Insightful New Yorker article on Doctor Who

[DWF]

I saw nothing in the article about her aknowlegding the influences of the old series. And indeed how could she if she only faintly remembers it?

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

I've no problem with the author pointing out the flaws of Doctor Who, just that some of the things she says are complete and total bollocks. Suggesting that the effects are deliberately bad and that the writers couldn't construct narratives is either ignorant or disingenuous.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Granted, I haven't read the article since I started this thread but I don't remember the author suggesting the effects were deliberately bad or the writers couldn't construct narratives.

 

[DWF]

Granted, I haven't read the article since I started this thread but I don't remember the author suggesting the effects were deliberately bad or the writers couldn't construct narratives.

This is what they're talking about.

The show used the shabbiest possible effects, plus a fly-by-night attitude toward narrative logic, although its low budget was as much a feature as a bug: it made something out of nothing, much the way Abed and Troy constructed their Dreamatorium engine out of cardboard tubes and a funnel.

Both statements by the author are at best inaccurate IMO. Visual effects are a matter of time, money and technology. And I'm not entirely sure what the author meant by the narrative logic line.

 

[Starkers]

In fact given some of the narrative nonsense RTD and Moffat have given us at times you could argue, even if that was true in the classic series, that things haven't changed much.