DWM #508: The 70s

[Andrew Curnow]

Nice to see another PS name on the letters page - well done sir!

I haven't got to it yet, but there's an interview with Andrew Smith in this issue, that should be interesting. I've just finished the interview with Toby Whithouse - be warned, it turns out there are a few minor spoilers for his episode in the interview. Grr!

[SiHart]

Other than the Comic Relief link, I'm not really sure why David Tennant was interviewed in this issue. Nice as it was to hear from him, there was only a little bit of the three page spread that related to DW. I know it's not the be all and end all of everything, but it seemed an odd inclusion.

The Andrew Smith interview was interesting though. I enjoyed reading that.


I even chuckled a little at Doctor Whoah! this month, but I have to say Wotcha! gets huge laughs every month (The Queen Thalira pic was especially good this month!)

Si xx

[Si Hunt]

Apprently Steven Moffatt's comments on internet "folk" stirred up some bile on Gallifreybase.

I can't really say I'm surprised, and I have to say I felt a bit insulted too. For a while the chaps making Doctor Who have maintained a cool 'n' lofty stance of avoiding the forums, which is fair enough to obvious reasons - there's always going to be negative appraisals of new episodes somewhere, and it's going to be disheartening if that's something you've written or produced.

But equally there's been a tendancy of Moffatt to imply (or even state) that people who post to internet forums - Doctor Who fans who use the internet - are picky little geeks who he despises. But - hang on - that's a gross generalisation. This is 2011. MOST people use the Internet. Perhaps MOST Doctor Who fans, and therefore most of this mans viewers - use the Internet. The days when only spoddy troublemakers post to forums are gone; lots of perfectly decent people now use forums to discuss the series, and not always in a negative way. Planet Skaro is a prime example.

Personally I'm starting to feel a little insulted when Moffatt generalises all internet users as nasty bits of work, as if it's still 1995 and the Internet is the domain of students and bitchy anoraks in dimly lit bedrooms. Maybe he should realise that a lot of us are perfectly decent people who invest a lot of time and money in the show that pays his wages, and we haven't actually done anything to deserve his barbed comments?

Si.

[Rob McCow]

as if it's still 1995 and the Internet is the domain of students and bitchy anoraks in dimly lit bedrooms.

Even then it wasn't that bad! There were a few places which were horrible, but they were easy to avoid. The BBC Boards were frequently lovely!

[SiHart]

And there are still really horrible places people go to post nasty things too. But yes, Moffat's post was a huge over-generalisation. He should come and look at PS to see that!

Si xx

[SiHart]

And just to prove Steve Moffat right, there's this news from Big Finish this morning.

Si xx

[Stuart Wallis]

Whoever it is who's been placing the offending comments up on there ought to feel proud of themselves. Well done!

[J.R. Southall]

Is it just me, or has Tom Spilsbury's recent re-invention of the magazine turned it into something almost as good as it used to be before the series returned in 2005?

Not that I'm complaining about the last six years, mind! It's just that with a series on-air, DWM was never going to be quite as thoughtful and in-depth as when it had only the classic series to deal with. It was a compromise the magazine had to make, and it was worth it to have Who on the telly.

I just feel that the recent makeover has brought a fair bit of that back to the magazine - anyone else agree? Or do you not think so?

[Andrew Curnow]

I agree, I'm enjoying it a lot recently - this issue is a prime example, with its mix of ancient & modern (to coin a phrase).

I also agree with the comment above - in general, I don't enjoy Moffat's Production Notes columns as much as RTD's, and he does seem to be using it far more as a 'right of reply' or 'now listen here you lot' than his predecessor.

[J.R. Southall]

I've been worried about Steven Moffat ever since the launch of Series Five, when instead of joining the presenters in the BBC Breakfast studio (as RTD always did), instead they had to interview him via video link, live from the "throne" he was sitting on somewhere else...

[Rob McCow]

I reckon it's that monicker 'The Moff'. It's gone straight to his curly head.

Seriously though, if he exec prods some good Doctor Who, I'm not really bothered how he comes across in interview. Though I am slightly bothered. There was probably a good reason for the throne. Perhaps he was scared of the weathergirl, Carol?

[Si Hunt]

He'd have a point.

He can make good Doctor Who AND respect his audience. It's the old fan thing. "I'M a good respectful fan. It's everyone else that's a nit-picky outspoken scarf wearing bastard."

I'm sure Moff has never, ever aired negative opinions about Doctor Who.

