|
Post by Matthew Kurth on Dec 15, 2013 0:52:45 GMT
Don't forget though that a lot of the crazy ratings that went on were due in part to industrial action against ITV.
|
|
|
Post by jcoleman on Dec 15, 2013 2:27:10 GMT
Nice to see I'm not the only one not fully enamoured by the modern take on Doctor Who. In some quarters it seems to be considered sacrilege to criticise.
I remember one of the DWM writers doing a piece on the 1996 TV movie when it aired describing his real-time reactions. The article ended with him climbing into bed and his partner asking him what he thought and his response was something along the lines of 'I don't know what it was, but it wasn't Doctor Who'. As I recall, a lot of fans were, and remain, highly critical of it although most loved McGann’s performance.
Yet the movie’s got the bigger, grander, completely different TARDIS console room sans roundels, the Doctor snogging, a Master with additional non-Time Lord ‘powers’ who bares little relation to his suave predecessors, a somewhat nonsensical ‘timey-wimey’ big red button reset resolution etc. In other words, numerous elements now present in the ‘new’ series that many of those same fans now lavish with enthusiastic praise.
The biggest problem with the new series seems to me to be the 45-minute format. Other science fiction/fantasy series that follow this format have two things that Doctor Who doesn’t.
Firstly, they have a sizeable ensemble cast who the audience is familiar with. Stories often focus around one specific character at a time and guest characters are usually kept to a minimum, allowing time for the audience to get to know about them. Doctor Who is different. There is only the Doctor and one or two (occasionally three) companions. It needs time to establish the other characters in a story.
Secondly, they’re set in a fixed location. Even Star Trek, which is supposedly all about exploration, has much of its action take place aboard the ship. Environments therefore become as familiar as the regular characters. Doctor Who tells stories set in completely different locations each week. It needs time to establish these.
45 minutes is rarely sufficient to do either. Furthermore, it often seems that the only way the writers can squeeze their story into 45 minutes is to have characters, particularly the Doctor, talk so fast it’s barely intelligible and for the action to proceed at such a frantic pace it’s frequently hard to follow what’s going on.
This is why the two-parters tend to work much better and I would like to see more of these going forward. Let a story unfold, let it breathe. Give us rich and interesting characters and settings, not the superficial lacklustre efforts so prevalent since the show’s return.
Is there a single character in the new series to compare to the likes of Tobias Vaughn, Michael Wisher’s Davros, Li H’sen Chang, Sharaz Jek, Sil etc?
Oh, and does anyone else remember when the Doctor was just a wanderer in the fourth dimension rather than an almost omnipotent being who virtually every villain in the entire universe has heard of and fears? You know the fella, the one in the time machine that didn't work properly and rarely landed where he intended? The one with companions who were just as cut off from their world as he was from his? The one who just wanted to explore the universe rather than someone who has apparently seen it all already? The one with a zest for life and an insatiable curiosity rather than a jaded, angst-ridden soul who would be more at home in a Highlander movie?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Grey on Dec 15, 2013 4:47:26 GMT
aaaahhhhhhhh those days seem so long ago, like they belong to a different age I find that most of the things I like about the new show are those that reference to the old series Like Bow ties and hats... The fast pace and overuse of effects, not so much. I loved it when a story took a month to six weeks to complete.
