The reason why critics like Doctor Who more than fans do

[MacLeod]

At times I do think that fans can more critical of the series than the critics are generally and that opinions can and do change over time. Here's some reveiws of The Deadly Assassin.

The Deadly Assassin is a landmark Doctor Who story. 'There are many parts of Doctor Who lore... now taken for granted that saw their introduction in [this story],' wrote David Saunders in Shada 18, dated July 1984. 'It had been hinted at in The Brain of Morbius that regeneration might have its limits, but it is The Deadly Assassin which establishes the figure at twelve. The ranks and chapters of the Time Lords are outlined here for the first time, as are their ceremonial costumes and those of the Chancellery guards.'
'The revered Rassilon... and his bequeathed symbols of presidential office... have their first mentions in this Gallifreyan tale, as does the location and function of the Panopticon... This is the first serial to give actual names to individual Time Lords and we must not overlook the establishment of the Doctor as a member of the Prydonian chapter [who] was expelled from the Academy [or the fact] that the TARDIS is listed for the first time as a Type 40 capsule.'
At the time of the story's original transmission, however, many fans took the view that it contradicted the minimal details that had previously been revealed about the Doctor's race, and were absolutely infuriated by this. 'What must have happened is that at the end of The Hand of Fear the Doctor was knocked out when the TARDIS took off and had a crazy mixed up nightmare about Gallifrey,' suggested Jan Vincent-Rudzki in TARDIS Volume 2 Number 1 in 1977.
'As a Doctor Who story, The Deadly Assassin is just not worth considering. I've spoken to many people... and they all said how this story shattered their illusions of the Time Lords and lowered them to ordinary people. Once, Time Lords were all-powerful, awe-inspiring beings, capable of imprisoning planets forever in force fields, defenders of truth and good (when called in). Now, they are petty, squabbling, feeble-minded, doddering old fools. WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE MAGIC OF DOCTOR WHO?' These outspoken criticisms from someone who was, at the time, President of the Doctor Who Appreciation Society had a very influential effect and were echoed and expanded upon by numerous other reviewers, including David Fychan in Oracle Number 12, dated September 1978:
'Here was a whole four episodes about the Time Lords; a chance to gaze deep into a society of immeasurable age; a chance to see what the Doctor left behind; an insight into the Doctor's mentality (why does he prefer the human race?) - and as such, it was incredibly, unbelievably wasted. It failed badly as anything but a thriller-SF story about an Earthly society. Time Lords were really only humans - for every emotion they showed, for every motive they possessed, there are clear parallels simply on Earth...
'What we "learnt" in The Deadly Assassin was quite revealing: no Time Ladies; a stiff caste system; a fact-adjusting society; torture; a constitution; a police force; Shabogan hooligans - all these go to make up the Gallifrey that we found...
'So, the most important question about the adventure is not "How does it fit in?" but "Is it worth trying to fit in?". The Deadly Assassin is an incongruity in Doctor Who.'
With the passage of time, the story has been re-evaluated, as was recognised by John C Harding in Frontier Worlds 9, dated June 1981: 'All civilisations rise and fall, and the idea of showing the Time Lords at the nadir of their civilisation was, in theory, a good one. At the time... I - like most fans - was incensed at this treatment of these previously god-like beings. It [was], however, a logical progression.'
'The degeneration of the Time Lord race is portrayed reasonably and realistically,' agreed Saunders, 'if one assumes that those seen in The War Games with the almost omniscient powers in fact belonged to the Celestial Intervention Agency [as referred to in this story]... This would seem to have been the reason for casting Erik Chitty and the (ever fascinating) George Pravda - I just love his intonation - as well as the two Prydonians from whom the Doctor "borrowed" his ceremonial robes. That our mysterious, pacifistic observers have now, in the main, become a bunch of old dodderers... would seem to explain the necessity of the Chancellery Guard.'
Harding also liked the way in which the principal Time Lords in this story were portrayed: 'By far my favourite character was Spandrell. Although at times the dry accent of George Pravda brought [it] close to going over the top, for the most [part] he maintained a sardonic and superbly cynical character... Cardinal Borusa (Angus MacKay) was perhaps the strongest character - a Gallifreyan Disraeli. He had the rare ability to bridge the gap between appearances and reality, although he was too ready to tip the balance in favour of appearances. He was played with disdainfully reserved authority, which is the only way to treat such a character without demeaning him: it is impossible to work behind the scenes and be seen as powerful at the same time.'

