Talk:Robert Holmes: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
m (→ Bot: Reporting unavailable external link) Tag: Reverted |
m (this bot script identified more false positives than actual dead links so I'm reverting all of its talk page edits) Tag: Manual revert |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Does this have any place on a wiki, and does it even remotely follow our policies? Is it even trying to be neutral or substantiate who holds these views? -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 22:54, December 30, 2015 (UTC) | Does this have any place on a wiki, and does it even remotely follow our policies? Is it even trying to be neutral or substantiate who holds these views? -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 22:54, December 30, 2015 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:19, 25 April 2023
Analysis section[[edit source]]
Removed "analysis section", which seems to be the opinionating of one or two editors.
- Many of Holmes' scripts recycled the same plot: a crippled (often deformed) villain is trapped in an underground or otherwise isolated lair, dependent upon the physical or mental strength of servants. Their ultimate goal is to escape and/or restore themselves to their former power. This broad outline applies to some extent to both Holmes' first and last completed stories, as well as four of his most celebrated contributions, Pyramids of Mars, The Deadly Assassin, The Talons of Weng-Chiang, and The Caves of Androzani.
- This is not to say Holmes was a formulaic writer. The stories mentioned do not appear notably similar. This is probably due to the presence of another distinctive Holmes quality: pastiches of well-known films and fiction. This was particularly evident during his time as script editor. Gothic literature and pulp fiction provided Holmes with particularly rich pickings.
- Also running through Holmes' scripts are a love of colourful, often bizarre or esoteric language, and a fondness for larger-than-life characterisation. He had a particularly good line in lovable rogues. They often came in pairs and their by-play provides an ironic commentary on the events of the story.
Does this have any place on a wiki, and does it even remotely follow our policies? Is it even trying to be neutral or substantiate who holds these views? -- Tybort (talk page) 22:54, December 30, 2015 (UTC)