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 15, 2013 8:14:42 GMT
Extra Additional Musings: The TARDIS: Finally we've returned to the idea of a TARDIS being technology. Instead of keeping the junkyard on the console, we have actual machinery again. It's a good start but that's all. What else? Let's lose the obsession with a primary colour being needed to make over the console room. Was originally red in the Swiss cheese/whack-a-mole version of Series 5 then it became blue as it is now. Call me a stick in the mud, but what's wrong with white, and roundels on the walls, even a funky hexagonal light fixture on the ceiling? It was - and remains - a design classic. We don't have to grit our teeth and grudgingly make excuses for it not being say, a witch's cauldron or a wizard's lair. It's a science fiction show, let's have some genuine pride in that again. If the intention is to make it more 3 dimensional as a set, with steps down and under the console and gantries above, the better to provide interesting camera angles, think how best to do so without losing the charm of the original lines. Part of that charm includes a concept much lacking these days - restraint!! Bigger is not always better, and the first room inside the TARDIS need not be a veritable aircraft hangar to show it's dimensionally transcendental. The modest wooden and brass job from Season 14 was a nice variation, stained glass and all, and can suggest alternatives to the basic Brachacki form or nearly empty cavern with mood lighting we get nowadays. Maybe something a bit left of field, say a console surrounded by a stony and planty decor like the Cloisters, perhaps with a water feature, could work. The extra space could be reapportioned to other sets featuring new rooms, as we hardly ever seem to explore it much anymore. Speaking of charm, let's see a more lived-in sense of decor, with bric-a-brac from various journeys. Say the storage hold is leaking, so things slop over now and then to keep things looking a little different every so often, like a closet door spilling open at an inopportune moment, be it through the walls, ceiling and/or floor. These offer possibilities for stories, wardrobe, pathos, bathos, etc. As to the operation and reliability of the veteran and vintage Type 40, I'd like to see it acting its age more. That means no more assurances as to where and when the Doctor and co wind up, no matter how skilled a pilot and mechanic he may be nor how tight the bond between them. It was a clapped out museum piece when he pinched it and he's been using it in ways far beyond the expectations of the original designers. Traveling in the TARDIS should be exciting and dangerous. Will the crew get where they intend? It's time we weren't sure again, for good reasons. That means no more nipping back to present day London whenever there's a sale on at the local department store or whatever, and this sort of "heart in the mouth, high-wire without a net" method of travel should actually serve to weed out the usual types we've seen since '05 from climbing aboard. Those who do should invariably wind up like Steven or Vicki if they're lucky and like Katarina, Sara and Adric if they aren't. When the current era could never give us a Leela but would easily accommodate her risible departure (like Peri's), you know something's badly broken! You want emotion? Let the new companion really understand they may never, ever get home again - all to help a bunch of people and aliens who often try (and sometimes succeed) to kill them on sight, traveling with a mysterious old alien grump in an inexplicable rattletrap without spares that could permanently break down along with its pilot at any minute! Those who think that isn't acceptable when it's how the Doctor must live himself, should find the TARDIS dematerialize around them in mid-whinge, off on new adventures without them. Moreover, the Doctor should see himself reflected in his old friend and home, the limitations that are slowly but inexorably coming to bear simply through living a long life to the full, and risking all for the best of causes. He shouldn't just assume anymore that the TARDIS could break free of a time loop (as he did to escape the fate of Axos) and indeed, more often than we've seen in the past eight years or so, stories need to have bad outcomes right when the stakes come down to the TARDIS "taking the load" or whatever. No more "towing the Earth" or "magicing Gallifrey" nonsense. He's grateful it still barely offers him a place to live, explore the cosmos, connect with his past and keep him company in the time that remains to them. Still, a TARDIS on its last legs outclasses pretty much anything else - even though, as we should sometimes see, given Engin's remark about the Matrix, there's other races out there who'd find it somewhere between quaint and pathetic. It's because of working with and around these everyday imperfections that the Doctor can improvise to rise above the challenges that beset him, and his tolerance of the TARDIS's frailties in advanced age should be seen as an asset to his persona. He's not impatient or cruel, he's understanding and patient - but only to those he thinks deserve it, like his TARDIS, whereas companions might think he's a bit silly and a crap driver until they know more. The symbiotic link between TARDIS and Doctor in their twilight years offers fresh opportunities, for those willing to take them up. The latter's hopeful outlook might be the one tonic the former can still rely on to face the inevitable decline that awaits and the loneliness at outliving its kin. Companions: No more magic powers, please. Nor instant BFFs. Companions shouldn't be assured of their berth, and we shouldn't expect the dynamic between them and the Doctor will remain the same. Let's have variation beyond nearly a decade of jolly, matey and full of hip lingo and goo-goo eyes! For instance, say a misunderstanding on one side, leading to a clear break between the two. The Doctor solves a problem, or the companion does, and they are instantly and irrevocably at odds. Or the life imagined is nothing like the life experienced, and they want off - a reverse stowaway, sneaking out of the TARDIS, even if it has bad consequences which can't be remedied. Or perhaps the TARDIS takes a dislike to a new crew member, and subtly works to make them ill at ease - albeit for good cause - which the Doctor remains utterly oblivious to. Lots of alternatives - show them, already! Old Monsters If the new design isn't as good as what came before, make do with the old one or just create a new monster. So much of the remixed old favourites strike me as uninspired botch jobs. I really dislike the Sontarans and Zygons, despite being a fan of their original look and as characters. The Silurians are painful compared to the proper ones, mistakenly letting the actor's face gain prominence over the alienness of the creature's differences. They aren't apes!! Worse still, the lacklustre Iron Man clone that is the Cybermen! And worst of all, the hybrid dodgem-Skittles that are the Daleks. Good gravy, where are the designers these days?!
