Noise to Signal

Login disabled.

Moffat gets the hat-trick...

winning the Hugo for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form for an absolutely staggering third year in a row. It’s hard to disagree with the award, given that “Blink” is not only the best episode of New Who, but quite probably the best thing that’s been on telly in years if not decades; but on the other hand, there’s a nagging feeling that maybe, just maybe, it should have been Paul Cornell’s turn this time out, given that - all things considered - “Human Nature” is perhaps a deeper and more substantial piece of work (and because he’s already lost out to Moff once, although once again you couldn’t really argue with the “Empty Child” win).

Anyway, congratulations to Moffat (and indeed to all the other Hugo winners), and the win once again shows that the programme really is falling into the absolute best possible hands in 2010…

About this entry


Comments

> given that “Blink” is not only the best episode of New Who

Debatable, but go on…

> quite probably the best thing that’s been on telly in years if not decades

Now that’s pushing it a little… I enjoyed the last episode of One Foot In The Grave more.

> although once again you couldn’t really argue with the “Empty Child” win

You could if you really wanted to. Though that 2-parter is better than Blink I’d say.

> congratulations to Moffat (and indeed to all the other Hugo winners)

You’re including the Stardust win in that? I don’t think I’ve ever been in as much pain when watching a film. And the worst thing is I KNOW loads of people love the fuck out of it.

By performingmonkey
August 11, 2008 @ 2:25 am

reply / #


> And the worst thing is I KNOW loads of people love the fuck out of it.

Evenin’.

Andrew's picture

By Andrew
August 11, 2008 @ 2:28 am

reply / #


Stardust was very disappointing. Perhaps especially because it wasted Mark Heap’s talents…and, of course, Robert De Niro was just plain shockingly awful in the film. That and it was just boring, which is one of the seven deadly cinematic sins.

I don’t agree with Connie Willis’s win, either. She’s good, but Gene Wolfe is so much better, and he hasn’t won a single Hugo. Ever.

Austin Ross's picture

By Austin Ross
August 11, 2008 @ 2:35 am

reply / #


I liked Stardust. It took Gaiman’s least entertaining book and, minor feminist issues aside, turned it into something good fun. The only real problem was how woefully it underused the brothers of Stormhold plot.

Also, you can’t really say it “wasted Mark Heap’s talents” when he and the other dead brothers were specifically cast as quick-appearance cameos…

Seb Patrick's picture

By Seb Patrick
August 11, 2008 @ 7:21 am

reply / #


Also : are you not allowed to congratulate winners if you thought something else should have won? Is that not called “being a bad loser”?

Seb Patrick's picture

By Seb Patrick
August 11, 2008 @ 7:22 am

reply / #


> And the worst thing is I KNOW loads of people love the fuck out of it.

Aww, but it is such a cute little fun fantasy flick. I liked it!

Marleen's picture

By Marleen
August 11, 2008 @ 8:47 am

reply / #


> how woefully it underused the brothers of Stormhold plot.

The commentary suggests that the brothers had a lot more business in the original cut. I still have hopes of a special edition DVD with deleted scenes or an extended cut.

Andrew's picture

By Andrew
August 11, 2008 @ 10:34 am

reply / #


I admit I laughed at a lot of it but only due to how ridiculously terrible some parts are. That’s probably a good thing in hindsight. Even though Princess Bride crossed with Labyrinth it ain’t. I didn’t laugh at Eragon for a second, so at least Stardust has one up on that atrocity (so, Rachel Weisz will do a dragon voiceover for one of the worst films ever made and yet she wouldn’t get off her arse and appear in the Mummy sequel…)

I haven’t read Gaiman’s book but no doubt a much better film could have been made of it. The direction is so so bad (apart from in this scene, but that’s because it’s just allowing Claire Danes to act). Perhaps not as dismal as Chris Weitz’s The Golden Compass (I’m not gonna start on that, no-one ever should) but certainly getting there.

God I have such a shit argument, as always. I slag off the film but then find a clip of it I actually like. The rest of it’s utter bullshit though. De Niro should have been forced not to appear in it.

By performingmonkey
August 12, 2008 @ 9:45 pm

reply / #


>minor feminist issues aside

What is a ‘minor feminist issue’?

Tanya Jones's picture

By Tanya Jones
August 17, 2008 @ 12:18 am

reply / #


Well, there are reservations about it from a feminist perspective that to me were fairly minor in the great scheme of things but which still irked a little bit - namely that Yvaine doesn’t really do anything, and it’s part of that whole fantasy tradition of the “fair maiden in distress”. It’s not as bad as The Princess Bride for that, but it’s still a film where - aside from the evil Michelle Pfeiffer - pretty much everything is done by, and revolves around, the men. Some people would find that more of a problem than others, definitely - hence why it was “minor” from my perspective (Rachel found it rather more irritating) in what was otherwise a pretty good film.

Seb Patrick's picture

By Seb Patrick
August 17, 2008 @ 12:30 am

reply / #


Oh, I see; the upholding of boring cliches, basically…

Tanya Jones's picture

By Tanya Jones
August 22, 2008 @ 6:50 pm

reply / #


Yeah. You can argue that it’s not any one film’s responsibility to break all the conventions that have gone before it, but given that Stardust played with - rather than rigidly adhering to - certain other conventions of the genre, it would have been nice (especially given the names involved in writing it) to have seen it break free from that sort of thing a bit more. Yvaine is just a bit unnecessarily ineffectual. Although at least she doesn’t get fridged, which happened far too often in films this summer ;-)

Seb Patrick's picture

By Seb Patrick
August 24, 2008 @ 1:07 am

reply / #