|
mind the walrus posted:Y'know I honestly can't disagree with a single word you've written here I can! Toxxupation posted:It's a really wretched finale. It's even more wretched when you think that this could've been the very, very final end of all of The Doctor's televised adventures if the show hadn't been such a ratings smash on its return. Could you imagine the ignominy of such a piss-poor, horribly conceived and executed episode like "The Parting of the Ways" being the capper to forty loving years of television? One shudders to think. There have been quite a few possible endings for Doctor Who. The most plausible ones being Revelation of the Daleks (after which the programme was put on 18 month hiatus), Survival (after which the programme was cancelled) and the TV Movie (no followup series was made). Because if the programme had ended abruptly in 1985 the final episode would have involved a DJ played by Alexei Sayle blowing up daleks through the power of rock and roll. Later on you complain about tonal shifts between stories - Revelation had huge tonal shifts between scenes and it's really a bit of a trainwreck in a lot of ways. Better than the episode that preceded it, certainly, but not many people consider this one a classic. Pigeonholing the programme into "kids show" because it's a bit of a campy mess - which Eccleston doesn't fit, agreed - is both a bit dismissive of what childrens' programming can be like and also not what Davies was trying to accomplish. Childrens' programming can be incredibly dark and serious on occasion, something Davies himself had previously shown in his programmes explicitly made for children alone, Dark Season and Century Falls. The latter of these is probably the darkest thing Davies has ever written covering (to quote wikipedia) "arson, black magic, and communal fear". After that he worked on a programme called Children's Ward, again explicitly for children, which included such things as child abuse, cancer and drug addiction. You can make programmming that has children in its target audience (Doctor Who is not a childrens' programme in the same way as the series I mentioned above were, and I'm not just saying that because I'm trying to pretend that the thing I enjoy isn't aimed at children) without dumbing it down. A lot of childrens' programming talks down to children and you really don't have to - Keith Boak, the director for Rose and Aliens of London/World War Three thought that a) Doctor Who is a kid's series and b) you need to talk down to kids, and you can see the effect that view had on the episodes which would otherwise be unquestionably some of Davies's strongest. You also make it sound like Eccleston was fighting Davies with his portrayal of the Doctor. Clearly that's not the case. The man gave a lot of gravitas to the role, but the PTSD Veteran elements are right there in the scripts. Many of the stand out moments from the series - the kind of moments that ensured that there was a series 2, which was far from guaranteed - are so good because Eccleston sells them so well. How can you praise Eccleston's scene in Dalek as being against the desire of the showrunner when Davies is the one that made it important, or necessary, or possible to have such a scene? Frankly, while Doctor Who became increasingly campy over the rest of Davies's tenure I'm fairly sure that's down to Tennant, and what Davies liked Tennant doing. His previous work with Davies was on the extremely campy Casanova, whereas Eccelston's was on the extremely not campy (mostly) The Second Coming. Toxxupation posted:As an example, let's look at "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances"; that's a two-parter penned by Moffat, an out-of-nowhere dark and emotional little tale centered around the horrors of the Third Reich's bombing of London. The very next episode? loving "Boom Town", aka the episode where the farty fat lady tries to surf on a planet. I think you're overstating quite how much the Blitz setting is important either to the story or to the viewer. The popular concept of The Blitz in the British psyche is not really of it as a horrific event, but of general indefatigable stiff-upper-lipability. The most famous use of the setting in the UK in the decade before the transmission of The Empty Child was a programme called Goodnight Sweetheart, a (sort of) science fiction comedy series starring Nicholas Lyndhurst (most famously previously seen in the bland but long running sitcom Only Fools and Horses) as a man who discovers a time portal in modern day London that takes him back to the same spot some 50 years earlier during the Blitz. He of course uses this portal to get a second wife and child with comedic effect. Having said that, this kind of tonal register change is part of the identity of Doctor Who. It can be within episodes (as mentioned above), it can be between stories. It continues on pretty much indefinitely. It's precisely the kind of tonal shift that exists in a whole bunch of episodes that you like a lot - campy nonsense added to something incredibly grim, only this time it has Tennant gurning away alongside. Toxxupation posted:Here's the crazy thing, though; the very best episodes of Series 1 aren't really...well...Doctor Who episodes. The Empty Child two-parter, besides being two Moffat scripts, is basically a period piece that just happens to have The Doctor; The Child could've very easily been a ghost and nothing would've been lost, really. "Dalek", too, is predicated on a backstory and interpretation of the Daleks that was proven wrong by the very end of this season; moreso, it's really just a character piece, a chance for Eccleston to flex his incredible acting muscles, not so much a Doctor Who episode in the RTD sense of the word. "Father's Day", really, is the only real episode of Series 1 that's emblematic of the show Davies, at his very best, wanted it to be; the other three are episodes that are so tonally dissonant from the show he wanted to create they feel good despite his influence, not because of it. You