Richard Develyn
Member
Living in hope that more missing episodes will come back to us.
Posts: 574
|
Post by Richard Develyn on Dec 5, 2017 14:31:11 GMT
With David Bradley taking on the 1st Doctor in the Christmas special, what do people think about the idea of *properly* remaking missing episodes using David Bradley instead of William Hartnell?
And is there anyone who could replace Patrick Troughton so that we could do the same with his missing episodes as well?
Perhaps once all hope of finding the missing episodes has gone?
Richard
|
|
|
Post by Simon B Kelly on Dec 5, 2017 15:06:58 GMT
I suggested this years ago as I would love to see all the Hartnell and Troughton years remade in full colour / HD / widescreen. Not as replacements for the originals, but as alternative versions for fans to enjoy.
David Bradley would be ideal for the Hartnell remakes. For the Troughtons I suggest either one of his sons, David or Michael, or perhaps even David's son, Sam Troughton!
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Dec 5, 2017 18:24:34 GMT
I imagine that I am in a very small minority, but I am not nearly as sanguine as you both are about remaking them.
An imperfect analogy would be to compare the 1937 version of "The Prisoner of Zenda" that stars Douglas Fairbanks Jr, with the 1952 version that stars Stewart Granger. Obviously, virtually everyone is a disappointment compared with Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., but even if I take that into account, I strongly prefer the B&W original over the colour remake. I think I would prefer just (B&W) animation and/or the best reconstructions we could make from the telesnaps and the existing footage over remakes.
Like I said, I am almost certainly in a very small minority.
|
|
|
Post by John W King on Dec 5, 2017 20:46:06 GMT
i think David Bradley would be fine for Hartnell and I think remakes to the original soundtrack would be satisfactory. Dear Patrick was a wonderful unique performer and would be very difficult to replace. Difficult but probably not impossible.If you accept animations then what is the problem with remakes. What ever approach in the eyes of the general. money paying public I would have thought remakes should work.
|
|
|
Post by tom rogers on Dec 5, 2017 22:39:54 GMT
I imagine that I am in a very small minority, but I am not nearly as sanguine as you both are about remaking them. An imperfect analogy would be to compare the 1937 version of "The Prisoner of Zenda" that stars Douglas Fairbanks Jr, with the 1952 version that stars Stewart Granger. Obviously, virtually everyone is a disappointment compared with Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., but even if I take that into account, I strongly prefer the B&W original over the colour remake. I think I would prefer just (B&W) animation and/or the best reconstructions we could make from the telesnaps and the existing footage over remakes. Like I said, I am almost certainly in a very small minority. Think I am in that small group with you, Lou. While I would absolutely applaud anyone trying to "help" in regards lost episodes, I would also much prefer B&W animation and/or telesnap reconstructions - at least there we would have the original sound recordings (a big, big point IMHO). Tom
|
|
|
Post by Robert Lia on Dec 5, 2017 23:16:58 GMT
If there going to be remade with a new cast I think Big Finish is the way to go. You can only find some many actors who look and sound like the original cast members.
|
|
|
Post by cjones on Dec 6, 2017 0:31:53 GMT
I imagine that I am in a very small minority, but I am not nearly as sanguine as you both are about remaking them. An imperfect analogy would be to compare the 1937 version of "The Prisoner of Zenda" that stars Douglas Fairbanks Jr, with the 1952 version that stars Stewart Granger. Obviously, virtually everyone is a disappointment compared with Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., but even if I take that into account, I strongly prefer the B&W original over the colour remake. I think I would prefer just (B&W) animation and/or the best reconstructions we could make from the telesnaps and the existing footage over remakes. Like I said, I am almost certainly in a very small minority. Think I am in that small group with you, Lou. While I would absolutely applaud anyone trying to "help" in regards lost episodes, I would also much prefer B&W animation and/or telesnap reconstructions - at least there we would have the original sound recordings (a big, big point IMHO). Tom Me too. Curiously enough, I can't quite put my finger on what dismays me about the idea. But something does. Recons and animations somehow seem infinitely preferable.
|
|
|
Post by bevanthomas on Dec 6, 2017 7:27:25 GMT
I could argue that I'd do a passable Trouty (even trained as an actor) but...
...I really don't like the idea of remakes either. Leave the era in the past where it belongs and look to the future. Animations only in lieu of the actual thing.
|
|
Richard Develyn
Member
Living in hope that more missing episodes will come back to us.
