• Thank you for visiting Buffy-Boards. You obviously have exceptional taste. We just want you to know that:
    1. You really should register so you can chat with us!
    2. Twelve thousand people can't be wrong.
    3. Buffy-Boards loves you.
    4. See 1 through 3.
    Come on, register already!

I dont think I'm okay with the Buffy Reboot.

DeepBlueJoy

Lion Faced Kitteh
Joined
May 5, 2014
Messages
912
Location
East of Trouble
I don't think enough time has passed. By the time Star Trek the Next Generation came along original recipe Star Trek had been off the air for 2 decades. Same for Hawaii 5-0.

Angel went off the air in 2004 and the comics just barely ended - Buffy is not an old franchise to be revived. Buffy is still current, with active adherents. Maybe in 10 years or so. Especially if they embraced the Buffyverse continuity.

I think there would have been howls of total delight had they done a 'Buffy, the next generation' instead of just abandoning all the existing fandom as though we were trash! What producer wants to contend with all that blowback? We are the star trek of the 21st century. Respect that and you have a following, not a boiling, angry mob.

---

That said, Disney is NOT a good fit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HisMrs

Scooby
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
11,939
Age
38
Location
Xander's Speedo
Sineya
If this reboot were to go ahead, their best bet would be to make the new black Buffy the daughter of Anne.

A) It gives a reason for the black Buffy to be called Buffy other than just title recognition. The original Buffy saved Anne's life twice, first from Spike in Lie to me, then from Ken in Anne. Naming her daughter after the original buffy would be a way for Anne to acknowledge Buffy saving her.

B) You can tick the interracial relationship box because Anne is white whilst her daughter is not (she'd be mixed-race) hence the father was black. They could make the father Gunn which also ties to the Angel show as well. Two birds, one stone.

C) Anne would not be in contact with the scoobies or Angel's team (maybe Gunn is dead?) therefore they can't be called upon to help deal with the inevitable apocalypses that the new Buffy will have to face.

D) Anne herself would the connection back to the original show. She'd also have reason for wanting to protect her daughter from the things in the dark whilst new Buffy would feel like it's her duty to face them. This creates conflict between the two. You could also set up a situation where new Buffy doesn't realise her mother knows more about the supernatural than she lets on. This also presents an opportunity to use archive clips from the original show particularly this scene:

I actually REALLY love that idea... WOW. :D
 

DeepBlueJoy

Lion Faced Kitteh
Joined
May 5, 2014
Messages
912
Location
East of Trouble
I think the main problem with a Buffy reboot is that the Buffy fandom is still going strong and are wary about a reboot.

(snip)


If this reboot were to go ahead, their best bet would be to make the new black Buffy the daughter of Anne.

A) It gives a reason for the black Buffy to be called Buffy other than just title recognition. The original Buffy saved Anne's life twice, first from Spike in Lie to me, then from Ken in Anne. Naming her daughter after the original buffy would be a way for Anne to acknowledge Buffy saving her.

B) You can tick the interracial relationship box because Anne is white whilst her daughter is not (she'd be mixed-race) hence the father was black. They could make the father Gunn which also ties to the Angel show as well. Two birds, one stone.

C) Anne would not be in contact with the scoobies or Angel's team (maybe Gunn is dead?) therefore they can't be called upon to help deal with the inevitable apocalypses that the new Buffy will have to face.

D) Anne herself would the connection back to the original show. She'd also have reason for wanting to protect her daughter from the things in the dark whilst new Buffy would feel like it's her duty to face them. This creates conflict between the two. You could also set up a situation where new Buffy doesn't realise her mother knows more about the supernatural than she lets on. This also presents an opportunity to use archive clips from the original show particularly this scene:
I agree, new Buffy as daughter of Anne Steele and the late Charles Gunn - this is a killer idea! I kinda love it! It acknowledges and respects the origonal TWO series, but can be a totally different animal!
 
Angel6
Angel6
You don’t have to kill Gunn, I bet J. August Richards would do it.

AlphaFoxtrot

Scooby
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
1,829
Age
39
In Re: Duck Tales; Duck Tales has the benefit of being made by people who clearly like Duck Tales, who appreciate and respect the property enough to want to tell good stories using it. When they change things, they do so with the hope of making a better version of it. You could say the same thing about Nu-Who in the beginning, people who like and appreciate the original series, want to distill what's best of it, and write Doctor Stories they would have liked to see, but better for 21st Century audiences. As opposed to, to use an absurdum, Thundercats ROAR! Which, I will admit, I haven't watched. Which to be fair, from everything I've heard, the creators of it didn't watch either Thundercats or TC '11 either, they apparently read a TV Tropes Summary of the show and what made it work, probably did they same thing with Teen Titans GO! and made a series that ended up appealing to no one. Everyone wants to be an iconoclast without learning to be a iconographer first.
 

Aadisakti

Townie
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
3
Age
31
I doubt it's going to happen, honestly. I read some of the BOOM! run, and I wasn't that into it (besides the art; the art was done very well). Also, the Animated Series was scrapped. Personally, I'd love a Fray anime (in the style of Castlevania).
 

burrunjor

Potential
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
404
Age
30
I am okay with a Buffy reboot. It could be a lot of fun if done right. I think people are being a bit too precious about the original if you don't mind my saying. The way I see it if a remake is good, great. We have more stories with these characters. If it's bad, well it has nothing to do with the original.

An animated Buffy reboot series might be a better option however.

If they do do that, I think it would be great to have the first series show Buffy's life in LA fighting Lothos. That would be different to the original, yet could stay closer to Joss' original script. Anybody here read Joss' original script online? It is amazing. Such a shame that film wasn't made, it would have been one of the best Vampire movies ever made. Lothos in the script is terrifying. I'd love to see an animated version of him more in line with Joss'.

(An animated series with that premise might be a good way to get Joss back, as he was always bitter at never being able to turn his script into a reality. I remember him saying that he was annoyed that he never got to do the story of Buffy being a popular girl who becomes an outcast, as she is an outcast from the start of Welcome to the Hellmouth. Cordelia apparently was his attempt to do that story again.)

Having said all of that, I am 100 percent sympathetic to the OP's fear of a sequel messing things up. I was a huge fan of Classic Who growing up and the 21st century sequel to that show was a total disaster. To me it completely destroys the original and despite it's initial mainstream success, I know so many Classic Who fans who say that their love for the true Doctor Who series has been compromised because of the ridiculous ways characters from the original's stories have been taken.