have a very narrow definition of "Doctor Who episode", one that completely fails to describe most of the programme's output for the forty or so years it has been on the air. As I said in the spoiler thread a while ago, MrL_JaKiri posted:I should run it, I have strong feelings that Doctor Who should be all sorts of crazy crap. Pure historical? Why not! High concept sci fi episode? Go right ahead. Script for Dracula with Dracula crossed out and SPACE DRACULA written over the top? Darn tooting I said this because the strength - you could say the point - of Doctor Who is that the story can be about anything, anywhere, at any point in time, with any tone (I should mention at this point that I can pick out excellent stories from the original run that fit into all the boxes I describe in that post). Labelling something as "This is Doctor Who!" or "This is not Doctor Who!" is pointless. Out of all the Doctor Who stories, good, bad, terrible, offensive, excellent, that I've seen I've seen very few that I would say don't really fit with the general flow of the rest of the programme. The Seeds of Doom is one, even though it's very good. I honestly can't think of another story I would say that about. The Romans could easily have been a drama with no-one but people from Roman times appearing. Likewise The Azteks, or any of the other pure historicals. Similarly for a lot of the science fiction stories - no reason to have the Doctor, in particular, in The Robots of Death or The Happiness Patrol. You could definitely have The Ambassadors OF DEATH! as a non-Doctor Who story because it's ripping off The Quatermass Experiment. I would say we wouldn't have to imagine it, but we do because the majority of the story has been unfortunately destroyed.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:The Seeds of Doom is one, even though it's very good. I honestly can't think of another story I would say that about. I would honestly say this about Blink. I think it's fantastic on a number of levels, but "being a Doctor Who episode" is not one of those levels. It feels to me like it's very much its own thing (and I am completely mystified by people who cite it as an ideal introduction to the series).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
People who want to use Blink as an introduction to the series are people who feel like they have something to prove. If the person you're trying to convince to watch it thinks of Doctor Who as being bad, or too silly to watch, or whatever, it's an episode you can use to demonstrate that the series can do something effective and scary even using the relatively silly pieces it's made out of. That doesn't necessarily make it a good introduction, because you're basically selling people something that isn't representative of the series as a whole, but it is understandable why some have the impulse to use it that way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:
I definitely agree with this. The show's strength, if it has one, is that its only real necessary elements are the Doctor, companion(s), and the box the Doctor travels in, and it's even okay if an episode is pretty light on one of those elements. The companions change, the person who's playing the Doctor changes, and the magic box can change its appearance on the inside (and technically the outside, but let's not go there). This means that the show can not only adjust to reflect entirely new sensibilities based on how television at large has changed season to season, it can change its tone on an episode to episode basis. It can be horror, or swashbuckling action, or a panto comedy. An episode of Doctor Who can be presented with dread seriousness or plant its tongue firmly in its cheek. In fact, one of my minor complaints about the showrunner model is that, because both showrunners have very obvious identifying quirks to their writing and write a significant portion of their episodes, seasons of Doctor Who not only have a "season arc," which is fine, but they have a sort of style template that can make things get a bit samey over the course of a few seasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
docbeard posted:I am completely mystified by people who cite it as an ideal introduction to the series Who are these people that say Blink is a good introductory episode? I've read several posts in the various Doctor Who threads, expressing bafflement about these people, but I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone say it is a good introduction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Diabolik900 posted:Who are these people that say Blink is a good introductory episode? I've read several posts in the various Doctor Who threads, expressing bafflement about these people, but I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone say it is a good introduction. It used to be a common opinion but we're so deep into the backlash that now the backlash to the backlash is about to begin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
It wouldn't be my top choice for an introductory episode, but I'd contend that it's generally a better entry point for skeptics than Rose. (Along with some disclaimers about it not being a standard episode, and probably some other good example episodes.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:It wouldn't be my top choice for an introductory episode, but I'd contend that it's generally a better entry point for skeptics than Rose. Many people think the next season is the best one to start with, but I'll hold off until we get to those.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
