| |
Alex
|
I shall address your points in an order unrelated to that in which they were made, with the objective of causing possible mild annoyance - and because of my general contrariness and belligerence, which I can't help.
Firstly, I'd contest that 30 minutes of screen time in the past 20 years can count as over-exposure for the daleks, or anything else - with the possible exception of Michael Barrymore. I think the opposite has occurred, and kids nowadays see them as just another Doctor Who enemy (and a rather soft one at that) rather than the epitome of Who that our generation and previous ones may remember them as.
Secondly, there's a BBC7?! I'm disappointed to hear that Richard E. Grant has played the Doctor and was crap. He would seem to have just the right blend of wit, charm and madness to make a great Doctor. I suppose it just goes to show that... er, actors... are crap. Or something. It certainly goes to show something.
However, I am absolutely horrified at your anti-Cushing, pro-McGann stance. If you include one you have to include the other! So what if Cushing played a "human" Doctor? McGann's Doctor was revealed to be, if my memory serves me, half-human, and indeed "British", both of which were news to everyone. Continuity isn't exactly a strong point of Doctor Who, and I move that Peter Cushing be installed as official Doctor 1.5. All who agree say aye... as if anyone else is still reading this.
So, in closing, I'd like to suggest, that with all due respect, you, my dear sir, are wronger than that bloke from Yorkshire they caught having eaten all those badgers. Well, maybe not quite that wrong - maybe a less endangered but still prohibited animal, like a swan. Yes that's it, you're wrong as eating swans. It may not be as wrong as eating badgers but it's still a jolly bad show. Just like, ah-ha-ha, New Doctor Who.
Posted on 2007-04-21 13:03:02
|
Interference22
|
30 minutes screen time in 20 years?! That's not a conservative estimate, it's bloody absurd! Remembrance of the Daleks, Revelation of the Daleks, Resurrection of the Daleks plus the six episodes of New Who that they've feature in is waaay above 30 minutes.
Yes, there is a BBC7: check your digibox - channel 708 on Freeview. It's a radio channel. You can also listen online at bbc.co.uk/bbc7.
Yes, pro-McGann, anti Cushing. Whereas McGann fitted fairly unobtrusively into existing continuity (there is nothing in the TV series that contradicts his half-human claim, the Virgin books are a different story..), Cushing - on the other hand - threw the reset switch and started 'Who from scratch, with a sizable chunk of the show's core dynamics replaced with little more than PVC and Bernard Cribbins. The only thing the movies did better was command a larger budget. I mean, just look at your "human" argument: half-human and completely human are two completely different things. Make the Doctor half human and you give him some interesting faults, make him completely human and you REMOVE so much mystery and - crucially - his ability to regenerate.
Really, you HAVE to listen to some PROPER McGann to get where I'm coming from here - he performs admirably when he's given the right script. He even got some good companions too: Charley Pollard, played by India Fisher and Lucie Miller, played by Sheridan Smith (that woman from Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps finally demonstrating that she really CAN act, it's just the show she's most often seen in is utter crap).
Also, your badger analogy is frankly unfathomable. I mean, why do you REALLY not like New Who? Previously submitted arguments just don't hold up to scrutiny. Are you with the group of people who think that just because somebody else likes it that it HAS to be crap? Does its popularity repulse you? Do you feel like popular culture has hijacked something you love? Do you think Russell T. Davies is too flamboyant? Does the average episode run by a little too fast for you? Are you substituting a desire to influence the world of politics for the desire to influence the world of television? Are you deliberately trying to make me worried for your sanity?
All you need as proof it's great are:
1. It makes me cry and whoop for joy. Nothing else on TV does that at the moment.
2. A recent poll in the UK asked 7-14 year olds what their favourite gadget was. Guess what came out on top. The iPod, maybe? Mobile phones? No. THE TARDIS! WTF? How off the frigging wall is that?! Fantastic!
3. Kids across the country are having a whale of a time. It's even encouraging them to read more.
4. The merchandise is both extensive and fantastic. I have a radio controlled K9, for chrissake!
5. The music is so good, they held a concert of it. No, really.
I mean, doesn't that MEAN something positive to you?
Posted on 2007-04-21 18:49:56
|
mcgrue
|
This is, possibly, the best thing to've happened on this board in the past year.
I DEMAND YOU START FIGHTING IN AUDIO FORMAT SO WE CAN HEAR THE ACCENTS.
Posted on 2007-04-22 03:22:55
|
mcgrue
|
<Zaropolitan> Why didn't the G-Man hire Alix as well? I mean, being bulletproof has to be an advantage on risky jobs\
<vec\something> WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE DIDNT <Zaropolitan> I dunno, man!
<vec\something> she's in the expansion, so in all likelihood she's not dead
<vec\something> unless of course its a prequel-ish-of-sorts. which is also possible
<Zaropolitan> nah, it's a follow-up
<vec\something> they should call him Timelord Gordon Freeman
<Zaropolitan> well he is a Doctor
Posted on 2007-04-22 03:43:06
|
Alex
|
Oh no, there is still someone else reading this!
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
your badger analogy is frankly unfathomable
It wasn't a badger analogy, it was a SWAN analogy designed to show precisely how wrong you were in your previous assertations. In fact, I'm afraid with your last post I'm going to have to elevate your wrongness level from swan to tortoise. Careful there, you almost really are at badger level.
Now then, short of watching Remembrance, Resurrection and Revelation of the Daleks with a stopwatch to record screen time for daleks, I can only make an educated guess. Which, may I point out, appears to be rather more educated than yours, for even I know that only Remembrance was made within the last 20 years. And their appearances in the recent series are pretty brief, which was the basis of my complaint.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
half-human and completely human are two completely different things
Wheras half alien and completely alien are exactly the same? Anyway, what does alienness matter, it's a fairly small detail.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
Are you with the group of people who think that just because somebody else likes it that it HAS to be crap? Does its popularity repulse you? Do you feel like popular culture has hijacked something you love? Do you think Russell T. Davies is too flamboyant? Does the average episode run by a little too fast for you? Are you substituting a desire to influence the world of politics for the desire to influence the world of television?
