saw in someone's quick posts for fun on a message board you'd wind up talking out of your ass like, well, you.

But thanks for embarrassing yourself.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

You know, if you based everything on what you saw in someone's quick posts for fun on a message board you'd wind up talking out of your ass like, well, you.

But thanks for embarrassing yourself.

Was that some kind of elaborate retraction?

 

[Winterwind]

You know, if you based everything on what you saw in someone's quick posts for fun on a message board you'd wind up talking out of your ass like, well, you.

But thanks for embarrassing yourself.

Was that some kind of elaborate retraction?

Simply me pointing out that your statement is quite flawed in more ways than I can be arsed to point out.

But, what the hell, here's a quick one for you:

I know several journalists. They're friends actually. Most got their jobs via networking, university connections and co-op placements. Doesn't mean they can write. Doesn't mean they can express themselves any better than a non-journalist. In fact, I've seen far more intelligently expressed "letters to the editor" than I've seen reviews/columns.

Now, we can either agree to disagree or we can continue with the foolishness which is part of what makes the internet so fun. But, hey, since you're the one that wanted to make this personal with the insult, I could always give you my opinion of people from Switzerland who have "journalist" in their deviantArt profiles.

 

[SiorX]

I know several journalists. They're friends actually. Most got their jobs via networking, university connections and co-op placements. Doesn't mean they can write. Doesn't mean they can express themselves any better than a non-journalist. In fact, I've seen far more intelligently expressed "letters to the editor" than I've seen reviews/columns.

The fact that you read crappy publications isn't exactly an indictment of the entire profession though, is it? (neener neener)

 

[ClayinCA]

So, not to get this thread back on topic or anything, but does anyone know if Freema is on

Spoiler: Survivors

more than just the first episode

of Survivors?

 

[captcalhoun]

no, she isn't.

 

[ClayinCA]

Good to know, thanks. I'm holding off on watching Survivors till all of them have aired, but I was curious on that particular point.

 

[Thrall]

Following a very popular character like Rose is hard to do. She was Riley to Rose's Angel. While the character was smarter, tougher, and more of an equal to The Doctor in terms of intellect, she was also more needy and even more a bleeding heart then #10 is. She also wasn't nearly as funny, cute, and charismatic as Rose is. Rose was a very endearing character that people just fell in love with and didn't want to give up on. That's not to say Rose was without her faults, because she could be kind of dim and rather slutty. The unrequited love saga got old after awhile, and you just wanted them to either hook up or not, just so they could get it over with.

And the actress herself didn't do anyone any favors. She only really had two expressions through out Series 3: Chirpy and Aghast. She either always had that dumb, blank smile on her face or that look she always had when things got serious that said "Someone dropped a turd in my cornflakes!".

 

[Stevil2001]

Using a clip from the show's waning days, the Sylvestor McCoy years, (hated by a good chunk of fans sort of like Star Trek TOS season 3) is not really going to prove your point.

Name an era of the show not hated by a good chunk of fans.

Go on, I'm waiting.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Sci, once again you underestimate the classic series. It ran for a full 26 seasons before it was canceled, so it's hardly a little-remembered show. Unless you mean the United States, but in Britain the show has always been a huge sucess.

I should note that the perception of Doctor Who in the United States and it Britain are vastly different, and the audiences are massively different. In Britain, Doctor Who is concerned "family viewing." There is no such thing in the United States, and that's part of the reason why the BBC made such a hash of selling the Eccleston series to the United States; they assumed that they could get premium dollars for the show in the United States, not understanding that, on this side of the pond, Doctor Who is rather niche.

Even when it was cancelled, there were numerous attempts to revive it

There were attempts to revive the series. However, the BBC was their own worst enemy in trying to revive the series. Did they want a big-screen motion picture? Did they want to do direct-to-video films? Did they want American co-producers so they could produce something that wouldn't look embarrassing next to American science-fiction series? Different people wanted different things; they knew they had a concept that had name recognition, but no one quite knew what to do with it.

...and a well-selling novel line.

As I understand it, the New Adventures sold between five and eight percent of what a contemporaneous Star Trek novel would have sold. And probably about three percent of a contemporaneous Star Wars novel. They sold well enough for the line to continue, which may be the only thing that really matters. But they were pitched at a niche, rabid fanbase; these weren't the mainstream bestsellers that today's New Series Adventures are.

 

[captcalhoun]

and what's this got to do with Freema and her surviving Doctor Who anyway?

 

[wamdue]

and what's this got to do with Freema and her surviving Doctor Who anyway?

it seems the thread is going slightly off topic

 

[Stevil2001]

Just a little.

 

[ClayinCA]

Hey, I tried.