I can't say what my top choice for an introductory episode is yet. I guess Blink wouldn't be my second choice, but it wouldn't exactly be my last.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Diabolik900 posted:Who are these people that say Blink is a good introductory episode? I've read several posts in the various Doctor Who threads, expressing bafflement about these people, but I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone say it is a good introduction. I showed it to my dad, who had not watched the show, but I wasn't trying to hook him on it. Basically I just wanted to show him a good story. His first question was "are the Angels related to the Dail-eks?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:I showed it to my dad, who had not watched the show, but I wasn't trying to hook him on it. Basically I just wanted to show him a good story. His first question was "are the Angels related to the Dail-eks?" ON-LY BE-CAUSE THEY ARE DIFF-I-CULT TO EX-TER-MIN-AAAAAATE. IT MAKES CHRIST-MAS VE-RY AWK-WAAAAAARD!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
I'm imagining Dalek versions of the weeping angels now, and how infuriated they would be at being unable to move and exterminate while disgusting lower life forms walk around and look at them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
It is boggling to state that Eccleston's serious, haunted, and comedic performance is not what Davies had in mind. Davies' last work with Eccleston was the extremely dark and haunted The Second Coming, a grim fantasy about the Second Coming of Christ that ends with a fricking suicide. Davies knew what Eccleston was like as an actor going in, because he had previously directed Eccleston in a bleak drama. Go look at Eccleston's film and TV record -- he's not David Mitchell. (If you haven't seen "That Mitchell and Webb Look", a sketch comedy show, go look it up on YouTube.) The evidence just doesn't support the proposition. As everybody else said, there is no one genre of "Doctor Who" -- sometimes it's a farce, sometimes it's a drama, often it's a mixture of both. Trying to define one quintessential "Doctor Who" episode is an exercise in fanwank, because Who is a smorgasbord, not a beef stew. The quintessential "Doctor Who" episode is the one I enjoyed the best and most wish other episodes would be like. (Which in my case would be "The Talons of Weng-Chiang", minus the racial stereotypes, making it a very short episode.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The evidence just doesn't support the proposition. As everybody else said, there is no one genre of "Doctor Who" -- sometimes it's a farce, sometimes it's a drama, often it's a mixture of both. Trying to define one quintessential "Doctor Who" episode is an exercise in fanwank, because Who is a smorgasbord, not a beef stew. The quintessential "Doctor Who" episode is the one I enjoyed the best and most wish other episodes would be like. (Which in my case would be "The Talons of Weng-Chiang", minus the racial stereotypes, making it a very short episode.) That's part of what makes reading people's recaps of the show interesting though, because you get to see what that episode is for them and how it impacts their view of everything else by creating an oddly specific standard. It might be fan-wank, but to an extent it's reflexive. It's something you have to do because otherwise you're going to get lost at sea because this is a show that contains vast multitudes in terms of tone, style, scope and world-view.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:I'm imagining Dalek versions of the weeping angels now, and how infuriated they would be at being unable to move and exterminate while disgusting lower life forms walk around and look at them. You'd hear EXTERMINATE! and turn to see a statue. As soon as you moved at all... EXTERMINATE! and turn right back. They'd never get anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Republican Vampire posted:It's something you have to do because otherwise you're going to get lost at sea because this is a show that contains vast multitudes in terms of tone, style, scope and world-view. However, it is objectively true that Daleks in Manhattan sucks, and anybody who disagrees with me is Wrong. e: It makes me sad whenever I want to make a Dalek-stairs joke and it is no longer canonical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:e: It makes me sad whenever I want to make a Dalek-stairs joke and it is no longer canonical. Daleks have been able to go up stairs since before I was born.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Republican Vampire posted:Daleks have been able to go up stairs since before I was born. So you were born sometime after 1988, then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Timby posted:So you were born sometime after 1988, then. Is that when Remembrance aired?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Republican Vampire posted:Daleks have been able to go up stairs since before I was born. I have news for you: Han shot first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I have news for you: Han shot first. I think that giving the Daleks the newfound ability to hover in an anniversary story is a little different from Lucas obsessively recutting and remastering Star Wars away from the edit that made it a salvageable film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry. I was joking about being old. (Just as the original comment was a joke about being old. I am well aware that Daleks have been able to fly forever.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
The real weakness for Daleks is sand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Yeah, sorry. I was joking about being old. (Just as the original comment was a joke about being old. I am well aware that Daleks have been able to fly forever.) It does actually bring up an interesting point, regarding the sort of prototypical Who each fan has boiling in their brains: There's some kinda cutoff point between people who got in with the new series and people who are part of what Alasdair Wilkins (One of the two AV Club writers tasked with Doctor Who recaps) calls the last generation of Classic Doctor Who fans and people who only got in with the revived series. I think that that has a radical effect on people's expectations of the show and the Doctor character. It's not necessarily to do with age, but... Also I really wanna chain Oxx and Toxx down and make them watch Enemy of the World. Can we do that? Can we make them watch Enemy of the World?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