The first three questions: no. Russell T. Davies being too "flamboyant"..? Maybe. I mean, he does appear to be using Dr Who and Torchwood as vehicles for his crusade to garner acceptance for gay people, which isn't really the role of a show aimed at kids (Torchwood aside). One particular example from a couple of weeks ago was the Gay Old Ladies. Now, I've got nothing against gay old ladies, they've got as much of a right to be gay as anybody else, but it conjures images that I find are best left unconjured. I don't want to be thinking about that when I'm trying to watch TV. And I certainly don't need to be mentally speculating on the details of their relationship either. Disturbing doesn't cover it. Oh god I'm doing it again! No more please!
Also, yes, the episodes tend to run a bit fast. They could often do with being stretched over two episodes. In fact, the two part ones I've found to generally be the best, with the exception of that awful Cybermen/Dalek thing last year. The Satan Pit (title?) being a particular highlight.
I have no desire to inluence the world of politics, though if I was installed as Lord High Overlord Dictator for Life, I would certainly make sure Dr Who was made to my exacting standards. And dissonant elements like you, my friend, would be in for it.
Actually, influencing TV sounds interesting, I can all too easily see myself as one of those dim-witted moaning gits on the Points of View forums saying things like "When oh when oh when will the BBC realise that starting programmes two minutes earlier than advertised can really ruin someone's life, I mean really".
I don't "not like" New Dr Who, I just prefer the old ones. There was plenty to complain about them too, of course. Nothing's perfect.
Posted on 2007-04-22 13:36:35
|
Interference22
|
I don't "not like" the old series, I simply accept and respect both old and new in equal measure. To say you don't "not like" new Who after going on an eight paragraph rant about what you don't like about it sounded amusing, though. So, do we really always hurt the ones we love?
Anyway.. Alienness! It really isn't the small detail you make it out to be. As Colin Baker pointed out in an intriguing little interview, it means that the Doctor has a different view on the Universe from us - a reminder that he can do what he does because he's different in a very fundamental sense. Colin cited as an example the fact that the Doctor could casually step over a dead guy only to mourn the death of a butterfly. As I pointed out, however, half-human and not human at all do mark a much greater difference than you realise - particularly in respect to how much we can relate to him. To make him ENTIRELY human robs us of his air of mystery and - most crucially - his ability to regenerate (the lack of which buggers up the whole show).
Daleks, next. Yes, Remembrance was made in the last 20 years. I thought that's what you were after: instances of the Daleks in the last 20 years. If anything, I'd have thought you'd have lambasted me for mentioning Resurrection, which is around 3 years out of the time period specified (1984, I think).. Even an educated guess would have put their screen time at more than 20 minutes: 4 episodes a story (in the old format), 25-30 minutes each, a quarter of each episode devoted to the Daleks = 25 minutes for just Remembrance. And they said my maths was appalling!
My point was, we don't NEED lots of screen time for Daleks: over-exposure diminishes their appeal in the same way the alien films went downhill the more you got to see of them (Alien 3 onwards). Would you value Christmas as much if it happened every other week?
On the gay references, though, I can only meet such suggestions that it's not appropriate for kids with derision and amusement. He's not encouraging homosexuality amongst kids, he's simply trying to kill their stigma against people who've chosen it as a way of life: if anything, he's teaching them a very important lesson in acceptance. On the subject of the gay grannies, perhaps you need to keep that wild and unruly imagination of yours in check before it takes you to some truly hilarious places.
Yes, the two-parters are good but I like the format simply because we can cover lots of ground in just 13 episodes. Did you know Doctor Who has done 45 minute episodes before? Most of the Colin Baker era up to The Trial of a Timelord (Colin at his absolute best) were 2-part 45 minute stories. Ironically, I loved Satan Pit and the season finale. Admittedly, I'dve liked the Cybermen to put up more of a fight but they didn't really stand a chance in the face of it. Still, OUR Universe still has IT'S Cybermen - they'd give the Daleks a proper scrap.
Finally, if I were made Lord Dictator of Earth, I'd have Chipping Sodbury painted pink, mount a scientific investigation to finally get some solid, accurate information on all that Global Warming bollocks, disband the Labour Party and resign. Beyond that, humanity can bloody well run itself: it's old enough and ugly enough by now to do it without some poncing great twit ordering them about.
Posted on 2007-04-23 19:49:21
|
mcgrue
|
Timelord Gordon Freeman has a Sonic Crowbar.
Posted on 2007-04-23 20:06:27
|
Alex
|
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
To say you don't "not like" new Who after going on an eight paragraph rant about what you don't like about it
That doesn't mean I don't like it - I could go on an eight paragraph rant about what I don't like about myself, but my vanity still knows no bounds. :)
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
Alienness! It really isn't the small detail you make it out to be. As Colin Baker pointed out in an intriguing little interview, it means that the Doctor has a different view on the Universe from us - a reminder that he can do what he does because he's different
You don't have to be an alien to have different views, ideas and opinions, as ably demonstrated by your insistence on disagreeing with everything I say. Anyway, I'd argue that alienness (or proportion thereof) is a fairly minor matter where a character who is ostensibly human is concerned. I mean, he doesn't have twelve legs or disembodied ears or something. If the daleks suddenly turned out to not be aliens after all then it would be a pretty big deal because they obviously are aliens, but the doctor? For all intents and purposes he's not.
James Bond can regenerate and he's not alien. At least not until they let Segal direct one.
Anyway, who says Cushing didn't regenerate? If he can invent a time machine why shouldn't he be capable of regeneration? Just because we didn't see it happen doesn't mean it didn't happen. I didn't see my dog steal a large block of rather elderly cheddar from the fridge the other week and proceed to be ill on the floor, but it certainly happened, as I was all too aware due to both cheddaral absence and a sizable heap of something that looked rather like macaroni cheese on the carpet. Not that that's got anything to do with Peter Cushing - but I'm trying my best to make a point using a metaphor and I can't think of a better one.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
Colin cited as an example the fact that the Doctor could casually step over a dead guy only to mourn the death of a butterfly
That's not alienism, that's autism! I think Mr Baker's getting a bit confused in his old age. But seriously, he has aged terribly hasn't he? Even more so than David Gilmour, who at least has done it gracefully.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
I thought that's what you were after: instances of the Daleks in the last 20 years. If anything, I'd have thought you'd have lambasted me for mentioning Resurrection, which is around 3 years out of the time period specified
Erm, I thought I did. Well, maybe "lambast" is a bit stong. Now then, let me think about this, if "lambast" was a badger then I reckon what I said was around the level of shrew... No. Anyway, I was trying to point out that Revelation and Resurrection were made more than 20 years ago and therefore don't count as being made within the last 20 years. Ok, I would agree with your estimate of 25 minutes for Remembrance. But I still don't think that 25 minutes in 20 years counts as over-exposure. Even if you double it to (generously) take into account the new series, 50 mins is still less than one episode of Casualty, although nowhere near as depressing. "Nurse, come quick, it's Colin Baker! He's been flattened by a bus after doddering out into the road blind with grief over a butterfly!".
