Sunday, May 8, 2011

What is Doctor Who About?

Recently I discussed Doctor Who episodes with a friend and realized that apart from a basic appreciation of the show at its best (“Blink”, “Silence in the Library”, “Last of the Timelords”), we have almost no opinions in common. Some episodes that I consider favorites she can’t stand at all, and the same is true for some of her favorites. But this disagreement seems to come from something more general than simply what episodes are quality. It comes from the basic question of what Doctor Who is about.

It’s a surprisingly complex subject. I haven’t seen the show prior to the 2005 reboot, but even in the five new seasons there is no end to the interpretations of the show’s concept. Doctor Who has one basic status quo that has run through every season so far, the Doctor is a Timelord who uses his TARDIS to visit different points in time and space. This basic plot summary is something that all fans can agree on, but from here on it gets more difficult.

Why does the Doctor do what he does? Is he a hero or an antihero? Is he a warrior or a pacifistic? Should each story stand alone or add to a greater plot? These questions are hard to answer, and with almost fifty years of history, the writers are hesitant to give any answer too strongly. And what’s more, the best writers over the years insist on putting their own unique spin on the character and the plot. In Russel T. Davies’ tenure as head writer, the Doctor began as a broken warrior and eventually became a brilliant pacifist (and yes, there was more than a little romance thrown in). Steven Moffat writes the Doctor as a mad scientist who hides his more violent characteristics under a thin mask of ridiculousness.

These different takes tend to become more or less pronounced from episode to episode and often each season has a theme. For example season 1 is about the Doctor coming to terms with his violent past, while season 3 is about his legacy as the last of the Timelords. This difference in basic concept is often an asset: Doctor Who has more creativity and emotion any other science fiction show on television. On the other hand, if this isn’t handled carefully it feels like the show is handled inconsistently.

Where the inconsistency occurs is open to debate. It really depends on which version of Doctor Who you consider the “right” version. For example, I tend to think of the Doctor as more of a warrior and adventurer than anything else, and hence the episodes that play up the doctor’s pacifist side really bother me. For each viewer it’s different.

So the question is this: on what merits can an episode of Doctor Who be judged? Again, to use myself as an example, I love best the episodes that handler their sci-fi stories tightly and consistently. Others judge Doctor Who mainly on the merits of its emotional weight. It’s literally impossible to say one side is right (and certainly the best episodes have some of both).

There are of course many aspects of the show that are much less opinion-based; acting ability, filming quality, and dialogue are all elements that are judged wholly apart from the point of the show itself (and interestingly many of Doctor Who’s most famous episodes excel on these points).

Other points that are much less easy to agree upon are the quality of stories, the consistency of characters, and the tone of the show as a whole. To some extent this is true of many shows, but it’s certainly more pronounced in the case of Doctor Who, and the arguments between fans are often heated as a consequence. To a large extent this frustrates me, I don’t consider my taste infallible, but I am constantly disappointed that others don’t consider Doctor Who at its best to be the same thing I do.

But perhaps this is looking at the whole issue wrong. Doctor who is polarizing by its very structure and certainly no one will ever agree on what it’s all about (I don’t really see the show ending anytime soon). Maybe every fan of Doctor Who has to pick out their favorite episodes and ignore (in my case, sometimes not even watch) the offending ones. It shouldn’t be a bone of contention, but more a mark of how varied and interesting a show Doctor Who really is.

Don’t get me wrong, some episodes aren’t good by any standards (I won’t name any names, except perhaps “Love and Monsters”), but in the long run arguing over which episodes of Doctor Who are fitting and good is pointless and won’t change any minds. And a few years from now Doctor Who is bound to have a new spin and a new concept. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

You can't just go swannin' off

Yes I can and this is me swannin' off.
I'm leaving to concentrate on my website, where all my projects will be based from now on.
The website is... www.pearceenterprises.co.uk
All my work will now be based at this site
I hope to see you all there

Friday, April 1, 2011

Is anybody there?