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 15, 2013 8:48:57 GMT
I find it amusing how as much as people harp on "Deadly Dudley" Simpson from the '70s, that there aren't more folks fed up with Murray Gold. I like Dudley a lot but I'm sure that even he didn't mind a break sometimes. And often, a fresh approach made a good story better! Unfortunately, the sort of flexibility that let the likes of Geoffrey Burgon in for Zygons and Doom, to say nothing of the wider scope of composers we had from say '63-71, hasn't been evidenced since Who came back in '05. Perhaps the true fans at the helm don't think others can meet the current standard, or maybe they just don't want to share? I'd be glad if new composers finally get a crack at Who again, for the Capaldi era. Let it sound different again! Even if it's a mix of hits and misses!
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 15, 2013 14:49:36 GMT
"But ingenuity requires a constant stream of new ideas. Yours seem to have dried up." Salamander might have been talking about Who in the current era, I think. It didn't used to be this way, need not be this way, is not wise to keep it this way. I want Who to surprise me again, as a viewer, like it was once supposed to. Even if it might scare me away, should I like the current approach, which was once new and is now quite old hat. That experimental desire, the intent to leave one's own mark on the show, was not uncommon before '05. Nowadays, they play so safe they seem to have put themselves to sleep. In better days, Who didn't sweat sharp-edged corners for fear of putting an eye out. Hinchcliffe was serious in his intention "to frighten the little buggers", and I loved it because it did! Current Who would have bored rather than terrified the younger me, and the general quality of the stories seems unlikely to be as critically regarded as the best of breed in earlier eras. Now it's namby-pamby nonsense, sans jeopardy, sans violence, sans variation, sans everything save for a thin veneer of Who. Stout and hardy oak has been swapped for flimsy chipboard! It rates so that's okay? It would be short-sighted to think so. Intensely publicizing a one-trick pony accelerates the eventual collapse of support for that animal. Who is better than this! Cracks sometimes fairly made about corridor padding in the old days can now be substituted for the heavy reliance on music-laden soapie elements, insular and distracting obsessions over accentuating the "mystery" of the lead character and overhyped repetitive interlocking arcs that even upon watching the entire year's eps are rarely comprehensible or satisfying and serve to exclude full enjoyment for a casual viewer in ways that were never previously attempted to such a degree or considered essential to the show as it now has for many years. In these done-in-one days, that seems wasteful and daft, speaking directly to Terrance's comments re the scripting shortcomings in recent times - not things that are implacably hobbled by budget but simple intransigence and disinterest on the part of those making the show and those signing off on it, year after year. This smacks of complacency, arrogance, boredom, even fear. Bodes ill! The best eras give you exciting hints at the way ahead, being prepared to experiment and explore the possible shape of tomorrow. Whether the production team of the day or one later take them up or not, you can see tantalizing glimpses. Can't say I've seen any such thing since '05. And I really do think that's down to too many people staying on too long, and committing too soon to this static format, with no new ideas to follow. But we've been here before too - a stark break in styles from one period to the other is hardly unknown, and is called for now. Blame the manager, so sack him? No, the problem is bigger than that. It's a group-think issue I'd say, and fixable by letting in fresh air, new people and ideas, all kept out for far too long. A little more care, a little more forward planning and reflection, that's all that's needed. Freshness does not come out of a tin! Moffat et al can find other pastures, are eminently replaceable. Do I need to provide names, suggest replacements? I don't think so. The skillset required to work on Who is diverse, but talent in all areas abounds. From technical standpoints, there's a wide array of SFX-laden SF drama on telly these days. Of course, creative direction is vital to get right, and this isn't hard