Just me then? 
Anyone else just watch the episodes, and not care who the writer/producer/exec is?
No, not just you... Outside of message boards such as this, 99% of people really don't care who's in charge.
A couple of work colleagues, both of whom are keen Who watchers, but not fans noticed the news about SM stepping down but were unconcerned and unbothered. They were more interested whether this would mean a change of Doctor.
And I would suggest that people like this are the vast majority of the audience, not the tiny minority of hard core fans who spend far too long posting on forums!
A couple of work colleagues, both of whom are keen Who watchers, but not fans noticed the news about SM stepping down but were unconcerned and unbothered. They were more interested whether this would mean a change of Doctor.
And I would suggest that people like this are the vast majority of the audience, not the tiny minority of hard core fans who spend far too long posting on forums!
When people love something very, very much, they really get into it.
Think of Doctor Who like a(n American) football team. Anybody can watch The New Orleans Saints (my team) play. They can enjoy the team and root for them. They might even have a t-shirt or two with the team's logo on it. However, they may not know (and don't care) who the coach (analogous to the showrunner) is. They may not know (and not care) even who the quarterback (analogous to The Doctor) is. They simply enjoy the game of football and they watch their team when they are on, but they don't delve any deeper and they aren't aware of personnel changes. They can even consider themselves fans. However, the hard-core fans, or, should I say fanatics, are those who know who the coach is (and his track record), know who the quarterback (and the back-up quarterback) is and his track record. We delve into the minutiae of the roster, the statistics and the players. Thus, in Doctor Who, we delve into the minutiae of the characters, the actors, the showrunners, the writers and the lore.
Is this healthy? Not necessarily. Is it any better to be a fanatic rather than just a fan? Not necessarily. Does it mean that we love the show any more or any more intensely? (I would argue yes, but, again,) not necessarily. However, it just is the way that some of us are.
The vast majority of people who watch Doctor Who are probably like yourself and they couldn't tell the showrunner from Adam. And that is a valid way to enjoy the show.
However, message board systems like this will attract a LOT more fanatics than fans and, thus, while you are in the majority of Doctor Who watchers overall, I think, you will probably find that on this board, your apathy places you in the minority. LOL!
(In other words, Adams said it better and more succinctly, but I just felt the need to add my post.)
Think of Doctor Who like a(n American) football team. Anybody can watch The New Orleans Saints (my team) play. They can enjoy the team and root for them. They might even have a t-shirt or two with the team's logo on it. However, they may not know (and don't care) who the coach (analogous to the showrunner) is. They may not know (and not care) even who the quarterback (analogous to The Doctor) is. They simply enjoy the game of football and they watch their team when they are on, but they don't delve any deeper and they aren't aware of personnel changes. They can even consider themselves fans. However, the hard-core fans, or, should I say fanatics, are those who know who the coach is (and his track record), know who the quarterback (and the back-up quarterback) is and his track record. We delve into the minutiae of the roster, the statistics and the players. Thus, in Doctor Who, we delve into the minutiae of the characters, the actors, the showrunners, the writers and the lore.
Is this healthy? Not necessarily. Is it any better to be a fanatic rather than just a fan? Not necessarily. Does it mean that we love the show any more or any more intensely? (I would argue yes, but, again,) not necessarily. However, it just is the way that some of us are.
The vast majority of people who watch Doctor Who are probably like yourself and they couldn't tell the showrunner from Adam. And that is a valid way to enjoy the show.
However, message board systems like this will attract a LOT more fanatics than fans and, thus, while you are in the majority of Doctor Who watchers overall, I think, you will probably find that on this board, your apathy places you in the minority. LOL!
(In other words, Adams said it better and more succinctly, but I just felt the need to add my post.)
To be honest i think it is a little naive not looking at who produced it etc. Like when you watch Blink, Caves of Androzani or any amazing script in any show, you give that specific writer and everything about that episode.I may be wrong but i'd assume you know SM has written Blink, Doctor Dances or that RTD wrote Waters of Mars, which means even though you might not think about it, you still recognise it and give credit where it is due. And if Mr X wrote the worst 5 episodes you have ever seen in your entire existence, i am also sure you'd notice that and hope Mr X never writing another story again.
