when asked what he thought about torchwood's mixed reception was extremely arrogant. 'what mixed reaction...it got best ever figures for digital channel' etc

i lose all respect for someone who is unable to take the criticism he MUST have read about torchwood. i dont think i saw many positive reviews for it (haha he only commented on online forums); he could hardly say he didnt agree with the press as they have been overwhelming in their support of dr who

the truth is that there was loads wrong with torchwood. would it have hurt him to agree a bit?? he just looks an idiot to me now

ps john barrowman is getting on my tits too now. please stop this only gay in the village schtick, its boring. seeing him screech for scooch at eurovision made me cringe

No there wasn't. It's fab Good for him for taking on the TV critics - critics talk the talk because they can't walk the walk.

quelle surprise

he didnt 'take on' the tv critics. he made out the only criticism came from 'online communities'. he could hardly 'take' on' the tv critics as they praised dr who and it would look like he only agreed with them when they were being positive.

and no, critics do a good job i think

It's not so much "taking on" the critics here, as sticking fingers in ears, going "lalala" and pretending they don't exist. Seems an odd reaction. RTD would have been fine (and probably justified) to say "Stuff them, we got good ratings", but to deny there was rather a lot of criticism does seem rather peculiar.

Any chance of actually seeing his comments?

I wonder whether he would be so dismissive if the online community forums were full of praise?

exactly

from todays metro:

Torchwood had a mixed reception…
What do you mean, a mixed reception?

Some people hated it.
You mean among online, moaning old minnies? We got the highest digital figures the BBC ever got so, frankly, we were laughing. We’re working on ways the second series can be improved, none of which has anything to do with online forums.

err no, i think he actually meant the press..

Off the top of my head, I can't head but feel, say, The Guardian could be accurately described as an 'online forum'. Did he not read the press? That is rather confusing.

(I'm getting amusing images of the production team running around hiding the papers from RTD)
Last edited by Histeria : 29-03-2007 at 11:10

IMO TV / Film / Art critics etc are a load of jealous wannabees who have failed miserably at their chosen professions so become critics instead. And I still think Torchwood is Fab

From what I saw of Torchwood, the main problem was the acting. Absolutely terrible.......should have been called Torchwooden

haha very good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKrEnBmST00

To be fair, why should he listen to people online who keep on calling for him to go.

Torchwood was a success for BBC3 (so much so that BBC3 and BBC2 were fighting for ownership), and he has said that he is looking for ways to improve Series 2.

absolutely not.

in fact you have to study harder to be a journalist than an actor or writer - it isnt usually something you can just set yourself up in.

journalism is a 'chosen profession'. how many times do you read actors saying they only became actors because they couldn't think of anything else to do?

Funny But it's still Fab

That is a different argument. RTD seems to be denying that there was "mixed" press, and that it was all online criticism. Now, we all know TW was a huge success, and that RTD could justifiably tell the critics who disliked it to get bent, as the show got solid numbers (much like George Lucas did for his critically panned, but hugely successful Star Wars prequels), but for him to imply that there wasn't a significant amount of negative press seems somewhat disingenuous.

the dead ringers version of torchwood was way more entertaining, jon culshaw for capt jack in s2.

You have to wonder how many times he's been asked about what he thought of TW's "mixed reception". Does he tell them they're all wrong, no matter how many times he's asked the question by various interviewers? Does seem rather blind to criticism, doesn't he? Doesn't surprise me though - the man's as thick-skinned as a Judoon.

As is often said: the key to leadership and progress, maturity and recovery, is admitting your mistakes.

He's already said that he is (and let's face it, the online community is pretty much 80% positive about Who for instance). Apart from his general stance of never reading forums at all (he compares it to movie studios who hand out surveys after preview screenings and then chop up the movie to suit the ideas of a bunch of random cinema-goers) he's said that when he *does* hear something was popular with fan-forums he's almost suspicious of it. As in, he tries not to do whatever they liked again.


Ah, well that makes it clearer. For a start, he actually tries to clarify what the interviewer meant by 'mixed reception'. Presumably, when he said "You mean... online?" the interviewer should have said "in the press" if they *meant* "in the press'. The fact that the interview doesn't implies both interviewer and interviewee were talking about fan response. Which is the question Davies then goes on to answer.

And, I mean, look at what he actually says: he conceeds that TW S1 wasn't as good as it could have been, says S2 will be better but says that the changes they're making for S2 are based on their own observations of what went wrong - not because the fans didn't like it.

Which all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Critics are pseudo-intellectual hacks who use academic study and jaded cynicism to suck the lifeblood out of art. :yawn:

Artists are born, whether they're actors, writers, painters, musicians - and that's something that critics simply cannot cope with - because they just don't have the vision that artists have.

They're completely up their own backsides to a man - and woman. I haven't got a good word to say for them.