to thrash out beforehand and selecting a safe pair of hands to make it happen. As observed by others, a team is needed, not a one man band. The fundamentals of good scriptwriting is something Who can no longer afford to ignore, nor can they only be provided by a fan or SF show personage. The very best writers are adaptable but bring something uniquely of themselves to their work. Even if, on occasion, they take a little time off to recharge, as was the case with the great Terry "jungle planet" Nation. Really, changing the guard seems to me the easiest problem. And what to do about the creative direction of Who afterwards isn't much harder. Diversity is strength, but the core must remain. The files on all this are extensive, and easily accessible for those who care to look. The Beeb should want to, given the stakes! If things stay as they are now, what is there to anticipate? The Hunt For Gallifrey tease at the end of TDOTD is tedious. It's less impressive than even the "big" change at the end of The Three Doctors, with the Doctor once again being able to freely travel in the TARDIS! Lest it be forgotten, this is exactly what the show used to offer as a central plank and draw card for the audience! So too with the new era and Gallifrey. Wow, there was no need for a Final Solution, etc? Big whoop - we already knew that, the previous 42 years did just fine without it! The clash between say, the Adams style under Williams and the Bidmead one with JNT, is interesting - just as say, the Sherwin model and the Hinchcliffe one. Importantly, all are different enough from each other not to be misidentified. Same as with most other eras, too - unlike the current period, one samey-wamey series after another for 8 long years. (As an aside, I wonder if those who really liked Season 17 were those who also preferred Season 24? Neither are particularly to my tastes though I would take the earlier over the later season every time.) A real change in format, in style? How about Season 7: thrillers set on Earth, and no TARDIS travel. Hints of UNIT crept into Web and Invasion, of course. But how many of the old fans were keen to see nothing but this style of show, for year after year, albeit with a lighter tone from Season 8 onwards? Even Dicks and Letts strained against the hand they were dealt. (The Hinchcliffe era eventually said nuts to that, and Holmes gave us some truly iconic, horrific tales that played well with familiar tropes of fantastic literature whilst introducing many new and well-remembered single-appearence foes the TARDIS crew met with all through time and space.) Indeed, Pertwee raised questions about the merits of the Master as I recall - that him turning up every week and being defeated made him look rather feeble, something which unhappily but not entirely incorrectly could sometimes be leveled at UNIT. Yet these days, I expect he'd be told to "Pipe down, Fancypants!" by the reigning showrunner. He was onto something important, that longevity without variation is a pretty thin approximation of living. Perpetual boredom, as McGann's Doctor called the Karn Sisterhood's ethos, is not a sound way to triumphantly celebrate fifty years of a remarkable, original and potentially evergreen show - let alone set it up for a successful and vibrant future as impressive as its past glories. Happily, there were other options back in the more courageous past - and these options can still be taken again, today. That's precisely why I was so buoyed by the incredible global iTunes successes of Enemy and Web! I really do think that they have signaled clearly a desire by punters for more like that. And I don't just mean, more missing eps. Or, more stories in underground railways or featuring doppelganger villains. It speaks to story structure, accessibility, tone. I've not watched nor bought any of the current show in several years. I buy and tune in for what I like, avoid supporting what I don't. Make it more authentic, in the mold of the recent returns, and I'll be pre-ordering now. As will others. Enemy and Web are a sure indicator of an unmet need! Will the Beeb ignore the chance to capture that kind of money, to further raise the yearly intake from Who? How could they? Why cede the ground to a style-swiping competitor? That's why I truly doubt Capaldi's casting is merely go faster stripes on a TARDIS with a hole currently where the time rotor should be. It'd sell him short, make the next Doctor the equivalent of