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
over-exposure diminishes their appeal in the same way the alien films went downhill the more you got to see of them (Alien 3 onwards)
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you again here even though I don't want to because it might seem as if I'm doing it just for the sake of it. But, there were loads more aliens in Aliens than Alien 3, and it was a much better film than Alien 3. Best of the three IMVHO. Obviously I'm not counting that fourth one whatever it was called.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
On the gay references, though, I can only meet such suggestions that it's not appropriate for kids with derision and amusement. He's not encouraging homosexuality amongst kids, he's simply trying to kill their stigma against people who've chosen it as a way of life: if anything, he's teaching them a very important lesson in acceptance
I hope you don't seriously think that I consider Dr Who to be "poisoning children's minds with homosexual propoganda" or something like that. I merely think that, as I mentioned on an earlier post on this thread, overtly pushing political correctness (whatever flavour it may be) on people doesn't go towards making entertaining television. It jars. And Dr Who featuring 80 year old lesbians is not going to turn any fledgling Nazis towards the Rainbow Alliance or whatever. All it results in is unpleasant mental imagery for millions (don't say you didn't) and difficult questions for parents nationwide (Dad, what do eighty year old lesbians actually DO that other eighty year olds don't?). On another level it's not really necessary (or indeed the BBC's place) to push any kind of sexuality on kids at all.
Also, it was done in a really, really crap, crude way, something like, "Oh, there's two old ladies in one of the other cars, maybe they can help... They're lesbians by the way!" Absolutely nothing to do with anything! Mr Davies has obviously imposed a quota of references per episode, or just randomly inserts these things on a whim during filming. "Hold on, stop filming please... You mean we have two characters who appear for three seconds, and whose sexual preference is not specified just because it's entirely irrelevant? That won't do! Just add in that they're lesbians will you?". If that's a lesson on acceptance then I'm the Queen of Sheba no pun intended.
Posted on 2007-04-24 01:31:01
|
Interference22
|
Like or not, my argument was that you were being oxymoronimous in an entirely hilarious way.
Meanwhile, the Doctor's alienness really IS important. Portraying him as an alien immediately marks him out as something special: to just have him as a human being with a slightly "wacky" streak puts him on the same level as children's television presenters. This is obviously a bad thing. The Doctor's alienness heightens his differences, making them bigger and more important. It's the difference between "my family is dead" and "my whole SPECIES is dead." Which sounds more interesting to you?
Sure, James Bond "regenerates" and HE'S human, but then, as a series, James Bond has made bugger all sense. I mean, there is absolutely NO explanation for his appearance changing (although George Lazenby issues the line "This never happened to the other guy" in jest, a quote that made the cut of On Her Majesty's Secret Service but wasn't in the script) and the tone of the series can rapidly alter between films - one minute jokey and sexy, the next gritty and emotional. These changes are really only employed to keep the series of films going. Doctor Who, by comparison, forms a cohesive Universe that makes SENSE, even incorporating the idea of changing the lead actor into it's mythos and then drawing story ideas from that. The Doctor can change because his race - The Timelords - developed it to continue their race after it was made sterile millions of years ago, along with gene banks ("looms") to birth new people. To deny the Doctor's alien roots is to deny the fascinating planet and culture from which he has come from, along with the obvious mystery of who he is.
As for Cushing? As I've said before, Peter Cushing just isn't canonical: his stories just don't fit with the established Universe. For starters, Cushing's claims to have built the TARDIS himself. The regular Doctors STOLE the TARDIS to go gallivanting around the Universe after becoming disillusioned with life on Gallifrey. Then, Cushing meets the Daleks for the first time in Doctor Who and the Daleks, yet the TV Doctor has already met them in the second serial to be broadcast - The Daleks. This clearly demonstrates they are not the same person nor are the Universes in which they inhabit the same. In short, they exist as entirely separate stories, characters, Universes.. you name it. I'm not saying it wasn't an interesting take on some of Doctor Who's core ideas but it's NOT the same and Peter Cushing is NOT a proper Doctor.
Next up, Aliens. Yes, Aliens is a good film but it has a very different mood to it's predecessor. As such, it simply isn't the balls-to-the-wall-scary experience Alien was. Sure, it's unpleasant in places but not overly terrifying. It feels more like a war film. And subsequent films DO have more Alien exposure, ie. Alien 3, Aliens: Resurrection and Alien Versus Predator. The last two films - while at least entertaining - are about as terrifying as digging the garden.
Finally, no, I don't think you're homophobic. I just think you were missing the point of why it was there in the first place - it certainly isn't there to push being gay upon kids. It merely presents the ideal rather than saying that everyone should immediately become gay. Three reasons why the couple were there, really:
+ To demonstrate that anyone above a certain age is free to be gay and it doesn't matter.
+ To be funny in an "oh, I didn't expect that" kind of way
+ To demonstrate the social evolution of humanity 100,000,000,000 years in the future.
I mean, life won't be the same that far ahead, will it? To simply portray it as 2007 with flying cars wouldn't be even vaguely convincing. Sure, our technology evolves but so does our way of thinking, our language (why else do you think Judge Dredd says "Drokk!" instead of "Fuck!"? It's not because 2000AD don't like swearing - there's plenty of it in it's other comic strips) and our opinions of each other. Furthermore, they don't appear for just 3 seconds: they get multiple scenes and are used in the plot. Plus, they're one of many characters - nudists, cats, couples, people who are entirely white, some weird black furry thing, business men.. Need I go on? I think you were simply looking for a political agenda and randomly poked around the script until you fond one you liked. Your other choices were mixed race relationships, drug abuse, the class system, the moral rationalisation behind kidnap and equal rights for crabs. Ok, not the last one. See my point, though? Much like the Bible, read enough into it and you can come away with one whole load of crap or, much worse, miss the point entirely. I mean, the episode in question was REALLY about how humanity (and cats, I suppose) - in all it's colours, ideals and creeds - can form communities in crises to comfort each other and how ultimately, it is this approach that will bring them through with their sanity intact.