Personally I'm not too fond of the Matt Smith era, but I do think that might change over time.

True the passage of time can change how things are viewed. But lets look at how the Doctor (or at least The Sixth Doctor) viewed Time Lord Society

In all my travelling throughout the universe, I have battled against evil, against power-mad conspirators. I should have stayed here. The oldest civilisation: decadent, degenerate, and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans, Cybermen - they're still in the nursery compared to us. Ten million years of absolute power. That's what it takes to be really corrupt.

 

[Mr Awe]

I am an autistic individual. In my tribe, there used to be a time when people like me referred to members of other tribes who weren't like us as "normals". Our tribe is now referring to these people as "neurotypical". Eventually, this word became adopted by other tribes whose members have atypical neurology.

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

http://www.autism.org.uk/news-and-events/media-centre/how-to-talk-about-autism.aspx

As I wrote to my psychiatrist this morning,

Yesterday, after reading a post by another poster in the thread "The reason why critics like Doctor Who more than fans do" (www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=258808) , I did a search with the question, "What are the mechanics of a story?" I learned that I was wrong, that what I was referring to as mechanics was named elements, and, in TV scripts, these elements were named TV tropes. (Tropes weren't and aren't isolated to tv scrips alone; there are tropes for every form of media, written and visual/auditory.) As I read the TV tropes for the episode "Death in Heaven" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/DoctorWhoS34E12DeathInHeaven), I felt my "stomach drop". In terms that I can understand, in today's video games, the multiplayer, which is the main component of many games today, is the "steak" and the single player campaign, which is the tutorial for the game mechanics, is the "potato". It was and is in multiplayer that the full experience of the game can be achieved. Applying this to tv episodes, the tv tropes are the "steak" and the mechanics and facts of the story are the "potato". I am capable of tasting and enjoying the potato; however, I can't say the same for the steak. Being unable to even taste the steak, because of my condition, I am deprived of the most important and sustaining portion of the episode, therefore I am incapable of feeling and understanding the complexities of an episode. Normals can do both, so for them, they can truly be said of having the capacity of experiencing and relaying that experience to others.

Well, that certainly helps me understand where you are coming from. All I can suggest is that you read posts and try to gain an understanding of a different way to enjoy the episodes than the one that comes naturally to you.

I can certainly agree with some of your critiques of the episodes, yet I was able to enjoy most of them. A few I weren't, but overall an enjoyable season.

Mr Awe

 

[DWF]

True the passage of time can change how things are viewed. But lets look at how the Doctor (or at least The Sixth Doctor) viewed Time Lord Society

In all my travelling throughout the universe, I have battled against evil, against power-mad conspirators. I should have stayed here. The oldest civilisation: decadent, degenerate, and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans, Cybermen - they're still in the nursery compared to us. Ten million years of absolute power. That's what it takes to be really corrupt.

I like how a fan altered that speech to make it about fans of the series.

The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

 

[Ithekro]

What we use to say in high school is, "There is no such thing as 'normal'. It is a ideal or construct. No one is 'normal' because no one can be exactly those standards."

 

[Stevil2001]

IMoffat admitted in an interview that he created a character before the story - this is something that writers are taught not to do in Storytelling 101.

Sorry, I have to jump in here. This isn't true. As a writer and a teacher of writing, this just isn't true. There is no "right" way to begin writing a story. Some writers might start from a character, some might start from the story and "fill in" the characters later.

But to suggest there is only one way that writers are taught in this mythical Storytelling 101 class, it just isn't true.

I taught an essay by Henry James a couple weeks ago, and I was really struck by what he said about character vs. plot: "What is character but the determination of incident? What is incident but the illustration of character?"

 

[USS KG5]

For some of the nuWho stories are shown on TV, there are people who feel they weren't properly finished, that the script still needed tweaking and rewriting in some places, yet the critics praise it.