Martha Jones - in other words, set up to fail. He has other options, and fan or no, I doubt he'd knowingly sign on for that. It's time to stop patching eight years of legacy code spaghetti, and remember what Who at its very best should be, is for. It didn't start in '05, and we can learn from the whole run. Maybe there'll be a transitional year of current style, maybe it'll be a midseason break. But I just don't think that when 45 year old B&W Who outsells the world's finest and most popular shows, the Beeb will see nothing pertinent for current Who's present and future direction. Intelligent change, in the best traditions of the series, with the highest quality in scripts and pre-production, direction and acting, can only maximize Who's returns and strengthen its future! That some posters in the thread are OFs (Original Fans) who saw the show and supported it from the start, and see less of what kept them watching then, since it returned in '05, makes sense. My guess, my hope, based on what the sales of Enemy and Web suggest, is that Capaldi's run will offer a return to Who's roots and a strong new direction for the way ahead!
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 16, 2013 2:04:19 GMT
also say the James Bond film series with Roger Moore and the Steed/Tara 'Avengers' show both had got VERY jokey & lightweight in the main over time, the 1969 Avengers had some utterly SILLY scripts deflating the better ones, and Roger's Bond was a very weak eye brow raising old man masquerading as 007 by the late seventies ! That was just the style of the time, I guess. I recently did my best to enjoy The Persuaders on BR (fab restoration and set by Network) and couldn't. Despite some lovely music, great locations and cast, the tone never worked for me. The overuse of mind control plots didn't help it, either. Maybe it's a bit like how some people prefer The Addams Family to The Munsters? Similar material, just accentuated differently. Speaking of 007 a la Moore, for some reason Anthony Ainley's Master struck me as being in this vein through story and creative direction. Sometimes, he was used in ways that I thought best suited the character - but often, he wasn't. Lumbering him with other baddie Time Lords made him a bit run of the mill, a pity. What was the point of him dressing up as Kalid? Or the scarecrow getup - even Delgado didn't resort to that, and he was battling He Who Would Be Worzel! The decaying Master to me seemed a much more interesting angle to play with, and I thought it a pity he was dumped so early on. It's nice Geoffrey Beevers is getting some more time getting under his rotting skin for Big Finish. The goofball Simm version (was unaware of the actor's misgivings, interesting to hear) in the current TV era was a poorer trade and I thought a criminal waste of Derek Jacobi! And he gets married, just so the battered wife can regain her senses and shoot him? Bah. Can't pretty human women be evil by choice? The pair would have made a nicer contrast that way. And she's locked up for killing an alien menace that had a long history of being a wanted man, decades before his latest misdeeds as global dictator? Pfui! Torchwood would have hired her!
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 16, 2013 2:19:57 GMT
because people got fed up with all the silly stuff - I personally knew a number of longtime fans who gave up on the show when that Williams/Adams season ended - not everyone wants Dr.Who to be "FUN" to watch, they want decent adventures 'Genesis of The Daleks' was voted a top Tom Baker adventure by fans - was it a big panto style farce ? were say; 'The Ark in Space', 'The Seeds of Doom', 'Pyramids of Mars' or 'The Talons of Weng Chiang' all a good old jokey panto styled knees up ? how many clamour for 'Creature From The Pit' or 'The Horns of Nimon' or 'City of Death' etc ? Well, City Of Death is a fave here. It's got a lot going for it - but I'd rather a story every so often with a tone like this, than say, a season like 17 which happens to have it included. As for the others, from Season 12-14, not a dud amongst them. Light and shade isn't a bad thing, when it's offered, so long as quality is kept high and the balance is right. Been a long time between drinks, going by the current show, alas. Still, I reckon the Beeb realize the iTunes triumph of Enemy and Web indicates sizable demand for less uniformity and more authenticity and will deliver it, in the upcoming Capaldi era!
