Torchwood: Are we looking forward to it or not?

[Leigh S]

when i say believeability, I'm not looking for someting believable - just something that adheres to its own logic and makes sense, no matter how strange.  Excluding from that description anyhting that reeks of "magic", or "it just is,OK?", which the production team seem to like to rely on far too often

[wrighty47]

Oh, get you, and I do admit that the production team do sometimes go down the easy route, but I didn't think last nights Torchwood, nor (to a degree) the 2nd episode did this. The one thing I do think they do is often not explain thingsvery well, leaving the viewer confused. Mind you, some viwers need hitting over the head with a brick (like the guy who complained at never finding out why the clockwork robots were after Madam de Pompadour in Girl In The Fireplace).

And this approach may leave you cold, and it is each to their own, but these are 2 of the best watched shows we are producing now. Of course, figures only reflect popularity and not quality, but this does prove that a lot of people do like the approach to the show(s), and as that's the audiance they're aiming at, then the shows are succesful (just not for you).

Alan!

[Leigh S]

True enough!

I do think their success is based on producing something that's almost willfully imperfect, though - imperfections that a Hollywood trained audience have long since given up on expecting explanations for admittedly, but imperfect just the same!

[Byron Virgo]

"So. You're wrong. And clearly a homophobe and a science-fiction hater if you say different."

Just walk away, man - just walk away...

Link: http://www.2000adonline.com/?zone=fan&page=message&choice=18287.3900000000" target="_blank">"Leave it, Jim - he's not worth it!"

[The Monarch]

It suddenly occured to me earlier that the severed hand in the bottle was the doctors hand from the Christmas special that fell over the side of the ship, which is a nice touch (especially since they didn't labour that point)

you are kidding right?

Hell in episode 2 when the container smashed and the hand spilled out they had that bloody time lord tune from doctor who playing in the background....

[paulvonscott]

It's what Jack uses it for that worries me...

[I, Cosh]

The severed hand - whether it belongs to the Doctor or not - is clearly The Hand of Glory and I fully expect Grant Morrison to sure forthwith.

[Eric Plumrose]

>> The only real gripe I have is . . . they seem to be trying to distance the show as much as possible from Doctor Who . . .

For me, that's a blessed relief. RTD is doing just fine fucking up Who with his revamp, the show really doesn't need Torchwood adding to its misery.

And there was some mention in Episode 1 that Torchwood Four has disappeared. I guess it's not just Buffy that RTD is enamoured with . . .

[wrighty47]

"
For me, that's a blessed relief. RTD is doing just fine fucking up Who with his revamp, the show really doesn't need Torchwood adding to its misery."

Yeah, coz all those awards and high viewing figures are really bith aren't they?!

"And there was some mention in Episode 1 that Torchwood Four has disappeared. I guess it's not just Buffy that RTD is enamoured with"

I got that as a direct homage (something RTD does a lot).

The one line I thought really stood out in the series was "I show you something fantastic, and you just criticize!"

Never was a truer word spoken imho.

Alan!

[Leigh S]

Well, the high viewing figures show that the public have embraced it for its strengths, but not necessarily because its faultless. I'll readily accept that most of the viewing public dont care if on reflection, the plots don't add up - they watch it once, then they forget about it until next week.  At the other end of the spectrum, the fans will explain away the logical flaws and at times piss poor resolutions.  In between are a tiny number of people who are fans (that is, they'd like to rewatch the thing and are trying to assimilate the complexities of the story in such a way as to satisfy their inherent need for "sense"!) but can't get their head around RTDs shonky scripting.  

So RTD can certainly continue to ignore the criticisms with regards both the logic of the plots and the percieved parochialism of the show (both in terms of it being chained to modern day Britain, and in the characterisation).  He can continue to tug heartstrings and chuckle contentedly at the "egg heads" who criticise him for it.

The "all you do is criticise" line does indeed  say it all - it sum up RTDs approach of "don't think at the cracks, feel the love".  Which is OK if you are willing to buy into it, but comes across as massively arrogant to those who dont.  

