?

Log in

Review: Doctor Who, The Crimson Horror - The Annals of Young Geoffrey: Hope brings a turtle [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Young Geoffrey

[ Website | Edifice Rex Online ]
[ Info | livejournal userinfo ]
[ Archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| EdificeRex Online ]

Review: Doctor Who, The Crimson Horror [May. 12th, 2013|08:30 pm]
Young Geoffrey
[Tags|, , , , , ]

Patterns of abuse

Screenshot from, The Crimson Horror, Doctor Who copyright 2013 BBC

I know a lot of you enjoyed "The Crimson Horror" and, in comparison to the previous week's travesty, you had every right to.

Nevertheless, what you enjoyed was still pretty lousy television and I guarantee that, unless you make a real study of it, you won't remember a damned thing about it a year from now.

Don't believe me?

Read "Carry On Up the Tardis!" to find out why it was the idea of "The Crimson Horror" you liked, and not the show itself.

As usual, both plot- and fun-spoilers abound, so enter at your own risk.

This entry was originally posted at http://ed-rex.dreamwidth.org/254550.html. Comment there using OpenID, or here as per normal.

linkReply

Comments:
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: ed_rex
2013-05-13 02:06 pm (UTC)

Avoiding the rumours

I really avoiding the rumours about next week, though in truth, it's not very hard, since I know longer really care from a pure audience perspective. With you, I'm expecting the worst, as these anniversary celebrations almost always are.

Remember the tedious and self-indulgent silliness that was "The Five Doctors"? Dunno what Tom Baker's real reasons for staying away from that were, but it turned out to be the right decision!

Still, I (not at all boldly) predict Saturday's episode will outdo that for badness by a long shot.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jamiewho
2013-05-14 02:27 am (UTC)
The Dyke Detectives? Really? Not cool.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ed_rex
2013-05-14 03:11 am (UTC)

Seriously?

Why in the world not? That's what they are (dykes and detectives) and that's two of the reasons they're popular.

As a friend has pointed out, when Toronto's Dyke March has corporate sponsors, the term is pretty freely available for use and even mockery.

At least, that's my opinion
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jamiewho
2013-05-14 09:21 am (UTC)
It's still considered a slur and if you're not a member of the group it refers to, it's not your word to reclaim.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ed_rex
2013-05-17 07:47 am (UTC)

Not quite what I said

Sorry for the delay in replying — life and getting burned out being yelled at in the doctorwho community kind of burned me out. Also, the latest episode ... sigh.

Anyway ...

...it's not your word to reclaim.

Per my subject-line, that's not what I said. I said that it had already been re-claimed and so was fair game.

What I think I should have done though, was to reiterate why I'd used it in the first place. Which was for two reasons. One to emphasize my belief that Moffat was throwing a bone to those who'd been complaining about the lack of (dare I say "queer"?) queer characters in post-Davies Who — remember the same episode that introduces Jeeny and Vastra also gave us the Fat and Thin Gay Marines? — as well as my believe that fans latched onto them because they were, well, hot dykes. It sure as well wasn't because they had well-developed characters.

So yeah. Besides the fact that in my world, the term is a neutral descriptive, in context I was using it to ram home my points.

I'd like to apologize, but the best I can do is offer that mealy-mouthed "I'm sorry you were offended" bit. 'Cause I am sorry you were offended, but only because I like you, not because I think I did anything wrong.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jamiewho
2013-05-17 10:07 am (UTC)
It's 6 am so all I'm getting here is "blah blah blah, safe behind my wall of privilege, blah blah blah".
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ed_rex
2013-05-17 03:36 pm (UTC)

Was nearly 6 AM when I posted ...

... so it's conceivable that's what I wrote. But I don't think so.

At risk of Godwining the whole conversation, drawing a cartoon of Muhammad is going to "offend" quite a lot of Muslims. That doesn't mean I think no one should draw pictures of Muhammad, ever.

I am privileged, but that doesn't automatically make me wrong.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)