So with this in mind no. I wouldn't want the same thing to happen to Buffy. We don't need anymore of the current version. I think Chosen is as good an ending as you are going to get. I don't like that it's Spike, rather than Buffy who saves the day in the finale.

Still the idea of Chosen is great. Buffy has changed the patriarchal system that she was forced into, so that now the Slayer doesn't fight alone, she's made the world a safer place through closing the hellmouth, she and her friends are united, the likes of Spike, Faith, even Anya to some extent all found redemption. What can top that?

To me it's best just to leave the current Buffy in the past, and if you want to play around with the fantastic lore Joss and the others created, do it in your own version that's separate, so it if you don't do it justice, you aren't ****ing up the original.

Having said that I would probably prefer an adaptation of Fray. It's so criminally underrated. Dana Delorenzo would be the best choice for Fray.
 

katmobile

Scooby
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
1,482
Age
49
I am okay with a Buffy reboot. It could be a lot of fun if done right. I think people are being a bit too precious about the original if you don't mind my saying. The way I see it if a remake is good, great. We have more stories with these characters. If it's bad, well it has nothing to do with the original.

An animated Buffy reboot series might be a better option however.

If they do do that, I think it would be great to have the first series show Buffy's life in LA fighting Lothos. That would be different to the original, yet could stay closer to Joss' original script. Anybody here read Joss' original script online? It is amazing. Such a shame that film wasn't made, it would have been one of the best Vampire movies ever made. Lothos in the script is terrifying. I'd love to see an animated version of him more in line with Joss'.

(An animated series with that premise might be a good way to get Joss back, as he was always bitter at never being able to turn his script into a reality. I remember him saying that he was annoyed that he never got to do the story of Buffy being a popular girl who becomes an outcast, as she is an outcast from the start of Welcome to the Hellmouth. Cordelia apparently was his attempt to do that story again.)

Having said all of that, I am 100 percent sympathetic to the OP's fear of a sequel messing things up. I was a huge fan of Classic Who growing up and the 21st century sequel to that show was a total disaster. To me it completely destroys the original and despite it's initial mainstream success, I know so many Classic Who fans who say that their love for the true Doctor Who series has been compromised because of the ridiculous ways characters from the original's stories have been taken.

So with this in mind no. I wouldn't want the same thing to happen to Buffy. We don't need anymore of the current version. I think Chosen is as good an ending as you are going to get. I don't like that it's Spike, rather than Buffy who saves the day in the finale.

Still the idea of Chosen is great. Buffy has changed the patriarchal system that she was forced into, so that now the Slayer doesn't fight alone, she's made the world a safer place through closing the hellmouth, she and her friends are united, the likes of Spike, Faith, even Anya to some extent all found redemption. What can top that?

To me it's best just to leave the current Buffy in the past, and if you want to play around with the fantastic lore Joss and the others created, do it in your own version that's separate, so it if you don't do it justice, you aren't ****ing up the original.

Having said that I would probably prefer an adaptation of Fray. It's so criminally underrated. Dana Delorenzo would be the best choice for Fray.
Which is funny because most of the Whovians I know think the new show is great. Clever Dick's channel which has a great series of videos that are of documentary style quality says he has a slight preference for the old series but admits it's a style choice.
 

burrunjor

Potential
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
404
Age
30
Which is funny because most of the Whovians I know think the new show is great. Clever Dick's channel which has a great series of videos that are of documentary style quality says he has a slight preference for the old series but admits it's a style choice.
Well I'm not going to drag this into a DW conversation, but I will say this. Fans of every franchise should learn a thing or too from how DW was brought back.

In the 90s/00s DW fans were so desperate for it to come back, they'd accept anything as long as it was popular.

As a result they didn't question the fact that it was DW in name only, because the revival at first was mainstream, so hey DW was back. It filled the void for sci fi on British tv, played on nostalgia for the original, and tapped into the young adult romance style that was popular.

Ultimately however it didn't last. By the end of Matt Smith's time after just 7 years it's viewers were beginning to fall, and then they crashed in Capaldi's time. It was given a slight boost due to the novelty of a female Doctor, but now it's at record lows again. It's only twelve seasons in and it's more or less dead.

Okay twelve seasons is a long time, but not really in DW terms. We're only just at Tom Baker by that point in Classic Who. Furthermore there have been about 4 hiatus' in that time too.

Added to that Classic Who still outsells New Who every single year on DVD and Blue Ray.

See here.

Top video franchises of 2017

Worse than that though, the revival has destroyed every single thing about the original series. It's story arcs, it's characterisation, it's lore, it's history has all been trampled over to such an extent that really no one is even sure who or what Doctor Who is anymore? It's going to be very hard to get something resembling DW now, as the character has been broken beyond all recognition (as have many of his enemies like the Master, the Cybermen etc.)

I don't think that Buffy fans would be the same, and allow someone to just trample over their beloved characters, but it is still a risk that someone can come along and smash something up, but get away with it, if it's popular initially with the public, for shallow reasons.

It's why a remake is always better as even if a remake does do that, then the original still stands on it's own.

I really don't want to see a remake. It will just be a typical 2020 show with too many politics. I really can't be bothered with it. Buffy was perfect. Just leave it.
Yes that's a sad reality of today's tv. All this identity politics crap has actually harmed female characters.

Everybody always thinks that critics of identity politics "just can't stand women on tv."

In actual fact it's often the opposite. Back in the 90s/00s whilst things weren't perfect. (They never are sadly.) At least people could write good female and minority characters who weren't either defined entirely by those characteristics, or just the writers ego on display.

Compare this wonderful scene from Xena of Xena and Callisto sinking into the quicksand, to this montage from Supergirl to see the difference.

Xena and Callisto

Supergirl Superfeminist Supercut

One is an attempt to write two interesting characters, the other is the writers lecturing the plebs at home to be better people and using the characters to say "LOOK WE HAVE WOMEN LEADS AND BLACK LEADS AREN'T WE AMAZING! WE'RE LIKE THE MODERN DAY GENE RODDENBERRY!"
 

katmobile

Scooby
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
1,482
Age
49
Well I'm not going to drag this into a DW conversation, but I will say this. Fans of every franchise should learn a thing or too from how DW was brought back.

