|
Post by lousingh on Sept 4, 2019 13:37:29 GMT
He is perhaps also testiment to an older, more educated and enlightened breed of writer who could happily work with (and exude a persistent respect and immeasurable fondness for) the likes of Malcom Hulke - despite the latter's politics being utterly antithetical to his own. True professionalism. Italicised: I was stunned to find out that Malcolm Hulke was a communist. His novelisations of "Colony in Space" and "Invasions of the Dinosaurs" for the US market had overt Christian symbolism and Bible references that were nowhere in the originals. I figured the two viewpoints would have been antithetical to each other.
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Sept 3, 2019 4:02:40 GMT
Came here to say this. RIP.
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Aug 17, 2019 20:25:13 GMT
I remember Gary Downie being quoted in a DWM interview. He said that if the series were ever to return it should definitely NOT be produced by a fan. I agreed with this and in my personal view this has been proved correct with the path the new series has taken. However I cannot deny the popularity the RTD and beyond series has enjoyed so I guess Downie and I were wrong. Doesn't mean I have to like it though. I think it was impossible not to have it produced by a fan. Doctor Who has been around so long that it is effectively impossible to keep a fan from being an actor, actress, producer, script editor, etc.
Having said that, I agree in the sense that RTD, SWM, and CC have all brought things to the programme that bother me. The "socially aware" parts of the series, the shorter stories, and the self-limiting of time periods, planets, aliens, cultures, etc. drives me nuts. The worst offence, from my point of view, is that they all promoted the exchange of incompatible gamete-laden microbiomes for the purpose of simulating the propagation of genomes with Rose Tyler, River Song, et al. (If you are not channeling Sir Humphrey Appleby, the term is bestiality.)
Why bring this up? Because these characters are Mary Sue / Gary Stu for the writers living out their fantasies. This is the biggest problem of a fan being a showrunner - if s/he believes things that the vast majority of the fandom do not, that stuff becomes canonical and turns off some. (IMHO, most unforgivably, NuWho has made Sarah Jane the Doctor's past romance - in spite of numerous writers, producers, etc. involved with the series at the time claiming that there was no romance between the Doctor and Sarah Jane.) This is the politics debate, except that it is even more important to the series' survival: the long-term credibility of the characters. Whatever your politics, if you undermine the fans' belief in the integrity of the characters, then the show is doomed. (Ask non--radical-feminists what they think of the later Darkover novels.)
Additionally, because I don't believe in "meant to be" romance, I am very upset with the Rose Tyler and River Song arcs. IMHO, because Doctor Who has legions of impressionable but less mature fans, regardless of age, then it needs to be more careful and have greater integrity when dealing with real issues. So the "Doctor-lite" episode of Series 3 should have been Rose's family and friends in the alternate universe telling her to stop wallowing in her tears and living in the past and then get over the Doctor and move on. It was irresponsible to have her hook-up with a Doctor clone. (The effects of a similarly influential show for some of these people in the US resulted in some terrible behaviour and attitudes among the next generation's friends.)
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Aug 17, 2019 19:15:51 GMT
The other point be brings up is that Doctor Who can not bear the weight of exploring deep moral and ethical issues. I would give that a massive qualification: it should not do that all the time. But it has often taken on moral, ethical, political, philosophical, etc. issues head on, albeit in quieter fashion. Indeed, it has taken on the greatest flaw of the JN-T / Eric Saward management: it takes itself way too seriously. Yet even they managed to slip some fun into the often portentous stories they commissioned.
