- Day Of The Doctor: 'we don't think 2 hours of self-congratulatory nonsense was necessary.' Actually, it was. Huge WORLD WIDE audiences, including in cinemas, show the love for DW. The Queen Elizabeth thing was brought into play much earlier than this.
- The Girl In The Fireplace. 'The 10th Doctor Who uses a magic fireplace to groom a child.' A beautiful story, which, had the writer any credibility, would be tarnished forever more. Fortunately it's not.
- Human Nature: 'The 'thrilling' plot sees Doctor Who transformed into an ordinary maths teacher, which involves David Tennant attempting a terrible posh English accent (though it's not as bad as the 'Scottish' accent he so often affects in other roles).' David Tennant IS Scottish, how can his accent be bad?!
- Caves Of Androzani: Voted as the best Classic Who story time and again.
- Blink: Using a photo from a completely different episode (which should have been on this list instead of any of the listed stories!) to trash a story which saw the introduction of the most successful monsters since the Sontarans were brought in.
- Genesis Of The Daleks. Again, using a still from something completely different; this time it isn't even the TV show itself, instead it's one of the Cushing films!
Is this article supposed to be funny or something? The more I think about it the more I'm sure that they took a list of the most popular stories and tagged them with an opposite view.
Please don't tell me you took this article seriously?
It's not that clever, but it IS a pi$$take article.
It's meant to be funny, meant to be a parody and I bet the writer is wetting himself with laughter over all the fans who have taken it seriously.
What is that supposed to mean? Who doesn't come out of this very well?
The article is risibly unfunny. It doesn't work even as broad self aware gentle mocking let alone satire. So whichever talentless hack wrote it doesn't come out of it well.
But it is so blatantly a very poor attempt at humour that it astounds me anyone could take it seriously. So anyone who has mistaken it as genuine doesn't come out of it very well.
Most significantly though is that it is brain numbingly unfunny in the extreme so anyone who even gently chuckled at one word of it comes out of it worst of all.
I was wrong though. People like myself (and the gentleman and scholar Gareth Roberts) who dismissed it as an unfunny piece of clickbait shite and treated it with the necessary disdain come out of it just fine. Except I've been driven to comment on it thus in a small way dignifying its existence. Which is more than it should get. So I don't come out of it well at all. I've said too much.
I think anyone who read it would know it was taking the biscuit. I wish Kill the Moon was purposely taking the biscuit, but no apparently it was serious.
I watched it again on iplayer today thinking with the dust having settled from the time it aired maybe I would see something in it, but several times I pressed pause and thought about turning it off because I just couldn't go with it, though I did finish it just to finish it. Jenna gives a really good performance as does Peter who does get some good lines and moments, but the story, the concepts....I'll just leave it there and say its not for me rather than get the knives out
The article is risibly unfunny. It doesn't work even as broad self aware gentle mocking let alone satire. So whichever talentless hack wrote it doesn't come out of it well.
But it is so blatantly a very poor attempt at humour that it astounds me anyone could take it seriously. So anyone who has mistaken it as genuine doesn't come out of it very well.
Most significantly though is that it is brain numbingly unfunny in the extreme so anyone who even gently chuckled at one word of it comes out of it worst of all.
I was wrong though. People like myself (and the gentleman and scholar Gareth Roberts) who dismissed it as an unfunny piece of clickbait shite and treated it with the necessary disdain come out of it just fine. Except I've been driven to comment on it thus in a small way dignifying its existence. Which is more than it should get. So I don't come out of it well at all. I've said too much.
*scanning thread for sense of irony or sense of humour within doctor who fandom*
Oh dear, the scan has come back with a big fat zero
"No wonder Christopher Ecclestone only agreed to come back heavily disguised in aging make up" was the highlight for me
But it was immediately obvious it was taking the smeg from the time it said "60th Anniversary" an repeated the Term "doctor who" for the character about 5 times
Cue awkward backtracking posts from posters who have had their egos bruised
The article is risibly unfunny. It doesn't work even as broad self aware gentle mocking let alone satire. So whichever talentless hack wrote it doesn't come out of it well.
But it is so blatantly a very poor attempt at humour that it astounds me anyone could take it seriously. So anyone who has mistaken it as genuine doesn't come out of it very well.
Most significantly though is that it is brain numbingly unfunny in the extreme so anyone who even gently chuckled at one word of it comes out of it worst of all.