In the 90s/00s DW fans were so desperate for it to come back, they'd accept anything as long as it was popular.

As a result they didn't question the fact that it was DW in name only, because the revival at first was mainstream, so hey DW was back. It filled the void for sci fi on British tv, played on nostalgia for the original, and tapped into the young adult romance style that was popular.

Ultimately however it didn't last. By the end of Matt Smith's time after just 7 years it's viewers were beginning to fall, and then they crashed in Capaldi's time. It was given a slight boost due to the novelty of a female Doctor, but now it's at record lows again. It's only twelve seasons in and it's more or less dead.

Okay twelve seasons is a long time, but not really in DW terms. We're only just at Tom Baker by that point in Classic Who. Furthermore there have been about 4 hiatus' in that time too.

Added to that Classic Who still outsells New Who every single year on DVD and Blue Ray.

See here.

Top video franchises of 2017

Worse than that though, the revival has destroyed every single thing about the original series. It's story arcs, it's characterisation, it's lore, it's history has all been trampled over to such an extent that really no one is even sure who or what Doctor Who is anymore? It's going to be very hard to get something resembling DW now, as the character has been broken beyond all recognition (as have many of his enemies like the Master, the Cybermen etc.)

I don't think that Buffy fans would be the same, and allow someone to just trample over their beloved characters, but it is still a risk that someone can come along and smash something up, but get away with it, if it's popular initially with the public, for shallow reasons.

It's why a remake is always better as even if a remake does do that, then the original still stands on it's own.
Seven seasons is actually not a bad run. To be honest I think seven seasons is about as long as you can reasonably expect before a show jumps the shark - most shows that go beyond that do. Some would say Buffy did after five although not me. Anyway new Who has bought a younger audience to DW, generated more international interest and probably encouraged some new people to check out the classic series too. I don't think all of the classic Who DVDs are being bought by the old fans. If you're hooked by the mythology you're going to want to do a deeper dive. Even if it ends tommorow new Who's been good to classic Who and Who's proved it can survive without the TV series there are books and Big Issue audio books I'm sure they'd welcome any of the new doctors who want to voice adventures for them I'm sure the two Scottish superfan actors would be happy to oblige if they can find five minutes in their busy schedules.
 

burrunjor

Potential
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
404
Age
30
Seven seasons is actually not a bad run. To be honest I think seven seasons is about as long as you can reasonably expect before a show jumps the shark - most shows that go beyond that do. Some would say Buffy did after five although not me. Anyway new Who has bought a younger audience to DW, generated more international interest and probably encouraged some new people to check out the classic series too. I don't think all of the classic Who DVDs are being bought by the old fans. If you're hooked by the mythology you're going to want to do a deeper dive. Even if it ends tommorow new Who's been good to classic Who and Who's proved it can survive without the TV series there are books and Big Issue audio books I'm sure they'd welcome any of the new doctors who want to voice adventures for them I'm sure the two Scottish superfan actors would be happy to oblige if they can find five minutes in their busy schedules.

Well again I don't want to get too bogged down into the Doctor Who quagmire so this is the last I'll say on it.

The first 7 seasons of New Who as a remake of the original would have been fine. They are good solid sci fi seasons overall. (Well not so much s1 and 2, but I'd forgive them as teething problems.)

Ultimately however as a sequel, it's never worked, and worse it messed up the classic era in the following ways. (Even if you aren't a DW fan I'd recommend baring this in mind as it shows you how an iconic character can be trashed so easily.)

In Classic Who, though the Doctor changed his appearance, he was always meant to be the same character underneath. Regeneration was like an advanced form of healing. His body broke down, then repaired itself, but in doing so it changed his appearance. His outer personality would also change to an extent too. Still his core persona was always the same, his consciousness was always the same, and all the Doctors had the same memories. As a result all of the Doctors followed the same template as it were, with the actors trying to do something new within that template.

New Who however from the start threw that template out.

1/ In old Who the Doctor travelled because he wanted to explore the universe. He was a scientist with a desire to discover new worlds, new species etc. He also was a hedonist who loved his life. His ship had everything he could ever want, (food, somewhere to sleep. entertainment.) He lived by his own rules, could visit anywhere he wanted.

In New Who he only travels because his people have been destroyed. He says he would much rather have a normal life and settle somewhere, but can't. He isnt really a scientist with an interest in discovering new species, more of a superhero, and is quite mopey. They also later revealed that he never wanted to explore, but fled because of some prophecy, and then after that they revealed that he was brainwashed by the Time Lords into being a hero. (And that the Doctor persona he has, was created by the Time Lords when they brainwashed him.) We also learned that he lived for billions of years before the first Doctor, meaning his current life isn't really important as it's just 1000 years in among billions we'll never see, where he was a different person.

2/ His moral code in classic who was that he would kill if need be, but preferred to find a peaceful solution if possible. He was practical and fair. In New Who his moral code is all over the place. They go too far both ways. In some instances he refuses to let guns be used under any circumstances, literally even when the bad guy is about to destroy the universe. In others he is too vicious, and tortures an alien family for all eternity.

3/ In old who he was largely asexual. He did have a family at one point but he never showed any romantic interest in his companions. He was too focused on his work, often had a more fatherly relationship with them, and was often too old for them. In New Who he is worse than Captain Kirk! His first love interest, Rose, is only 3 years older than his grand daughter!

4/ Regeneration in New Who is rewritten so that actually each Doctor is a different person. When he changes he dies and only the memories go on. This completely ****s up all of his relationships in Classic Who, like with the Brigadier. Before it was one guy's friendship with the Brig, now it's 7 different guys.

5/ The Doctors maturity has also gone in New Who. In the originals series, whilst he could be quite immature in getting his way, he had a mature outlook on the hardships of life. In contrast to say Buffy, he was someone who had lived a full life before we see him. (It's strongly implied that his wife and children are dead, which could also explain why he isn't interested in romantic relationships.) In Old Who he could always cope with loss, would remain level headed in most situations, and never let his emotions cloud his brain too much. (Unless it was the possibility of discovery.)

In New Who he is a hysterical, screaming, immature character, who can't cope with loss of any kind. Whenever he loses anyone he goes nuts, tries to kill himself, carries out a genocide, goes into solitude and in one instance risks destroying the entire universe to save them

6/ Even little things like the Doctors dress sense and appearance. In Classic Who the Doctor tended to wear frock coats, over the top clothes, and clothing with a more Edwardian/Victorian feel to it. He also tended to have big, long, unmanagable hair, all of which reflected his eccentric, man out of time status. In New Who however he wears modern clothing, had short almost shaved hair in his first appearance, and spikey up hair in Tennant's time.