For what it's worth I agree but to expand upon "in quieter fashion' I'd proffer that, like satire before it, subtlety too seems pretty much dead in the 21st century. Nowehere is that more soberingly apparent these days than in television (particularly drama and comedy) - and especially Doctor Who.Indeed, even at its subjective best, Nu Who and subtlety were very much of a 'never the twain shall meet' disposition given the show's dubious penchant for maladroit in your face/lowest common denominator style characters, plots and humour. After all, even in this day and age a show need not treat its audience like utter cretins to retain their attention and approval... For all it's perceived faults though at least RTD's tenure (along with Moffat's Season 5) was accessible, innocuous and largely enjoyable; garnering critical acclaim and a large mainstream audience in the process. By sobering contrast Chibnall's era seems singularly determined to place itself at the vanguard of the so-called 'culture war' and thus divest itself of as much of its audience in the process, because reasons... Regardless, one suspects that the show's current panoply of viewer-shedding shortcomings could at least be partly ameliorated by embracing the subtlety that the Classic incarnation often (but by no means always) employed! On the underlined: what is worse is that Doctor Who is far better about it than virtually every other show I have seen recently. Getting bludgeoned over the head with reductionist characters is far and away the norm nowadays.
I also have argued that the lack of subtlety and the maladroit characterisation of the guest characters is a function of the general brevity of the current stories. One of the advantages of a longer story is that a writer can delve into multiple viewpoints of the main themes being illustrated in the story, go more deeply into each individual character, develop the cultures of the characters, etc. Even the old 3 part stories handled their characters, themes, etc. better than most stories nowadays.
For the bolded, please see my response to Ronnie McDermott below.
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Aug 14, 2019 0:00:07 GMT
Thanks a lot. That was neat to see.
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Aug 13, 2019 23:59:32 GMT
mattg : I don't think - & nor does he (GR) say - it's become a "leftwing" niche rather, as he puts it a "socially aware" niche; ie. not the same thing, indeed as he remarks; even the Conservative party are often in blanket agreement with this branch of "socially aware". To me it's more a sort of uber-liberalism rather than "left" as such. In fact I'd much prefer it if modern DW was properly leftwing of shall we say the Bennite & non-coercive utopian varieties. Haven't watched it for quite a while now - but that might draw me in! And I disagree with GR that classic Who was just liberally-minded. Some in the 60s, especially the 70s & a bit in the 80s can be seen as quite leftwing. It tended to reflect national dominant political mood - which in 60s/70s was quite left (especially in contrast to the 80s onwards). One of the - many - problems of new Who was (& possibly is), it's to my mind almost explicit reflection/endorsement of the cementing of Thatcherism (via Thatcherism-lite) which was New Labour (new Labour/ new Who - even has the same ring!). Plus New Labour's identity politics thing, as probably the programme's main thrust. Even the one which criticized fairly explicitly the Iraq War was somewhat diluted by the series' more general subliminal pro-war-ish endorsement via the Doctor's far more frequently gung-ho behaviour compared to earlier decades. Not to mention the Tennant Doctor's rather Tony Blair like narcissistic messiah complex! (1 or 2 of the other new Doctors probably also had some of that quality, though to a lesser extent IIRC). I apologise for being so late to this party, but I just got my mind in order for this.
I might be the most politically conservative person on this board, so I don't see how the new series is an endorsement of Thatcherism-lite. In comparison to the early run of the original series, OK, I can see that. But the italicised part above is what is going on now: the series reflects its current national mood.
I want to go to some points that Gareth brings up. First, I agree with him about not being beholden to the loudest, most passionate fans. IMHO, we know what this looks like already: consider the influence that Ian Levine had on the early JN-T era and how many pains JN-T took to listen to what the fans wanted. IMHO, that led to compilation stories like "Earthshock" and "Resurrection of the Daleks" plus very derivative ideas like "Warriors of the Deep" and every way the Master dies.
If we merge these two points, we can see the greater extremes that the culture is heading towards in politics, ideals, etc.; the BBC catering to these fans is just a variation of this. It is easy to fall into that mindset when it is happening all around.
The other point be brings up is that Doctor Who can not bear the weight of exploring deep moral and ethical issues. I would give that a massive qualification: it should not do that all the time. But it has often taken on moral, ethical, political, philosophical, etc. issues head on, albeit in quieter fashion. Indeed, it has taken on the greatest flaw of the JN-T / Eric Saward management: it takes itself way too seriously. Yet even they managed to slip some fun into the often portentous stories they commissioned.
