Old-School "Face in Space" Titles Returning!

[wamdue]

It's no biggie, there's no real explaination for what the Kandyman really was.

which makes my point even more valid.

No it doesn't. It doesn't make a difference what he was? Naturally I bet you haven't watched the serial it's from so as it watch what context it was used in?

no I have not watched it, ive seen quite enough clips of it, to know that im not wasting £10 (mininum) on the DVD, and of course it makes it more rubbish, if viewers dont even know what the offending site in front of them is meant to be, as then the Kandyman is not only a poorly designed enemy, its a poorly conceived, one as well.

I am not including Midnight in this.

 

[Messianni]

which makes my point even more valid.

No it doesn't. It doesn't make a difference what he was? Naturally I bet you haven't watched the serial it's from so as it watch what context it was used in?

no I have not watched it, ive seen quite enough clips of it, to know that im not wasting £10 (mininum) on the DVD, and of course it makes it more rubbish, if viewers dont even know what the offending site in front of them is meant to be, as then the Kandyman is not only a poorly designed enemy, its a poorly conceived, one as well.

I am not including Midnight in this.

Really, and if the few clips that a newcomer saw of Doctor Who was a bunch of people farting, fatty aliens and "Love and Monsters" then you they have the same justification as you do in calling Doctor Who pure rubbish?

 

[wamdue]

I fear we may have drifted from the point somewhat, I am not slagging off all of Classic Who, I am simply saying two things

1) the floating head title sequence were not very good

2) just becasue something was part of Classic Who is not a good enough reason to have it in new Who as welll, despite what some Classic series fans would have you believe.

and actually I dont disagree with you about the Siltheen and there faults, im just not holding them up to represent the whole of the new series, like you accuse me of doing the Kandyman. I am using him to represent some of the bad ideas of the Classic series.

 

[Sci]

By the way, Sci, maybe you should keep your bullshit original series opinions to yourself, considering you won't even bring yourself to watch it.

1. Bear in mind that I haven't been involved in any old vs. new series arguments in a very long time, and that I've been hunting down and watching old episodes periodically in the meantime.

2. I didn't bring the topic up, someone else did. Don't tell me not to talk about something, especially since I certainly didn't start talking in this thread with any intent of talking about the original series. I won't bring it up, but if someone else does, yes, I'm going to say what I think of it. If you don't like it, too bad.

There isn't a single thing the old series and the new do better than each other because,

Yes, there is. The original series' characters are two-dimensional cutouts in comparison with the new series', and TOS's budget was embarrassing even for its era.

How exactly is the new series not geared to children, exactly?

Clearly, it is geared to children, as well as to adults -- it's a family show. I didn't argue that it isn't. I argued that TOS was a bad children's show. There's a difference.

- The Adipose are aliens made of fat. Again: aliens made only of fat, that are "widdle cuddwy cutsy wutsy". That's somehow worse than candy?

No, it's worse than poorly-put-together candy monsters.

 

[DWF]

Clearly, it is geared to children, as well as to adults -- it's a family show. I didn't argue that it isn't. I argued that TOS was a bad children's show. There's a difference.

If it was so bad why'd it last for 26 years and create a strong enough fan base to lst without the show for another 16 years? Let alone if it was so bad why would anybody want to bring it back in the first place?

 

[Sci]

Clearly, it is geared to children, as well as to adults -- it's a family show. I didn't argue that it isn't. I argued that TOS was a bad children's show. There's a difference.

If it was so bad why'd it last for 26 years and create a strong enough fan base to lst without the show for another 16 years? Let alone if it was so bad why would anybody want to bring it back in the first place?

False logic. The original Battlestar Galactica created a devoted fanbase, including guys who were willing to bring it back and re-invent it. This does not mean that BSG TOS did not suck ass.

Just because some people can see the good parts of even a bad show, and then revive it and adapt it so that the good parts come to the forefront in the reinvention, does not mean the original work was any damn good.

ETA:

Yes, it lasted 26 years. It lasted 26 years in part because it cost about a buck-fifty to produce each episode and because children can make for a loyal audience. This, again, does not make it good. Power Rangers is still in production after 16 years; this doesn't make it any damn good.

 

[DWF]

Clearly, it is geared to children, as well as to adults -- it's a family show. I didn't argue that it isn't. I argued that TOS was a bad children's show. There's a difference.

If it was so bad why'd it last for 26 years and create a strong enough fan base to lst without the show for another 16 years? Let alone if it was so bad why would anybody want to bring it back in the first place?

False logic. The original Battlestar Galactica created a devoted fanbase, including guys who were willing to bring it back and re-invent it. This does not mean that BSG TOS did not suck ass.

Just because some people can see the good parts of even a bad show, and then revive it and adapt it so that the good parts come to the forefront in the reinvention, does not mean the original work was any damn good.