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 16, 2013 5:32:51 GMT
Well, City Of Death is a fave here. It's got a lot going for it - but I'd rather a story every so often with a tone like this, than say, a season like 17 which happens to have it included. As for the others, from Season 12-14, not a dud amongst them. Light and shade isn't a bad thing, when it's offered, so long as quality is kept high and the balance is right. Been a long time between drinks, going by the current show, alas. Still, I reckon the Beeb realize the iTunes triumph of Enemy and Web indicates sizable demand for less uniformity and more authenticity and will deliver it, in the upcoming Capaldi era! Well, Planet Of Evil wasn't the greatest ever story. I meant the stories Patrick referred to in his post, Dan. Actually, just watched the Zeta Minor adventure a couple of nights ago. Made me want some Harrogate toffee, I can tell you! Although I did keep itching for Pyramids, and it's far from top drawer, I still prefer it to many that followed after - and continue to do so, today. It makes a darn sight more sense than many so-called "modern classics", and is easy to watch without getting bombarded with incomprehensible/unsatisfying arcs that may not even be wound up when the incumbent leaves, which apparently these days is a mark of cleverness and not sloppy self-indulgence...
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 16, 2013 8:08:27 GMT
I meant the stories Patrick referred to in his post, Dan. It makes a darn sight more sense than many so-called "modern classics", and is easy to watch without getting bombarded with incomprehensible/unsatisfying arcs that may not even be wound up when the incumbent leaves, which apparently these days is a mark of cleverness and not sloppy self-indulgence... I took it out of context-I apologize. I know what you mean by easier to watch than modern. I just watched The Snowmen. Very good until someone yelled 'We have only 5 minutes left-wrap it up. Then it made little sense at all. Easy to watch until they start rushing it too much. I was getting tired near the end too so I'll have to rewatch it to (perhaps) understand the bizarre ending. Is okay, I won't forward your moves on the Trilogic board! I hadn't watched since the Series 5 (I think Pat should have that number all his own, anyone else can't ever do anything half as good with it) and saw the last ep of 7. It was incomprehensible. Visuals and musical score really didn't win me over, and once again, it was as scary as a bag of marshmallows. Another bit of stunt casting for a few minutes, instead of a meaty part over weeks that used to be the fare in better days. The dim Hartnell was just infuriating, and the new magic girl tedious. If I hadn't seen it before, I'd be suckered into thinking it might make sense if I'd seen earlier ones. That hardly encourages casuals (as the samey wamey style has made me) to stick around. But knowing what I do of the new money approach, seeing the lot (as I did with 5) actually makes you feel worse, angry and confused. And to hear that the Christmas special is getting big thumbs up for carrying through unresolved stuff from 5, I'm sorry - Terrance and Bob would have fired Moffat and rightly so. If we don't get to see your working for three years - if ever - and we are told we can't judge things until the whole era is done, that's flat out bonkers and not what Who is about. Yeah, he made the phone in the door ring. Full marks for that, no mistake. But the other side of the ledger is hardly an eleventh as impressive as the best who came before him. Running and writing the show seems well above his capacity, and as far as I can see the Emperor has been starkers for years. Best let him go before he catches his death, I say. Another '89 if he goes? No chance. It's a very different situation now and even if there's personalities and acrimony, the Beeb won't shelve Who. Maybe '79 or even '69, if we're lucky!
