Sunday, September 7, 2014

Spara reviews Robots of Sherwood!

OK, Mark Gatiss is not the first writer to pen a Doctor Who/Robin Hood crossover story. I wrote mine several years ago and I am more than happy for Gatiss to attempt his own version and I'd be interested to know how people think his version compares to mine.

(Miles "Balls of Steel" Reid-Lobatto says: "It'll have less disgusting and misogynistic references to rape, that's for damn certain. But then again, finding a Sparacus penned story which doesn't portray women in an utterly disgusting fashion is rare indeed. You'd find better treatment of women in a Gor novel." while many more wisely conclude I have said all there is to say on the subect.)

I am a credible Doctor Who writer. My work is well researched and largely serious in tone. 

(Not touching that one. As many others have no doubt said about Mr. Goacher.)

If it is true that this episode is a comedy, then it is a mistake. This kind of episode has no place in Doctor Who. It can make us laugh occasionally, but the laughter should be through the clever, witty line or intelligent gallows humour quip. We have had enough of silly comedy episodes and silly comedy characters such as Vastra, Jenny & Strax. The show needs to maintain its credibility or it will continue to go downhill.

(Interestingly, spara suggests it is impossible for the show to improve, only stop getting any worse.)

6/10. That was watchable but very very silly.

(I refer the dishonorable member to the lack of Catweazle, Johnny Vegas, canned laughter or adding random consonants to the villain's names to stop Eric Saward suing.)

What was the need for the sci fi plot? Given that the sci fi elements were both predictable and rather silly. Why didn't Gatiss just make it an historical.

(Perhaps because a child audience enjoys the idea of Robin Hood fighting robots?)

Kids love ice cream but I wouldn't expect an ice cream van to turn up in medieval England.

(But he does expect gold-obssessed fundamentalist robot insurgents?!?)

How about actually educating children as well as entertaining them.

(Again. Catweazle. Texting. Shooting alien voles through the eyeball for shits and giggles.)

My story featured characterisation that was edgier and more developed.

(Well, admittedly, ROS didn't have Clara tell Robin to forget Marion because she'd probably already been raped and thus be no good for sex...)

'Lord of the Reedy River' had some very clear comedy moments. Friar Tuck was used for hilarious comic relief.

(Everyone called him a "fat cunt" and there was canned laughter.)

I find it odd that I should be criticised for using canned audience laughter when at the same time Robots of Sherwood is being praised for its use of humour.

(Do you? Seriously, do you?)

I don't understand the resentment towards canned laughter. It lightens the mood and worked perfectly well in classic comedies such as 'On the Buses'. It would not be suitable for all Doctor Who episodes, just the lighter ones.

(So what's wrong with Robots of Sherwood being a light-hearted story?)

I find it odd that I should be criticised for using canned audience laughter when at the same time Robots of Sherwood is being praised for its use of humour.

That take on the legend had little to offer other than a collection of stereotypes and a comedic romp. No attempt to develop the theme of Norman oppression of the peasants or the mythological subtexts present in the Richard Carpenter series. No real robbing of the rich to give to the poor either.

(Or a lengthy scene of the merry men nude bathing while Adam Rickitt masturbates uncontrollably.)

The point is that the Robin Hood legends offer the potential for far more than a light romp, even in a 45 min episode

(Though this is the first light romp since The Crimson Terror, by... what a coincidence!)

In the original medieval ballads Robin was a rather dark and violent character. Later he became a wronged dispossessed Saxon robbing the rich to give to the poor and fighting injustice. Later still he was the son of the spirit of the forest. None of these elements were really explored.

(Indeed. When Robin headbutted the guard he should have screamed "WHAT A POOF!")

You've never heard of the Murdrum Fine then. Or the Frankpledge. Or the Forest Laws and all the other ways the Normans oppressed the peasants...

(You still love Capaldi, don't you?)

Capaldi's Doctor has become a stubborn boy! Refusing to accept that Robin could be a real person, behaving like a squabbling boy with Robin and Clara having to step in and remind him that he is an adult..... All of this after the previous episodes promised a more convincing, adult Doctor!

(Who cares? It's a bit of fun!)

Life is not fun. It is a difficult journey through a range of disappointments and crises, followed by old age and death.

(Jesus Christ, dude, lighten up!)

Or in other words:
"I can't cope with people having a different opinion from myself."

(Couldn't have put it better myself.)


Miles Reid-Lobatto said...

In the original medieval ballards, Robin Hood was played by Christian Bale and growled a lot.

Youth of Australia said...

In the original ballads, he was just a trickster who suckered folks out of money by the cunning ploy of "Hey, did I say dinner was free?"