|
Post by Brad Phipps on Nov 25, 2013 0:27:19 GMT
No that was Hartnell's clash with producer John Wiles (he got on fine with later producer Innes Lloyd & female director Paddy Russell) I just thought it was the director he was conferring with, completely forgot about the Wiles feud.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2013 0:50:08 GMT
I'm just thankful that we got to see a 50th and a doco thru the eyes of William Hartnell. Thanks BBC!
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 25, 2013 5:12:48 GMT
Having seen both now, I can say (as predicted though) that An Adventure In Space And Time was far better than the unremarkable 75 minute joke last night which was supposed to celebrate 50 years of Doctor Who. What on earth has happened to the programme?!? Maybe we need to look at it as an 8th anniversary Ordinary that happens to take place in the 50th anniversary year of the show it's loosely based on? I felt it was like a themed pub or something, rather than the real thing. But the Beeb (and Michael Grade, I understand) clearly feel that broader appeal is better than authenticity. Would Sydney Newman be going pop-pop-pop! over the new take on his show? I really, really doubt it. Eight years saw us go from the junkyard to the Master the first time around. Since '05, it's been the same old - year after year. Why set the bar so low, be so timid and undemanding, to accept the show of surprise, the unexpected and renewal must be made the same way by the same people, indefinitely? Dicks and Letts knew the Pertwee exile was a misstep, and felt much the same about the stuffy tiredness of the 80s. So why do it again? Terrance has talked about the lack of narrative structure, and he's not wrong. So we hear such things made into a gag in TDOTD by having Celebrity Who go on about the silliness. Music and shmaltz and incredible pacing make things much easier to digest for those who'd get lost in a six or seven parter - be it from the Lambert or Hinchclife era. But is it better? I can only say that I am ecstatic that I saw AAISAT after TDOTD. I was so bored and unimpressed by the latter, and the biopic really really boosted my spirits! I thought Australia was ripped off getting to see it last, but now I think it was the best surprise of the anniversary. I only wish it was playing at the cinema, I'd have loved to see it there!
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 25, 2013 5:24:57 GMT
The only bit I didn't like about last night's drama was the representation of Patrick Troughton. Awful - and nothing like him at all! I see he hardly got mentioned again in tonight's Culture Show (let alone a clip; rushing through to Pertwee as if he was doctor number 2!). Agreed, Laurence. I was surprised about this. It's such a short bit, yet it's important to do properly if it's to be done at all. Why not get someone more in striking distance of the man, visually, and dub the voice? They did this for Orson Welles in Ed Wood. Or do a bit of CGI jiggery pokery of old footage as seems to be done a bit of late on the modern series, and overlay a new voice track. Even a mix of telesnaps with voice overs, so we see things from that angle, and have "live" voice overs mixing David Bradley with a good Pat impersonator. Some people like Frazer Hines's version as heard on the BF audios. I'm sure he would have done it if asked and was available. Sad to hear our cosmic hobo getting overlooked on the Culture Show, particularly on the back of the recent returns!
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 25, 2013 5:29:54 GMT
It would be nice if the BBC could lump all their 50th Anniversary specials together in 1 set together with AAITAS.I absolutely loved Brian Cox's The Science of Dr.Who-a truly wonderful and soulful explanation of the central physical ideas in Dr.Who,and Matthew Sweet's examination of the programme which was on last night.It was a superb factual companion piece to AAITAS,but extended the narrative to the present day.But a disturbing piece in that was how JNT may have abused his fans during the 1980s.Good grief!Did no-one have consensual and legitimate sex before 2010?Terrible that these accusations only come out after the person in question has died and can't defend themselves.A shame that such a sordid fact was brought up needlessly and to satisfy whom...? An anniversary box set of themed programmes makes sense to me, Jaspal - and if it were on Blu-Ray, I'd be thrilled. Hell, just give me AAISAT in that format, please - without having to forego the extras and buy TDOTD, which I refuse to do. The JNT thing - egads! I'm clearly out of the loop if this is doing the rounds, perhaps an outgrowth of Yewtree or the Beeb's sensitivity to such matters? In any case, seems legally murky ground - and hopefully not the parameters of the next tabloid flurry about the show.