Dear god, it's bad! Nothing I've seen of the black and white stuff - with the exception of the pilot, the first episode - should have got out of the building. They should have been clubbing those guys to death! You've got an old guy in the lead who can't remember his lines; you've got Patrick Troughton, who was a good actor, but his companions - how did they get their Equity card? Explain that! They're unimaginably bad. Once you get to the colour stuff some of it's watchable, but it's laughable. Mostly now, looking back, I'm startled by it.

Si.

[Rob McCow]

When did he say that?!

[Si Hunt]

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...d.php?t=889896

Was published in TSV in 1995 apparently. Amongst other gems:

The first episode of Doctor Who betrays the lie that it's just the Sixties, because the first episode is really good - the rest of it's shit.

Steven: Ah! Now if you want Doctor Who to look good, you've only got to look at Blake's Seven.

Andy: Can someone just shoot him now?

Steven: How could a good hack think that the BBC could make a giant rat? If he'd come to my house when I was 14 and said 'Can BBC Special Effects do a giant rat?' I'd have said no. I'd rather see them do something limited than something crap. What I resented was having to go to school two days later, and my friends knew I watched this show. They'd go 'Did you see the giant rat?!' and I'd have to say I thought there was dramatic integrity elsewhere.

Andy: You had some cruel friends! Imagine if it had been I, Claudius, they'd all come in and say 'wasn't that toga crap!'

Steven: There's a difference - I, Claudius is brilliant. Doctor Who isn't.

Fair enough, they got drunk and slagged off great chunks of Doctor Who, believing they could do it better with the wonderful benefit of hindsight. But fans do that. Maybe he's forgotten?

Si.

[Captain Tancredi]

As professional writer/producers, I would guess both RTD and Moffat have had to cultivate thick skins and a certain amount of drive and self-conviction to get where they are (particularly coming through a time when "I really want to make Doctor Who again" wouldn't have won them many commissions). It's just that Davies has cultivated the art of talking about the series' history with a sense of warmth whereas Moffat tends to come across as a cynic.

[Andrew Curnow]

That sounds a bit too much like 'exaggerated drunk talk' for me to take that seriously. Was the rat really that bad, in 1977? No. Certainly not bad enough for anybody to be bullied about at school. And does Moffat really think the only single watchable episode in the whole of the 60s was An Unearthly Child... I doubt it.

[Si Hunt]

That's the point though isn't it? Sometimes fans love to pull apart the series, they don't always mean it. I'm sure Moffatt doesn't really hate the whole of the 1960's. But it's very easy to make rash judgements on something you love... but this is exactly the sort of thing that now seems to irritate the hell out of Moffatt now that he's showrunner... maybe he should remember he's been that spoddy know-all fan who seems to know better...

Si.

[Logo Polish]

Moffat's thoughts on that interview, circa 2009.

“I’m vile. Full of myself. Pompous, and dismissing all the writers of the old show as lazy hacks. Dear God, I blush, I cringe, I creep. I walked out of the interview high on my own genius, and wrote Chalk, one of the most loathed and derided sitcoms in the history of the form. The thing about life is, you can always rely on it to administer a good slap when required”…

[Andrew Curnow]

Having now read it properly, I really really enjoyed the Andrew Smith interview - he sounds like such a nice, sensible guy, and it's heartwarming to find that he has almost entirely pleasant memories of his Full Circle time. Made me smile to find that he's still niggled about the title change (although not actually that accurate, I also think "The Planet that Slept" is a better title)... and the icing on the cake, he likes Time and the Rani. What a guy!!

[Si Hunt]

I enjoyed it too. What an interesting life he's had, too. A writer, then a policeman for 40 years, now he's going to retire and be a writer again!

Interesting that he has a full Big Finish play in the works. I wonder if it's for the Lost Stories range? If not, he can certainly flog all those unmade adventures to them! In fact, he ought to invent a few. He could keep "finding" them for years to come!

Si.

[Jon Masters]

Any subscribers not received this issue yet ? No sign of mine yet - wonder if my new subscription hasn't been started properly....

[SiHart]

Yeah I had mine last Wednesday Jon.

Si xx

[Andrew Curnow]

Me too! (Sorry Jon)

[SiHart]

Covers (there's 4 of 'em this issue) are up at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...504972&theater

They're a bit spoilery, so look away if you don't want to know just yet.

Si xx

[Si Hunt]

What, again? *yawn*

Si.