Stephen Fry on DW and the state of television

[The Mirrorball Man]

To steal a line from Ebert, it's not what it's about, it's how it's about it. Yes, the episode was "about" clinical depression, but not in any kind of complex way. It was fluffed over, I thought, made very safe and palatable. His depression was charming and eccentric, not at all what it is in real life. A missed opportunity, perhaps. The episode was afraid to make us feel uncomfortable with Van Gogh, because it had its heart set on us liking him and finding him all cuddly and stuff.

Having seen depression from the outside in and from the inside out, I thought the way the writer handled that was very smart, actually.

Depression is not something people actually want to deal with, not if they can avoid it at least. It makes people extremely uncomfortable. They want to fluff it over, joke about it, talk about something else and if they're ready to address it at all, they usually think that it will disappear if we say nice things to each other. And it doesn't work, and people die, which is exactly what happened in this episode. I thought that was very clever.

 

[Starkers]

Oh fuck off

Point proved.

Not really since I don't have any hang up about watching Who, if I did I wouldn't have who wallpaper on my work PC, often wear a Who t-shirt and freely admit to loving the Sarah Jane Adventures.

I accept your argument, however I would still argue that if it is a kids show, then its a kids show aimed at everyone which isn't the same thing.

Really it was aimed at you as a person rather than your argument, because you're about the snidest poster on this forum, who seems to only come here to either wind people up, or to appear big and clever by being the first person to post spoiler information that you dregded up from somewhere else because you obviously spend every minute on the internet just on the off chance that you find something.

Well congratulations on point one cos you wound me up to the point where I'm going to do something I've never done before. Ignore you.

I should have done it a long time ago

 

[Starkers]

I kind of agree with him.

I don't mean to bash Doctor Who, but even though I'm enjoying the current season a lot more than previous seasons since the revamp, it still all feels a little bit childish.

I don't think he's bashing Who so much as he's saying 'If the BBC can make kids shows this good, than why aren't they making adult programs that blow our minds and knock us back off our seats from sheer brilliance?'

I didn't think he was bashing Doctor Who either. I only said that I didn't mean to bash the show myself because, honestly, I've found that people don't react well to criticism of this show on here and I didn't want to start an argument.

It didn't come across as a bash. And I wouldn't think that Who being childish at times is a criticism, I'd see it as one of the show's strengths because it can be funny and silly, yet still turn around and be serious the next minue. There are precious few shows with that kind of flexibility.

 

[Captain Pike]

The show has had it's childrens phases and it's more adult eras. Its always stayed family friendly (with the possible exclusion of some RTD eps like Love & Monsters.

Part of this schizophrenia about its own identity I believe stems from the fact that it was never part of the BBC's Childrens Programming dept, even during it's most child friendly years (first few seasons).

Anyway, even Russ has said they make the show primarily for the kids. I have no problem with that.

 

[Chaos Descending]

To say that Doctor Who is a "children's show" is purely semantics.

No, it's not a "children's show", but it is "for children". Therefore, it's a "children's show". Got it? Good.

Nevertheless, I agree with the esteemed Mr. Fry.

 

[davejames]

There's no debate - of course Doctor Who is childish. And sometimes that makes it great fun, and sometimes, on the other hand, it frustrates me that it refuses to really go for it, and do something complex, ambiguous, and challenging. It doesn't have to be BSG-level of adult/dark - just going as adult as Star Trek TNG or DS9 wouldn't hurt so much. Kids can handle it. Have some truly adult themes. The classic show did it (think Genesis of the Daleks, Caves of Androzani, etc...) The show can easily withstand those sorts of morally grey, philosophically challenging issues. The new season in particular has been a bit too childish for my liking.

Yeah, but all the "morally grey, philosophically" challenging stuff in those episodes amounts to probably 10 minutes of screen time. The rest is what you find in the vast majority of Classic Who-- generic, obvious dialogue, one-dimensional characters, and a lot of shots of people sneaking through corridors or getting caught in traps.

Today's Doctor Who may not take itself as seriously as it used to, but I honestly find the writing as a whole now to be a lot more interesting and clever and witty.

 

[The]

Really it was aimed at you as a person rather than your argument, because you're about the snidest poster on this forum, who seems to only come here to either wind people up, or to appear big and clever by being the first person to post spoiler information that you dregded up from somewhere else because you obviously spend every minute on the internet just on the off chance that you find something.

There are quite a few of those that rumble and rant here, and I think you know who they are.

