Don't forget, the Hugo winners are selected by less than 200 people. RTD probably sees it as insignificant and unrepresentative.

I wonder if they are the moaning minnies RTD referred to in a recent interview

What was wrong with the episode?

Oh, I see what you have done there Yoonix, you suggest that the 200 people that picked these episodes somehow represent the same 200 internet 'moaning minnies' that RTD mentioned. Again is this a factual point you are making or maybe your being 'witty'

If I may point out the massive problem with your post if it was meant as being somehow factual. The 200 people who chose the episodes, of Dr Who and BSG were doing so on behalf of the Hugo awards on the basis they actual know what they are talking about in the wide genre of sci-fi and all it's different styles. The 200 moaning minnies RTD on the other hand are just people that post on forums. Big difference.

Maybe if you were asked to partake in the Hugo awards voting things might have gone a little better for you.



Last edited by CAMERA OBSCURA : 05-04-2007 at 01:29

Perhaps the only reason this episode worked for me is all down to RTD limiting the juvenile excesses, and DT's performance being a lot less pantomime but calmer, calculated and in control. The radiation in the shoe scene seemed more like DT farting about after a "cut", than part of the script. Almost like an outtake left in. My "RTD Shite-O-Meter" (given free with issue #365 of DWM) gave a tremendous wobble at that point.

But the episode worked well, even if the actual sci-fi parts are as weak as a Slitheen's rectum.

Didn't suggest any such thing. You've created a "massive problem" that really isn't there!

Many of the Hugo Voters do, however, post on forums.

Im just curious at what you were suggesting with this?

If you haven't seen it - it isn't there? Do I understand you correctly?

And if I produce reams of evidence to show that you've missed a lot - that would be be using my 'itchy google-finger'?

Sorry - but your 'devouring' has missed the huge amount of praise for RTD by more critics than you can shake a stick at. It misses quotes from the BBC, C4, ITV and various independent producers who all want to work with him. It misses the high praise for RTD by other high flying writers -such as Matthew Graham, Paul Abbott, Steven Moffat. It misses the parade of highly respected awards that RTD has won - including:

BAFTA

Children's Award for Best Drama - 1996

Dennis Potter Award for Outstanding Writing for Television - 2006 (which puts him into the same company as Alan Plater, Paul Abbott, Stephen Poliakof and Lynda La Plante).

British Comedy Awards

Writer of the Year - 2001

Royal Television Society Award

The Second Coming - 2003

BAFTA Cymru

Siân Phillips Award for Outstanding Contribution to Network Television - 2006

Hugos

Nomination - 2007

It misses accolades such as The Stage declaring him as: 'No. 1 in the list of the Top Ten artists working in British TV'. They said of him:


Or the Radio Times asking a number of movers and shakers in the industry and declaring RTD to be the 17th Most Powerful Person in Television Drama (I think I'm right in saying that he was the highest ranked writer in the list - and that he has been employed, or had his services sought, by most of the others on that list).

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

So respectfully I'll say - you are wrong. Not only is he 'widely acknowledged' - but far from having to hunt for obscure references - the evidence for such is blatant and easily seen.

I'll add - just because I love to do so - that the most widely and critically well received script for the latest incarnation of Doctor Who was an RTD script - I'm sure we all remember which one that was...!

Perhaps you've doing your media devouring a little too selectively?


No - as I've demonstrated above - the flaw would seem to lie in what you've exposed yourself too as it isn't hard to find major support for RTD's widespread acclaim. Don't take my word for it - as Paul Abbott (do I need to provide evidence of how well he is regarded?) who said of RTD that he is:


and said of 'The Second Coming' that it was:


Or how about Nicola Shindler (I'm sure I don't need to give her pedigree) who said of RTD:


I'm sure you don't need me to tell you how much effort Lorraine Heggessey put into getting RTD - or the many glowing things she's had to say about him.

The BAFTA committee that awarded RTD the Dennis Potter award said in their citation:


Do I even need to go into the growing list of highly selective actors who have been drawn to Doctor Who and when asked why name RTD's scripts every time?

I'm sorry - but this is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much ready critical acclaim for RTD out there that to claim that it isn't obvious and widespread is just ridiculous. In fact - find me an article (red-top critics excepted for obvious reasons) that *doesn't* routinely call him one of the UK's best writers, doesn't mention his name alongside the Abbotts and McGoverns of this world, doesn't mention his awards for writing. Good luck with that...!

Erm, yes. That's why it's a crime it's NOT on Channel 4's primetime. My point was that it is getting a proper push over here and will likely disappear on BBC2. Fingers crossed there'll be enough word of mouth.


Lol - I hardly think one word could be counted as a homage. His character is nothing like his Dr Who. So you're right - the makers of heroes wouldn't pay homage to an inferior show

I agree with other posters that RTD has done some stellar work in other programs. Casanova was brilliantly done as was The Second Coming. I just don't think SciFi is his strength, and I think writing to suit kids has probably made it difficult for him to be creative in his usual way. Writing to please both adults and kids is a very difficult thing, and there have been episodes by other writers which have done it much better in Dr Who. RTD's episodes are enjoyable enough - but it's never his episodes that have wowed me. Some of them have even been plain awful (Slitheen and Love and Monsters - though lets not get into a debate about THAT episode again!)

d2macreject, did we already have a pleasure to come across any of your creative writing outputs? You know so I can compare it if it is at least as good as I found that awful season opener

That "Fantastic" was definitely a Doctor Who homage, no doubt about it.

