To be truthful I very rarely post in a thread I make. Maybe I should in future.
I might get the concept of threads mixed up here (and I honestly apologise if I do), but don't you want to have a debate? If I start a thread I want to take part in. Otherwise I just start a blog.
Maybe I should go off to a Eastender thread and tell them that their whole soap is a pile of sh*te (which I truly believe). It's probably best if I don't post in that thread anymore.
Edit: If you really were asking if you should, then I would say a definite YES! It's much more fun. What's the point of starting a thread without debate, without argument, without possibility to change your position. The whole point of a forum is that you can exchange ideas, that people inspire you, that people persuade you to change your ideas or that you persuade people to change your ideas. The forum would be so boring if OP's just posted their opinion without debate.
I might get the concept of threads mixed up here (and I honestly apologise if I do), but don't you want to have a debate? If I start a thread I want to take part in. Otherwise I just start a blog.
Maybe I should go off to a Eastender thread and tell them that their whole soap is a pile of sh*te (which I truly believe). It's probably best if I don't post in that thread anymore.
Edit: If you really were asking if you should, then I would say a definite YES! It's much more fun. What's the point of starting a thread without debate, without argument, without possibility to change your position. The whole point of a forum is that you can exchange ideas, that people inspire you, that people persuade you to change your ideas or that you persuade people to change your ideas. The forum would be so boring if OP's just posted their opinion without debate.
Well if I were to make a thread asking a question like ''Who would you like as the new companion'' I woudn't feel the need to post on it again because everyone would be giving their own personal views but if I started a thread saying '' I don't like Amy Pond and someone asks why I would tell them. I guess it's based on the type of thread you make.
Because you like Moff, you think RTD is lazy. Well other people like RTD so they think Moff is lazy:rolleyes:. It's boring for some of us who give them credit where credit is due. You get irate if someone criticises your lovely Moff, but you are happy to criticise RTD (vice versa for other people). It is actually boring!
I'm not criticising RTD, I'm criticising Journeys End. I LOVE RTD! Most of his writing spectacular and I'll be forever grateful to him for successfully bringing back Dr Who. I'm just saying that I dont think Moff can reallly be called a lazy writer while some of RTD's can. Not all, not even most, the vast majority of RTD's work is NOT lazy at all. E.g. Midnight is, in my opinion, one of my favourite Dr Who episodes of all time, it is unbelieveably clever and, I believe, it was written by RTD
Well if I were to make a thread asking a question like ''Who would you like as the new companion'' I woudn't feel the need to post on it again because everyone would be giving their own personal views but if I started a thread saying '' I don't like Amy Pond and someone asks why I would tell them. I guess it's based on the type of thread you make.
BTW I agree 100% about Eastenders.
I agree, it depend on the thread, but this thread seriously would need some constructive contribution from the OP in order to be taken serious.
PS: You are in my good books with your last sentence:D
I'm not criticising RTD, I'm criticising Journeys End. I LOVE RTD! Most of his writing spectacular and I'll be forever grateful to him for successfully bringing back Dr Who. I'm just saying that I dont think Moff can reallly be called a lazy writer while some of RTD's can. Not all, not even most, the vast majority of RTD's work is NOT lazy at all. E.g. Midnight is, in my opinion, one of my favourite Dr Who episodes of all time, it is unbelieveably clever and, I believe, it was written by RTD
My point was that it is highly subjective. For all you know, RTD sat hours and hours writing whatever episode you didn't like, whereas Moff wrote the episodes you liked in 1/2 hour (how do you define laziness in an academic sense). It's subjective and any thread claiming that a writer is lazy doesn't understand the writing process. Maybe some of RTD's stories are not to your taste, maybe some of Moff's stories are not to other people's taste. However, saying that they are lazy writers is just a lazy argument and highly subjective. Furthermore, anyone's opinion (e.g. yours or mine) are not necessarily correct, and thus these threads are highly tedious.
I might get the concept of threads mixed up here (and I honestly apologise if I do), but don't you want to have a debate? If I start a thread I want to take part in. Otherwise I just start a blog.
Maybe I should go off to a Eastender thread and tell them that their whole soap is a pile of sh*te (which I truly believe). It's probably best if I don't post in that thread anymore.
Edit: If you really were asking if you should, then I would say a definite YES! It's much more fun. What's the point of starting a thread without debate, without argument, without possibility to change your position. The whole point of a forum is that you can exchange ideas, that people inspire you, that people persuade you to change your ideas or that you persuade people to change your ideas. The forum would be so boring if OP's just posted their opinion without debate.