All of this is before we get into the controversial sex change which is a big deal in changing the characters identity. Obvs I'm not saying that a woman can't be a hero (or else I wouldn't be here) or even a similar character to the Doctor, but bringing it into his story, turns him into a Ziggy Stardust type character. A gender bending alien. I love Ziggy Stardust, but that's not really the Doctor.

The Doctor is a stuffy old, eccentric, British gentelmanly hero like Sherlock Holmes. That's what he always was, even in the body of a young man. Trying to make him a sex god like in Tennant's time, or an androgynous, gender bending character who breaks down all gender stereotypes kind of seems silly, when you try and link it to William Hartnell, the first Doctor.

William Hartnell laughing video

Yeah he seems like a real David Bowie type who could get off with a 19 year old Billie Piper doesn't he? He definitely seems like a lesbian icon (which the 13th Doctor has become to some people through her romance with Yaz.)

All of this like I said has taken us to the point where we aren't sure who the Doctor is anymore. I was growing up. He was the eccentric, Sherlock Holmes type hero from space. Now? Is he still that due to Classic Who? Is he a sex symbol like in Tennant's time? Is he a David Bowie androgynous character?

It's going to be quite a big task to take us back to the Doctor, if it ever happens at all.

We cannot allow the same thing to happen to Buffy. Buffy like the Doctor has a core identity that must run through every version or else we are not doing Buffy anymore. Her identity is of a younger character, female (obviously) a bit of an underdog, lives in more relatable surroundings despite the monsters, is quite a tragic character, goes against the partriarchal rules she is bound by etc. (Even the Kuzui movie get's that with the "my keen fashion sense." bit)

Fortunately I don't think Buffy fans as a whole would accept an in name only Buffy, but if it were successful, even for superficial reasons, it would be a worry that Buffy could lose her identity like the Doctor has.
 
Priceless
Priceless
Hate the Rose romance. Hate. It.

katmobile

Scooby
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
1,482
Age
49
Well again I don't want to get too bogged down into the Doctor Who quagmire so this is the last I'll say on it.

The first 7 seasons of New Who as a remake of the original would have been fine. They are good solid sci fi seasons overall. (Well not so much s1 and 2, but I'd forgive them as teething problems.)

Ultimately however as a sequel, it's never worked, and worse it messed up the classic era in the following ways. (Even if you aren't a DW fan I'd recommend baring this in mind as it shows you how an iconic character can be trashed so easily.)

In Classic Who, though the Doctor changed his appearance, he was always meant to be the same character underneath. Regeneration was like an advanced form of healing. His body broke down, then repaired itself, but in doing so it changed his appearance. His outer personality would also change to an extent too. Still his core persona was always the same, his consciousness was always the same, and all the Doctors had the same memories. As a result all of the Doctors followed the same template as it were, with the actors trying to do something new within that template.

New Who however from the start threw that template out.

1/ In old Who the Doctor travelled because he wanted to explore the universe. He was a scientist with a desire to discover new worlds, new species etc. He also was a hedonist who loved his life. His ship had everything he could ever want, (food, somewhere to sleep. entertainment.) He lived by his own rules, could visit anywhere he wanted.

In New Who he only travels because his people have been destroyed. He says he would much rather have a normal life and settle somewhere, but can't. He isnt really a scientist with an interest in discovering new species, more of a superhero, and is quite mopey. They also later revealed that he never wanted to explore, but fled because of some prophecy, and then after that they revealed that he was brainwashed by the Time Lords into being a hero. (And that the Doctor persona he has, was created by the Time Lords when they brainwashed him.) We also learned that he lived for billions of years before the first Doctor, meaning his current life isn't really important as it's just 1000 years in among billions we'll never see, where he was a different person.

2/ His moral code in classic who was that he would kill if need be, but preferred to find a peaceful solution if possible. He was practical and fair. In New Who his moral code is all over the place. They go too far both ways. In some instances he refuses to let guns be used under any circumstances, literally even when the bad guy is about to destroy the universe. In others he is too vicious, and tortures an alien family for all eternity.

3/ In old who he was largely asexual. He did have a family at one point but he never showed any romantic interest in his companions. He was too focused on his work, often had a more fatherly relationship with them, and was often too old for them. In New Who he is worse than Captain Kirk! His first love interest, Rose, is only 3 years older than his grand daughter!

4/ Regeneration in New Who is rewritten so that actually each Doctor is a different person. When he changes he dies and only the memories go on. This completely ****s up all of his relationships in Classic Who, like with the Brigadier. Before it was one guy's friendship with the Brig, now it's 7 different guys.

5/ The Doctors maturity has also gone in New Who. In the originals series, whilst he could be quite immature in getting his way, he had a mature outlook on the hardships of life. In contrast to say Buffy, he was someone who had lived a full life before we see him. (It's strongly implied that his wife and children are dead, which could also explain why he isn't interested in romantic relationships.) In Old Who he could always cope with loss, would remain level headed in most situations, and never let his emotions cloud his brain too much. (Unless it was the possibility of discovery.)

In New Who he is a hysterical, screaming, immature character, who can't cope with loss of any kind. Whenever he loses anyone he goes nuts, tries to kill himself, carries out a genocide, goes into solitude and in one instance risks destroying the entire universe to save them

6/ Even little things like the Doctors dress sense and appearance. In Classic Who the Doctor tended to wear frock coats, over the top clothes, and clothing with a more Edwardian/Victorian feel to it. He also tended to have big, long, unmanagable hair, all of which reflected his eccentric, man out of time status. In New Who however he wears modern clothing, had short almost shaved hair in his first appearance, and spikey up hair in Tennant's time.

All of this is before we get into the controversial sex change which is a big deal in changing the characters identity. Obvs I'm not saying that a woman can't be a hero (or else I wouldn't be here) or even a similar character to the Doctor, but bringing it into his story, turns him into a Ziggy Stardust type character. A gender bending alien. I love Ziggy Stardust, but that's not really the Doctor.