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 25, 2013 5:41:11 GMT
I loved the tv movie, very moving and well written. I felt it could've done more than it did; it felt like it was holding onto Verity's tenure longer than it should've, probably to keep the lovely Jessica Raine around longer, and I'd loved to have seen The Daleks Master Plan get a mention. Verity's final ep was Mission to the Unknown but the Daleks present at her goodbye party were the original (non-solar paneled midriff) versions. I also missed even a passing mention of David Whitaker, who was the first script editor and responsible for writing diamonds like Power and Enemy. I think the final scene was very badly done, to include Matt there. A shot of his granddaughter, who had been with him and supporting him right through the movie (whether she was present at the taping of The Tenth Planet 4 or not), would've been better. I agree with the post above, Troughton was bloody awful and he seemed more of a caricature than a homage. All in all, a far better production than what we've seen coming from Moffat in recent years. With you on the inclusion of Matt Smith. Not a slam of the bloke, but the story isn't about him or the current era. I think Jessica Carney was the person whom we ought to have seen in that shot, they really did miss a trick there. Oddly, just two nights prior to AAISAT, was watching an ep of Lovejoy and was nicely surprised to see her on the screen! I missed Anneke Wills, but caught the other 60s folk I think - but the biggest surprise was William Russell, whose distinctive voice I didn't cotton to until nearly the end of the scene! Watched An Unearthly Child, pilot and all, with my Mum the night before - and she's no Who fan. But she loved it and really enjoyed AAISAT, more so as she had the show fresh in her mind. Anyone know about the cottage used to film the Hartnell home? It looked lovely, is it really where Bill lived or an approximate match/recreation?
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 25, 2013 5:58:35 GMT
Now that this has aired, has anyone any idea of the ratings? I hope it did very well. It's dead easy to imagine more of them, isn't it? Troughton's story would have much to commend it, and would introduce some familiar faces (Dicks and Letts, Holmes) we'd see more of. And the end - possibly the end of Who in the 60s, maybe for keeps - would make for an actual cliffhanger style ending! Pertwee's movie would be very watchable, for all sorts of reasons - his background and slight nervousness, getting on with new people, losing Sherwin, gaining Katy, Delgado - the triumph and the tragedy, and so on, leading up to the end. Tom's tale wouldn't be a snoozer either. It could even start away from the production office and focus on him working on stage, screen, and building sites - before becoming the face of the phenomenon with all that entailed, within and without. The scaring of children as claimed by Mary Whitehouse, the movie project with Ian Marter, on and on - leading ultimately to Season 18. Even a movie about the 80s, the highs and lows, would be good viewing - though perhaps a little less happy to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Tipple on Nov 25, 2013 6:51:23 GMT
I thought 'The day of the Doctor' and 'An Adventure in Space and Time' were equally as brilliant, even loved 'Five(ish) Doctors'
It's been a cracker of an anniversary year, now bring on Marco Polo!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2013 8:44:07 GMT
10 million in the overnighters.
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 25, 2013 10:08:45 GMT
10 million in the overnighters. Thanks Andrew! Presumably this is just the UK. How does this compare in general terms? Did it win the slot? Was this a good return? Hopefully it's all positive news across the board!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2013 10:24:58 GMT
I felt it was like a themed pub or something, rather than the real thing. But the Beeb (and Michael Grade, I understand) clearly feel that broader appeal is better than authenticity. Would Sydney Newman be going pop-pop-pop! over the new take on his show? I really, really doubt it. Eight years saw us go from the junkyard to the Master the first time around. Since '05, it's been the same old - year after year. Why set the bar so low, be so timid and undemanding, to accept the show of surprise, the unexpected and renewal must be made the same way by the same people, indefinitely? Dicks and Letts knew the Pertwee exile was a misstep, and felt much the same about the stuffy tiredness of the 80s. So why do it again? Terrance has talked about the lack of narrative structure, and he's not wrong. The theme pub analogy is a good one. It's become a completely soulless programme; a vacuum with all the oxygen and substance sucked out. I've no idea what Newman would think of DW now although he didn't believe in dumbing down for an audience. I'm sure he'd say that things need to evolve and not remain static. All the same, I'm sure it wouldn't be his cup of tea either. But the point needs to be made that all change is not necessarily progress and while the show has changed, I can't honestly think it's any better for it. It's technically expedient but lacking heart and soul. I found the Earthbound Pertwee era to be an exciting new direction for the show rather than a misstep (I think Letts / Dicks were way wrong on that) - one of the best eras, in fact (Russell Davies held it in such high esteem that he used it as a blueprint for the modern series). Even so, it wouldn't be a good idea to repeat that formula forever and the show needs to go somewhere totally different every few years to stay fresh. I hadn't heard the Dicks remark about lack of narrative structure though - was this a recent comment? If so, bang on, in fact. It's the thing I have most problems with in the current show (i.e. lack of structure, dramatic pacing and balance / sense of dynamics). The special was a sprawling mess with no overall shape or focus, which shouldn't be the case as a so-called professional writer was responsible for what we saw on screen. There should be sensible limits imposed on what's possible in the series too as it always seems that whatever situation on a cosmic scale occurs, it can simply be "undone" by writing the reverse in at the end! It's fan-boy writing at it's worst and so maybe the series needs to be taken on by someone who isn't a fan as such and who simply wants to create the best drama they can. What we get nowadays in Dr.Who is (as Dan remarked above) an effects-laden show with story and real drama taking second place. The mix is completely awry generally and there is way too much humour in there for one thing. It was very hard to feel any sense of drama or of anything being at stake as - scene after scene, time after time - this was wrecked by childish joking around and making light of everything. In classic DW, the overall tone is more serious and, although humour is there, it doesn't destroy the seriousness of the situation. Today's writers need to go back and learn the basics, it seems. Although Capaldi is potentially another great doctor, I have little expectation for him to achieve that greatness as the production style (and probably the same producer for the forseeable future as well) is going to wreck any chances of that happening. If they used the regeneration as a "re-boot" (hate that word but going with that) and a chance to go back to basics, it could happen. Back to basics though being a return to telling self-contained stories with a beginning, a middle and an end, throwing out all the heavy inter-story continuity (which turns off the casual viewer anyway) and simplifying. I doubt it will happen though.