This is also the same as football, you may just watch the games, if things are going well then you are happy and praise the team, but when they turn for the worst even the casual watcher will be like, Steve Mclaren is a useless manager time for a change. And then may realise he has had a track record of mediocrity.
Back to the OP, there are definitely varying degrees of how serious someone takes this sort of thing, but unless you watch 2 episodes a season, then it is just naive to be oblivious to this sort of thing. Like if Joss Whedon or some other amazing writer was announced to write some episodes, i am sure you'd care.
This is also the same as football, you may just watch the games, if things are going well then you are happy and praise the team, but when they turn for the worst even the casual watcher will be like, Steve Mclaren is a useless manager time for a change. And then may realise he has had a track record of mediocrity.
Back to the OP, there are definitely varying degrees of how serious someone takes this sort of thing, but unless you watch 2 episodes a season, then it is just naive to be oblivious to this sort of thing. Like if Joss Whedon or some other amazing writer was announced to write some episodes, i am sure you'd care.
I try and base an episode on its own merits but having an interest in the production and writing behind every episode the creative team is often something I care about. Episodes or audio dramas by particular writers such as Robert Holmes, David Whitaker, Robert Shearman, Steven Moffat and so forth will often stand out to me as particularly excellent whereas Terry Nation, Eric Saward, Pip and Jane Baker, Mark Gatiss and Russell T Davies frequently stand out as rather poor or underwhelming writers in my opinion.
That said even a bad script can make an enjoyable episode if the rest of the crew can make it. Tom Baker takes a number of bad scripts and still manages to make the story a lot of fun, and The Gunfighters is saved by an enjoyable performance from all the cast.
The Time Monster is a story hated by many people, and as much as I can see why, I found it difficult to hate when it had Jon Pertwee, Katy Manning, Nicholas Courtney, Roger Delgado and John Levene.
That said even a bad script can make an enjoyable episode if the rest of the crew can make it. Tom Baker takes a number of bad scripts and still manages to make the story a lot of fun, and The Gunfighters is saved by an enjoyable performance from all the cast.
The Time Monster is a story hated by many people, and as much as I can see why, I found it difficult to hate when it had Jon Pertwee, Katy Manning, Nicholas Courtney, Roger Delgado and John Levene.
It all depends on how much you're "into" the show. Fans, like you'll typically see on here, will usually want to know as much as possible about their favourite TV show. It all contributes to the discussion with like-minded people.
There's nothing wrong in being less than totally obsessed.
There's nothing wrong in being less than totally obsessed.
Spoiler
Originally Posted by summer_ste:
“Just me then?”
“Just me then?
”
I don't think anyone starts of when they first watch it knowing or caring who the boss is, it's just the more you get into the show, the more you hear and the changes become noticable.
For me personally for example, I started in 2005 and for at least into series 2/3 or so had no idea of showrunners etc. I just knew I absolutely loved the show. Then after I was even more of a fan, and heard the announcement of Moffat taking over, and thought the show was in safe hands having heard which previous episodes were his, but then the stories seemed to have less heart, the story arcs were never complete and it just didn't feel the same. Now that I felt this way, having known there was a change in showrunner at the time it stopped feeling as good as before, I had to put it down to the new showrunner (Moffat) that I wasn't enjoying it as much.
I still judge individual episodes on there merit, and try not to pre judge if an episode will be good or bad, even if it a writer who has written for the show before, and on the whole I still enjoy the show more than a lot of things on tv, it's just that Moffat's who overall isn't as high quality as RTD's was for me personally.
To be honest, if the show is good, the stories are satisfactory, the action pacy, the scripts funny and poignant simultaneously, the acting fine, then I really don't care who writes, directs or show-runs the series. I don't care if I know their name or not.