I've just spotted some tumbleweed rolling past, us admin need to meet and discuss the future of this blog

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Monday, February 28, 2011

A Message to Harry Saxon

Dear harry, I've just finished life on mars series two, and all I can say is wow totally brilliant and very uncalled for!!!!

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Earth calling Gallifrey Girl

Gallifrey girl has gone missing!!! Where is she? Jesse if you're out there contact us!!!

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Peeping out of my cave

I've been sat in a cave for a while. Writing, constantly writing, for me and other projects also working and raising my little boy, he's great.

Anyway I shall start a discussion...The song at the end of A Christmas Carol, It mentions Silence a lot doesn't it? you think this might be a few hints to the new series?


Talk away!!!

Monday, February 7, 2011

ANARCHY IN THE U.K!

ANARCHY IN THE U.K!!!!!! 

well not really...at least anymore! With the rock revolution ending in Britain quite a long time ago! I just thought we should maybe acknowledge those old Rockers in the U.K, such as The Beatles, The Sex Pistols etc. well the REAL reason is when I go to school I notice most of the kids don't even know that these Gods exist. So I thought maybe by spreading the word everywhere and every way possible, I might be able to get these Twats to acknowledge REAL Music not this rubbish referred to as Rap  (R.etards A.ttempting P.oetry) not that there's anything wrong with it! Its just if our Generation goes on without acknowledging such people and Music they'll soon be forgotten! Knowing me of coarse...I can't let things like this happen!!!! I will do everything in my power to stop such a thing!!!! Now go out there and spread the Music!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Remember...If you have something to say...FUCKING SAY IT!!!!!!!!" -Sex Pistols

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Do YOU Think Gallifrey Girl is...Alien???

Maybe i'm Alien!

Do You Think im Alien? or Possibly just so Daft its ridiculous? Even better it would be excellent to hear from YOU! that's right YOU! What do you think I am???!!! Write up a Comment explaining what you think I am and why you think I am!
Or possibly have some crazy Kangaroo's Brain in my head   


Saturday, December 18, 2010

Alternate Timeline Movie Theory

Ever watched a movie and loved it and then watched the sequels and hated them? Or perhaps the latter movies were good but simply had a different feel to them from the first. This discongruity has bothered me for a long time. I like a movie and then I feel like it was ruined by its sequels.

To counter this effect I began thinking about movies in terms of real life time lines. Consider for a moment the theory that each and every decision we make creates another alternate universe, thereby creating an infinite number of universes (we've all heard of this theory). I decided to apply a similar logic to movies.

What if each and every sequel creates another movie universe. Before you say it sounds ridiculous, let's take a look at an example. "Pirates of the Caribbean": We have movie number one, "Curse of the Black Pearl". It stands completely alone and has a distinct end. From the end of "Black Pearl" we could see any number of possible next chapters (although no next chapter is required). Enter the sequel, "Dead Man's Chest", this film answers the question of what happens next. It gives a fairly competent sequel, but remember, anything could have happened at the end of "black pearl". The sequel, in effect, creates a possible universe where its events follow the events of the first movie.

To me this is a very helpful way of looking at movies. Sure they made more pirates movies, but in my mind the first movie is the true universe while subsequent sequels are possible (if unlikely) later chapters. I can like the first and ignore the others or countenance them as I wish. I know, this is a lot of complication for a simple idea, but as a movie-addict, it helps to keep me happy.

This split-universe effect holds true for only certain sequels. The first film must exist as its own concise chapter and not be set up with a cliffhanger ending. No one can claim that "the empire strikes back" is in another universe than "a new hope" because the first movie directly led into the second (no distinct ending as the villains are still at large). On the other hand, it's easy to say the the original three movies exist in their one univse while the prequel films create another.

This is where the fun begins. Let's take a look at some famous franchises. Clearly each Indiana Jones film creates another universe (in that case it even fulfill one of my pet peeves of this category, characters that are written out for sequels, what happened to Marion?). The first "Back to The Future" is in its own universe, while I would say the two sequels create a second. As they are connected by a cliffhanger ending between movie 2 and 3, I would say 2 and 3 are in the same universe (the same goes for "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "The Matrix").