I got into the show through the revival and decided to watch a few of the classics that were available on Netflix at the time, then gave up and just watched all of the First Doctor from the beginning, because that kind of old timey, Twilight Zone stuff is extremely my poo poo. I just kind of continued from there. There are a lot of things I like about the revival better, but I really liked the serialized format of the old show. It led to a lot of goofy cliffhangers, sure, but there's just a lot of charm in hearing "EXTERMINATE!" followed by the screech of the end credits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
I don't like sci-fi as a rule, I don't like television in general, and I have even less respect for the bargain-basement trashiness of that time period's TV, so the old serials are a three-strike loser right out of the gate. Anyone who wants this show to go back to those days just gets a pointed finger and a laugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:I don't like sci-fi as a rule, I don't like television in general, and I have even less respect for the bargain-basement trashiness of that time period's TV, So you don't like Doctor Who at all? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
I guess I don't know what "going back to those days" would even entail, not that I've encountered a lot of people asking for it. Like... what does that even mean, besides having a tinier budget, splitting the script editor and producer responsibilities and having serials instead of episodes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:plitting the script editor and producer responsibilities I'm definitely in favor of this one at least, if the revival's proved anything it's that having one person doing both has been turning out to be a huge mess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Yeah Man posted:So you don't like Doctor Who at all? It's a mystery, isn't it. Like Occ said in that deeply embarrassing expose on our relationship, this thing runs counter to most of my tastes but I like it anyway. Closest thing I have to a reason is the same one Charlie Brooker gave - it runs on ideas, it's always got something new. No matter what some people try to say otherwise. Bicyclops posted:I guess I don't know what "going back to those days" would even entail, not that I've encountered a lot of people asking for it. Like... what does that even mean, besides having a tinier budget, splitting the script editor and producer responsibilities and having serials instead of episodes? The old episodes looked like garbage, dude. There's no getting around that. The acting was so wooden that everyone involved might as well have been mannequins with awful haircuts and all the more interesting lines read better on Wikiquote or something than actually spoken aloud because the sound-capture equipment was so cheap. The sets all looked like they'd blow away in a stiff breeze and the music was trash, even if it was this cargo-cult vanguard of true synth music or whatever. You had four to six hours dedicated to stories with all the verve and production value of a grade-school drama production containing about fifteen minutes of actual content.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:The old episodes looked like garbage, dude. There's no getting around that. The acting was so wooden that everyone involved might as well have been mannequins with awful haircuts and all the more interesting lines read better on Wikiquote or something than actually spoken aloud because the sound-capture equipment was so cheap. The sets all looked like they'd blow away in a stiff breeze and the music was trash, even if it was this cargo-cult vanguard of true synth music or whatever. You had four to six hours dedicated to stories with all the verve and production value of a grade-school drama production containing about fifteen minutes of actual content. That's just, like, your opinion, man
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:
Some of them do. Oxxidation posted:The acting was so wooden that everyone involved might as well have been mannequins with awful haircuts and all the more interesting lines read better on Wikiquote or something than actually spoken aloud because the sound-capture equipment was so cheap. The acting is often bad, but when it is, it tends to be the over-done scene chewing variety than "wooden," which is the last thing I would accuse most of it of being. Oxxidation posted:The sets all looked like they'd blow away in a stiff breeze and the music was trash, even if it was this cargo-cult vanguard of true synth music or whatever. You had four to six hours dedicated to stories with all the verve and production value of a grade-school drama production containing about fifteen minutes of actual content. You're describing the Five through Seven era, although the two - three hours stories usually at least had one hour of content
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
I don't think anyone wants the show to go back to those days in terms of style or production value... but at the same time I don't think that the revived show could never, ever pull off something like Enemy of the World because the storyline is complex, but also totally coherent. Plus the revival been way more clumsy when it comes to allegory. The Aliens of London/WW2 and the Happiness Patrol are both bad stories, but one is much more ambitious and much more interesting in terms of what it has to say while the other is basically Truther bullshit. There's value in the old show. Sure, you kinda have to make allowances for the period, but writing it off for that is like writing off Lucille Ball, or the surviving bits of The Quatermass Experiment. Also uh, the first couple series of the revival look like total vaseline lens butt garbage, have TERRIBLE mixing and asininely bombastic Murray Gold tunes, and have horrifically bad line readings. So I don't buy for a second that that's any barrier to entry for the original iteration of the show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