Its only when I come on here and moan about an episode/series/arc that I get told I'm a Moffat hater. There seems to be an idea that if you don't like the way the programme has gone then that's because you hate Moffat and were already determined to hate all his works.
Not so - I am indifferent to the writer; I just dislike a lot of what he's done on DW.
I wish I could criticise or applaud an episode without the "hater" epithet being applied. It really is dispiriting.
Its only when I come on here and moan about an episode/series/arc that I get told I'm a Moffat hater. There seems to be an idea that if you don't like the way the programme has gone then that's because you hate Moffat and were already determined to hate all his works.
Not so - I am indifferent to the writer; I just dislike a lot of what he's done on DW.
I wish I could criticise or applaud an episode without the "hater" epithet being applied. It really is dispiriting.
Originally Posted by Granny McSmith:
“To be honest, if the show is good, the stories are satisfactory, the action pacy, the scripts funny and poignant simultaneously, the acting fine, then I really don't care who writes, directs or show-runs the series. I don't care if I know their name or not.
Its only when I come on here and moan about an episode/series/arc that I get told I'm a Moffat hater. There seems to be an idea that if you don't like the way the programme has gone then that's because you hate Moffat and were already determined to hate all his works.
Not so - I am indifferent to the writer; I just dislike a lot of what he's done on DW.
I wish I could criticise or applaud an episode without the "hater" epithet being applied. It really is dispiriting.”
“To be honest, if the show is good, the stories are satisfactory, the action pacy, the scripts funny and poignant simultaneously, the acting fine, then I really don't care who writes, directs or show-runs the series. I don't care if I know their name or not.
Its only when I come on here and moan about an episode/series/arc that I get told I'm a Moffat hater. There seems to be an idea that if you don't like the way the programme has gone then that's because you hate Moffat and were already determined to hate all his works.
Not so - I am indifferent to the writer; I just dislike a lot of what he's done on DW.
I wish I could criticise or applaud an episode without the "hater" epithet being applied. It really is dispiriting.”
Equally its irritating when you are labelled a fan boy just for the crime of actually enjoying something. And then repeatedly being labelled as such despite openly critiquing the writer in a fair and just fashion. I actually do care who writes an episode purely because its a handy indicator that I will likely enjoy their work. There are some writers/directors whose work I will always watch and I know even if it isnt their best I will get something out of it. Moffat is one of those. RTD is another. And their are many others. I would never argue that they are perfect...far from it. They sometimes have me wanting to hurl things at the screen but equally they have made episodes of amazing and unforgettable television I will love until my dying day. That is their genius. The worst thing is boredom or ambivalence. Thats my potential worry about the next era...mediocrity. I would prefer a divisive late Eighties style car crash to that. At least it would be interesting. The worst thing...and I genuinely fear it might happen with Chibnall...is that DW becomes just another show to file next to Merlin and Robin Hood and Primeval and Atlantis and Jekyll and Hyde and all those other piss weak exercises in 'will this do?' genre tv bandwagon jumping. Please dont let that happen.
As for the H word? There are certainly more of them than all out fanboys. I cant think of anyone on this forum that has praised and loved RTD or Moffat without question. I can think of about 5 who do nothing but slag things off. Which is a massive minority (repetition and noise can create the illusion of numbers after all). Most people are like you and I Granny...we float somewhere around in the middle sometimes gravitating more to one side than the other depending purely on the relative merits of the episodes themselves.
Most people depend on visuals, rather than referring to aspects that they can't actually see - the turnover of lead cast members is what catches their attention. A new Doctor or new companion, or possibly certain guest stars are what tell them about whether or not they care enough to give the show a go. Some may recognise a few high-profile names like Richard Curtis or Neil Gaiman, oddly enough Mark Gatiss got a namedrop ahead of the broadcast of Sleep No More as if he was especially revered as well.
Whilst all viewers care about how well something is written, I presume you have to be a bit more of a fan to actually take note of the writers - many viewers can't recall some episodes by title alone, let alone who wrote those episodes.