Most sequels can be viewed like this, and it really depends on how much you liked the sequels to how you want to view them. For example I loved the first two Spider-man films and view them as one universe while the horrible third movie creates a third universe, but you could easily say that the second film creates a universe also. The same holds true for Toy Story and the new Batman movies; if you liked the sequels you tend to group them with the first film.

So what films are exempt from this. Continuous series such as "Lord of the Rings", "Kill Bill", and the original Star Wars films are clearly exempt. The cliffhanger ending or undefeated villain is usually the best sign of this. Vader and Sauron both lived till the last movie, hence, no split universe. Other continuous movies (and when you think about it there aren't many) include 'Harry Potter" and "Twilight" (although this relies on how the books were written, if they books were split universe sequels than by following them, the movies are too).

Again this is a bit stupid I know, but it's also a fun way to classify sequels and get rid of disturbing ones (I've been known to use it on TV show episodes too although this gets tricky). So what do you think? Have you seen any interesting continuous or split-universe sequels recently?

Monday, December 6, 2010

The Graske's Corner

Today I'm posting to give a link to a brand new site devoted to "Doctor Who"
Here's the link
On here you'll find news, reviews, games, and right now you can have a chance at winning an Amy Pond poster.
Give it a look.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Gallifrey Girl...and Her Birthday!

Let It Snow!!!!!
Hello everybody! it probably sounds selfish to announce its my b-day but I sure do have a good reason!...I would LOVE! It if everyone of my mates can come and Join me on my Birthday(Dec. 8th. Wed.)and come and chat with me and help me,Harry,and Antoni set up the blog for Christmas!!!!  I'm sure us Brilliant Doctor Who Fans can come up with something Fantastic!

THANKS EVERYONE! 

MERRY CHRISTMAS! (er happy holidays if you prefer!)     

Monday, November 29, 2010

Movie Review: "Batman: Under the Red Hood"

I'm a big superhero fan, but I've not been so sure about this new batch of straight to DVD films Marvel and especially DC are producing (Green Lantern: First Flight, Superman/Batman: Public Enemies, Wonder Woman, etc.). They seem for the most part to be rush jobs: a cheaply animated, poorly put-together movie that adapts a comic's script directly, avoiding the need for much time spent developing and rewriting. But perhaps the film Batman:Under the Red Hood is the exception.

Here's a trailer



The movie plays out like a long episode of the popular Batman: The Animated Series. You have to be at least semi-familiar with Batman going into it or it won't make sense (Batman is given no origin and part of the film's charm is that it plunges you without warning into a pulpy, fully-developed animated Gotham). But "Red Hood" distances itself from the older cartoons in violence and depth.

The movie begins with the Joker savagely beating Batman's sidekick Robin with a crowbar. Minutes later, the building where the boy is being held hostage is blown up, killing the "boy wonder". This not only sets up the films story, but also gives the tone of the rest of the film. While, not too much gore is actually seen (the film is only PG-13), blood spatters, severed head, and character deaths are all seen or mentioned in frank detail. While some may find this offputting in a cartoon, I found it much closer to what I wanted in a Batman film, and appreciated that the filmakers were modeling their story off of the tone of Nolan's "Dark Knight" (just listen to subdued music that runs throughout "red hood").

Not everything works perfectly in Batman: Under the Red Hood. The story revolves around a new crime lord/vigilante with a personal vendetta against both Batman and Joker. While the story itself flows fairly smoothly, the dialogue is often forced or simply weak. And while I appreciated the limited cast (too many of these animated movies cram as many characters in as possible), some characters like "Black Mask" never quite become 3-dimensional. The voice-acting is mostly very good (Neil Patrick Harris as Nightwing and Jason Isaacs as Rhas al Ghul), but I found myself missing the gritty voice of Kevin Conroy for Batman. Another problem is the movie's length; with a runtime of only 75 minutes, it feels more like a quality episode than a solid movie.

On the other hand, the film has quite a bit to like. The action sequences are the best I have seen in any superhero cartoon, and the animation is crisp although it relies a bit too often on computer generated effects. Details lacking in other cartoon abound here, birds sit on top of building, minor wounds result in blood, and Gotham City is beautifully dank and dismal.