So there. Discuss.
Posted on 2007-04-26 18:07:48
|
Alex
|
Who's to say Peter Cushing's doctor didn't have his own motives for claiming to have "invented" the Tardis? If I'd stolen a time machine I probably wouldn't go around advertising the fact - much better to say I'd invented it myself. Firstly everyone would think I was really smart, rather than a comtemptible criminal, and secondly if the legitimate owners were to come asking questions about stolen time machines and people KNEW that my time machine was stolen, it would be easy for the real owners to put two and two together, resulting in my time machine getting taken away again. Unless I was too quick for them and managed to escape in it - but that would probably result in a dangerous inter-dimensional chase that I could well do without. Especially what with my granddaughter probably getting left behind in the rush. She'd end up without a grandfather and all because YOU don't want Peter Cushing as a proper Doctor. So you see, I -- I mean he -- was only covering his tracks. Sensible chap.
And why, exactly, should a TV movie produced by the FOX Network in the US, for a US audience and starring a new Doctor be considered canonical? If I were to film my own episode of Dr Who in my garage ("Lawnmowers of Death" starring a rake wrapped in chickenwire as the Doctor, in a convincing homage to Colin Baker) would anyone take it to be canonical? I know you bloody wouldn't, and it'd probably be better than that movie anyway. But quality aside, the movie's got about as much to do with real Doctor Who as I've got to do with the Burlington Ladies' Cake Making Society.
Alien3's got more aliens in than Aliens? Are we thinking of the same films here? Also, I reckon Resurrection and Vs Predator are probably more terrifying than entertaining, not that they're that terrifying.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
Three reasons why the couple were there, really:
+ To demonstrate that anyone above a certain age is free to be gay and it doesn't matter.
+ To be funny in an "oh, I didn't expect that" kind of way
+ To demonstrate the social evolution of humanity 100,000,000,000 years in the future.
1. Why does this need to be demonstrated? Is there a single person in the world who thinks that it's only all right to be gay if you're young?
2. It would have been more unexpected, in one of Russell T. Davies' productions if they hadn't been gay. THAT would have had people falling off their seats.
3. What, so evolved that you have to point out that people are gay rather than it just being accepted as normal (or indeed irrelevant)? Sounds rather like 2007 with flying cars to me...
They're used in the plot how? And how is their sexuality relevant or used in the plot? As far as I can remember they were used in a fairly pointless "we can help you, oh no on second thoughts we can't. But we ARE lesbians, if that's any help, which it isn't" kind of way.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
I think you were simply looking for a political agenda and randomly poked around the script until you found one you liked.
I wasn't looking for something political, it was shoved awkwardly at me which is why I noticed it and complained about it in the first place. As for mixed race relationships and drug abuse, they were handled in a non-obtrusive way and aren't something that's alluded to at least 30 times in each episode anyway. Didn't you say something about over-exposure lessening the effect?
Posted on 2007-04-27 13:09:58
|
mcgrue
|
They should've had some blumans in the mix.
Anyways, uh... although the gay bit is noticeable, eh so? The alt-sex stuff in Dr. Who thusfar has been quite ancillary in a no-big-deal-its-just-acceptable kind of way. Which I think is rather fitting a kid's show (and way more liberal a stance than you'd see in any american "childrens" show).
The alt-sex stuff in Torchwood, however? Tacky. I much rather liked the urbane 51st century cap'n jack in his Whovian level of flirtiness.
Posted on 2007-04-27 18:13:58
|
Interference22
|
The alt-sex stuff in Torchwood was a bit crap to begin with but it finally started to work towards the end of the series. What annoys me is that most people didn't make it that far. As I demonstrated, early episodes are patchy because they're really more of a testing ground for the writers to establish what works and what doesn't. You can't expect a brand new, ensemble series heaving under the weight of ideas to immediately hit the ground running. I ask everyone who gave up on it to please watch the episodes Random Shoes, Out of Time, Captain Jack Harkness and End of Days before chucking it in the bin.
Meanwhile on Doctor Who..
Yes, the moral acceptability of being gay does need to be demonstrated. In a world of anti-gay political parties (ie. the national front / BNP) and the Christian Right it's virtually vital. My point wasn't about the age aspect: my statement took into full account existing British law, that's all.
Yes it DOES demonstrate social evolution: the cat/human relationship goes unnoticed. The gay relationship is only highlighted because the character in question who mentions it (ie. Brannigan) knows the couple and is referring to a long-running joke they have between them.
Yes, the couple are used in the plot: it's their car-spotting hobby that lets the Doctor locate where Martha is being held and leads to the whole car-hopping scene.
And finally Peter Cushing: no. Watch the film again. Peter Cushing's films are so stunningly inconsistent in respect to the rest of Doctor Who that - taken in that respect - it's actually very funny. The 1996 movie, however despite being not terribly great, IS canonical. Unlike Cushing, it has regeneration, the Master, mention of Gallifrey and a palpable link to the TV show's extensive mythology rather than the odd fleeting reference to it's iconography, a script nicked off an existing serial and re-furnished and the Daleks. As I seem to find myself saying again and again, while Cushing is a good actor he is NOT TV's Doctor Who. He was sadly not to be. In this respect, your opinion on the 1996 movie is headscratchingly irrelevant, really. I know how much you want Cushing to be proper 'Who but he's not and - short of coming back from the dead - he never can be.
Hope you watched this week's episode: it was mental. The Daleks had one chance at sorting their sorry arses out and they blew it. I especially loved the resolution to Solomon's "We're both outcasts" speech: Very Dalek-y and very funny in a dark sort of way. Can't wait for the next few episodes, particularly Human Nature / Family of Blood, which is in fact a reinterpretation of one of the best of the Virgin Publishing Doctor Who novels (namely Paul Cornell's Human Nature, which was obvious, really).