For me personally, I don't care enough about who wrote something before I watch it - unless they got someone who I really didn't like for more personal reasons than 'I don't like their style'. Generally I'll keep an open mind, even with a writer I care about less - say Mark Gatiss or Chris Chibnall. If anything I'm hopeful that they may defy my personal reputation of them and deliver something better. The writers I do like I try not to get overly hyped if they come back. I try and enjoy every episode for what it is, but then may spot patterns as a fan - figuring out which writers I tend to like, and those which I tend to not.
And this is just writers...I think directors is another rung up (they don't generate the same interest most of the time as a writer does for TV shows...whereas films it seems to be the other way around).
Whilst all viewers care about how well something is written, I presume you have to be a bit more of a fan to actually take note of the writers - many viewers can't recall some episodes by title alone, let alone who wrote those episodes.
For me personally, I don't care enough about who wrote something before I watch it - unless they got someone who I really didn't like for more personal reasons than 'I don't like their style'. Generally I'll keep an open mind, even with a writer I care about less - say Mark Gatiss or Chris Chibnall. If anything I'm hopeful that they may defy my personal reputation of them and deliver something better. The writers I do like I try not to get overly hyped if they come back. I try and enjoy every episode for what it is, but then may spot patterns as a fan - figuring out which writers I tend to like, and those which I tend to not.
And this is just writers...I think directors is another rung up (they don't generate the same interest most of the time as a writer does for TV shows...whereas films it seems to be the other way around).
I don't care who the writer is as long as it doesn't say mark Gatiss.
Some of his have been OK. But 70% are bad. And when they are bad. Really bad.
Some of his have been OK. But 70% are bad. And when they are bad. Really bad.
While I agree that it is mainly people who are massive fans who are concerned about things like who the writers and producers are, I don't agree that you can't be a massive a fan if you aren't concerned about these things.
Everyone has their own level of interest and their own type of engagement with their interests.
For me I am interested in writing. I don't immerse myself entirely in a drama like Doctor Who; part of me is always analyzing it. It's simply how my mind works. When i read a book I'm not looking just to immerse myself in the story but to enjoy (or not enjoy as the case may be) the skill of the writer.
Good writing gives me a thrill. I appreciate their skill in the way one might appreciate the work of any artisan: a potter, a carpenter etc. I like to see people's creativity. Some people admire the engineering that goes into creating a car. I admire the engineering that goes into creating a piece of writing.
On top of this I am very analytical generally. There are not a huge number of things in the world that interest me. When something does interest me it's my nature to want to consume it entirely, to learn everything about it. I am not widely knowledgeable, I don't value trivia, but the things I am interested in I can speak very knowledgeably about.
To someone like the OP a television credit might seem like pointless trivia but to me one may as well walk through a gallery and not inquire who created the various paintings. I want to know because that context of being able to link the works to others by the same creator gives me a fuller picture of those works, a broader context by which to consider and examine them, an intellectual appreciation for the mind that created them. It helps to interpret them and gives me a greater appreciation for the works than I can get from each one in isolation. I want to understand them, not just experience them or admire them. It also allows me to further discover more work. For example, if I stand and admire a painting but I do not take time to discover who created it then I cannot seek more of their work, which may be similarly edifying to me. Why would I miss that opportunity?
If I enjoy an episode of a TV programme then it seems totally natural to me that I would want to know who wrote it because I may enjoy more of their work (likewise, if I don't enjoy the work of a creator it gives me a filter by which to eliminate other work (programmes in this case) I might otherwise spend my time exploring. This is useful for me because I am discerning. I do not have patience for things I do not admire. There's too much great work and culture out in the world for me to randomly try everything). I find it hard to understand why anyone would not do that. But I think that's to do with being a creator myself, so I understand that work is not just created by magic, but by human beings. Doctor Who doesn't derive by some automatic process, it arrives by the hard work and intellectual endeavour of its creators. I want to appreciate the work of those people, which can be as stimulating to me as the drama itself. To watch Doctor Who and enjoy it, or not enjoy it, and to never wonder about the human interface that created it is very, very strange to me. But in a sense I guess it is no different to not knowing how a car works but simply being happy that it does.