I was wrong though. People like myself (and the gentleman and scholar Gareth Roberts) who dismissed it as an unfunny piece of clickbait shite and treated it with the necessary disdain come out of it just fine. Except I've been driven to comment on it thus in a small way dignifying its existence. Which is more than it should get. So I don't come out of it well at all. I've said too much.
oh doesn't Fandom come off oh so well with posts like these
*scanning thread for sense of irony or sense of humour within doctor who fandom*
Oh dear, the scan has come back with a big fat zero
"No wonder Christopher Ecclestone only agreed to come back heavily disguised in aging make up" was the highlight for me
But it was immediately obvious it was taking the smeg from the time it said "60th Anniversary" an repeated the Term "doctor who" for the character about 5 times
Cue awkward backtracking posts from posters who have had their egos bruised
Not true, as a couple of us have commented on the humour of the piece, so you need to get a new scanner. I like your highlight, plus William Hartnell being the creator of Who and, as previously mentioned, the list of worst Doctor Whos. But agreed, there are some on here who seem to have a complete sense of humour failure.
Surely it must be 'in the forest of the night'. Can't imagine a worse episode could even be conceivable.
The caretaker would be a close second though.
Surprised by that. I watched it recently, I like it, its nothing special or note worthy but I thought it was a good solid mid series episode. Not going to be in anyone's list of best episodes but equally I wouldn't of thought it would be in anyone's worst, what is it about The Caretaker you don't like so much?
Agree that In The Forest Of The Night is bad, really bad.
oh doesn't Fandom come off oh so well with posts like these
Sorry. Shall I pretend it was really cleverly written and hilarious to make you feel better? Doctor Who is easy to take the piss out of well. It's inherently ludicrous. That article just wasn't very smart and certainly wasn't funny. Not because I'm precious about them mocking DW. Go ahead. And do it well! They didn't. It was like something from a student newspaper or someone's tumblr.
Sorry to break it to you but I also don't find musical socks, Purple Ronnie birthday cards or Keith Lemon funny. Hope that's ok with you.
Edit- ah! A Red Dwarf fan I presume. That explains a lot.
Sorry. Shall I pretend it was really cleverly written and hilarious to make you feel better? Doctor Who is easy to take the piss out of well. It's inherently ludicrous. That article just wasn't very smart and certainly wasn't funny. Not because I'm precious about them mocking DW. Go ahead. And do it well! They didn't. It was like something from a student newspaper or someone's tumblr.
Sorry to break it to you but I also don't find musical socks, Purple Ronnie birthday cards or Keith Lemon funny. Hope that's ok with you.
Edit- ah! A Red Dwarf fan I presume. That explains a lot.
OK, we get that you didn't find it funny. And, no, you don't have to pretend you did. But at least two other posters, including me, did find it funny. Sorry if that means I've gone down in your estimation, but do I really care?
I think it's awful.
Something thought up in the lunch hour down the pub.
I like it because it taps into the people who go out of their way to be outraged. Skim read something (eg in The Daily Mail) then immediately getting on the 'net to vent - then look like plonkers because they fell for the trap.
When I first saw this (somebody linked me to it on FB) I just read the titles and thought - what is this person on about, these are all my favourite episodes. Wen I got to City Of Death I knew it was a joke and then actually went back and read it properly.
I personally think its pitched perfectly. all the annoying things that wind people up, wrong names, facts etc but with a splattering of straight up stupidness (Ecleston insisting he wore make up because he was so embarrassed by the script etc).
even things like the photos they use.
EDIT: I'll just add that I honestly don't think its mocking the show or even the fans. its written for fans IMO - things like using the Puff the Magic dragon photo for Caves. You need to know Caves to know why that shitty dragon photo is funny.
I think it's a pitch-perfect parody of the self-important Who viewers that feel their personal rankings and favourites somehow have some kind of value. Or those that think that hundreds of stories can be boiled down to the 'ten worst'. Or more generally, of ill-researched 'list' articles in general.
Although I didn't catch on until the third use of 'anti-Thatcherite propaganda'.
- Day Of The Doctor: 'we don't think 2 hours of self-congratulatory nonsense was necessary.' Actually, it was. Huge WORLD WIDE audiences, including in cinemas, show the love for DW. The Queen Elizabeth thing was brought into play much earlier than this.
- The Girl In The Fireplace. 'The 10th Doctor Who uses a magic fireplace to groom a child.' A beautiful story, which, had the writer any credibility, would be tarnished forever more. Fortunately it's not.
- Human Nature: 'The 'thrilling' plot sees Doctor Who transformed into an ordinary maths teacher, which involves David Tennant attempting a terrible posh English accent (though it's not as bad as the 'Scottish' accent he so often affects in other roles).' David Tennant IS Scottish, how can his accent be bad?!
- Caves Of Androzani: Voted as the best Classic Who story time and again.
- Blink: Using a photo from a completely different episode (which should have been on this list instead of any of the listed stories!) to trash a story which saw the introduction of the most successful monsters since the Sontarans were brought in.
- Genesis Of The Daleks. Again, using a still from something completely different; this time it isn't even the TV show itself, instead it's one of the Cushing films!