Posted on 2007-04-29 18:05:24
|
Alex
|
Firstly, gay has got absolutely nothing to do with it. Russell T. Davies could have an entirely different ideal to foist upon the viewers and I wouldn't like it. If, for example, he liked cake (maybe he does, I don't know), but I mean REALLY LIKED CAKE, so much so that he couldn't help but crowbar as many cakeisms into all his programmes as possible... that would piss me off every bit as much. If something's unnaturally levered into a show just to fulfill a political agenda, then it just doesn't fit right. This is why you get people with too much time on their hands bitching about it on unrelated websites.
If I was put in charge of writing a new Star Wars film and filled it full of references to tea, and how much I like tea, and tea is the be all and end all of everything, and that everyone should accept it as a perfectly valid form of drink in the context of Star Wars... that would piss off Star Wars fans - even those who enjoy the occasional cup of tea, and rightfully so. EVEN THOUGH tea may be all of those things, it doesn't need to be pushed as such in Star Wars, which isn't about tea.
Interracial relationships? Yes it went by unnoticed and accepted which is why it worked and why that's the best way to handle such "issues". Wait a minute, a cat? Was it an interracial relationship or was it bestiality? ;)
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
In a world of anti-gay political parties (ie. the national front / BNP) and the Christian Right it's virtually vital.
Come on now, I know you can do better than that. How many MP's are there in Parliament from anti-gay political parties such as the BNP? None. British politics is dominated by three parties that are in no way anti-gay and several smaller ones such as the SNP, Plaid Cymru, UKIP, Green etc who are also in no way anti-gay. The only BNP presence in British politics is a few councillors in a couple of places where racial tensions have been running a bit high recently for whatever reasons. It's a cry for help as much as anything and when those tensions are calmed the BNP will be back to where they started. You know, what pisses me off about the whole BNP thing is that they can punch well above their weight because every single thing they do gets in the national news, giving them publicity and validation to carry on with their unpleasant little campaigns. I know the press have got to report things but it still grates. Anyway, back on track... I think you're seriously overestimating the influence of the "Christian right" too. I might also point out that Christianity is by no means the only religion that has unfavourable views on homosexuality, and indeed tends to be remarkably liberal on the subject (in the Anglican Church at least - gay priests etc) considering the material they have to work with.
Having already said that homosexuality has nothing to do with the point I made (it was Russell T. Davis' choice of subject, not mine), I should probably follow up: I have no problem with subjects like sex being tackled in, for example, Torchwood, in as explicit a manner as the writers desire - it is after all a show supposedly aimed at adults. However, Doctor Who isn't. It's aimed at kids, and I believe that sex, be it with with man, woman or beast should probably be left to shows that aren't aimed at seven year olds. That's what school's for. To learn about it I mean. Anyway, this kind of thing seems to me to be another example of the tendency of society nowadays to force kids to grow up too fast. What's wrong with kids just being allowed to be kids? Take the case of ASDA getting in hot water with the papers for selling bikini sets for kids of five or whatever it was. Not only is that a little sinister, but for fuck's sake, why do people WANT to dress their kids in bikinis and makeup, and make them look like miniature adults and fill their heads with stuff they don't need to worry about yet? Well, anyway, I'm maybe getting off the point again. I fear I'm probably coming across as some kind of moral-majority-no-one's-allowed-to-enjoy-themselves-because-I'm-a-miserable-bastard kind of miserable bastard, but it's difficult not to when arguing in favour of a "conservative" view.
In closing (on this particular point) I'll just say that Dr Who doesn't need sexual references, or PC references. Come on, it IS a kids’ show no matter how many adults may watch it. I get the feeling that my opinion on this might be regarded as somewhat 19th century, but I'm sticking to it.
But this is still a very minor issue in the grand scheme of New Doctor Who's shortcomings anyway. It's by no means my main criticism. I think Mr Davies should think less about trying to influence people and more about putting more bloody depth into his programme. Having just watched Rememberance of the Daleks on DVD in order that I might measure the Daleks' time on screen to lend one of my previous arguments more weight... (which I forgot to do), it really hammers home just how much better I believe the old ones to be in terms of actually telling a story, which should be their raison d'etre after all. Whereas New Dr Who seems based on running about and second-rate CG. The scene in Remembrance where the Doctor thoughtfully discusses the unpredictable end results of apparently minor decisions with the bloke who played Jeffrey in the Fresh Prince of Bel Air is a particular highlight. If Russell T. Davies had written that scene he'd probably have had someone burst into the cafe and shout "Oh my god, he's black! Isn't that great?!", resulting in a ruining of the scene and the mood, and me throwing my tea at the TV in disgust. Also he'd probably have cut half the dialogue and had both characters running through the streets whilst saying it, probably chased by an unconvincing CG monster of some description. At least when it was chaps in suits made of painted bubblewrap there was a Benny Hill-esque element of amusement to such situations.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
The 1996 movie, however despite being not terribly great, IS canonical. Unlike Cushing, it has regeneration, the Master, mention of Gallifrey and a palpable link to the TV show's extensive mythology ... your opinion on the 1996 movie is headscratchingly irrelevant.
Really? You say Peter Cushing isn't canonical, then you say the 1996 Movie IS canonical. But I note that you sidestep my point re "Lawnmowers of Death" which, by the way, will also feature Gallifrey (taken over by lawnmowers), regeneration (probably into a spade, or a fork), and the Master (played by a hose in a wheelbarrow). There will also be extensive dialogue regarding the mythology of Doctor Who. So, by your logic this would make it canon, yes? Great. But I'm pretty sure "Lawnmowers of Death" wouldn't, on the whole, be accepted as such. So why is the 1996 Movie canon? What makes it canon and what gives it any more right to canonicity than my hypothetical production?
But to end on a positive, yes I too was pleased with the quality of the two part Dalek story, as it addressed most of the things that I've been moaning about so far (not too sure about the Daleks flying everywhere though), and was quite excellent. Hope they keep it up. Have a feeling they won't.
Posted on 2007-04-30 11:23:29
|
Omni
|
Alex:
"If Russell T. Davies had written that scene he'd probably have had someone burst into the cafe and shout "Oh my god, he's black! Isn't that great?!", resulting in a ruining of the scene and the mood, and me throwing my tea at the TV in disgust. Also he'd probably have cut half the dialogue and had both characters running through the streets whilst saying it, probably chased by an unconvincing CG monster of some description."
Now that would be brilliant :) (-ly bad) I'm having a fine time watching this argument by the way. Interesting points on both sides.