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 25, 2013 10:56:19 GMT
I felt it was like a themed pub or something, rather than the real thing. But the Beeb (and Michael Grade, I understand) clearly feel that broader appeal is better than authenticity. Would Sydney Newman be going pop-pop-pop! over the new take on his show? I really, really doubt it. Eight years saw us go from the junkyard to the Master the first time around. Since '05, it's been the same old - year after year. Why set the bar so low, be so timid and undemanding, to accept the show of surprise, the unexpected and renewal must be made the same way by the same people, indefinitely? Dicks and Letts knew the Pertwee exile was a misstep, and felt much the same about the stuffy tiredness of the 80s. So why do it again? Terrance has talked about the lack of narrative structure, and he's not wrong. The theme pub analogy is a good one. It's become a completely soulless programme; a vacuum with all the oxygen and substance sucked out. I've no idea what Newman would think of DW now although he didn't believe in dumbing down for an audience. I'm sure he'd say that things need to evolve and not remain static. All the same, I'm sure it wouldn't be his cup of tea either. But the point needs to be made that all change is not necessarily progress and while the show has changed, I can't honestly think it's any better for it. It's technically expedient but lacking heart and soul. I found the Earthbound Pertwee era to be an exciting new direction for the show rather than a misstep (I think Letts / Dicks were way wrong on that) - one of the best eras, in fact (Russell Davies held it in such high esteem that he used it as a blueprint for the modern series). Even so, it wouldn't be a good idea to repeat that formula forever and the show needs to go somewhere totally different every few years to stay fresh. I hadn't heard the Dicks remark about lack of narrative structure though - was this a recent comment? If so, bang on, in fact. It's the thing I have most problems with in the current show (i.e. lack of structure, dramatic pacing and balance / sense of dynamics). The special was a sprawling mess with no overall shape or focus, which shouldn't be the case as a so-called professional writer was responsible for what we saw on screen. There should be sensible limits imposed on what's possible in the series too as it always seems that whatever situation on a cosmic scale occurs, it can simply be "undone" by writing the reverse in at the end! It's fan-boy writing at it's worst and so maybe the series needs to be taken on by someone who isn't a fan as such and who simply wants to create the best drama they can. What we get nowadays in Dr.Who is (as Dan remarked above) an effects-laden show with story and real drama taking second place. The mix is completely awry generally and there is way too much humour in there for one thing. It was very hard to feel any sense of drama or of anything being at stake as - scene after scene, time after time - this was wrecked by childish joking around and making light of everything. In classic DW, the overall tone is more serious and, although humour is there, it doesn't destroy the seriousness of the situation. Today's writers need to go back and learn the basics, it seems. Although Capaldi is potentially another great doctor, I have little expectation for him to achieve that greatness as the production style (and probably the same producer for the forseeable future as well) is going to wreck any chances of that happening. If they used the regeneration as a "re-boot" (hate that word but going with that) and a chance to go back to basics, it could happen. Back to basics though being a return to telling self-contained stories with a beginning, a middle and an end, throwing out all the heavy inter-story continuity (which turns off the casual viewer anyway) and simplifying. I doubt it will happen though. Appreciate the thoughts, Laurence! And you've been watching it longer than me, too! Terrance has said this more than once in commentaries, and similar things besides, but this recent link has him saying as much here, albeit politely: www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/22/doctor_who_gaiman_dicks/?page=2Barry was pretty unimpressed about the sonic screwdriver being a wand nowadays, which I think speaks to the general creative direction you refer to. It seems one must now wear being a dill as part of being a Who fan, as that's how the character is often presented - especially via the pretty young things who solve his problems for him. Had Hartnell been called a "clever boy" in his earshot, I think he'd have brained the young lady in question. Now, the lead is so accessible we can only