Just do what I do: laugh at them. People that interested in trying prove something....consciously or not....are to be pitied or mocked, depending your flavor of emotions. The moment StCoop started saying things like "Love & Monsters" was the greatest DW ever was the moment I realized there's no point in trying to debate a child. He, and others like him, aren't interested in debate. They're just here for the attention... (*cough*bones*cough*)

 

[Sci]

The show can easily withstand those sorts of morally grey, philosophically challenging issues. The new season in particular has been a bit too childish for my liking.

There has been a show about clinical depression and the loneliness of the unappreciated artist.

To steal a line from Ebert, it's not what it's about, it's how it's about it. Yes, the episode was "about" clinical depression, but not in any kind of complex way. It was fluffed over, I thought, made very safe and palatable. His depression was charming and eccentric, not at all what it is in real life. A missed opportunity, perhaps. The episode was afraid to make us feel uncomfortable with Van Gogh, because it had its heart set on us liking him and finding him all cuddly and stuff.

I don't think you're being fair to the episode. That same episode depicted a grown man suddenly finding himself overcome with utter despair, unable to make himself get out of bed, lashing out at someone who was just trying to help him. And that same episode made it very clear that in spite of a great message of hope and inspiration and reassurance, he still killed himself. That's far darker than you're making it out to be.

True, Doctor Who does not journey into the heart of darkness. When Doctor Who explores dark themes, it tends to mediate them, to introduce other elements that make the whole package more palatable. This is a function of the fact that it is a children's program. There's nothing wrong with that. Let the adults journey into the heart of darkness without mediation. Doctor Who doesn't need to be The Last King of Scotland.

 

[The]

^While I agree with you, I would say that, given Doctor Who's expansive non-genre, I don't see why it cannot be that, as well. Saying someone wants a darker Doctor Who does not neccessarily mean they want EVERY episode dark. I don't see any reason why they couldn't dip around the ages ranges, and subject matter. Since, you know, it's not a kid's show, it's a family show. There's a difference...

 

[captcalhoun]

Back in the 70's and 80's the BBC put out a number of what was referred to as 'landmark' documentaries. The Ascent of Man comes to mind, as well as Life on Earth. Carl Sagan's Cosmos was in part a response to these type of doccos from across the pond. Most were mammoth 10, 12 or 13 parters and were extremely comprehensive, but they didn't just educate, they really stirred the soul. They provoked thought, conversation, learning and even whole careers.

While I still see many fine doccos, you just never see anything quite so spectacular these days. Maybe the scale is too large for our modern lifestyles, but I think it's a shame these kind of shows are no more.

did you miss Professor Brian Cox's Wonders of the Universe? that show was quite simply the best documentary on TV ever. he was warm and personable and enthusiastic about mond-boggling concepts of the universe and he was educating, informing and entertaining just like the BBC's charter says it should.

 

[Cyke101]

^While I agree with you, I would say that, given Doctor Who's expansive non-genre, I don't see why it cannot be that, as well. Saying someone wants a darker Doctor Who does not neccessarily mean they want EVERY episode dark. I don't see any reason why they couldn't dip around the ages ranges, and subject matter. Since, you know, it's not a kid's show, it's a family show. There's a difference...

Put me in the camp that thinks Stephen Fry isn't bashing Who, either. But to go along with The's point, I think the show is starting to reach a balance again between light and dark, kiddie and adult, soft and intense, yet remain family friendly. Last year's specials were largely absurd (in good and bad ways, but still absurd nonetheless), but imo, I've noticed a bit more experimentation this series than in other RTD seasons. There's variety and there's ups and downs... they're still trying to find the right balance with it (ie, how to use a really goofy and otherwise out-of-place monster for a serious, character-driven episode), sometimes it's hit, sometimes it's miss, but I have to applaud the crew for at least trying to change the mold a bit.

I love Darker Who, I think Series 1 is pretty underrated and Midnight is almost painfully intensely good, but moderation is key: I've greatly enjoyed the lighter fare as well, like Partners in Crime, Eleventh Hour, and the Lodger. If a show is overly-cheery or overly-grim, you're gonna need a break or a change-up or something.

 

[Hermiod]

It didn't come across as a bash. And I wouldn't think that Who being childish at times is a criticism, I'd see it as one of the show's strengths because it can be funny and silly, yet still turn around and be serious the next minue. There are precious few shows with that kind of flexibility.

I don't really mind it most of the time, it's not as bad as it used to be during the RTD/Ecclestone/Tennant era. I mostly like the show just fine these days. I can't really say I have disliked an episode this season.

However, Doctor Who seems to be the show the BBC are most proud of right now. I can't really criticise their drama output as I don't watch anything but DW, but then maybe that's a problem in of itself.

 

[Sci]

^While I agree with you, I would say that, given Doctor Who's expansive non-genre, I don't see why it cannot be that, as well. Saying someone wants a darker Doctor Who does not neccessarily mean they want EVERY episode dark. I don't see any reason why they couldn't dip around the ages ranges, and subject matter. Since, you know, it's not a kid's show, it's a family show. There's a difference...