The Doctor is a stuffy old, eccentric, British gentelmanly hero like Sherlock Holmes. That's what he always was, even in the body of a young man. Trying to make him a sex god like in Tennant's time, or an androgynous, gender bending character who breaks down all gender stereotypes kind of seems silly, when you try and link it to William Hartnell, the first Doctor.

William Hartnell laughing video

Yeah he seems like a real David Bowie type who could get off with a 19 year old Billie Piper doesn't he? He definitely seems like a lesbian icon (which the 13th Doctor has become to some people through her romance with Yaz.)

All of this like I said has taken us to the point where we aren't sure who the Doctor is anymore. I was growing up. He was the eccentric, Sherlock Holmes type hero from space. Now? Is he still that due to Classic Who? Is he a sex symbol like in Tennant's time? Is he a David Bowie androgynous character?

It's going to be quite a big task to take us back to the Doctor, if it ever happens at all.

We cannot allow the same thing to happen to Buffy. Buffy like the Doctor has a core identity that must run through every version or else we are not doing Buffy anymore. Her identity is of a younger character, female (obviously) a bit of an underdog, lives in more relatable surroundings despite the monsters, is quite a tragic character, goes against the partriarchal rules she is bound by etc. (Even the Kuzui movie get's that with the "my keen fashion sense." bit)

Fortunately I don't think Buffy fans as a whole would accept an in name only Buffy, but if it were successful, even for superficial reasons, it would be a worry that Buffy could lose her identity like the Doctor has.
I disagree that the new Who erased Old Who's ID and the option is still there of retreating back to Old Who if that's the case. Thing how much worse a retread of Original Who would have been.

The same is true of a Buffy remake - people who are advocating for it just want a retread that will give them more of what they want. Sure I'd love a cartoon set in the high school years but if a new slayer set in the present day doesn't work or doesn't work for you then you can ignore it and fall back on original Buffy.
 

TriBel

Scooby
Joined
Jun 25, 2017
Messages
2,678
Location
Manchester
All of this like I said has taken us to the point where we aren't sure who the Doctor is anymore.
Daft question...isn't that why he's called Dr Who (?) in the first instance? Honestly, I'm old enough to have watched the Dr. from the beginning. I don't have problems with the transition (though it becomes a bit of a bugger when - like policemen - you realise he's younger than you).
The Doctor is a stuffy old, eccentric, British gentelmanly hero like Sherlock Holmes.
Originally, Holmes wasn't a gentleman and not really a hero. He was a cocaine addict who was able to bring a new perspective to modern urban life because he was on the fringe. He's indebted to the "flanuer"...he sees differently - it's one of the reasons he has Watson as a foil. See House MD (House and Wilson?). Watson is Conan Doyle - Holmes is what Doyle wanted to be. He's based on Joseph Bell (Doyle's teacher/mentor/consultant at medical school). That's why Holmes is a "Consulting Detective" - the first of his kind.

Auerbach says society gets the vampires it desire and needs. I don't see what can't be true of a slayer.
 
Last edited:

burrunjor

Potential
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
404
Age
30
I disagree that the new Who erased Old Who's ID and the option is still there of retreating back to Old Who if that's the case. Thing how much worse a retread of Original Who would have been.

The same is true of a Buffy remake - people who are advocating for it just want a retread that will give them more of what they want. Sure I'd love a cartoon set in the high school years but if a new slayer set in the present day doesn't work or doesn't work for you then you can ignore it and fall back on original Buffy.

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree. If they were going to do a sequel to classic who, they could have made it more faithful. Made the Doctor an eccentric Sherlock Holmes type, played by an unusual character actor, had the focus on sci fi and monsters, but updated it practical ways. IE had better effects for the monsters, explored new sci fi concepts that might not have been avaliable to writers back then, introduced new enemies, and yeah maybe had a romance between the companions, but not with the Doctor.

A Buffy remake I'd hope to do the same. IE remake Buffy and update it in practical ways. Have better effects (though they never bothered me before, they did for other people) make the stories more modern, think of new things to do with the Vampires and Demons that maybe passed the prevous writers by.

Just make sure it's fundamentally still Buffy, IE she's still the chosen one, still balances her work life with her Vampire fighting duties, still a younger more vulnerable character, at least at first.

I don't want a remake of Buffy that is just Buffy in name only, and I certainly don't want a sequel like that.

Another comparison is Godzilla.

The 1998 Godzilla was like New Who. It was an in name only adaptation. It threw out so many of the Big G's time honoured traits, like his atomic breath, his indestructability.

The 2014 Godzilla meanwhile was a proper Godzilla movie. It just updated it in practical ways, it used more recent disasters as inspiration, had better effects, a more modern story, but it was still Godzilla. Godzilla looked like the original, was indestructable, had the firey breath, fought with another monster, was a force of nature etc.
 

katmobile

Scooby
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
1,482
Age
49
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree. If they were going to do a sequel to classic who, they could have made it more faithful. Made the Doctor an eccentric Sherlock Holmes type, played by an unusual character actor, had the focus on sci fi and monsters, but updated it practical ways. IE had better effects for the monsters, explored new sci fi concepts that might not have been avaliable to writers back then, introduced new enemies, and yeah maybe had a romance between the companions, but not with the Doctor.

A Buffy remake I'd hope to do the same. IE remake Buffy and update it in practical ways. Have better effects (though they never bothered me before, they did for other people) make the stories more modern, think of new things to do with the Vampires and Demons that maybe passed the prevous writers by.

Just make sure it's fundamentally still Buffy, IE she's still the chosen one, still balances her work life with her Vampire fighting duties, still a younger more vulnerable character, at least at first.

I don't want a remake of Buffy that is just Buffy in name only, and I certainly don't want a sequel like that.

Another comparison is Godzilla.

The 1998 Godzilla was like New Who. It was an in name only adaptation. It threw out so many of the Big G's time honoured traits, like his atomic breath, his indestructability.

The 2014 Godzilla meanwhile was a proper Godzilla movie. It just updated it in practical ways, it used more recent disasters as inspiration, had better effects, a more modern story, but it was still Godzilla. Godzilla looked like the original, was indestructable, had the firey breath, fought with another monster, was a force of nature etc.
Comparing new Who to the rubbish Godzilla is a strawman also Star Trek TNG worked why couldn't Buffy TNG? I guess it's agree to disagree.
 

burrunjor

Potential
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
404
Age
30
Comparing new Who to the rubbish Godzilla is a strawman also Star Trek TNG worked why couldn't Buffy TNG? I guess it's agree to disagree.
It's not. They are exactly the same.