tell them apart by girls and gags. The special itself was - at least with the cinema version I saw - kind of like a panto for kids, with "interactive" jokey nonsense with the 3D specs, in addition to the general tone. The panto jibe was leveled at the show a bit in the 80s, but I wouldn't have thought that was something to push to the forefront for the 50th. Or at least, if it was, let the former leads from that decade who were shut out from the production despite being still keen supporters of the show, a few moments of screen time in recognition instead of wasting it on a pointless bit of business with the Zygons and Elizabeth I. I'm lucky in that like never having seen Bradley before his turn as Hartnell, I've not really any familiarity of Capaldi any more than I did with Colin, ie a bit-part in the show. So, he's a total surprise to me. Maybe he'll be a good choice. I hope he has success with the part. But I agree the odds are stacked against him when everything has been '05's reheated leftovers for so long, and nobody else has been given a crack at running it, and doing so very differently. Perhaps some have willfully forgotten that Who used to be more than this, for fear of losing the new, broader audience. After the incredible history that brought it to our screens depicted in AAISAT, that seems to me to be such a darn shame.
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Nov 25, 2013 11:16:31 GMT
I'm reminded of "Nice video, shame about the song" from NTNOCN all those days ago. Dicks/Letts were right about the limitations of an earthbound show - but there were some really good stories in that period. Yes, they overused UNIT and the Master but that's not unique to Dr Who; Hollywood likes to wring as much as possible out of a winning formula. It seems that three to four years is about the limit for those in front of or behind the camera. Hinchcliffe did three years and left on a high. I think Pertwee/Dicks/Letts did a little too long but the latter two "found" Tom Baker and Liz Sladen
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Coles on Nov 25, 2013 11:30:24 GMT
I take Laurence point re the earth exile and it's to Barry Letts credit he MADE it work so well - plus Jon Pertwee held the thing together superbly...
BUT remember it was done purely for financial reasons (as Spike Milligan lampooned with his 'BBC Economy sketches' in his 'Q' show at the time) - basically they turned Dr.Who into 'Quatermass' then adding a 'Moriaty' figure in 'The Master' & hoped it now being in colour would be an additional big asset (it certainly helped)
so I can understand Terrance Dicks opinion - the Time & Space travelling angle, the show's very core, was (temporarily it transpired) abandoned....
but Barry Letts & co got the very best out of a limiting situation - The Brigadier & UNIT were already known from the Troughton stories - even hinted at earlier in 'The War Machines' as far back as 1966, so they had a good base to work from, and having The Doctor continually trying to repair the Tardis (slipping sideways into a parallel dimension in 'Inferno') and keeping the ongoing attempt to thwart his Exile as a key recurring aspect (a Timelord controlled Tardis journey in 'Colony in Space' added soon after) which meant we never lost sight of The Doctor's deep desire to repair the Tardis and resume his space/time travelling
David Whitaker's 'The Ambassadors of Death' from Troughton's era was reutilised with it's space travel theme too, plus several invasions were attempted (Autons/Nestenes, etc) while the Silurians/Sea Devils posed a threat from Earth's own past (keeping a sense of time travel aspect) and it even delved into black magic 'Dennis Wheatley' territory in 'The Daemons'...tho' kept a underlying scientific base to it - being 'Daemons from the planet Daemos'
so while essentially set on Earth & Earth based Barry Letts & co did as much as they could to keep it totally 'Dr.Who' and when first The Daleks, then even the previous Two Doctors turned up by the end of the Earth exile in 1973 Letts had done a splendid job in covering so well the 'non time/space travelling period' of the show as the savage BBC economy cuts eased...
under a lesser producer than Barry Letts & not having such a 'shining light bulb' of a Doctor as Jon Pertwee (who played it straight with just touches of humour, and wisely retained the character's core strengths & attitudes as previously established by his predecessors in the role, while duly adding his own more action orientated style) I think that Earth exile period probably would have killed the show...
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Nov 25, 2013 11:36:30 GMT
I reckon the costs went up - look at all the location filming they had !
|
|