Definitely not an inferior show, I like Heroes, but I vastly prefer Doctor Who.

You think? The entire line was (sarcastically) "Oh, fantastic - you're one of them". The fact that it contains one key word from the 9th Doc's last speech doesn't strike me an an obvious homage. I mean it is possible, but I think there is a lot of room for doubt.
Last edited by Histeria : 05-04-2007 at 09:57

It would have been so good that God would have nicked it before we could even see it Ah well

I think Heroes is better than Doctor Who, but from a technical "creative writing" standpoint it is pretty useless to try to compare them, as DW has a fairly strict episodic format that merely hints at a certain arc each season (Bad Wolf, Torchwood) while Heroes is a straight serial. Every new episode of Heroes just continues storylines already in place, so if you like what has come before, you are likely to enjoy "what happens next," thus there is a continuity of quality. But Doctor Who's stories really vary in quality one to the next, as an entirely new plot has to be made up for every new episode (unless we are talking about the two parters). To illustrate my point, I'll note that in my opinion "The Parting Of The Ways" is a better hour of television than any single hour of Heroes 18 episodes into Heroes' run. And on the flip side, "Fear Her" is an utter abomination infinitely worse than the weakest episode of Heroes. Of course, most Doctor Who episodes fall somewhere between those two extremes.

Did you miss the Rate It thread?

Just shows you how bad UK TV is right now, and has been for years.

Isn't it embarrassing how the industry slobbers over itself?

As for RTD, I can only comment on his scribblings on kid's shows such as DW or TW, and would have to say I do find the critical acclaim puzzling. The "sci-fi" elements of Russell's scripts are probably the weakest I've ever seen on a sci-fi show. He rarely seems to think things through or make any attempt to disguise plot-holes. He's much better at the human side of the show, but to me, even that side often seems stilted, lazy and clichéd - look at how Martha's "soap" family were handled.

Sure, may work great for young kids, and perhaps it's intentional that Russell writes like a child to appeal to the child, but then Who's other writers are often ignored and side-lined to Russell's shadow, even when their scripts would appear more sci-fi savvy, accomplished, dramatic, and can even appeal to the most discerning. If Russell's scripts are the best, and deserving of such critical acclaim, then what are the likes of Shearman, Moffat, Cornell, etc. worth?

Russell's pre-DW writing must surely trounce anything he's written in the field of "sci-fi"?

Actualy your right Yoonix, I couldn't agree more but I'm always of the mind that RTD episodes aren't your 'sci-fi' driven episodes but more about character and dialogue and in the vein of the fun/quirky episodes that Dr Who has always had and will always have, as it's part of the whole Who package. IMHO RTD's episodes have been the most fun and wittiest episodes of Who, old or new, the sci-fi does take a back seat at times but there is really no harm in that, thats why Dr Who works for a hell of a lot of people of all ages compared to other sci-fi shows, it's premise is not to be only a serious 'sci-fi' driven show week after week, it gives the viewer something different in it's approach, thats why I dont buy this it insults peoples intellegence thing, far from it when it tries to do different styles and genres week after week, not an easy thing Im sure for any show to do. It may not always work, with any writer, but that happens with shows that differ a lot in style , writing and direction from week to week.
Last edited by CAMERA OBSCURA : 05-04-2007 at 13:00

He'd just laugh in your face because he's an internationally known award winning writer.

*Sighs*
No doubt about it? Seriously? From one word - a word which is used quite frequently in the english language? Tell you what - find me an article with the writer/director of the episode, or even with Christopher Eccleston himself, saying it's a homage and then you can say there's no doubt.

In the meantime, I very much doubt it is a homage.

Well the first sighting of him on heroes was a trailer with just that one word. It is a bit of a coincidence.

(I'd link to it but it's been pulled off youtube)

who are these Hugo voters? are they magazine editors, sci-fi experts or just joe public?

God bless Google

http://www.sfwa.org/news/2007/07hugoballot.htm

It says the voters belong to Nippon


http://www.nippon2007.us/members6.php

Though I'm still non the wiser.
Last edited by CAMERA OBSCURA : 06-04-2007 at 00:36

I liked it. However you could throw any old crap at me from my fave shows and I would like it LOL. Then again I like 'House' which is not bad script writing. The only problem I have with Dr Who is that it writes itself too much for the kids. When I watch it I think 'this is cool story but push it a bit more'. AT the end of the day I shouln't complin. I have Dr Who on a Saturday night it has gotta be betta than 'Celebrity idiot on ice'

Eccleston saying 'fantastic' on Heroes was a definite Who homage.

I haven't seen the Eccleston trailer, and I'm only at UK pace with Heroes, but my guess would be this - the scene referred to in the trailer is not a Who homage, however when the trailer was being put together someone noticed the link and cut it that way to appeal to Who fans.