It's not a re-conception. It's a sequel. Each sequel does some stuff differently, and you can't please everyone.
Whatever happened to the still beating heart of a virgin? No one has any standards anymore.
Giles ,'Lies My Parents Told Me'
The Minearverse 4: Support Group for Clumsy People
[NAFDA] "There will be an occasional happy, so that it might be crushed under the boot of the writer." From Zorro to Angel (including Wonderfalls and The Inside), this is where Buffistas come to anoint themselves in the bloodbath.
§ ita § - Mar 06, 2006 4:03:05 am PST #8570 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
amych - Mar 06, 2006 4:10:31 am PST #8571 of 10001
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
It's not a re-conception. It's a sequel.
Not to mention it's what, the 10th? Big changes pretty much define Dr Who.
(also, I fifth or whatever the very good.)
Largo - Mar 06, 2006 5:50:22 am PST #8572 of 10001
It's not a re-conception. It's a sequel.
If you're talking about the new "Who," then I'd have to agree. The new BSG, however, isn't a continuation of the original series. I think Ronald D. Moore has made that clear.
Could someone do me a favor and let the posters at whedonesque.com know, in the thread marked "For the Love of Brigadoon," that "Brigadoon" will be on Turner Classic Movies (TCM), on Wednesday (03/08) morning, at 6:00 AM EST? I know Joss expressed in an interview recently that it was his favorite MGM musical, and that many wanted to see it, too.
I would let them know myself, but, that's a little hard to do when you're not registered there.
ETA: Nevermind about posting the info. at whedonesque.com. I've already e-mailed one of the mods. However, if you've posted it there already, much thanks.
§ ita § - Mar 06, 2006 5:53:12 am PST #8573 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I was responding to this:
it's not like the new "Battlestar Galactica," where alot of people were (initially) resistant to the re-conception.
to indicate that Who's not a re-conception.
Largo - Mar 06, 2006 6:06:06 am PST #8574 of 10001
Oh, I see, ita. Thanks for clarifying, and I'm sorry for the confusion on my part, too. Syntax is so not my friend these days.
Polter-Cow - Mar 06, 2006 3:15:28 pm PST #8575 of 10001
What else besides ramen can you scoop? YOU CAN SCOOP THIS WORLD FROM DARKNESS!
Hmmm, I totally misunderstood what Tamara was saying -- I know we're getting the 05 Who in two weeks (less now!) - but I thought she meant that '06 Who is starting in the UK in two weeks? Is it?
That's what I thought she meant as well. The whole season/series thing is very confusing. Damn Brits.
Who's not a re-conception.
It isn't, but from what I've heard from fans of the old version, it does seem to be quite a bit different in terms of style. For instance, the Companion doesn't normally have quite so much to do.
§ ita § - Mar 06, 2006 4:09:30 pm PST #8576 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I think it's a lot more...sophisticated than the other 8, but they're all tied to their times.
§ ita § - Mar 06, 2006 4:13:26 pm PST #8577 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Also there isn't exactly an 'old version.' Which was my point.
Tamara - Mar 06, 2006 4:37:41 pm PST #8578 of 10001
You know, we could experiment and cancel football.
Sorry for the confusion. I was only talking about the 05 season on SciFi here in the US. I know nothing about what is showing in the UK except that they get The Inside episodes we didn't. Damn them.
sumi - Mar 06, 2006 4:48:22 pm PST #8579 of 10001
Art Crawl!!!
All the BBC website would say is that the 06 Who starts in the Spring.