Is this article supposed to be funny or something? The more I think about it the more I'm sure that they took a list of the most popular stories and tagged them with an opposite view.
Er yes....that's exactly what he's done. Really is this not obvious after the first couple of sentences? Words fail me...!
Look at the byline, folks: "David Agnew". That was a pen name almost exclusively used on BBC television drama programmes of the 1970s. As others have said, this is a p*ss-take of an article designed purely to wind people up.
Comments
Honestly not aimed at you!
Please don't tell me you took this article seriously?
It's not that clever, but it IS a pi$$take article.
It's meant to be funny, meant to be a parody and I bet the writer is wetting himself with laughter over all the fans who have taken it seriously.
What is that supposed to mean? Who doesn't come out of this very well?
The article is risibly unfunny. It doesn't work even as broad self aware gentle mocking let alone satire. So whichever talentless hack wrote it doesn't come out of it well.
But it is so blatantly a very poor attempt at humour that it astounds me anyone could take it seriously. So anyone who has mistaken it as genuine doesn't come out of it very well.
Most significantly though is that it is brain numbingly unfunny in the extreme so anyone who even gently chuckled at one word of it comes out of it worst of all.
I was wrong though. People like myself (and the gentleman and scholar Gareth Roberts) who dismissed it as an unfunny piece of clickbait shite and treated it with the necessary disdain come out of it just fine. Except I've been driven to comment on it thus in a small way dignifying its existence. Which is more than it should get. So I don't come out of it well at all. I've said too much.
I watched it again on iplayer today thinking with the dust having settled from the time it aired maybe I would see something in it, but several times I pressed pause and thought about turning it off because I just couldn't go with it, though I did finish it just to finish it. Jenna gives a really good performance as does Peter who does get some good lines and moments, but the story, the concepts....I'll just leave it there and say its not for me rather than get the knives out
I would agree with your last sentence.
Oh dear, the scan has come back with a big fat zero
"No wonder Christopher Ecclestone only agreed to come back heavily disguised in aging make up" was the highlight for me
But it was immediately obvious it was taking the smeg from the time it said "60th Anniversary" an repeated the Term "doctor who" for the character about 5 times
Cue awkward backtracking posts from posters who have had their egos bruised
oh doesn't Fandom come off oh so well with posts like these
Not true, as a couple of us have commented on the humour of the piece, so you need to get a new scanner. I like your highlight, plus William Hartnell being the creator of Who and, as previously mentioned, the list of worst Doctor Whos. But agreed, there are some on here who seem to have a complete sense of humour failure.
Surprised by that. I watched it recently, I like it, its nothing special or note worthy but I thought it was a good solid mid series episode. Not going to be in anyone's list of best episodes but equally I wouldn't of thought it would be in anyone's worst, what is it about The Caretaker you don't like so much?
Agree that In The Forest Of The Night is bad, really bad.
Sorry. Shall I pretend it was really cleverly written and hilarious to make you feel better? Doctor Who is easy to take the piss out of well. It's inherently ludicrous. That article just wasn't very smart and certainly wasn't funny. Not because I'm precious about them mocking DW. Go ahead. And do it well! They didn't. It was like something from a student newspaper or someone's tumblr.
Sorry to break it to you but I also don't find musical socks, Purple Ronnie birthday cards or Keith Lemon funny. Hope that's ok with you.
Edit- ah! A Red Dwarf fan I presume. That explains a lot.
Oooh you are sassy. I like it!
OK, we get that you didn't find it funny. And, no, you don't have to pretend you did. But at least two other posters, including me, did find it funny. Sorry if that means I've gone down in your estimation, but do I really care?
Just saladfingers being his / her normal self, I wouldn't take much notice of it. I don't think anyone else does.
See! The writers of that article take note! THIS is irony.
It's a great piece. Very funny (IMO which I know is subjective)
Something thought up in the lunch hour down the pub.
I like it because it taps into the people who go out of their way to be outraged. Skim read something (eg in The Daily Mail) then immediately getting on the 'net to vent - then look like plonkers because they fell for the trap.
When I first saw this (somebody linked me to it on FB) I just read the titles and thought - what is this person on about, these are all my favourite episodes. Wen I got to City Of Death I knew it was a joke and then actually went back and read it properly.
I personally think its pitched perfectly. all the annoying things that wind people up, wrong names, facts etc but with a splattering of straight up stupidness (Ecleston insisting he wore make up because he was so embarrassed by the script etc).
even things like the photos they use.
EDIT: I'll just add that I honestly don't think its mocking the show or even the fans. its written for fans IMO - things like using the Puff the Magic dragon photo for Caves. You need to know Caves to know why that shitty dragon photo is funny.
Although I didn't catch on until the third use of 'anti-Thatcherite propaganda'.
Well, they do have prior form....