Perhaps the problem is, some people treat the two things as mutually exclusive when they are not.

For something to be without flaws, it would need to be perfect. If the standard used for "worthy of critical praise" is "perfect" then very little, in any field of endeavour, is worthy of critical praise!

It doesn't have to be flawless. It just has to be entertaining without making the viewer think "wtf" at the plot holes, mischaracterizations, and getting the impression that the writers etc. think the audience is stupid and won't notice obvious scientific or historical errors.

Well entertainment is subjective, given the premise of the thread is that some critics seem to enjoy the show more than some fans, subjectivity is of course a valid answer.

My rule with "plot holes" a horrifically abused term on the internet, is if I dont notice it on first viewing it doesnt count. I have to admit I didnt notice any in DIH, though I have to date only watched it once, I've been busy!

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Speaking of Danny Pink,

* the number of years to reach a rank are from the British Army website, and are an average
* Between 1953 & 2014, there were no field promotions in the British Army. Here is an article on, what is considered a historic field promotion from the UK government -

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soldier-receives-first-field-promotion-since-1953

In the same time period, the USMC gave field promotions to 62 enlisted personnel in Vietnam and an unspecified number of Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel in Afghanistan.

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

For the uniform worn by British soldiers in Afghanistan, here is an article on that subject.

http://www.army.mod.uk/news/20421.aspx

There is some controversy over whether or not the ISAF committed an atrocity in Afghtanistan, in which women and children were killed in a night raid.

Narang Night Raid - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narang_night_raid

Here is the US Army Field Manual on urban operations. I am pretty sure that the British have a similar field manual.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-8/ch6.htm

Here is another article on infantry squad tactics.

http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,79595,00.html

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the coalition forces do night raids as they provide advantages to the forces.

http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/is...s-guidance-on-night-raids-in-afghanistan.html

Using the information from Series 8 and real life, this is a believable scenario.

Danny Pink joined the British Army at the age of 17. He rises to the rank of sergeant by age 29. During his career, he is first stationed in the United Kingdom, then sent to Afghanistan, where he is a member of NATO's ISAF. In Helmand, Afghanistan, where the British contigent is stationed, a British military unit received orders for a night raid on a village where insurgents are suspected to be hiding. On this night, Pink is second-in-command of a troop or platoon of 35 soldiers. During the raid, women and children are killed. Pink blames his commanding officer for the raid. He leaves the military soon afterwards, still bitter at what happened, enters a Troops to Teachers program, and becomes a teacher at Coal Hill School.

 

[Ithekro]

Does this satisfy you?

 

[Lakenheath 72]

For me, and I am guilty of this, one of the laziest things a person can do is not doing their research when writing a story or making an opinion. I didn't do enough research on storytelling, and I was rightly dinged for that. I think some persons had some satisfaction in pointing that out. Again, I could be reading the words wrong - autism really screws up the "emotional sensor".

My family served in the military. I had an ancestor who was a major colonel in the Revolutionary Army, a grandfather who was a recon pilot in a P-38 in World War II, and a father who was a medic during the Cold War. I even attempted to join the military during the First Gulf War; however, I was deemed psychologically unfit for the military. So, yes, for me, depicting the military correctly is important.

I have read of people complaining of lazy writing this year; for me, this is an example of lazy research. Fix a few things, and, voila, Danny Pink becomes a more believable character, one someone could met in the real world.

I believe that characters need to have some resemblance of truth in their characterization and background for them to be relatable to the audience. When it was revealed that Danny Pink had become a sergeant in five years, that resemblance of truth was shattered for me.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

For me, and I am guilty of this, one of the laziest things a person can do is not doing their research when writing a story or making an opinion. I didn't do enough research on storytelling, and I was rightly dinged for that. I think some persons had some satisfaction in pointing that out. Again, I could be reading the words wrong - autism really screws up the "emotional sensor".

With respect to my remarks, I think it was highly instructive to focus on a straightforward observation of Ithekro's that put the matter to rest in short order. Any satisfaction that I felt came because that observation was both educational and decisive. I felt no satisfaction from the act of contradicting a fellow user though, and certainly I feel none now when I know that no error was intended.