1998 Godzilla is made by a Godzilla fan Dean Delvin who is a bit self loathing as a fan, in that he is embarassed at liking something he sees as stupid, cheesy and tacky. As a result he cuts fundamental parts of the characters identity out for being too silly, the firey breath, Godzilla's indestructability etc. He also makes it more like something that's popular at that time (in this case Jurassic Park) in order to appeal to mainstream audiences, because he has no confidence or faith in Godzilla.

2005 Doctor Who is similarly made by self loathing fanboys who are embarassed at liking something they view as nerdy, anoraky etc. So they cut out fundamental parts of the Doctors personality for supposedly being too uncool and stiff, like the Doctor's status as a more grandfatherly character, his desire to explore the universe etc. They also make it ape whatever they think is popular at that time. In their case ironically Buffy and Xena. (The 9th Doctor is more of a pound shop Xena and Angel than anything else.) And later identity politics via Jodie's Doctor.

The only difference between the two was the New Who writers and producers were in with the bricks, the critics and the media figures who could hype them up. They were also kind of bullies who would smear their critics as "ming mongs frightened of change." Also DW fandom was a bit more desperate for it to be mainstream again above all else, after the shameful way it had been mistreated by the BBC for ten years.

Also as the Doctor does regenerate they could spread a lie that there are no similarities between each Doctor, which the GP who probably only had vague memroesi of all the Doctors, would accept. In time this became the recieved wisdom, and the fact that New Who was popular at first, meant that the makers of New Who were defied as almost holy figures among the cult like fandom.

Of course now it's all falling apart for New Who, as when your attitude is I can do whatever I want to someone else's character it's bound to backfire. The Timeless Children was a step too far and now the revival is crashing and burning.

See also 2004 Van Helsing for another example of an in name only character that wants to be more like other, popular characters (in this case again Angel and Blade) than the one it is adapting.

Star Trek the Next Generation meanwhile was not the same thing. It wasn't trespassing on the original. It was set decades later and played about in that universe. A tv adaptation of Fray would be comparable to the NG. (Personally as I have said before a tv version of Fray set in the same continuity as the original Buffy series with Dana Delorenzo as Fray would be amazing.)

The JJ Abrams Star Trek movies are more comparable to New Who and 1998 Godzilla. Like them it's afraid to be Star Trek, because Trek is too nerdy and uncool, so it just becomes a big generic action movie franchise.

My point was that a Buffy reboot could work, it would just have to make sure that it stayed true to who Buffy was. Even if it's a different continuity, there are certain aspects of a characters personality that define them. You couldn't have Buffy travel through space fighting aliens for instance.

As for a direct sequel to Buffy, NO. I think that that version of Buffy's story ended with Chosen and I don't need more. (For that reason I never got into the comics either.)
 
Last edited:

katmobile

Scooby
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
1,482
Age
49
It's not. They are exactly the same.

1998 Godzilla is made by a Godzilla fan Dean Delvin who is a bit self loathing as a fan, in that he is embarassed at liking something he sees as stupid, cheesy and tacky. As a result he cuts fundamental parts of the characters identity out for being too silly, the firey breath, Godzilla's indestructability etc. He also makes it more like something that's popular at that time (in this case Jurassic Park) in order to appeal to mainstream audiences, because he has no confidence or faith in Godzilla.

2005 Doctor Who is similarly made by self loathing fanboys who are embarassed at liking something they view as nerdy, anoraky etc. So they cut out fundamental parts of the Doctors personality for supposedly being too uncool and stiff, like the Doctor's status as a more grandfatherly character, his desire to explore the universe etc. They also make it ape whatever they think is popular at that time. In their case ironically Buffy and Xena. (The 9th Doctor is more of a pound shop Xena and Angel than anything else.) And later identity politics via Jodie's Doctor.

The only difference between the two was the New Who writers and producers were in with the bricks, the critics and the media figures who could hype them up. They were also kind of bullies who would smear their critics as "ming mongs frightened of change." Also DW fandom was a bit more desperate for it to be mainstream again above all else, after the shameful way it had been mistreated by the BBC for ten years.

Also as the Doctor does regenerate they could spread a lie that there are no similarities between each Doctor, which the GP who probably only had vague memroesi of all the Doctors, would accept. In time this became the recieved wisdom, and the fact that New Who was popular at first, meant that the makers of New Who were defied as almost holy figures among the cult like fandom.

Of course now it's all falling apart for New Who, as when your attitude is I can do whatever I want to someone else's character it's bound to backfire. The Timeless Children was a step too far and now the revival is crashing and burning.

See also 2004 Van Helsing for another example of an in name only character that wants to be more like other, popular characters (in this case again Angel and Blade) than the one it is adapting.

Star Trek the Next Generation meanwhile was not the same thing. It wasn't trespassing on the original. It was set decades later and played about in that universe. A tv adaptation of Fray would be comparable to the NG. (Personally as I have said before a tv version of Fray set in the same continuity as the original Buffy series with Dana Delorenzo as Fray would be amazing.)

The JJ Abrams Star Trek movies are more comparable to New Who and 1998 Godzilla. Like them it's afraid to be Star Trek, because Trek is too nerdy and uncool, so it just becomes a big generic action movie franchise.

My point was that a Buffy reboot could work, it would just have to make sure that it stayed true to who Buffy was. Even if it's a different continuity, there are certain aspects of a characters personality that define them. You couldn't have Buffy travel through space fighting aliens for instance.

As for a direct sequel to Buffy, NO. I think that that version of Buffy's story ended with Chosen and I don't need more. (For that reason I never got into the comics either.)
Wow fetch an extinguisher this take is hot!!! Self loathing fan people? WTF!!! They even wrote stories for Who in hiatus but you are your buddies are the REAL fans! Oh please! I'm agreeing to disagree hard disagree.
 

burrunjor

Potential
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
404
Age
30
Wow fetch an extinguisher this take is hot!!! Self loathing fan people? WTF!!! They even wrote stories for Who in hiatus but you are your buddies are the REAL fans! Oh please! I'm agreeing to disagree hard disagree.

Take a look at this interview with Steven Moffat.