Everyone is different. everyone engages in different ways.
For me I am interested in writing. I don't immerse myself entirely in a drama like Doctor Who; part of me is always analyzing it. It's simply how my mind works. When i read a book I'm not looking just to immerse myself in the story but to enjoy (or not enjoy as the case may be) the skill of the writer.
Good writing gives me a thrill. I appreciate their skill in the way one might appreciate the work of any artisan: a potter, a carpenter etc. I like to see people's creativity. Some people admire the engineering that goes into creating a car. I admire the engineering that goes into creating a piece of writing.
On top of this I am very analytical generally. There are not a huge number of things in the world that interest me. When something does interest me it's my nature to want to consume it entirely, to learn everything about it. I am not widely knowledgeable, I don't value trivia, but the things I am interested in I can speak very knowledgeably about.
To someone like the OP a television credit might seem like pointless trivia but to me one may as well walk through a gallery and not inquire who created the various paintings. I want to know because that context of being able to link the works to others by the same creator gives me a fuller picture of those works, a broader context by which to consider and examine them, an intellectual appreciation for the mind that created them. It helps to interpret them and gives me a greater appreciation for the works than I can get from each one in isolation. I want to understand them, not just experience them or admire them. It also allows me to further discover more work. For example, if I stand and admire a painting but I do not take time to discover who created it then I cannot seek more of their work, which may be similarly edifying to me. Why would I miss that opportunity?
If I enjoy an episode of a TV programme then it seems totally natural to me that I would want to know who wrote it because I may enjoy more of their work (likewise, if I don't enjoy the work of a creator it gives me a filter by which to eliminate other work (programmes in this case) I might otherwise spend my time exploring. This is useful for me because I am discerning. I do not have patience for things I do not admire. There's too much great work and culture out in the world for me to randomly try everything). I find it hard to understand why anyone would not do that. But I think that's to do with being a creator myself, so I understand that work is not just created by magic, but by human beings. Doctor Who doesn't derive by some automatic process, it arrives by the hard work and intellectual endeavour of its creators. I want to appreciate the work of those people, which can be as stimulating to me as the drama itself. To watch Doctor Who and enjoy it, or not enjoy it, and to never wonder about the human interface that created it is very, very strange to me. But in a sense I guess it is no different to not knowing how a car works but simply being happy that it does.
Everyone is different. everyone engages in different ways.
Originally Posted by Granny McSmith:
“
Its only when I come on here and moan about an episode/series/arc that I get told I'm a Moffat hater. There seems to be an idea that if you don't like the way the programme has gone then that's because you hate Moffat and were already determined to hate all his works.
Not so - I am indifferent to the writer; I just dislike a lot of what he's done on DW.
I wish I could criticise or applaud an episode without the "hater" epithet being applied. It really is dispiriting.”
“
Its only when I come on here and moan about an episode/series/arc that I get told I'm a Moffat hater. There seems to be an idea that if you don't like the way the programme has gone then that's because you hate Moffat and were already determined to hate all his works.
Not so - I am indifferent to the writer; I just dislike a lot of what he's done on DW.
I wish I could criticise or applaud an episode without the "hater" epithet being applied. It really is dispiriting.”
To me it sounds like you're complaining about getting called out on the quality of your criticism. If it is good criticism then it will persuade people. If people are suggesting your criticism comes off simply as hatred then don't you need to stop and consider if you are presenting yourself well? You use the word 'moan' yourself. Does anyone like hearing someone 'moan'? Don't you think you would get a better response with well thought-out, well-written criticism?
If you critique something stridently you invite the same attitude back upon yourself.
You want to have your cake and eat it: to be as critical as you like of something but to have only sweetness and light directed at yourself. As equally as you may dislike something someone else may love it and want to defend it as stridently as you criticize it. If you can't accept that level of debate coming back at you then you should either moderate your own comments so as not to provoke it or grow a thicker skin.