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Coles on Dec 16, 2013 12:42:40 GMT
whatever eras or parts of eras you like or loathe the fact is the Williams/Adams era went down the road it did directly because of the moans of Mary Whitehouse & her brigade - thus it was NOT an originally planned or envisaged style for the programme...was it ? BBC in a panic just 'knee jerked' a reaction to their criticisms re the supposedly 'excessive violence' instead of totally ignoring those SELF proclaimed 'Shepherds of the Nation' pillocks...and thus it became a self mocking romp which I do remember quite a number of fans were NOT happy about
Douglas Adams later 'explaining away' that the humour had NOT come across AS intended tells us he too wasn't satifsfied with the results either !
bits put into Terry Nation's 'Destiny of The Daleks' by Adams like Romana 'trying on bodies like dresses'....or Tom claiming planet wotsit was really a giant snail etc...were just plain silly no matter how much people might try to defend it - note Nation REFUSED to have K9 in his Dalek story...hence K9 was left disabled in the Tardis, which tells you how much Nation rated the current 'make it all a big joke' approach at that time ...other writers also refused to put the tin dog into their stories too...
Director Paddy Russell was certainly UNIMPRESSED when she returned for 'Horror of Fang Rock' as Tom was mega 'sulky' difficult to work with, VERY big headed and unco-operative plus gave poor Louise Jameson a rough time and was positively nasty to one unfortunate supporting actor Paddy would not name in the Sci Fi mag interview, (it was apparently a young guy, I suspect the young assistant Lighthouse keeper)
so things clearly were not going smoothly behind the scenes, and I think it was reflected in the show we saw....significant that whenever the show returned briefly to that approach later ('Time And The Rani', 'Delta And The Bannermen' etc) it got a critical thumbs down from many & once more quickly abandoned that 'play it for cheap & silly laughs' style...
'Planet of Evil' some might not like, and I think it wasn't a classic tale, but it was a well staged alien planet set (take note current show) and for all it's limitations had good acting performances from Frederick Jaeger, Prentis Hancock & Ewan Solon - we didn't have any absurdly OTT hamming it up or Tom in his pirate boots & by then getting shabby coat trying not to grin (& failing) like when he led the Mandrells off...!!
sadly the 'play it for a cheap laugh' approach has infected the current show often - burping wheelie bins, farting blobby aliens, absorbaloff aliens, Tennant gurning about with a radiation filled boot as Rhino men threaten..plus cat people in traffic jams, and The Doctor dragging The Titanic about with a (borrowed from Star Trek) 'tractor beam'...etc
All a big joke you CAN'T possibly take seriously....and you want more of that Williams/Adams inspired comedy approach in the current show ?
IF you want a silly infantile unfunny farce with people acting like total plonkers ...go watch 'The Chuckle Brothers, the guy who writes that specialises in the utterly banal...
|
|
|
Post by edhipkiss on Dec 16, 2013 13:23:55 GMT
I don't want to get into another long message, as reading Paul's recent efforts I've lost the will to live (sorry Paul, no offense intended!), but all I would say is if you think the success of Enemy & Web mean a return to that style of story telling and Moffatt being shown the door - think again.
There's a very interesting interview with Moffatt in the new DWM in which he says (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the BBC aren't interested in the overnight viewing figures. Basically the "new" show is sold to so many different countries, is so successful abroad, makes millions in DVD sales and continues to have good word of mouth, a loss of 1 million viewers between episodes makes no difference.
His point that Doctor Who, like Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, etc., continues to generate so much press and attention and adds something to the cultural conversation, not just here but abroad, means that it is valued probably more than any other programme at the BBC right now.
In otherwords, it ain't broken so why fix it?
And there's a delicious irony that the show the BBC scheduled against Coronation Street in the hope it would die or they could kill it off themselves is suddenly bulletproof.
Make of that what you will!
|
|
|
Post by Jaspal Cheema on Dec 16, 2013 13:50:04 GMT
Extra Additional Musings: So much of the remixed old favourites strike me as uninspired botch jobs. I really dislike the Sontarans and Zygons, despite being a fan of their original look and as characters. Yes,they really came across as Comedy Zygons didn't they? No real threat or fear at all...!