It's hardly false logic, there'd simply be no new show without the old one, the same is true for Battlestar Galactica as well.

 

[Sci]

It's hardly false logic, there'd simply be no new show without the old one, the same is true for Battlestar Galactica as well.

I'm not contesting the idea that there would be no new show without the old one. I'm contesting the inference that the creation of a revival means that the original wasn't crap.

 

[wamdue]

Power Rangers is still in production after 16 years; this doesn't make it any damn good.

it might still be in production I dont know, but it has been axed.

 

[Sci]

Power Rangers is still in production after 16 years; this doesn't make it any damn good.

it might still be in production I dont know, but it has been axed.

Finally? Wow. I never thought that would end.

 

[Brendan Moody]

It lasted 26 years in part because it cost about a buck-fifty to produce each episode and because children can make for a loyal audience.

Never mind "in part;" this statement has no discernible relationship to the actual well-documented history of Doctor Who and the reasons its original run lasted for 26 years, which are, as one might imagine, complex, and don't really help either side of the tedious "classic Who was crap/no it wasn't" argument.

 

[DWF]

It's hardly false logic, there'd simply be no new show without the old one, the same is true for Battlestar Galactica as well.

I'm not contesting the idea that there would be no new show without the old one. I'm contesting the inference that the creation of a revival means that the original wasn't crap.

Why would there by any interest in reviving a show people was crap?

 

[wamdue]

Power Rangers is still in production after 16 years; this doesn't make it any damn good.

it might still be in production I dont know, but it has been axed.

Finally? Wow. I never thought that would end.

yep


http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2009/03/axed-power-rangers.html

 

[Neroon]

And here just this past week I was bragging on about how the Dr Who forum here was pretty much devoid of the generation infighting that has plagued other franchises. Please don't make me out to be a liar, and just cut out the silliness about which was good and which was "crap".

It does not become any of you at all.

 

[wamdue]

And here just this past week I was bragging on about how the Dr Who forum here was pretty much devoid of the generation infighting that has plagued other franchises.

to be honest I think the Doctor Who fandom has all the downsides of other fandoms, its just this is a small forum, so its less noticeable.

 

[Sci]

It's hardly false logic, there'd simply be no new show without the old one, the same is true for Battlestar Galactica as well.

I'm not contesting the idea that there would be no new show without the old one. I'm contesting the inference that the creation of a revival means that the original wasn't crap.

Why would there by any interest in reviving a show people was crap?

To improve it. To allow it to live up to potential it never lived up to. Maybe a creator loves it in spite of its flaws and wants to do a version that allows it to be the great show it could have been.

 

[Messianni]

I'm not contesting the idea that there would be no new show without the old one. I'm contesting the inference that the creation of a revival means that the original wasn't crap.

Why would there by any interest in reviving a show people was crap?

To improve it. To allow it to live up to potential it never lived up to. Maybe a creator loves it in spite of its flaws and wants to do a version that allows it to be the great show it could have been.

Did you not read what Neroon just said or are you really that determined to prove him wrong?

 

[Sci]

Why would there by any interest in reviving a show people was crap?

To improve it. To allow it to live up to potential it never lived up to. Maybe a creator loves it in spite of its flaws and wants to do a version that allows it to be the great show it could have been.

Did you not read what Neroon just said or are you really that determined to prove him wrong?

I presumed that since you were asking in the abstract about why someone would want to revive an older show often seen as bad, I could similarly answer in the abstract. In other words, that we were no longer talking about Doctor Who or Battlestar Galactica or whatever, but now speaking in the abstract.

 

[Messianni]

To improve it. To allow it to live up to potential it never lived up to. Maybe a creator loves it in spite of its flaws and wants to do a version that allows it to be the great show it could have been.

Did you not read what Neroon just said or are you really that determined to prove him wrong?

I presumed that since you were asking in the abstract about why someone would want to revive an older show often seen as bad, I could similarly answer in the abstract. In other words, that we were no longer talking about Doctor Who or Battlestar Galactica or whatever, but now speaking in the abstract.

This can't even be responded to because of the logical fallacy therein: it wasn't "often seen as bad", not in the slightest. You make yourself look quite the fool when you pull facts straight out of your ass.

 

[Sci]

Did you not read what Neroon just said or are you really that determined to prove him wrong?

I presumed that since you were asking in the abstract about why someone would want to revive an older show often seen as bad, I could similarly answer in the abstract. In other words, that we were no longer talking about Doctor Who or Battlestar Galactica or whatever, but now speaking in the abstract.

This can't even be responded to because of the logical fallacy therein: it wasn't "often seen as bad", not in the slightest. You make yourself look quite the fool when you pull facts straight out of your ass.

Again, I was no longer even referring to any particular show in my previous couple of posts. I was speaking in the abstract since your question was in the abstract.