The movie's ending is not perfectly satisfying, but it's not bad. I think "Red Hood" could have done with another twenty minutes or so. In the end, I didn't love the movie, but I think it's a solid step in the right direction for superhero cartoons in general. If you're an animation, superhero, or simply Batman fan, give it a look. If not, I advise waiting to see if DC and Marvel will make something better.

Story ideas

Calling all Sci-Fi fans. On my other blog (Doctor Who Dioramas) I'm currently writing a few stories, as is Gallifrey Girl. I want all you readers out there to give me a scenario and I'll create some stories for you. In the new year I'll be doing a Star Wars and Doctor Who mash up story!!!!

Friday, November 26, 2010

A New Author

Hello. Antoni here, now a contributor to this blog, I'm still writing stories for Doctor Who Dioramas (check the link on the side) Gallifrey Girl has kindly let me join this blog, you'll be getting posts from me daily (I hope) on anything Doctor Who and whatever else I feel like posting. I must go now but I shall see you all soon.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Cartoons

One genre that is almost completely overlooked for critical consideration is that of childrens cartoons. As you probably can tell from the blog, I am a big superhero fan, and hence have watched many superhero cartoons. As with any media their quality is a mix, but those that are good are generally unrecognized.

Let’s start with the bad. These cartoons are aimed mostly at kids, and it shows. A common problem of the shows I’ve seen is the inability to talk like humans (it’s aimed at kids, who needs writers, right?). Another issue is bloodshed; you don’t need to be bloody to have a good show, but the lengths the writers go to in avoiding any real violence is annoying. Characters classically use swords to cut villain’s guns apart and destroy robots while guns are meant to sever the ropes on booby traps or simply miss. This doesn’t quite make sense, what are we teaching kids, carrying and using weapons has no consequences?

Adults have trouble seeing past these problems too shows that are sometimes good. But to be fair, not many of them are good in any way. Shows that appeal to what they think kids must like (monsters, bright colors, action, fights, did we mention squeaky voices?) are a dime a dozen as are show that are either rip-offs or watered down stories (try watching the horribly bland, perfectly nonviolent “Spectacular Spider-Man”). Nine out of ten childrens cartoons are completely unwatchable.

Now for the good, childrens cartoons are evidence of something that is almost nonexistent in America: serious serialized animation. Yes we have a few movies every year (usually comedic) and yes there are a few adult cartoons (also usually comedic, think “south park” and “robot chicken”), but there are very few action or adventure shows told with animation. And I think this is to our loss; animation tells stories in interesting ways that are as yet untapped in live-action TV.

Apart from the teen-drama “Smallville”, what superhero tv shows have been a success? Most are supposed to be poor (“Heroes”) to awful (“Birds of Prey”). It’s partly a matter of budget, superheroes require millions of dollars to look right in live-action, and few tv budgets can support it (check out the horribly, low-budget costumes in “Smallville”). On the other hand, cartoons can support an unlimited roster of heroes, every costume and piece of technology imaginable, and new settings for every episode. This has been used to great effect in shows like “Justice League: Unlimited” and “Teen Titans”.

Also, cartoons require less of a viewing base and hence certain offbeat and interesting titles that would be cancelled for adults have made it to many seasons. For example, “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” (the 2003 reboot) lasted 4 seasons, and spawned three seasons of sequel shows. Good or bad, many odd and unique shows last long beyond a single season.

3D animation is changing the playing field. The largest action cartoon hit of the decade for adults and kids has been “Star Wars: Clone Wars” and is animated in 3D. DC is planning a show in much the same style about for its “Green Lantern” franchise. 3D is being planned for other franchises too, and these shows, thanks largely to “Clone Wars”, are garnering a surprising amount of attention.

So in general, while cartoons are a mixed bag, they have a surprising number of good titles. Over the next week I will write reviews of my favorite and least favorite cartoons.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Some Random Characters

Sorry this blog has been so inactive; I have finals coming and school is suddenly a bigger priority. But since I have some time today, I thought I would do something I always enjoy: random characters. Take a look at a few of my favorites from all different things.