I agree. I think all talent and reality shows are a repetitive and trivial waste of time but you don't see me going on their sub-forums and going on about it do you? :D
I agree, it depend on the thread, but this thread seriously would need some constructive contribution from the OP in order to be taken serious.
PS: You are in my good books with your last sentence:D
My point was that it is highly subjective. For all you know, RTD sat hours and hours writing whatever episode you didn't like, whereas Moff wrote the episodes you liked in 1/2 hour (how do you define laziness in an academic sense). It's subjective and any thread claiming that a writer is lazy doesn't understand the writing process. Maybe some of RTD's stories are not to your taste, maybe some of Moff's stories are not to other people's taste. However, saying that they are lazy writers is just a lazy argument and highly subjective. Furthermore, anyone's opinion (e.g. yours or mine) are not necessarily correct, and thus these threads are highly tedious.
I didnt start this thread, I presumbe that be lazy h/she means a silly push a button and all the Daleks die ending. I know from the writers tale etc that there not lazy in the normal meaning of the word, RTD was always staying up till silly o clock with hardly any sleep in order to finish or get a story right
I didnt start this thread, I presumbe that be lazy h/she means a silly push a button and all the Daleks die ending. I know from the writers tale etc that there not lazy in the normal meaning of the word, RTD was always staying up till silly o clock with hardly any sleep in order to finish or get a story right
I'm a he and also a pig. That what I basically mean a button pushed and the Daleks die and The Doctor is erased from time and is remembered back by Amy.
No. Neither of them are lazy in the slightest. Whether you personally liked how they finished their stories or not has no bearing on how lazy either of them are.
I'll agree the ending of journeys end and the specials were very lazy, however i disagree that the moffs lazy. I think his writings fantastic. Amy remembering the Doctor isnt really lazy writing when it's been fully explained and established throughout series 5 (why was her remembering Rory and her parents not lazy?), them not having EVERY SINGLE monster would be more about saving money than lazy writing, you dont NEED every single one, the plot isnt any worse for it and thats where Moffats concerned.Why, if the tesselecta can imitate anything, even copying a soldier AND a mtorbike, could it not imitate a regeneration, remembering the Dooctor Tesselecta was meant to be a perfect copy to fool everyone.
WHY WAS THE WDDING OF RIVER SONG LAZY?! IT WAS REALLY COOL, CLEVER AND IMAGINIATIVE and one of my favourite series 6 episodes
I'm not criticising RTD, I'm criticising Journeys End. I LOVE RTD! Most of his writing spectacular and I'll be forever grateful to him for successfully bringing back Dr Who. I'm just saying that I dont think Moff can reallly be called a lazy writer while some of RTD's can. Not all, not even most, the vast majority of RTD's work is NOT lazy at all. E.g. Midnight is, in my opinion, one of my favourite Dr Who episodes of all time, it is unbelieveably clever and, I believe, it was written by RTD
I never said you started this thread, but you supported the notion that the writing of one of the writers was lazy (see above), whilst arguing with the OP that Moff's writing is not lazy. My whole point was that neither writer can be called lazy! Simple as that.
Lazy probably isn't the right word to use, though I agree with the OP that some of the scenarios mentioned (i.e Last of the Time Lords and Journey's End) could have been resolved better... Loved The Big Bang and Wedding of River Song (and no before I get slated I don't like Moffat more than RTD)
I never said you started this thread, but you supported the notion that the writing of one of the writers was lazy (see above), whilst arguing with the OP that Moff's writing is not lazy. My whole point was that neither writer can be called lazy! Simple as that.
I dont think either of them are really lazy, just a few episodes are lacking a bit, (even that I wouldnt mind, it's just that usually their the finales which should be really well thought out as the whole series have been building up to them
I didnt start this thread, I presumbe that be lazy h/she means a silly push a button and all the Daleks die ending. I know from the writers tale etc that there not lazy in the normal meaning of the word, RTD was always staying up till silly o clock with hardly any sleep in order to finish or get a story right
Yes, actually lazy would be not finishing the stories at all. And getting sacked.
I don't think either are lazy. I do think story arcs are a bit pants and perhaps a little U.S..
In comparison I prefer Fringe which rather than wrap up the season with a "Big Bad", gives the viewer a new thread which will form the basis of the following season.
The problem with Big Bads is that they create an arms race where the universe is in peril in an even more hyperbolic way every year.
Don't like Universe reboots and I don't like it when we are told that Daleks are taking over the Universe (can't and shouldn't be done).
Surprise reveals should be conducted at random points in the show's run like the return of the Master.