I'd agree with Alex about Cushing. If he's true to the spirit of the series AT LEAST (despite being an alternate vision or reinterpretation of the source material), wouldn't that yield him greater respect than an a canonically accurate but aesthetically-incompetent American reinterpretation?
EDIT: rearranged adjectives to make my two cents less worthless
Posted on 2007-04-30 13:06:06 (last edited on 2007-04-30 13:08:43)
|
mcgrue
|
You could retcon Cushing as a future, insane regeneration. But a friendly insane, like golly-gee-whiz golden age of science type mad, not BWAHAHAHA-mad.
Posted on 2007-04-30 13:22:41
|
Interference22
|
Hello. Again. Boooy, there's enough to go through here. Time to break out the headers!
The 1996 Movie vs Peter Cushing
Yes. I judge each on the influence they've had on future 'Who. To this end, the Cushing movie spawned one more movie and some quasi-tacky merchandise. The 1996 movie, on the other hand, spawned an extensive and fantastic series of official BBC books (out of which, I recommend, Alex, that you read Vanderdeken's Children, Interference: Books 1 and 2 (no, that isn't a coincidence), War of the Daleks (by the late, lamented John Peel) and The Scarlet Empress), a series of audio dramas, a continuing comic strip in Doctor Who Magazine, some slightly less tacky merchandise and some fetching wall calendars.
The TV Movie *IS* cannonical, not just because of my previous examples but also because more recent Doctor Who refers to it. Sure, not the TV series yet, but give it time.
In terms of horticulture, the seed of the Cushing Movie was planted in fertile ground, grew a little and then shriveled and died. The 1996 movie was planted in rough stony soil, where against nature it flourished. It started out life as the ugliest plant in the garden, sown by a with about as much knowledge on gardening as I have on over-fifty's lawn bowls, but eventually fell into the hands of skilled craftsmen who nurtured it into something special.
Please, for the sake of my sanity and your sense of good taste, get some decent 8th Doctor down you before you go yammering on about how crap Paul McGann is. Buy some audio adventures from http://www.bigfinish.com or read some of the books I mentioned.
To demonstrate, again, in simple terms:
1. Cushing is not a proper Doctor, even though his films were quite good.
2. McGann is, even though the film that introduced him was rubbish.
3. The good stuff the movie has spawned is almost worth forgiving the movie over.
4. That is all. If you dispute the facts again, I will come round your house every night and read you McGann books for six hours straight while attempting to very loudly impersonate Jeanette Kranky.
Doctor Who and Being Gay
Your opinion on Doctor Who and gayness borders on the hysterical. You portray a TV series where virtually every waking moment is permeated with pro-gay propaganda like they're the frigging Nazis out to brainwash Britain's kids. Doctor Who isn't "aimed" at kids, they're simply part of it's potential audience: it's a family show, for EVERYBODY. Don't you dare be audacious as to suggest otherwise when that simply isn't the case. If it's a "kids' show" then why the hell do WE watch it, eh? Why do adults the world over discuss it on message boards, read the magazines, collect the stickers, buy the merchandise? Why does my Cyberman voice-changing helmet have an adjustable strap big enough to incorporate even MY large head?
As for the growing-up-too-fast spiel, you sound like my grandfather who, incidentally, is completely barking mad. There isn't a man alive who hasn't seen an 18 certificate film before they were 18. Most of us drank beer before we were 17. It has ALWAYS been like this. To try and drape life before our time in a haze of good-old-days nostalgia and schlock is denying some vital truths about human nature. Childhood is all about learning about the world: seeing what's up that tree, asking the big questions, trying to build houses out of boxes in a vain attempt to understand how something like your home was built. So long as that knowledge doesn't hurt you, does it really matter? In the long run, it's the lessons in childhood that form our deepest opinions on life: why not give kids some good ones?
As for bringing up ASDA bikinis: yes, you are starting to sound very Mary Whitehouse (rest in pieces). Not only was that irrelevant, it was desperately attempting to appear credibly in a mildly contemptuous manner.
Daleks
Oh crap, Alex. That scene in the cafe is good, but Russell and his team are just as capable of writing equally thought provoking dialogue too. The Doctor lying about the loss of his home planet to Martha, for instance. Doctor number 9's "I can feel the world turning" speech. Or this week, discussing with Lazarus the nature of being human and how trying to genetically manipulate ones self is really missing the point. Lazarus, naked, incidentally. And nobody burst in to proclaim "Fuck me, he's in the NUDE!!", did they? So what the hell does that prove, exactly? No scene rushing either: it's just two men talking.
Unconvincing CG? Compared to WHAT, exactly? Do you REMEMBER the Myrka from Warriors of the Deep? It was about as convincing as a Labour Party Political Broadcast! The paint wasn't even dry! It rubbed off on the clearly CARDBOARD set! You want to go back to THAT? Ever heard of a budget? You're given a set amount of cash and you do what you can with it. There is no WAY that Doctor Who's episode budget can stretch to effects as good as Spiderman 3. Anything more is expecting too much.
Honestly, Alex. I don't know what Doctor Who you're watching, but it's not the same one I'm watching.
Posted on 2007-05-07 17:53:22 (last edited on 2007-05-07 17:55:36)
|
Alex
|
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
the Cushing movie spawned one more movie and some quasi-tacky merchandise
Whereas the McGann movie didn't even spawn the proposed new series! Thank God.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
The TV Movie *IS* cannonical
Let me get this straight, you’re saying the McGann movie is canonical because it spawned a series of books that you have already said yourself is UNcanonical? And yet I’M the one who’s barking mad? If I may say so, your grip on logic and reality is becoming increasingly tenuous.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
You portray a TV series where virtually every waking moment is permeated with pro-gay propaganda
No I don’t, that’s what you’re choosing to interpret my argument as, so as to portray me as some kind of crackpot loon who is obviously best ignored. As I have already said, gayness is not the problem, even though you seem convinced otherwise, but I’m not going to retread old ground.
Maybe the word “aimed” is not entirely the right one, but for want of a better word Doctor Who is “aimed” at kids in that yes it IS a family show, and therefore has to bear kids primarily in mind by removing such that Torchwood adds. There’s a pretty big difference between this and something that is simply suitable for kids. “Pride and Prejudice” is a U-rated film and therefore suitable for kids, but certainly not aimed at them. Dr Who, and I’m sorry to have to continue to disagree with you, is. I might also mention that behind-the-scenes-of-Dr-Who programme they did last year, which was aired during the BBC’s regular kids’ programming, rather than between Newsnight and Question Time.