Steven Moffat, author of the BAFTA and Montreux Award-winning series PRESS GANG and JOKING APART, recalls how Peter Davison brought a new quality to the role of the Doctor — and almost saved a twenty-something fan from embarrassment in the process...

Back when I was in my early twenties, I thought Doctor Who was the scariest programme on television. I had one particular Who-inspired nightmare which haunts me to this day — except it wasn't a nightmare at all, it was something that happened to me on a regular basis. I'd be sitting watching Doctor Who on a Saturday, absolutely as normal... but I'd be in the company of my friends!!

Being a fan is an odd thing, isn't it? I was in little doubt — though I never admitted it, even to myself — that Doctor Who was nowhere near as good as it should have been, but for whatever reason I'd made that mysterious and deadly emotional connection with the show that transforms you into a fan and like a psychotically devoted supporter of a floundering football club, I turned out every Saturday in my scarf, grimly hoping the production team would finally score.

Of course my friends all knew my devotion to the Doctor had unaccountably survived puberty and had long since ceased to deride me for it. I think (I hope) they generally considered me someone of reasonable taste and intelligence and decided to indulge me in this one, stunningly eccentric lapse. And sometimes, on those distant Saturday afternoons before domestic video my nightmare would begin. I'd be stuck out somewhere with those friends and I'd realise in a moment of sweaty panic that I wasn't going to make it home in time for the programme—or worse, they' d be round at my house not taking the hint to leave — so on my infantile insistence we'd all troop to the nearest television and settle down to watch, me clammy with embarrassment at what was to come, my friends tolerant, amused and even open-minded.

And the music would start. And I'd grip the arms of my chair. And I'd pray! Just this once, I begged, make it good. Not great, not fantastic —just good. Don't, I was really saying, show me up.

And sometimes it would start really quite well. There might even be a passable effects shot (there were more of those than you might imagine) and possibly a decent establishing scene where this week's expendable guest actors popped outside to investigate that mysterious clanking/groaning/beeping/slurping sound before being found horribly killed/gibbering mad an episode later.

At this point I might actually relax a little. I might even start breathing and let my hair unclench. And then it would be happen. The star of the show would come rocketing through the door, hit a shuddering halt slap in the middle of the set and stare at the camera like (and let's be honest here) a complete moron.

I'd hear my friends shifting in their chairs. I could hear sniggers tactfully suppressed. Once one of them remarked (with touching gentleness, mindful of my feelings) that this really wasn't terribly good acting.

Of course, as even they would concede, Tom Baker (for it was he) had been good once — even terrific — but he had long since disappeared up his own art in a seven-year-long act of self-destruction that took him from being a dangerous young actor with a future to a sad, mad old ham safely locked away in a voice-over booth.

Which brings us, of course, to Peter Davison (for it was about to be him). I was appalled when he was cast. I announced to my bored and blank-faced friends that Davison was far too young, far too pretty, and far, far too wet to play television's most popular character (as, I deeply regret to say, I described the Doctor). Little did I realise, back in 1982, that after years of anxious waiting on the terraces in my front room, my home team were about to score — or that Davison was about to do something almost never before seen in the role of the Doctor. He was going to act.

Let's get something straight, because if you don't know now it's time you did. Davison was the best of the lot. Number One! It's not a big coincidence or some kind of evil plot, that he's played more above-the-title lead roles on the telly than the rest of the Doctors put together. It's because-get this!-he's the best actor.

You don't believe me? Okay, let's check out the opposition, Doctor-wise (relax, I'll be gentle).

1. William Hartnell. Look, he didn't know his lines! (okay, fairly gentle. It wasn't his fault) and it's sort of a minimum requirement of the lead actor dial he knows marginally more about what's going to happen next than the audience. In truth, being replaceable was his greatest gift to the series. Had the first Doctor delivered a wonderful performance they almost certainly would not have considered a recast and the show would have died back in the sixties.

2. Patrick Troughton. Marvellous! Troughton, far more than the dispensable, misremembered Hartnell, was the template for the Doctors to come and indeed his performance is the most often cited as precedent for his successors. Trouble is, the show in those days was strictly for indulgent ten-year-olds (and therefore hard to judge as an adult). Damn good, though, and Davison's sole competitor.

3. Jon Pertwee. The idea of a sort of Jason King with a sillier frock isn't that seductive, really, is it? In fairness he carried a certain pompous gravitas and was charismatic enough to dominate the proceedings as the Doctor should. Had his notion of the character been less straightforwardly heroic he might have pulled off something a little more interesting. His Worzel Gummidge, after all,is inspired and wonderful.

4. Tom Baker. Thunderingly effective at the start, even if his interpretation did seem to alter entirely to fit this week's script. (Compare, say, THE SEEDS OF DOOM and THE CITY OF DEATH. Is this supposed to be the same person?) I think I've said quite enough already about his sad decline so let's just say that it's nice to see him back on top form in Medics. Well, is was while it lasted.

5. Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy. Miscast and floundering. Neither made much impression on the role and none at all on the audience. Or at least on me.

So what makes Davison — for me — the best, and his episodes the ones I wouldn't mind watching in the company of my most cynical and sarcastic friends? I'm certainly not claiming the show was suddenly high art or great drama — it was after all, the adventures of space man in a frock coat who lives in a flying telephone box — but for a brief three years it seemed to take the job of being an entertaining, adventure-romp for kids of all

ages with just the right mix of seriousness and vivacity, the way Lois And Clark does so adroitly now and the leading man, bless him. was really delivering.

Also check out these two interviews

Steven Moffat Interview He Wants You To Forget

Whilst he did backpeddle on a lot of these statements, personally I think these represent his true feelings. Look at the way he mistreated the First Doctor in Twice Upon A Time. That to me shows that his opinion of 60s Who hasn't improved.

To me him and the others were fans of the show as children and have a nostalgic love for it, but none of them have bothered to watch it much in recent years.

Self loathing fanboyism is a thing. It's the curse of so many franchises.
 
Priceless
Priceless
Thanks for sharing, never seen these interviews before

Buffy Summers

Yataro
Staff member
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
33,074
Location
The City of Angels
Sineya
Wow fetch an extinguisher this take is hot!!! Self loathing fan people? WTF!!! They even wrote stories for Who in hiatus but you are your buddies are the REAL fans! Oh please! I'm agreeing to disagree hard disagree.
If you can't be civil then remove yourself from the discussion. I am tired of reminding you to treat other members with respect.
 

katmobile

Scooby
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
1,482
Age
49
Take a look at this interview with Steven Moffat.