I did like the cracks in the Universe though. Very Sapphire and Steel. The ending was unsatisfactory though.
I don't think either are lazy. I do think story arcs are a bit pants and perhaps a little U.S..
In comparison I prefer Fringe which rather than wrap up the season with a "Big Bad", gives the viewer a new thread which will form the basis of the following season.
The problem with Big Bads is that they create an arms race where the universe is in peril in an even more hyperbolic way every year.
Don't like Universe reboots and I don't like it when we are told that Daleks are taking over the Universe (can't and shouldn't be done).
Surprise reveals should be conducted at random points in the show's run like the return of the Master.
I did like the cracks in the Universe though. Very Sapphire and Steel. The ending was unsatisfactory though.
Exactly the way The Masters return was just pure genius and I quite liked the cracks aswell but I didn't like the build up to Rose's return in series 4 and the whole who shot The Doctor fiasco.
I must say that they are both fantastic writers but they are also very lazy.
Lets start with Davies.
Last of the Time Lords. Everyone chanting Doctor and then he turns back to normal, that was lazy.
Journeys end. The Daleks get blown up by the push of a button, that was lazy.
Planet of the dead. Davies was so lazy he needed help to write it.
The end of time. That whole plot was lazy.
Now for Moffat.
The Pandorica opens. Moffat was too lazy to show all The Doctors enemys.
The big bang. Amy remembers The Doctor back to life, that was lazy.
The impossible astronaut. The robot Doctor gets shot and yet it is still about to regenerate, very lazy indeed.
The wedding of River Song. Very lazy indeed Moffat write himself into a coner and used time to get himself out of it.
I love both their eras but when Davies was lazy he used something as simple as a button to solve things and when Moffat is lazy he uses time to solve things.
Its lazy when you have to use a sodding companion to save the day.
I must say that they are both fantastic writers but they are also very lazy.
Lets start with Davies.
Last of the Time Lords. Everyone chanting Doctor and then he turns back to normal, that was lazy.
Journeys end. The Daleks get blown up by the push of a button, that was lazy.
Planet of the dead. Davies was so lazy he needed help to write it.
The end of time. That whole plot was lazy.
Now for Moffat.
The Pandorica opens. Moffat was too lazy to show all The Doctors enemys.
The big bang. Amy remembers The Doctor back to life, that was lazy.
The impossible astronaut. The robot Doctor gets shot and yet it is still about to regenerate, very lazy indeed.
The wedding of River Song. Very lazy indeed Moffat write himself into a coner and used time to get himself out of it.
I love both their eras but when Davies was lazy he used something as simple as a button to solve things and when Moffat is lazy he uses time to solve things.
I only give constructive criticism when someone says something of constructive value.
His post is pathetic and, ironically, lazy.
It's fine to express an opinion about someone's work - maybe it's not to a person's taste or they feel it failed what it set out to do. Maybe they hate RTD or Moffat's entire era because it's not what they want Doctor Who to be. Fine, fair enough.
But to accuse them of being lazy and giving such pathetic, weak examples (esp the 'Planet of the Dead' one which is beyond absurd) is nothing more than offensive, ignorant drivel.
I only give constructive criticism when someone says something of constructive value.
His post is pathetic and, ironically, lazy.
It's fine to express an opinion about someone's work - maybe it's not to a person's taste or they feel it failed what it set out to do. Maybe they hate RTD or Moffat's entire era because it's not what they want Doctor Who to be. Fine, fair enough.
But to accuse them of being lazy and giving such pathetic, weak examples (esp the 'Planet of the Dead' one which is beyond absurd) is nothing more than offensive, ignorant drivel.
I agree with your bit in bold. However, as much as I disagree with the OP and as much as I dislike these kinds of threads, calling someone an idiot is really against the forum rules.
I only give constructive criticism when someone says something of constructive value.
His post is pathetic and, ironically, lazy.
It's fine to express an opinion about someone's work - maybe it's not to a person's taste or they feel it failed what it set out to do. Maybe they hate RTD or Moffat's entire era because it's not what they want Doctor Who to be. Fine, fair enough.
But to accuse them of being lazy and giving such pathetic, weak examples (esp the 'Planet of the Dead' one which is beyond absurd) is nothing more than offensive, ignorant drivel.
Comments
I might get the concept of threads mixed up here (and I honestly apologise if I do), but don't you want to have a debate? If I start a thread I want to take part in. Otherwise I just start a blog
Maybe I should go off to a Eastender thread and tell them that their whole soap is a pile of sh*te (which I truly believe). It's probably best if I don't post in that thread anymore.