You can't cry innocent. You can't have double standards. You're not 'bullied' Granny (and yes, I'm referring to something particular you've said in the past there); you get back the same tone as you give out. You just don't realize it.
Quote:
“To be honest, if the show is good, the stories are satisfactory, the action pacy, the scripts funny and poignant simultaneously, the acting fine, then I really don't care who writes, directs or show-runs the series.”
“To be honest, if the show is good, the stories are satisfactory, the action pacy, the scripts funny and poignant simultaneously, the acting fine, then I really don't care who writes, directs or show-runs the series.”
But all of those attributes are there as a result of the work of human beings. What you're saying is that as long as it's perfect you don't care who did it. You only want to criticize if it isn't....
Originally Posted by Tom Tit:
“For me I am interested in writing. I don't immerse myself entirely in a drama like Doctor Who; part of me is always analyzing it. It's simply how my mind works. When i read a book I'm not looking just to immerse myself in the story but to enjoy (or not enjoy as the case may be) the skill of the writer.
Good writing gives me a thrill. I appreciate their skill in the way one might appreciate the work of any artisan: a potter, a carpenter etc. I like to see people's creativity. Some people admire the engineering that goes into creating a car. I admire the engineering that goes into creating a piece of writing. ”
“For me I am interested in writing. I don't immerse myself entirely in a drama like Doctor Who; part of me is always analyzing it. It's simply how my mind works. When i read a book I'm not looking just to immerse myself in the story but to enjoy (or not enjoy as the case may be) the skill of the writer.
Good writing gives me a thrill. I appreciate their skill in the way one might appreciate the work of any artisan: a potter, a carpenter etc. I like to see people's creativity. Some people admire the engineering that goes into creating a car. I admire the engineering that goes into creating a piece of writing. ”
Very well worded, this is how I feel. I adore books by Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky because I truly admire the way they are masterfully written. Likewise most of my enjoyment of James Joyce's Ulysses came from the thought and subtlety's behind how it was written. As with Doctor Who, I enjoy a well-written script and want to admire the one responsible for it. Doctor Who is obviously a bit more on the easy entertainment side but I love seeing some great stories and scripts from certain writers I enjoy.
Originally Posted by Tom Tit:
“To me it sounds like you're complaining about getting called out on the quality of your criticism. If it is good criticism then it will persuade people. If people are suggesting your criticism comes off simply as hatred then don't you need to stop and consider if you are presenting yourself well? You use the word 'moan' yourself. Does anyone like hearing someone 'moan'? Don't you think you would get a better response with well thought-out, well-written criticism?
If you critique something stridently you invite the same attitude back upon yourself.
You want to have your cake and eat it: to be as critical as you like of something but to have only sweetness and light directed at yourself. As equally as you may dislike something someone else may love it and want to defend it as stridently as you criticize it. If you can't accept that level of debate coming back at you then you should either moderate your own comments so as not to provoke it or grow a thicker skin.
You can't cry innocent. You can't have double standards. You're not 'bullied' Granny (and yes, I'm referring to something particular you've said in the past there); you get back the same tone as you give out. You just don't realize it.
But all of those attributes are there as a result of the work of human beings. What you're saying is that as long as it's perfect you don't care who did it. You only want to criticize if it isn't....”
“To me it sounds like you're complaining about getting called out on the quality of your criticism. If it is good criticism then it will persuade people. If people are suggesting your criticism comes off simply as hatred then don't you need to stop and consider if you are presenting yourself well? You use the word 'moan' yourself. Does anyone like hearing someone 'moan'? Don't you think you would get a better response with well thought-out, well-written criticism?
If you critique something stridently you invite the same attitude back upon yourself.
You want to have your cake and eat it: to be as critical as you like of something but to have only sweetness and light directed at yourself. As equally as you may dislike something someone else may love it and want to defend it as stridently as you criticize it. If you can't accept that level of debate coming back at you then you should either moderate your own comments so as not to provoke it or grow a thicker skin.