Steven Moffat, author of the BAFTA and Montreux Award-winning series PRESS GANG and JOKING APART, recalls how Peter Davison brought a new quality to the role of the Doctor — and almost saved a twenty-something fan from embarrassment in the process...

Back when I was in my early twenties, I thought Doctor Who was the scariest programme on television. I had one particular Who-inspired nightmare which haunts me to this day — except it wasn't a nightmare at all, it was something that happened to me on a regular basis. I'd be sitting watching Doctor Who on a Saturday, absolutely as normal... but I'd be in the company of my friends!!

Being a fan is an odd thing, isn't it? I was in little doubt — though I never admitted it, even to myself — that Doctor Who was nowhere near as good as it should have been, but for whatever reason I'd made that mysterious and deadly emotional connection with the show that transforms you into a fan and like a psychotically devoted supporter of a floundering football club, I turned out every Saturday in my scarf, grimly hoping the production team would finally score.

Of course my friends all knew my devotion to the Doctor had unaccountably survived puberty and had long since ceased to deride me for it. I think (I hope) they generally considered me someone of reasonable taste and intelligence and decided to indulge me in this one, stunningly eccentric lapse. And sometimes, on those distant Saturday afternoons before domestic video my nightmare would begin. I'd be stuck out somewhere with those friends and I'd realise in a moment of sweaty panic that I wasn't going to make it home in time for the programme—or worse, they' d be round at my house not taking the hint to leave — so on my infantile insistence we'd all troop to the nearest television and settle down to watch, me clammy with embarrassment at what was to come, my friends tolerant, amused and even open-minded.

And the music would start. And I'd grip the arms of my chair. And I'd pray! Just this once, I begged, make it good. Not great, not fantastic —just good. Don't, I was really saying, show me up.

And sometimes it would start really quite well. There might even be a passable effects shot (there were more of those than you might imagine) and possibly a decent establishing scene where this week's expendable guest actors popped outside to investigate that mysterious clanking/groaning/beeping/slurping sound before being found horribly killed/gibbering mad an episode later.

At this point I might actually relax a little. I might even start breathing and let my hair unclench. And then it would be happen. The star of the show would come rocketing through the door, hit a shuddering halt slap in the middle of the set and stare at the camera like (and let's be honest here) a complete moron.

I'd hear my friends shifting in their chairs. I could hear sniggers tactfully suppressed. Once one of them remarked (with touching gentleness, mindful of my feelings) that this really wasn't terribly good acting.

Of course, as even they would concede, Tom Baker (for it was he) had been good once — even terrific — but he had long since disappeared up his own art in a seven-year-long act of self-destruction that took him from being a dangerous young actor with a future to a sad, mad old ham safely locked away in a voice-over booth.

Which brings us, of course, to Peter Davison (for it was about to be him). I was appalled when he was cast. I announced to my bored and blank-faced friends that Davison was far too young, far too pretty, and far, far too wet to play television's most popular character (as, I deeply regret to say, I described the Doctor). Little did I realise, back in 1982, that after years of anxious waiting on the terraces in my front room, my home team were about to score — or that Davison was about to do something almost never before seen in the role of the Doctor. He was going to act.

Let's get something straight, because if you don't know now it's time you did. Davison was the best of the lot. Number One! It's not a big coincidence or some kind of evil plot, that he's played more above-the-title lead roles on the telly than the rest of the Doctors put together. It's because-get this!-he's the best actor.

You don't believe me? Okay, let's check out the opposition, Doctor-wise (relax, I'll be gentle).

1. William Hartnell. Look, he didn't know his lines! (okay, fairly gentle. It wasn't his fault) and it's sort of a minimum requirement of the lead actor dial he knows marginally more about what's going to happen next than the audience. In truth, being replaceable was his greatest gift to the series. Had the first Doctor delivered a wonderful performance they almost certainly would not have considered a recast and the show would have died back in the sixties.

2. Patrick Troughton. Marvellous! Troughton, far more than the dispensable, misremembered Hartnell, was the template for the Doctors to come and indeed his performance is the most often cited as precedent for his successors. Trouble is, the show in those days was strictly for indulgent ten-year-olds (and therefore hard to judge as an adult). Damn good, though, and Davison's sole competitor.

3. Jon Pertwee. The idea of a sort of Jason King with a sillier frock isn't that seductive, really, is it? In fairness he carried a certain pompous gravitas and was charismatic enough to dominate the proceedings as the Doctor should. Had his notion of the character been less straightforwardly heroic he might have pulled off something a little more interesting. His Worzel Gummidge, after all,is inspired and wonderful.

4. Tom Baker. Thunderingly effective at the start, even if his interpretation did seem to alter entirely to fit this week's script. (Compare, say, THE SEEDS OF DOOM and THE CITY OF DEATH. Is this supposed to be the same person?) I think I've said quite enough already about his sad decline so let's just say that it's nice to see him back on top form in Medics. Well, is was while it lasted.

5. Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy. Miscast and floundering. Neither made much impression on the role and none at all on the audience. Or at least on me.

So what makes Davison — for me — the best, and his episodes the ones I wouldn't mind watching in the company of my most cynical and sarcastic friends? I'm certainly not claiming the show was suddenly high art or great drama — it was after all, the adventures of space man in a frock coat who lives in a flying telephone box — but for a brief three years it seemed to take the job of being an entertaining, adventure-romp for kids of all

ages with just the right mix of seriousness and vivacity, the way Lois And Clark does so adroitly now and the leading man, bless him. was really delivering.

Also check out these two interviews

Steven Moffat Interview He Wants You To Forget

Whilst he did backpeddle on a lot of these statements, personally I think these represent his true feelings. Look at the way he mistreated the First Doctor in Twice Upon A Time. That to me shows that his opinion of 60s Who hasn't improved.

To me him and the others were fans of the show as children and have a nostalgic love for it, but none of them have bothered to watch it much in recent years.

Self loathing fanboyism is a thing. It's the curse of so many franchises.
That's not self loathing fanboy that's preferring an era and an acting style. He may have over stated his case and alienated fans of previous eras. There's a lot of room for interpretation in a long running fandom look at how many debates we have on here and how heated they get. The Moffat era has its faults but also it's triumphs it just down to preference in the end.
 
Top Bottom