Edit: If you really were asking if you should, then I would say a definite YES! It's much more fun. What's the point of starting a thread without debate, without argument, without possibility to change your position. The whole point of a forum is that you can exchange ideas, that people inspire you, that people persuade you to change your ideas or that you persuade people to change your ideas. The forum would be so boring if OP's just posted their opinion without debate.
Well if I were to make a thread asking a question like ''Who would you like as the new companion'' I woudn't feel the need to post on it again because everyone would be giving their own personal views but if I started a thread saying '' I don't like Amy Pond and someone asks why I would tell them. I guess it's based on the type of thread you make.
BTW I agree 100% about Eastenders.
I'm not criticising RTD, I'm criticising Journeys End. I LOVE RTD! Most of his writing spectacular and I'll be forever grateful to him for successfully bringing back Dr Who. I'm just saying that I dont think Moff can reallly be called a lazy writer while some of RTD's can. Not all, not even most, the vast majority of RTD's work is NOT lazy at all. E.g. Midnight is, in my opinion, one of my favourite Dr Who episodes of all time, it is unbelieveably clever and, I believe, it was written by RTD
I agree, it depend on the thread, but this thread seriously would need some constructive contribution from the OP in order to be taken serious.
PS: You are in my good books with your last sentence:D
My point was that it is highly subjective. For all you know, RTD sat hours and hours writing whatever episode you didn't like, whereas Moff wrote the episodes you liked in 1/2 hour (how do you define laziness in an academic sense). It's subjective and any thread claiming that a writer is lazy doesn't understand the writing process. Maybe some of RTD's stories are not to your taste, maybe some of Moff's stories are not to other people's taste. However, saying that they are lazy writers is just a lazy argument and highly subjective. Furthermore, anyone's opinion (e.g. yours or mine) are not necessarily correct, and thus these threads are highly tedious.
I didnt start this thread, I presumbe that be lazy h/she means a silly push a button and all the Daleks die ending. I know from the writers tale etc that there not lazy in the normal meaning of the word, RTD was always staying up till silly o clock with hardly any sleep in order to finish or get a story right
I'm a he and also a pig. That what I basically mean a button pushed and the Daleks die and The Doctor is erased from time and is remembered back by Amy.
I never said you started this thread, but you supported the notion that the writing of one of the writers was lazy (see above), whilst arguing with the OP that Moff's writing is not lazy. My whole point was that neither writer can be called lazy! Simple as that.
I dont think either of them are really lazy, just a few episodes are lacking a bit, (even that I wouldnt mind, it's just that usually their the finales which should be really well thought out as the whole series have been building up to them
Yes, actually lazy would be not finishing the stories at all.
Or starting threads which criticise things with no intention of contributing further to the discussion.
*gets coat*
In comparison I prefer Fringe which rather than wrap up the season with a "Big Bad", gives the viewer a new thread which will form the basis of the following season.
The problem with Big Bads is that they create an arms race where the universe is in peril in an even more hyperbolic way every year.
Don't like Universe reboots and I don't like it when we are told that Daleks are taking over the Universe (can't and shouldn't be done).
Surprise reveals should be conducted at random points in the show's run like the return of the Master.
I did like the cracks in the Universe though. Very Sapphire and Steel. The ending was unsatisfactory though.
Exactly the way The Masters return was just pure genius and I quite liked the cracks aswell but I didn't like the build up to Rose's return in series 4 and the whole who shot The Doctor fiasco.
Its lazy when you have to use a sodding companion to save the day.
I agree it should be The Doctor who's the hero but according to Moffat the companion is the main character.
No, it's the climax of a dramatic arc, and illustrates why the Doctor needs companions.
You're an idiot
And they say constructive criticism is dead
I only give constructive criticism when someone says something of constructive value.
His post is pathetic and, ironically, lazy.
It's fine to express an opinion about someone's work - maybe it's not to a person's taste or they feel it failed what it set out to do. Maybe they hate RTD or Moffat's entire era because it's not what they want Doctor Who to be. Fine, fair enough.
But to accuse them of being lazy and giving such pathetic, weak examples (esp the 'Planet of the Dead' one which is beyond absurd) is nothing more than offensive, ignorant drivel.
Actually I just watched one of the beginning episodes, and it's not the Doctor who is always the hero, but Ian the companion is:).
I agree with your bit in bold. However, as much as I disagree with the OP and as much as I dislike these kinds of threads, calling someone an idiot is really against the forum rules.
I couldn't agree more