|
Post by Jaspal Cheema on Nov 25, 2013 20:05:53 GMT
I find it really amazing that Moffat can showrun a show like Sherlock and produce excellent scripts, great acting and good storytelling, and yet with Doctor Who, just because it's still primarily a kids show the stories are all filled with monsters and FX. I would LOVE to see a historical. It doesn't have to be a complete character study on an historical figure but just break the monotonous monster of the week which the show seems to be filled with these days. I also wonder if, maybe just for a season, we go back to how the original series was structured with longer stories. Instead of 13 single eps or a handful of two parters plus singles, we have all multi-ep shows, like 5x 2 parters and a 3 parter to finish the season. It would allow for more development instead of a monster runaround. Granted it would mean you would only have 6 monsters (etc) per season instead of potentially 13, but I think it would be refreshing. And ditch Moffat, he's been at the helm long enough. We don't really want this to be become another Dream Watch Bulletin backed JNT witch-hunt do we?That caused no end of bad feeling and vitriol in the 1980s and beyond.Let's learn from history and let the show develop.I personally love what's happening with Dr.Who and laughed out loud at some of the scenes in the 50th and the last series!
|
|
|
Post by Brad Phipps on Nov 25, 2013 21:17:30 GMT
I find it really amazing that Moffat can showrun a show like Sherlock and produce excellent scripts, great acting and good storytelling, and yet with Doctor Who, just because it's still primarily a kids show the stories are all filled with monsters and FX. I would LOVE to see a historical. It doesn't have to be a complete character study on an historical figure but just break the monotonous monster of the week which the show seems to be filled with these days. I also wonder if, maybe just for a season, we go back to how the original series was structured with longer stories. Instead of 13 single eps or a handful of two parters plus singles, we have all multi-ep shows, like 5x 2 parters and a 3 parter to finish the season. It would allow for more development instead of a monster runaround. Granted it would mean you would only have 6 monsters (etc) per season instead of potentially 13, but I think it would be refreshing. And ditch Moffat, he's been at the helm long enough. We don't really want this to be become another Dream Watch Bulletin backed JNT witch-hunt do we?That caused no end of bad feeling and vitriol in the 1980s and beyond.Let's learn from history and let the show develop.I personally love what's happening with Dr.Who and laughed out loud at some of the scenes in the 50th and the last series! We're allowed to give our own opinions though right...?
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 25, 2013 22:09:31 GMT
Is this event aftershow thing available to see online? Sounds like fun, though from comments it seems a little frustrating as concision overrode other considerations. Aside from Jackie Lane (I assume?) who didn't make it? Elizabeth Sladen.When they started waffling about the Doctor's greatest companion,she was the one I thought of.Did they have a moment for thinking about those who had died? Then they started a 'musical chairs' thing which didn't work because ALL of them had run down corridors,etc.I turned off at that point-and I'd been skipping through at 5-minute intervals to start with,though in a sense this bit was endearingly amateur,it just didn't work trying to get 30 or so disparate people to play a live party game. Umm, a typo John? I know she couldn't come - any more than the others we've lost. But even if the others did make it (remarkable!!) how sad a little respect for the departed wasn't to be had. Musical chairs?? Sounds like a warm-up for the return of The Celestial Toymaker...
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 25, 2013 22:14:46 GMT
I find it really amazing that Moffat can showrun a show like Sherlock and produce excellent scripts, great acting and good storytelling, and yet with Doctor Who, just because it's still primarily a kids show the stories are all filled with monsters and FX. I would LOVE to see a historical. It doesn't have to be a complete character study on an historical figure but just break the monotonous monster of the week which the show seems to be filled with these days. I also wonder if, maybe just for a season, we go back to how the original series was structured with longer stories. Instead of 13 single eps or a handful of two parters plus singles, we have all multi-ep shows, like 5x 2 parters and a 3 parter to finish the season. It would allow for more development instead of a monster runaround. Granted it would mean you would only have 6 monsters (etc) per season instead of potentially 13, but I think it would be refreshing. And ditch Moffat, he's been at the helm long enough. Let's learn from history and let the show develop. I couldn't agree more Jaspal, as I'm sure that goes for Laurence and Brad too! Maybe 2014 will see that come to pass once more, we've been waiting a long time for the reigning production team to follow your advice.
|
|
|
Post by adamjordan on Nov 25, 2013 22:16:56 GMT
While we're at it, Can we have some Cliff Hangers please?
They were a big part of what made who 'Who'.
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 25, 2013 22:31:00 GMT
I find it really amazing that Moffat can showrun a show like Sherlock and produce excellent scripts, great acting and good storytelling, and yet with Doctor Who, just because it's still primarily a kids show the stories are all filled with monsters and FX. I would LOVE to see a historical. It doesn't have to be a complete character study on an historical figure but just break the monotonous monster of the week which the show seems to be filled with these days. I also wonder if, maybe just for a season, we go back to how the original series was structured with longer stories. Instead of 13 single eps or a handful of two parters plus singles, we have all multi-ep shows, like 5x 2 parters and a 3 parter to finish the season. It would allow for more development instead of a monster runaround. Granted it would mean you would only have 6 monsters (etc) per season instead of potentially 13, but I think it would be refreshing. And ditch Moffat, he's been at the helm long enough. Some interesting ideas re ep and story length, Brad. For good or ill, they fooled around with that in Season 23. A little experimentation couldn't hurt, provided the intent is to follow through with good reasons for doing so. I think this nomenclature of Classic versus New is a bit of an excuse for losing authenticity to "grow the brand", ie a marketing gimmick and a rod for their own backs, really. And ultimately, like the Warrior Doctor who apparently now spent all those years getting old without killing anyone onscreen in his only appearances, or busting action moves, shooting anyone or anything unDoctory, it was a false dichotomy. Leela wouldn't have been impressed with Hurt's warrior chops. Disarming a soldier in battle to graffiti tag a wall, when battle rages and innocents are in jeopardy or dying? Maybe that cup on Karn wasn't full of Warrior at all but Dim or Lazy? If the show at its best reflects the strengths we've been discussing in the thread, then how is New Who lessened by reinstating them? Only if what matters is the New, not the Who.