Name: Roger
Species: Homunculus
Origin: The Hellboy Comic series by Mike Mignola.
Bio: Despite a story filled with random madness (the main plot revolves around a half-demon who hunts monsters for the government), the comic "Hellboy" is full of surprisingly down to earth heroes. Most of the characters are fun, but my personal favorite is Roger. Created in medieval times, Roger is an artificial human created with magic and chemicals. Awakened in modern times, he was taken into custody by the BPRD (Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense). Roger is very strong and very old, but what makes him interesting is his childlike innocence and wonder. Despite being artificial and having a very troubled past, he always is optimistic and smart.

Name: The Question
Species: Human
Origin: DC comics
Bio: Vic Sage was a TV reporter who went out at night as a crime fighter: his signature costume was a blue fedora and a skin-colored, faceless mask. Eventually his self-confidence and arrogance almost got him killed. Left shot for dead in a river, Vic managed to survive, but came back a different man. Now unsure of his place in the world, he tries to balance asian philosophy with heroics or "zen and violence". While this may sound like a boring mix, he is an amazingly three-dimensional character whose story is surprisingly intelligent: a rarity for comics. Check out the video link (there are spoilers) to his entertainingly insane if more lighthearted part in the cartoon "Justice League Unlimited"
The Best of The Question

Name: Moist
Species: Human (probably)
Origin: Doctor Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog
Bio: Just so they're not all comic book characters "moist" is from a series of three internet shorts featuring musical superheroes. Created by fanboy legend Joss Whedon and starring Neil Patrick Harris it's been a surprising success. But for me, on character stole the show: evil villain wannabe Moist. He's not really villain material as his only real power is making things soggy ("at my most badass I want to make people go take a shower" is his immortal line). Saving up his "evil points" to get into the "henchmens union", Moist is the roommate of the main character. While he may not get much airtime, everything he says is funny and notice how he always looks soggy; this guy know his moisture.

So, there are some random characters, was this post a bust or worth doing some more eventually? Comment if you are willing.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Superhero Movies, The Next Two Years










The next two years are huge for superhero movies. Thanks to the success of franchises like Iron Man, Batman, and X-men, we are about to see a glut of costumed adventures. Like them or hate them (I’m a mix), it’s worth taking a quick look at what’s coming and what to expect.

2011

Thor: The next movie in the famed marvel movie universe (meaning it is set in the same world as the events of Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk), Thor is Marvel’s take on norse mythology. If the trailer is any indication this movie looks bloated and a bit dull.

Green Lantern: DC’s first major superhero movie in a long time is a space opera epic about an interstellar peace-keeping force. The special effects and sci-fi look amazing, but the cast leaves something to be desired.

Captain America: The First Avenger: Also part of Marvel movie universe, this is the tale of a scrawny world war 2 soldier whose involvement in an army super-soldier project leaves him as a muscled warrior. It stars Chris Evans who is often very good (Sunshine is the best example), but like Thor and Green Lantern, there’s not much that makes this one look great.

X-Men: First Class: After a horrible third installment and a poor prequel, the X-men series (not part of the marvel movie universe) is on the rocks; this movie hopes to change all that. A prequel that will probably be more reinvention than anything, it traces the beginnings of the war between Professor Charles Xavier and Magneto. The only thing to really recommend it so far is the talented James Mcavoy playing Professor X.

The Wolverine: Another part of the X-men series, this film will seek to forget the other wolverine movie, by focusing on wolverine’s famed time in Japan. Being based on a comic by the great frank miller and surprisingly directed by Darren Aronofsky, there’s a surprising amount of hype behind this sequel-to-a-prequel.

2012

Untitled Spider-man reboot: Yawn, another remake/prequel thingy. This is a story with a brand new cast about Spider-man’s days in highschool. Mary Jane is out; Gwen Stacey is in. The only thing that really recommends this is it’s base in the excellent Ultimate Spider-man comics by Brian Bendis.