Posts: 574
|
Post by Richard Develyn on Dec 6, 2017 12:20:07 GMT
I saw Web of Fear and Fury from the Deep on stage done by an amateur group on the south coast and I must admit I quite enjoyed it (Web especially).
I would always prefer the originals, by miles, but I would prefer a professional remake to animations or reconstructions.
Richard
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Coles on Dec 6, 2017 17:22:42 GMT
I didn't think David Bradley was that much like William Hartnell to be honest
but the real issue here is - WOULD they be remakes of the missing or incomplete stories AS WERE...or 'modern' TV versions carefully not upsetting anybody in any remotely possible way (except middle class white straight males - they don't matter of course) and duly pandering to 'modern attitudes' we ALL obviously MUST have - yes ?
- so would we just get a very sanitised 'correct' colour version with better pacing, modern camerawork, modern direction carefully made by today's standards (and today's bigotry where felt due) made for 'today's TV' etc ?
which would not be any kind of proper remake of the lost items just an updated 'corrected' (??) style new version
Realistically, I can't see there would ever be enough interest from the wider public (Pat Troughton apparently offered to remake 'Evil of The Daleks' in colour when he and Fraser did 'The Two Doctors' - BBC wern't interested then even with the two original stars who both still looked good !)
so it's just a wish really - Modern BBC are only interested in 'noowho' now and certainly wouldn't be likely to want something as old fashioned as a male Doctor let alone a sixties male Doctor or two drawing any attention away from Chibbers great new ....(insert suitable word) - would they ??
Best Wishes Patrick
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Dec 6, 2017 20:32:01 GMT
It’s important to remember that stories are written with the production constraints of the era in mind. In the 60s you, generally, didn’t have much location filming and the studio work was planned to use a relatively few number of sets per episode and as few recording breaks as possible. A lot of stories were, compared to today, very slow because of the technical limitations and because the budget had to be spread fairly thinly.
Think of Evil 2, which I enjoyed tremendously - but the plot barely advances over the course of 25 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Dec 7, 2017 0:42:30 GMT
Patrick and John's replies are the best practical reasons why the BBC would probably never film remakes.
Stories have much faster pacing now - although they lose a lot of nuance and characterisation. Would they remake "The Evil of the Daleks" as 7 episodes? I doubt it.
I am glad that the casting and portrayal of society is more cosmopolitan nowadays, but what would people think of recasting all the roles with how the world looks now. (I can't imagine them going with a nearly all-Caucasoid cast for "Marco Polo" or the really condescending attitude towards women in "Galaxy Four".)
And I don't know how I would react to not having bubble bath at the climax of "Fury from the Deep" or post-production adding CGI snow to "The Abominable Snowmen"?
|
|
|
Post by markjhaley on Dec 7, 2017 10:40:52 GMT
This guy was at one of my gigs last year:
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Dec 7, 2017 12:23:30 GMT
It’s worth remembering that the average story length has steadily reduced - long before noowho.
One of the things Barry Letts and Terrance Dicks did was to move to more, but shorter, stories - typically they’d have three six parters and two four parters to give a season of twenty six episodes.
Subsequently Philip Hinchcliffe and Robert Holmes moved to five four parters and one six parter - and the six parters subsequently went.
The average feature film is about 90 to 120 minutes - I saw the new “Murder on the Orient Express” yesterday which was 114 minutes. Four 25 minute episodes, without the credits and reprises is about 92 to 96 minutes.
Look back at the six parters and there aren’t very many that are “true” six parters - by which I mean a story that needs more than two hours to tell. There are the 2 plus 4, such as Seeds of Doom or Invasion of Time. Then there are the stories with (at least) one episode of running around - such as Invasion of the Dinosaurs or Planet of the Spiders - or padding - such as Enemy of the World.
|
|
Richard Develyn
Member
Living in hope that more missing episodes will come back to us.
Posts: 574
|
Post by Richard Develyn on Dec 7, 2017 17:42:15 GMT
Although Doctor Who seems to be faster paced these days, when I look at the "TV boxed set" area that you get from Amazon and co, it seems much more like old Doctor Who.
I've watched Vikings all the way through, for example, and I wouldn't say that was fast paced. Or American Gods.
Richard
|
|