The third way is to fix the cracks, RTD, then we wouldnt need to criticise...

As for awards, well, Dr who was winning public phone in awards before RTD got his hands on it...  TV 60 awards anyone.  The format of Who is such that it takes a real idiot to mess it up.  Even done with gaping plot holes, people will be drawn to it, as it is a great concept.  RTD seems to be constantly implying that Who can only work in his image, when Who has worked in a 100 different ways over the years.

i was really quite enjoying the relaunched Who up until Dalek, when I started to try and piece together the logic of what I'd seen (after having enjoyed the ep on first viewing).  Even after seeing this recurring flaw in how the team had done stuff, I surmised that the next year, they'd be looking to iron out those kind of inconsistencies. As it turned out, RTD seems to almost take pride in them, hence that line in Torchwood.

[Eric Plumrose]

>> Yeah, coz all those awards and high viewing figures are really bith aren't they?!

Oh, for fuck's sake. Popularity and plaudits do not automatically equate quality. Why do people continuously trot out that bollocks?

As for Torchwood Four's disappearance . . . Yeah, you're probably right. It's a throwaway line that won't catch people's attention like it did mine, even before I made the Babylon 5 connection. People won't be intrigued at how an entire base could simply . . . disappear.

Bad DumbLad. You've been thinking again.

[wrighty47]

Some excellent points there Cthulouies... many I agre with despite coming at the show from a different demigraph to you. I guess I am in the group that will try and explain away the logical flaws etc, tho that doesn't mean I dont always spot them... hust that I don't let the flaws dictate my enjoyment of any given episode, if i've enjoyed the majority of stuff. I guess it's the glass helf full/glass half empty approach to life.

You're right about 60's Who getting these sort of awards, and quite often, the same sort of critisism too, especially fom those that preffered "high-brow" sci-fi (I remember Sydney Jordan panning the series for ot being si-fi at all, and I think Alan Moore held similar views).

Alan!

[wrighty47]

"
Oh, for fuck's sake. Popularity and plaudits do not automatically equate quality. Why do people continuously trot out that bollocks? "

I never said they did! In fact if you read the thread back you'll see that I actually said the same thing as you. What I did say was that viewing figures and plaudits do indicate the popularity of a show, and if a show is popular then it isn't a fuck up (which it would only have been had the show not been watched, not got wards, and had been subsequently cancelled).

And the only trotting out of bollocks I can see is the one where a person implies personal opinion and taste as fact, when the facts actually say the opposite!  ;)

Alan!

[wrighty47]

My God... i'm gonna have to get used to this new keyboard (or proof read first) the typos in my last few posts have been horrendous!  :D

Alan!

[Leigh S]

True enough that Who has been looked down on from loftier "proper sci-fi" circles from its inception.  I'd have no problme with that continuing, as I'm no great fan of that kind of Sci-fi myself.  

The old series certainly dropped the odd clanger or three but you never got the sense that it was part of their manifesto.  RTD, rather than accept loose plotting and parochialism as weaknesses, would paint them as strengths.  

I'm not sure if he truly believes no-one would watch a show where the lead character couldn't quote Kylie lyrics, or if this is just a way of disguising his limited vision/ability when it comes to writing characters.

RTD will tell you its the emotions that matter, but if the plot becomes a series of events engineered to push and pull particular heartstrings, rather than the driving engine of the characters development, then I'm going to think it's manipulative rather than a believable emotional journey.

I just think it s a cart before horse way of writing drama.  "Here are a series of emotional events that need to occur - please string some incidents together to achieve this"

The first seasons most popular and critically acclaimed story was The Empty Child - the one that was satisfying in both plot terms and emotional content.

There was a properly resolved cliff hanger that played within the conventions set up already.  You could argue that there was ill concieved science, but care seemed to have been taken to follow through the stories own logic in a satisfying way - shame he couldnt repeat the gig second time around, despite repeating a lot of the basic ideas!