Why do WE watch it? I don’t know, but I have a nagging feeling we shouldn’t.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
As for the growing-up-too-fast spiel, you sound like my grandfather who, incidentally, is completely barking mad. There isn't a man alive who hasn't seen an 18 certificate film before they were 18. Most of us drank beer before we were 17. It has ALWAYS been like this.
Yes, I agree. They should show 18 rated films on Saturday morning kids’ TV. Also, the age of consent (or whatever) for beer is in fact 18, but I agree with you; let’s lower it to 8. Hell, let’s abolish it altogether and serve beer in schools. And why should kids be refused the right to purchase the likes of Grand Theft Auto simply on the grounds that they’re too young? After all:
Originally posted by Interference22
it's the lessons in childhood that form our deepest opinions on life so let’s encourage them to deal drugs, murder, and destroy indiscriminately (in their bikinis) shall we? Damn, if you really do ever come to power, it’s the cyanide capsules for me.
I’m exaggerating, obviously, but then so did you. It is not my intention to come across as a Mary Whitehouse-type morality buffoon, I merely like to think that I have a modicum of common sense. I'm actually not in favour of censorship for example, but there have to be limits. Of course everyone's seen an 18 film before they were old enough, but if that 18 rating wasn't there they could be shown on saturday mornings and I don't think anyone with a functioning brain would want that. Censoring things for kids is a necessary evil, and I hereby declare that you cannot disagree without sounding like an oaf.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
Lazarus, naked, incidentally. And nobody burst in to proclaim "Fuck me, he's in the NUDE!!", did they? So what the hell does that prove, exactly?
It proves that that episode wasn’t written by Russell T. Davies. Also it proves that Dr Who has a total lack of morals and should be banned. ;)
There was probably no running about in that scene because he was in the nude. It would have been a logistical nightmare to organise enough strategically placed bits of scenery in the foreground.
CG:
I meant unconvincing CG as compared to convincing CG. Having a lower budget than Spiderman 3 doesn’t make the CG in Dr Who any more convincing, and the fact is that some of it is a little on the dodgy side. Don’t get me wrong, some of it’s pretty good (that blitz episode last year for e.g.) which makes it all the more noticeable when it’s not up to that standard. I wasn’t comparing the current CG effects to the cardboard-and-pipecleaner stuff of yesteryear (as you might have noted had you read my comment to the end), although this does remind me of when they replaced the model shots in Red Dwarf with CG and they were about .0000004 times as good because they just didn’t look real, (a few years ago now, with older technology, but not up to scratch is not up to scratch whenever and however it’s done) which is the problem with CG when it’s not of the highest standard. Whatever kind of paper-mache and polythene nonsense Dr Who used to dress its extras in, at least it was real. But please, let’s not argue about this as well.
Aha! I’ve just remembered something else that really gets my goat about New Dr Who! It’s the excruciating catchphrase the Cybermen have suddenly been furnished with. Where did that come from? Was it really necessary to turn them into pale Dalek imitations? Delete! Delete! Backspace backspace more like, if only they had. You’d think someone would have told them what a rubbish idea it was - that’s what script editors are for isn’t it? But bloody hell, the tea lady could have told them that.
...unless the Cybermen have always said delete and I just can’t remember. The last one I saw would have been Silver Nemesis when it was originally broadcast so I'm a bit foggy on that. But it's still a rubbish idea, and one that’s ripe for deletion itself. Also the Cybermen look and move a bit too b-movie-like to me compared with the 80’s ones. Feel free not to agree with any of this.
And why does New Doctor keep having “relationships” with his companions? 35 years without so much as a quick look while they were in the shower, and now he can’t keep his hands off them! McGann with that woman (not that he’s a proper doctor), Ecclestone and Tennent with Rose, and Tennant’s going that way with Martha or my name’s not Richard Lowenstein. I bet he’d have had Catherine Tate too given half a chance. I know the character is meant to change from regeneration to regeneration, but that’s a constant and fairly major characteristic gone. If William Hartnell was still alive today he’d turn in his grave.
Once again, I don’t hate New Doctor Who. I do, in fact, like it, just not as much. But it’s still better than the vast majority of shite on TV, like that reality programme featuring celebrities singing the Sound of Music on ice with their dogs. That kind of thing really does annoy me. I was hoping TV "talent" shows would die off after we managed to get rid of Simon Cowell to the Americas... but he seems to be back and forth like a fiddler's elbow, the bastard. He must surely be personally responsible for most of the things wrong with the world today, who else it it more likely to be?
EDIT:
Cabbage
Special mention and indeed applause must go to the fact that you used "Daleks" as one of your headings, then proceeded, in a spirited defiance of the accepted usage of our fine language, to make not a single mention of Daleks in the text that followed. Bravo that man!
Posted on 2007-05-09 16:07:02 (last edited on 2007-05-09 16:08:44)
|
Interference22
|
Alex, I cannot help but think a vital part of your brain is either currently holidaying in the south of France or missing altogether. Given a series of points, you seem to have masterfully missed virtually all of them.
McGann vs Cushing: we are discussing what they achieved objectively, not what each tried and failed to achieve. Although, amusingly, the McGann movie DID actually spawn a new series: of books and audio dramas.
Cannon: yes, cannonical. Nowhere have I said the books weren't cannon. They're BBC licensed merchandise after all. Even if they WEREN'T that still leaves the audio adventures which even got an airing on BBC7 and are still available from all good stockists (and some bad ones).
Gayness: it would be difficult for me to convincingly portray your argument as an anti-gay rant if you weren't at least giving me a helping hand.
Family or Kids: yes, we should be watching it. Air is for kids. Haircuts are for kids. That does not mean that as adults we should say "no, they're not for me." "U" ratings, after all, are shorthand for Universal. Rarely is this more true than Doctor Who. I mean, The Sun isn't meant for kids, so why do they run Doctor Who articles in there, eh? It's for everyone.
Behind-The-Scenes: you mean Totally Doctor Who. I mean Doctor Who Confidential (BBC3, just after an episode of Who on BBC1). Once again this proves my point on universality: Totally is geared towards kids, Confidential towards adults and yet they're both about the same program.