The Avengers: Yet another part of the Marvel movie universe, this will be a team up of Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, Hawkeye (new for this film, he will played by Jeremy Renner), and Hulk (played by Mark Ruffalo). Directed by the amazing Joss Whedon (after Doctor Horrible, I have to call him amazing), this has the potential to be a lot of fun.

The Dark Knight Rises: The third and final chapter in Christopher Nolan’s batman trilogy is easily the superhero movie I am most looking forward to in the next two years. After two stellar Batman Movies and three even more stellar non-batman ones (Memento, The Prestige, Inception), this should be incredible. What do we know? The villain will not be Riddler, Penguin, or Mr. Freeze and Tom Hardy has been cast as someone.

Superman: They tried superman in 2006 playing off the popularity of Batman Begins, and it failed miserably. This time it is written and produced by the genius behind The Dark Knight and directed by Zack Snyder of 300 and Watchmen fame. We don’t know much except it will be a much darker take on “The man of steel”. Written by Chris Nolan? I’m sold.

Other titles that are being possibly developed are the marvel movieverse films Iron Man 3 and War-Machine. Also there is a possible Ant-man movie in the works directed by Scott Pilgrim’s Edgar Wright and starring Nathan Fillion; hopefully, that will happen.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Through The Ages...CyberMen

Through out the ages of Doctor Who there have been many Creatures,Critters,Monsters,Villains,and Enemy's.But the one that stood out to me the most were the Cybermen. I don't know what it is about them but they're just so Fantastic! Of coarse they've changed quite a bit since 1967 but they've improved if anything but at the same time I still miss the older versions.The newer ones may look more high-tech or what have you but there will always be something about the older Cybermen.Maybe it was the spark of imagination that flooded them cos they were nothing anybody had ever seen, and they still are today! People might say "they're just daft Robots!" But they're more then that!So much more then that! They are Cybermen!

and Remember: The Cybermen are UNSTOPPABLE! 

Join Us and CONVERT Today!     


 

The Space Western

Men with ten gallon hats carry ray guns, aliens drink in dank corners of saloons, and large spaceships land in dusty little towns. This is the space western. A mix of traditional cowboy and sci-fi genres that usually creates a retro future of some sort. It's not a genre with a huge following like "steam punk", but it has been used many times in recent years.

Joss Whedon's "Firefly" is probably the most famous. It contained a general western feel, but with specific parallels to the civil war. James Cameron's blockbuster "Avatar" has borrowed the western theme of frontier indians. "Star Wars" is traditionally based more on medieval times than western, but the cartoon series "Clone Wars" has introduced some distinctly western elements (specifically, I'm thinking of Cad Bane, see picture). And next year, "Iron Man" director Jon Favreau is making a movie out of the popular comic "Cowboys and Aliens".

Anime has used the space western theme many times, although each show seems to have a slightly different take on it. For example, there is "Cowboy Bebop" (bounty hunters), "Trigun" (wandering gunslingers), "Outlaw Star" (hired guns/bodyguards), and "Gun Sword X" (gunfighters again).

So for what reason are Space Westerns used? After all, the idea that in the future the technology and culture will somehow revert to western times can't be taken very seriously. With the exception of titles like "Cowboys and Aliens" which is played for ridiculous pulp value, I think there is a common factor of most of these space westerns. In most of them, space is treated, to borrow the famous term from "Star Trek", as the final frontier. In many of these stories, as travel and colonization into space has become common, a new land has opened up. With earth serving as the "civilized" world, planets and space have become the new "western frontier". It's a simple logical step to add a few bars and western accents.

This process clearly doesn't work for some titles such as "Star Wars" that is unrelated to earth to star out with, but digging a little deeper the same core idea exists. Planetary travel has opened up, even if not in contrast to earth, new frontiers. Often in these stories, the western motifs are confined to a "desert planet" or at least a "desert sector".

So that's my basic take on space westerns. Please comment if I have left out an important titles or points. I personally find the space western to be a very compelling genre. The mix of old and new often makes a story of spaceships less boringly shiny, but more gritty and real.