There's no reason they couldn't do that, but I don't think it's what they've chosen to do. The producers of Doctor Who -- as evidenced by Moffat's comments -- clearly view their primary job as firing up the imaginations of 8-year-olds, and they probably view the idea of getting too far into the territory of adult drama as being counter-productive to the goal of keeping it a show that 8-year-olds love.

I'd compare it to Batman. Yes, it's clear that they could do something like the film The Dark Knight, which is clearly intended for adults first and kids second. But instead, they've done something like Batman: The Animated Series from the 90s, which was written so that adults could enjoy it, but whose primary audience was still children. (I suppose we can just be thankful they haven't gone the route of the 1960s Batman, eh? )

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Back in the 70's and 80's the BBC put out a number of what was referred to as 'landmark' documentaries. The Ascent of Man comes to mind, as well as Life on Earth. Carl Sagan's Cosmos was in part a response to these type of doccos from across the pond. Most were mammoth 10, 12 or 13 parters and were extremely comprehensive, but they didn't just educate, they really stirred the soul. They provoked thought, conversation, learning and even whole careers.

While I still see many fine doccos, you just never see anything quite so spectacular these days. Maybe the scale is too large for our modern lifestyles, but I think it's a shame these kind of shows are no more.

did you miss Professor Brian Cox's Wonders of the Universe? that show was quite simply the best documentary on TV ever. he was warm and personable and enthusiastic about mond-boggling concepts of the universe and he was educating, informing and entertaining just like the BBC's charter says it should.

As well as the entire Life series of Documentaries and Planet Earth, Blue Planet, The Digital Revolution one was pretty good too, all in recent years.

I agree with Stephen Fry to a certain extent but he's missing the point that individuals may want those things, but people aka the audience want simple, easy and familiar, otherwise all the cop shows and reality shows wouldn't be getting huge ratings and new risk taking shows failing left and right.

 

[Cyke101]

I agree with Stephen Fry to a certain extent but he's missing the point that individuals may want those things, but people aka the audience want simple, easy and familiar, otherwise all the cop shows and reality shows wouldn't be getting huge ratings and new risk taking shows failing left and right.

I agree about the formulas and the audience, but when and where would we make room for the risk-taking shows that actually succeed? LOST is hardly simple or easy, for example.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I agree with Stephen Fry to a certain extent but he's missing the point that individuals may want those things, but people aka the audience want simple, easy and familiar, otherwise all the cop shows and reality shows wouldn't be getting huge ratings and new risk taking shows failing left and right.

I agree about the formulas and the audience, but when and where would we make room for the risk-taking shows that actually succeed? LOST is hardly simple or easy, for example.

Oh I'm not saying there aren't cases of difficult shows finding an audience, but they're generally fewer and further between than the simple repetitive stuff.

 

[Ubik]

I agree with Stephen Fry to a certain extent but he's missing the point that individuals may want those things, but people aka the audience want simple, easy and familiar, otherwise all the cop shows and reality shows wouldn't be getting huge ratings and new risk taking shows failing left and right.

I agree about the formulas and the audience, but when and where would we make room for the risk-taking shows that actually succeed? LOST is hardly simple or easy, for example.

Oh I'm not saying there aren't cases of difficult shows finding an audience, but they're generally fewer and further between than the simple repetitive stuff.

Nonsense. Some of the most successful tv shows of the last, say, decade or two, have been shows that treaded new territory, not rehashed old formulas: Sopranos, The Wire, X-Files, Seinfeld, BSG, Lost...and what happened to shows with tired old cliches? Look at Enterprise.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^BSG a remake of a show, The X-Files based on earlier shows like Kolchak and basically an investigation show, The Wire a police/crime show just with a long term serial story, and Lost bares a lot of similarity to older shows too.

 

[The]

I would say that's nitpicking, though. Everything has come from something before it. There is genuinely very little original material out there. So, to dismiss those groundbreaking shows because they're similar to the past (and for LOST you were trying to think of The Prisoner ) doesn't mean they're not groundbreaking in their own right, for their own era.

In fact, I'd say Doctor Who is a wholly original concept. I don't know ANYTHING like it that came before...

 

[The]

(I suppose we can just be thankful they haven't gone the route of the 1960s Batman, eh? )

Oh that we can agree on.

I'm not saying the producers should have chosen a different route than what they are attempting now. I'm saying that with Doctor Who, given its variety, there's no reason it can't dip into the purely adult territory. No reason to eliminate it from a particular genre or idea just because the current team isn't doing it right now...