18 certificates: a tonne of sarcasm before we get to the point. Sure, there are things we should censor from kids -- graphic sex and violence, for instance -- but the simple IDEA of being gay in a non-graphic manner should not be condemned to such a category. It's not asking kids to BE gay, simply to accept those that are as normal.
CG: not real? The original Red Dwarf model just looked like a bit of plastic on a stick to me, as were a lot of the original Who model ships: I mean, how convincing DID you find a toilet roll with a sparkler stuck up it, exactly? Comparatively, the CG versions were a huge improvement. I think you're underestimating the effort required to produce those sort of effects.
Cyber Catchphrase: "Delete" is nothing new. They've had a catchphrase before, in the '80's: "Excellent!" the Cyber leader would regularly exclaim, just as his latest plan was about to go to shit.
Relationships: it's indicative of our time. Check out some episodes from the 60's - some blatant sexism here and there and the odd racially dubious overtones. Simply a sign of the times. The sign of our times is emotional vulnerability. Personally, this really paid off with the end of season two. Even *I* cried. Beside that, beyond the opening sentence of your paragraph on this your questioning descends into the ridiculous.
Love/Hate: yes. So where's the praise mixed in amongst the scorn? There isn't any. So what if it's better than Big Brother? So are the football results. That's not even a compliment as far as I'm concerned.
Daleks: a tenuous link, as you would say. I was referring to the starting point of the paragraph: the cafe scene from Remembrance of the Daleks. A typo at worst, an oversight at best.
Posted on 2007-05-20 19:08:47
|
Alex
|
Jesus H Christ on a bike! How many times do I have to say it? I don't have any problems with gay people!* – I don’t object to the current gay storyline in Hollyoaks for example (it’s chock full of it) as it’s aimed at an older audience (but not adults).
*You’re probably thinking along the lines of “the lady doth protest to much, methinks”, but I appear to have to keep saying it. Don’t make me keep saying it!
Having just admitted to other human being/s that I watch Hollyoaks, I think I’ll just go outside and kill myself… Later. Hey, it’s on after the Simpsons, that’s all.
Thank you for enquiring as to the whereabouts of that vital part of my brain, I have been quite worried about its continued absence myself. I will inform you as and when it returns.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
Gayness: it would be difficult for me to convincingly portray your argument as an anti-gay rant if you weren't at least giving me a helping hand.
I didn’t say you were doing it convincingly. OK, a question: if Dr Who kept promoting Judaism and I objected would you accuse me of being an anti-Semite?
Look, if I thought that all gay people should be shot or burned at the stake, or even just disapproved of I’d say so – I’m not afraid of being opinionated. But that’s not what I think, and it’s not what I’ve said.
One group of people who I do think should be shot AND burned at the stake are those idiot Scots who voted the SNP into power, but that’s another story and one that I’m far too annoyed about to remain civil with.
Now, as for masterfully missing the point, I’m afraid I must cede that honour to your good self. The 18 certificate comments were not meant in relation to gayness but to the previous “growing-up-too-fast spiel” as you kindly put it. So again, not an “anti-gay rant”.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
"U" ratings, after all, are shorthand for Universal. Rarely is this more true than Doctor Who. I mean, The Sun isn't meant for kids, so why do they run Doctor Who articles in there, eh? It's for everyone.
But... I don’t understand, are you saying something different to what I just said? I think this thread is in danger of reaching new heights of silliness if we’re arguing about something we agree on...
CG: The original Red Dwarf model may have been a bit of plastic on a stick, but it did a pretty good job of portraying a massive spaceship. The point I’m making is that the models were physical objects and therefore at least look real if not totally realistic. Dodgy CG looks neither. The same goes for people dressed up as aliens in Dr Who - not realistic, but still real, and therefore believable.
On a related point, did you know that until recently ITV were going to do a modern version of Thunderbirds? Except with - surprise surprise - CG, thereby negating most of the charm of the original programme. This bloody CG thing pisses me off – when Disney made Toy Story it was new and impressive and everyone thought it good. But now everything has to be CG at the expense of all other forms of animation. Even Aardman did their last film with CG. It’s like everyone wants to take the easy way out. I would have liked to have seen a new Thunderbirds in a Team America style – that’s how a new version should look.
Canon: I assumed that your above comments about the Virgin books contradicting the McGann doctor being half human meant that one of them wasn’t... Also they may be officially licenced by the BBC, but I believe that it’s impossible for any Dr Who books/audio to be canonical except those based on actual TV episodes, due to the BBC’s merchandising policy; something about the whole story of any show must be follow-able without the purchasing of extraneous items. That’s why they don’t do straight-to-video episodes of any of their serials unlike ITV and Channel 4 with their “NEVER TO BE SHOWN ON TV!!!!!!!!!!!” feature length episodes of Coronation Street, Brookside, Hollyoaks etc. If only Coronation Street really wasn’t ever shown on TV I’d die a happy man.
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
Love/Hate: yes. So where's the praise mixed in amongst the scorn?
The praise is in the posts marked “Interference”! There’s more than enough praise in those for the both of us – I’m just balancing the argument. Well almost balancing it, because you haven’t as yet deviated from your New-Doctor-Who-is-the-Best-Thing-Ever course at all, whereas I’m sure I’ve made one or two positive comments about it. Even if you don’t consider my saying that Dr Who is better than the vast majority of TV to be a compliment.
...
Anyway, it’s all… Oh, excuse me a moment, there’s a knocking at the door… Ah, it’s that vital part of my brain returned from Toulouse! Bonjour brain, toujours j’ai un argumente avec Interference pour Docteur Who. Je suis victorieux!
Posted on 2007-05-22 15:34:02
|
Omni
|
Alex:
Now, as for masterfully missing the point, I’m afraid I must cede that honour to your good self.
I really must learn how to banter with this much class. You guys are brilliant.
Personally though Interference seems to have some points about the 8th Doctor movie. And it's painfully obvious that it's a dead end to keep arguing into the "Alex is anti-gay" corner, so that part of the discussion should probably be dropped -- it's not adding anything to either side.
Excellent argument gentlemen, I can feel it winding down actually. Just keep it rolling for a little longer and close it with some class.
Posted on 2007-05-22 18:52:08 (last edited on 2007-05-22 18:52:25)
|
|
|