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 25, 2013 22:51:55 GMT
Success can be as dangerous as failure, sometimes. And enthusiasm is no substitute for wisdom, understanding, experience and craft. I really think we're back in the 80s again - but nobody wants to admit it because of the huge success in widening the audience by making it more like other shows, mainly teen soaps. Sure, we've "won". Doctor Who is "cool". Mainstream too, if that's not a contradiction. But was this a battle worth fighting, worth winning? And what did it cost us? I don't see Moffat et al letting go until the Doctor's been killed off, had a sex change and brought back - but maybe, not even then. Selfish? Afraid? Both? Who knows. The ability to sustain the show indefinitely (let alone nearly a decade) by doing the same old thing is a non-starter. The iTunes reception to those Troughtons might have helped a lot more people notice that there's something missing from how it's made nowadays. More returns are unlikely to change that. I just wonder how much longer it'll be before the media (non-Beeb, natch) notice too (as Terrance, Waris et al have done) and say so. A lot. Consistently. At that point, what are the odds it'll be wound up under the received wisdom that these things are cyclic - rather than accept the needless, self-made rut for what it was. To echo a line from the first Christmas special: don't you think Who looks tired?
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 26, 2013 2:42:20 GMT
One thing that it seems the recent Troughton returns have done, and I hope AAISAT will help, is with bringing to market proper 60s Who merchandise. I'd love to be the first kid on my block with a Hartnell Tardis talking moneybox! It could be full of snatches from An Unearthly Child! DOCTOR: What are you doing here? DOCTOR: Young man, is it reasonable to suppose that anybody would be inside a cupboard like that, hmm? IAN: Would it therefore be unreasonable to ask you to let us have a look inside? SUSAN: There you are, Grandfather. SUSAN: What are you doing out there? DOCTOR: Close the door! And of course, that wheezing, groaning sound effect we all love. If it ever comes to pass - please, please Character Options don't pike out on the interior, like you did with the Hartnell TARDIS. Roundels, Brachacki, the full deal!
|
|
|
Post by Sue Butcher on Nov 26, 2013 3:39:37 GMT
(post in wrong place)
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 26, 2013 4:07:12 GMT
We don't really want this to be become another Dream Watch Bulletin backed JNT witch-hunt do we?That caused no end of bad feeling and vitriol in the 1980s and beyond.Let's learn from history and let the show develop.I personally love what's happening with Dr.Who and laughed out loud at some of the scenes in the 50th and the last series! Whatever people might say about JN-T, he did put together a nice 20th Anniversary show. It wasn't perfect-but enjoyable. I guess that what I expected to see on the 50th would be something more like The Five Doctors-only bigger. Sadly, Terrance wasn't asked to write it! But the makers of the show are apparently his biggest fans - so that's alright then. "I came to praise Who, not to bury it...", as Moffat might have said!
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 26, 2013 13:10:17 GMT
I guess that what I expected to see on the 50th would be something more like The Five Doctors-only bigger. Must be some kind of oversight that you and I missed, Dan - in this timey wimey era (shudder), perhaps 75 minutes really is meant to be considered bigger than 90 minutes. Transdimensional pacing? Let's call it that. Mind you, I thought The Night Of The Doctor was perfectly comprehensible and enjoyable for what it was - yet that was less than a tenth the duration of the special written by the same guy. Perhaps Moffat is teaching us to agree that less is more, or perhaps even, on occasion, better. He must have adored the '90-'95 and '97-'04 seasons... What, if anything, that implies for the next season (purportedly half the length by one account) is anyone's guess...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 13:49:16 GMT
I don't think Moffat has ever heard the expression "less is more" (let alone understand the concept)! He'd do well to learn though.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Weidmann on Nov 26, 2013 16:20:30 GMT
Has anyone read Mark Withall's Cult TV blog on the BFI screening of this production? In the Q&A Mark Gatiss apparently gave the impression he'd viewed episode 12 of "The Daleks' Masterplan" recently.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Lia on Nov 27, 2013 1:10:08 GMT
Well Paul McCann looked quite a bit older when he was next seen so you would think that 1997-2004 was the 8th Doctor and 2004 0nwards would be the War Doctor.
But Who knows ? Until Big Finnish does some story's leading up to the events on Karn we shall never know
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Nov 27, 2013 7:26:48 GMT
I don't think Moffat has ever heard the expression "less is more" (let alone understand the concept)! He'd do well to learn though. I expect it derives from Old High Dicksian, Laurence - the ancient language of the Script Lords. Not many people understand it these days... But fortunately we do!
|
|