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 17, 2013 13:39:50 GMT
I don't want to get into another long message, as reading Paul's recent efforts I've lost the will to live (sorry Paul, no offense intended!), but all I would say is if you think the success of Enemy & Web mean a return to that style of story telling and Moffatt being shown the door - think again. There's a very interesting interview with Moffatt in the new DWM in which he says (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the BBC aren't interested in the overnight viewing figures. Basically the "new" show is sold to so many different countries, is so successful abroad, makes millions in DVD sales and continues to have good word of mouth, a loss of 1 million viewers between episodes makes no difference. His point that Doctor Who, like Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, etc., continues to generate so much press and attention and adds something to the cultural conversation, not just here but abroad, means that it is valued probably more than any other programme at the BBC right now. In otherwords, it ain't broken so why fix it? And there's a delicious irony that the show the BBC scheduled against Coronation Street in the hope it would die or they could kill it off themselves is suddenly bulletproof. Make of that what you will! Well Ed, I don't know whether to feel like Grunthos The Flatulent or Louis Marks, but some impact is better than none, I guess! As to your sharing of the pertinent points of that interview, many thanks. I don't dispute that the Beeb thinks Who is important to them, but I do think there's a danger. Call it the curse of early success, over-confidence, complacency, samey-wamey, whatever. Moffat is the last person to see or agree it's there, of course. Like Cushing on the Death Star! I think it's like where we were just before Season 18, say. What the audience had come to expect from Who by then was "seen it all before", which is not really what the show is for. JNT shook that up a bit, for better and worse. But somebody tuning in to say Warrior's Gate couldn't help but notice big changes. There's nothing like that happening anymore, and that's unwise. After doing nothing but pulling rabbits out of hats for eight long years, the audience will start snoring, leaving more enterprising magicians on the pavement outside the theatre to clean up. Those who remain are probably a very different and unknown class of punter. They can't all be postmodern insomniac theatre critics and analysts, but they aren't who used to come either. One night, they might simply all stay home, forget to come to the theatre, stay outside watching the new guys or even do something completely different. Who will pay the bills then? Worse, the erosion of institutional memory at the theatre might make it hard to remember that magic acts once had a wider repertoire, and used to intentionally surprise people. Insofar as the current era of Who has somehow morphed into a kind of Corrie through space and time, I don't think that's too far amiss. But it's a misstep to have gone there in the first place, and not to see that anymore (because ratings and cash, etc) is I think a large part of what's wrong with how things are done today. Think of the doddering Time Lords in Deadly Assassin, who'd forgotten their own history and technical achievements. The notion that perfection has been found, there's no need to strive, is stagnation and asking for a change in the wind to spoil your monoculture into extinction. Failure to realize that until it happens, and to appreciate the mundane reasons for it afterwards, is what could bring on another '89. If Capaldi gets the chance he deserves, the Beeb will be alert to the bigger picture. I really do think that the iTunes sales are a big clue that's hard to miss! My guess, regardless of what Moffat thinks or says in DWM, is that the Beeb will finally act to strengthen and defend Who from the new weaknesses some such as he would call strengths. His position with Sherlock may give him some room for dictating terms, but if they get nervous, I don't think Who will take a back seat to his career goals. Exactly when, and the precise nature of all that, will determine how smooth or bumpy the near term will be. Who's global prominence deserves to showcase the Beeb's best. Let's see it again!
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 21, 2013 23:34:10 GMT
In all the excitement (reasonable and OTT) over this year's MBW - which I'm about to catch up on - it seems the new guy has still got that "staring intensely into the camera" thing going on: www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO78rRjE7OgI'm sure one could overlay the Master's theme from the Pertwee era for a laugh! Is it a slightly different shot to that seen in TDOTD? No coffee yet, can't tell. Appears he's got a darkish coat of some kind, so anyone hoping for a 5th/6th Doctor fashion revival is probably going to be disappointed!
|
|