Any chance I could have some guidelines...

[Zbigniev Hamson]

... about what constitutes an acceptable topic for conversation? With my 44 posts, and habit of starting a new thread once every 3 months or so, I'm hardly spamming the place up with nonsense. Yet nontheless whenever I do start a topic on an apparently innocuous subject some squit pipes up about how dull it is and not worth talking about. I think that about quite a few threads on here, particularly ones about viewing figures as you may have gathered, but that doesn't mean I don't think other people should be allowed to talk about them if they want to.

If my topics really are as deadly dull as suggested then surely you can ignore them and let them die a thoroughly justified death. If that's not possible then a list of things I'm allowed to start threads about might be nice.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

And then Pip goes and posts an apology and makes me look like a total arse

[Pip Madeley]

Once again Zbigniev, please accept my apologies for my unnecessary reply to your post, I'm sorry.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

beat you to it this time

[Pip Madeley]

Indeed you did.

(sorry again )

[Milky Tears]

I didn't get to post in the other thread.

[Si Hunt]

Just to answer the question, no there are no written "guidelines" as such about starting a thread, although personally I consider that a thread should ask a question or initiate a topic of discussion; I'm not in favour of "one line comment" threads that have no-where to go, and I tend to pick people up on these.

However, I think your thread raised a valid topic for debate in asking if there were too many adaptions in the New Series, and seems okay to me. You have, though, received an apology for the response you got so I hope you can put it down to one of us having an "off day" and carry on starting threads, albeit as always (please, to everyone) with the intention of kicking off a debate or discussion.

Si.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Absolutely.

In response to your point in the other thread though, while I agree that there is nothing wrong with a writer adapting/re-using his earlier work, it's perhaps an odd decision to do this for 2 stories/3 episodes consecutively in a flagship BBC programme. Having only read 4 New Adventures myself, I wasn't really aware that Human Nature was such a story until I came on here, and I don't know how close it is to the original book, but I had read the Sally Sparrow story in last year's annual and I can imagine a significant portion of the younger viewers would also have done that. I can imagine they might have been a little disappointed by that when they are expecting the TV series to always be something new to sit down to on saturdays.

I really enjoyed Blink, and I know that a lot more was added to the story than was in the short annual version (which I also thought was very good), but it did mean that the whole time-paradox "mystery" wasn't a mystery for me as I had already read it. I can imagine that being the same for a lot of the younger viewers and I can also imagine them being a little miffed by this.

edit: perhaps I should have said these reasons in the original post rather than relying on a glib remark about Sky Ray lollies to get my point across

[Si Hunt]

I guess it depends on your point of view. I read the annual story for the first time after watching "Blink" and there are really only very vague similarities. In fact, if I was a youngster I think I would have been more fascinating at comparing the differences than dissapointed at any plot revelations. And, let's face it, the meat of the thing was about the statues, which wern't even in the short story.

Si.

[Paul Monk]

Its interesting because I read the short story and could remember quite well whilst watching Blink but I felt that Blink was very different so it didn't ruin my enjoyment at all.
But I did read Human Nature shortly before the televised version and I found it took some of the enjoyment of the episodes out for me.
Its a bit of a double edged sword really.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I guess it depends on your point of view. I read the annual story for the first time after watching "Blink" and there are really only very vague similarities. In fact, if I was a youngster I think I would have been more fascinating at comparing the differences than dissapointed at any plot revelations. And, let's face it, the meat of the thing was about the statues, which wern't even in the short story.

Si.

I suppose the "meat" is different for different people. To me the statues where just tacked on monsters (albeit quite good ones), whereas the time-paradoxy stuff is what I found most interesting in the story.

[transvamp]

In regards to the rehash thread, I do think its a sorry state the show is in where the best stories, Dalek, Rise of the Cybermen, Human Nature are all adaptations of stories told before in other forms.

[SiHart]

It seems perfectly valid to me, no less so than the Hinclifffe/ Holmes ransacking of the horror staples.
Yes, we've all heard/ read them but I bet most of the viewing public wouldn't know they were adaptations.

Si xx

[Ian Lethbridge-Stewart]

I don't have a problem with the adaptations (although I wouldn't want too many in the same season - I think having 1 a season is ok). As Si said I doubt many viewers will realise that the stories have been told elsewhere in a different format.
I'm a fan and I haven't read/heard any of the original versions of the three stories listed by Transvamp!!

As for whether the adapted stories are the best or not, well that's got to be down to personal opinion anyway.
Dalek wasn't the best story of Series 1 in my opinion, Rise of the Cybermen wasn't the best story of Series 2 in my opinion;
Series 3 is not over yet but so far Human Nature (as good as it was) isn't the best of Series 3 in my opinion.

I think if every story in a series was an adaptation then it would be a bit of a cheat - but the odd one can't hurt much

[Dirk Gently]

Andrew speaks the truth.

[Andrew Curnow]

I don't think we can really count Rise of the Cybermen in the same way as Human Nature - yes, it deals with the birth of a race of Cybermen, but that's it as far as any similarity to Spare Parts. Dalek from season 1 has the superficial similarity to "Jubilee" of featuring a solitary Dalek locked up but apart from that treats the subject in an entirely different way, so for my money only "Human Nature" really counts as being a translation of a story from another medium to the TV show.

I don't really see the problem with it, and certainly I'm very pleased that a story which had not even been read by a majority of Doctor Who fans has now been watched and enjoyed and has affected the majority of viewers for its time slot. That can only be a good thing, surely? Without for a minute dissing the NAs, I would imagine that Paul Cornell would have always preferred to write it for Doctor Who - the TV Series, if he'd had the choice back in 1995.

[Dirk Gently]

I told you Andrew speaks the truth.

[Andrew Curnow]

The Two Andrews!!

Actually, we've enough on PS for the Three Andrews - I think we'll leave Raston to do the scientific gobbledegook, it seems to be his forte...

So does that make me a Dandy or a Clown, Mr Clancy?

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Don't forget about Blink

I agree that the other 3 stories mentioned are all based on stories that only a small minority of Who fans will have read/heard (I haven't read any of them), but Blink was based on a short story published only last year in the distinctly populist Annual of the New Series. That's only about one step away from remaking "Rose"

[Perry Vale]

but Blink was based on a short story published only last year in the distinctly populist Annual of the New Series. That's only about one step away from remaking "Rose"

But the annual was bought by, what was it, 300,000 people (iirc)? The TV Series is aimed at 7 million viewers. And I doubt everyone who bought the annual actually read it. So I'd be p*ssed off as a viewer if they hadn't made such a wonderful piece of television, just to keep less than 4% of the tv audience happy.

[Dirk Gently]

Are you sure your name isn't Andrew?

[Ian Lethbridge-Stewart]

The Two Andrews!!



So does that make me a Dandy or a Clown, Mr Clancy?

Well, I've never met you, but based on your Harold H Harold character it's got to be a clown hasn't it???

[Jonno]

On the subject of adaptations, I'm all for them if they produce such great stories as the ones we have had so far (obviously, greatness is subjective but there you go).

I consider myself a Who fan, but I've yet to listen to Jubilee (though I do have a copy, and I really must give it a spin sometime), never read Human Nature (having given up on the NAs in 1994) and although I bought the annual in question almost 2 years ago tended to read the factual features rather than the fiction.

As for that Sally Sparrow story, I have skimread it now and have to say that it bears hardly any resemblance to Blink - not least because the lead character is at least a decade older!

If something great has been experienced by a very small minority, then I'm all in favour of lettting the majority experience it.