You can't cry innocent. You can't have double standards. You're not 'bullied' Granny (and yes, I'm referring to something particular you've said in the past there); you get back the same tone as you give out. You just don't realize it.
But all of those attributes are there as a result of the work of human beings. What you're saying is that as long as it's perfect you don't care who did it. You only want to criticize if it isn't....”
You have misunderstood me. I admit I moan, and I don't particularly post marvels of well-constructed criticism about Doctor Who. I come on here for a laugh, not to write essays about a light entertainment programme! But I hope I've never descended to the level of "It's crap since Moffat took over - Moffat should go now" as some do.
I say I don't, or do like something; that Moffat wrote it is immaterial. It's other people who think I don't like something because it's by Moffat. That's what I find dispiriting. I accept salad's point that it's equally annoying when it's assumed that people like something purely because it's got Moffat's name on it.
And I don't think a (supposed) well thought out and constructed criticism ever changed anyone's mind. Yours certainly don't change mine. I just think you're wrong.
Btw, I don't care much if someone's unpleasant to me on here. I'm surprised you of all people think I would. My skin's rhinoceros-thick! Have I really complained about being bullied? I'm fed up with myself if I have - if I can't give as good as I get I should give up posting on here. (I have largely given up, but that's not the reason
).
If the episodes makes sense and understandable not confusing and complex, then who cares who made it?
As long as the episodes are fun, enjoyable, scary and interesting, that is all that matters to me.
As long as the episodes are fun, enjoyable, scary and interesting, that is all that matters to me.
Originally Posted by Tom Tit:
“Everyone has their own level of interest and their own type of engagement with their interests.
For me I am interested in writing. I don't immerse myself entirely in a drama like Doctor Who; part of me is always analyzing it. It's simply how my mind works. When i read a book I'm not looking just to immerse myself in the story but to enjoy (or not enjoy as the case may be) the skill of the writer.
Good writing gives me a thrill. I appreciate their skill in the way one might appreciate the work of any artisan: a potter, a carpenter etc. I like to see people's creativity. Some people admire the engineering that goes into creating a car. I admire the engineering that goes into creating a piece of writing.
On top of this I am very analytical generally. There are not a huge number of things in the world that interest me. When something does interest me it's my nature to want to consume it entirely, to learn everything about it. I am not widely knowledgeable, I don't value trivia, but the things I am interested in I can speak very knowledgeably about.
To someone like the OP a television credit might seem like pointless trivia but to me one may as well walk through a gallery and not inquire who created the various paintings. I want to know because that context of being able to link the works to others by the same creator gives me a fuller picture of those works, a broader context by which to consider and examine them, an intellectual appreciation for the mind that created them. It helps to interpret them and gives me a greater appreciation for the works than I can get from each one in isolation. I want to understand them, not just experience them or admire them. It also allows me to further discover more work. For example, if I stand and admire a painting but I do not take time to discover who created it then I cannot seek more of their work, which may be similarly edifying to me. Why would I miss that opportunity?
If I enjoy an episode of a TV programme then it seems totally natural to me that I would want to know who wrote it because I may enjoy more of their work (likewise, if I don't enjoy the work of a creator it gives me a filter by which to eliminate other work (programmes in this case) I might otherwise spend my time exploring. This is useful for me because I am discerning. I do not have patience for things I do not admire. There's too much great work and culture out in the world for me to randomly try everything). I find it hard to understand why anyone would not do that. But I think that's to do with being a creator myself, so I understand that work is not just created by magic, but by human beings. Doctor Who doesn't derive by some automatic process, it arrives by the hard work and intellectual endeavour of its creators. I want to appreciate the work of those people, which can be as stimulating to me as the drama itself. To watch Doctor Who and enjoy it, or not enjoy it, and to never wonder about the human interface that created it is very, very strange to me. But in a sense I guess it is no different to not knowing how a car works but simply being happy that it does.