The thing is, many (most?) people who loved the old show also loved the new show. I made my husband, who'd been a fan since teenagerhood, watch Eccleston--he delayed because it was bound to be All Wrong-- and when he did, he said "It's exactly like Doctor Who ... only better!" You don't have to like the old show to access the new, far from it; but you can like the new show while seeing it as a continuation of the old. Which is really nice. If I were trying to persuade somebody to get the charm of the old show, I think "The Pyramids of Mars" wouldn't be a bad choice. Toxx would hate it instantaneously because of the hokiness of the Sutekh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Fungah! posted:I'm definitely in favor of this one at least, if the revival's proved anything it's that having one person doing both has been turning out to be a huge mess. People keep suggesting this as if the showrunner format is a unique experiment they've been trying with Doctor Who for the last decade, but isn't it exactly how just about every modern television series is produced? Logically, doesn't it make more sense to say that RTD and/or Moffat just haven't been great showrunners than to suggest that the entire concept of a showrunner doesn't work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Diabolik900 posted:People keep suggesting this as if the showrunner format is a unique experiment they've been trying with Doctor Who for the last decade, but isn't it exactly how just about every modern television series is produced? Logically, doesn't it make more sense to say that RTD and/or Moffat just haven't been great showrunners than to suggest that the entire concept of a showrunner doesn't work? One of the main criticisms is that it gives the show a lot more of a samey feel to it than The Good Old days; while Buffy (to pick an example that explicitly inspired Davies) may have been pretty popular and critically well received it is hardly a poster child for variety of tone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Diabolik900 posted:People keep suggesting this as if the showrunner format is a unique experiment they've been trying with Doctor Who for the last decade, but isn't it exactly how just about every modern television series is produced? Logically, doesn't it make more sense to say that RTD and/or Moffat just haven't been great showrunners than to suggest that the entire concept of a showrunner doesn't work? It's arguably a problem in a lot of other venues too (one could point to Joss Whedon). It's a mixed blessing either way and there are certainly advantages to it, but I think it works better in shows that have 26 episodes a season, if only because fewer of the total episodes are going to be written by one person, better in shows that are focused around a continuing plot and not monster-of-the-week, and it works best with writers who aren't very stylized. e: MrL_JaKiri posted:One of the main criticisms is that it gives the show a lot more of a samey feel to it than The Good Old days; while Buffy (to pick an example that explicitly inspired Davies) may have been pretty popular and critically well received it is hardly a poster child for variety of tone. And part of what makes it work for Buffy (if you feel that it does, and I personally do), is that Whedonspeak works when it's a crew of late high school/early college kids, as does the tongue-in-cheek postmodernism. It suits the subject matter, which has some uniformity even with the monster-of-the-week format. Doctor Who is best when the doors are open for variety. Bicyclops fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Diabolik900 posted:People keep suggesting this as if the showrunner format is a unique experiment they've been trying with Doctor Who for the last decade, but isn't it exactly how just about every modern television series is produced? Logically, doesn't it make more sense to say that RTD and/or Moffat just haven't been great showrunners than to suggest that the entire concept of a showrunner doesn't work? It's complicated. Moffat and Rusty aren't great showrunners, so that's true. But part of why it's true is that while the showrunner is standard in the US, it's only relatively recently become standard in the UK. It doesn't seem like it at first because vanity credits make it look like, say, Moffat had way more control over Coupling than he did, but if you look at media discussions of the notion of the showrunner? I'd actually argue that Broadchurch is one of the first UK series to have a totalized concept of the showrunner from cradle to grave, and that's super recent. Davies' run as the Showrunner of Doctor Who is part of what has popularized that sort of production. Davies and Moffat are kind of pioneering a more American model of production despite the fact that their histories are at odds with that. It especially shows in the PI leaks over the production issues that coincided with Moffat taking the Reigns and Rusty's staff leaving. e: Even then, the show is at a HUGE distance from showrunner-driven US programs in that it doesn't actually have a writers room where people are sent off on script and then the writers room collectively punches up and edits the result. Republican Vampire fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Dec 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Davies was a great show runner. He got the programme off the ground and turned it into a huge behemoth of marketing and nerd popularity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
Yeah, his issues were more in actually having the time to devote to scriptwriting, weren't they? In terms of managing everything, keeping everybody in line, making all the big decisions etc wasn't he pretty on top of everything?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 23:04
|
|