Everyone is different. everyone engages in different ways.”
“Everyone has their own level of interest and their own type of engagement with their interests.
For me I am interested in writing. I don't immerse myself entirely in a drama like Doctor Who; part of me is always analyzing it. It's simply how my mind works. When i read a book I'm not looking just to immerse myself in the story but to enjoy (or not enjoy as the case may be) the skill of the writer.
Good writing gives me a thrill. I appreciate their skill in the way one might appreciate the work of any artisan: a potter, a carpenter etc. I like to see people's creativity. Some people admire the engineering that goes into creating a car. I admire the engineering that goes into creating a piece of writing.
On top of this I am very analytical generally. There are not a huge number of things in the world that interest me. When something does interest me it's my nature to want to consume it entirely, to learn everything about it. I am not widely knowledgeable, I don't value trivia, but the things I am interested in I can speak very knowledgeably about.
To someone like the OP a television credit might seem like pointless trivia but to me one may as well walk through a gallery and not inquire who created the various paintings. I want to know because that context of being able to link the works to others by the same creator gives me a fuller picture of those works, a broader context by which to consider and examine them, an intellectual appreciation for the mind that created them. It helps to interpret them and gives me a greater appreciation for the works than I can get from each one in isolation. I want to understand them, not just experience them or admire them. It also allows me to further discover more work. For example, if I stand and admire a painting but I do not take time to discover who created it then I cannot seek more of their work, which may be similarly edifying to me. Why would I miss that opportunity?
If I enjoy an episode of a TV programme then it seems totally natural to me that I would want to know who wrote it because I may enjoy more of their work (likewise, if I don't enjoy the work of a creator it gives me a filter by which to eliminate other work (programmes in this case) I might otherwise spend my time exploring. This is useful for me because I am discerning. I do not have patience for things I do not admire. There's too much great work and culture out in the world for me to randomly try everything). I find it hard to understand why anyone would not do that. But I think that's to do with being a creator myself, so I understand that work is not just created by magic, but by human beings. Doctor Who doesn't derive by some automatic process, it arrives by the hard work and intellectual endeavour of its creators. I want to appreciate the work of those people, which can be as stimulating to me as the drama itself. To watch Doctor Who and enjoy it, or not enjoy it, and to never wonder about the human interface that created it is very, very strange to me. But in a sense I guess it is no different to not knowing how a car works but simply being happy that it does.
Everyone is different. everyone engages in different ways.”
Very, very well put, Tom. I love certain movie directors for their vision and skill (Terry Gilliam, Stanley Kubrik, John Johnson). And I avoid certain directors for their lack of skill (M. Night Shamalayn (sp?)). To be discerning is not a bad thing at all. Life is to short to waste on horrible tripe. Or, as The Doctor put it: "Even my incredibly long life is too short for Le Miserable!".
I've always been interested in what goes on behind the scenes in my favourite television shows and movies. Not gossip (not who's married/having an affair/etc/etc), but the actual process, including the writing. DVD/Blu Ray extras are essential viewing for me. Even though many extras are just promotional "fluff" there are some gems to be found.
For me this goes right back to the joy of discovering, at the age of 12 or so, the books The Making of Star Trek (Stephen E Whitfield) and The Making of Doctor Who (Terrence Dicks and Malcolm Hulke). A bit later I discovered (through my interest in Star Trek again) a couple of books by David Gerrold which were more concerned with writing and dramatic structure and where I first ran into key ideas about the essential differences between writing for episodic TV and other forms of drama.
For me this goes right back to the joy of discovering, at the age of 12 or so, the books The Making of Star Trek (Stephen E Whitfield) and The Making of Doctor Who (Terrence Dicks and Malcolm Hulke). A bit later I discovered (through my interest in Star Trek again) a couple of books by David Gerrold which were more concerned with writing and dramatic structure and where I first ran into key ideas about the essential differences between writing for episodic TV and other forms of drama.