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Jul 27, 2019 23:27:24 GMT
Hi all, I've just joined this forum. I was a Dalek operator on Mission 2019, and (through my main line of work) built a replica Beaus helmet as well. UCLAN are still pushing for a release, the BBC are keen for it to be seen but as they've never received a project like this there's no real precedent for it yet. I can confirm that the viewing experience is really something. Welcome James. I hope that we get to see the hard work that you've all put into this project. From the pictures that I've seen, it looks great! Seconded. When it gets released, I will buy a copy.
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Jul 16, 2019 16:20:59 GMT
There is one question that never seems to be asked ... Is there a reason why these two films have not been given to you? The usual reason for letting someone know that you have a highly sought-after item is that you are hoping to trade a copy of it in return for (a copy of) some item equally sought-after. So if I was a UK film buff, who happened to have a print of, say, 'Daleks Master Plan' ep 7, I'd be looking to use it as leverage to prize a copy of 'Power of the Daleks' ep 1 out of the group of Australian fans believed to be in possession of it. And, obviously, that might take a little time. But, obviously, it might be a good idea, since it's almost the only way of crowbarring an item like that out of a group like that. Hypothetically speaking, of course. Needless to say, I haven't got a print of episode 7, as that print was never made, but if I did have something like it, that's the use I'd be trying to make of it. I can confirm this.
Before the internet, I had traded cassette recordings (!) of "The Beatles' Christmas Album" for things like the complete recordings of The Beatles on "The Ed Sullivan Show" and the British version of The Rutles movie. (You have no idea how hard it was to get a hold of things like these in the early 1980s.) If you wanted my copy of it, you would need to offer something comparable in its value *to me*.
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Jul 16, 2019 16:11:01 GMT
...Moonbase. This sounds terrifying on audio and the moon sequences from this story are well realised IMO. Better than NASA. lol. TBH, the SFX of the smaller gravity in "The Moonbase" are better than a lot of stuff with fancier special effects from the last couple of decades. The only things that looked right were the ISS scenes from "The Big Bang Theory", which is saying something about the writing and production of a lot of broadcast media over the intervening 50+ years.
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Jun 14, 2019 1:13:01 GMT
I am with those who only worries that the recon is there and that I don't forget how to make my TV look like B&W.
As a good capitalist pig, I can't imagine that these animations will not have B&W versions. The obvious reasons are: we the older fans have money; we are willing to spend it; and most if not all of us want the B&W option available. Besides, the conversion from a colour animation to B&W is fairly simple on a computer.
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on May 26, 2019 0:41:17 GMT
Hi, all.
This has come up as a possibility for recreating missing episodes, but now we have the alternate possibility of attempted fraud. I had hoped that the person who brought it to my attention would post here, but he demurred.
An old friend of mine suspects that there is a deep fake of a scene from "The Roof of the World" making the rounds. Based on his information, I agree it is almost certainly fake -- another film in the guy's possession proves that even most Canadians don't know that James Doohan kept his Canadian accent when he cameoed on "Wayne and Shuster" specials that directly referenced both "Star Trek" and their work together post WWII. Those appearances are as Canadian as a Montreal Expos uniform autographed by William Shatner at the NLCS and probably interest most SciFi fans less than acapellascience on YouTube.
I think this one was nipped in the bud, but as I thought about it, I started having concerns because I expect that we will see more of this in future.
1. Any general advice that might qualify as FAQs?
2. To whom should I direct clips I don't recognise to verify their authenticity? I would feel a lot better if someone who remembered the originals and/or an greater expert than I were available before I kicked something on to the BBC.
3. What should I do if money is requested first? I should have a reputation that my word is my bond and that I will adhere to both the letter and the spirit of an agreement, but trust is not exactly high in some parts of the underground trading world.
Thank you all very much.
blts
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on May 18, 2019 5:54:45 GMT
The Pertwee era was when I outgrew what I called "The Wesley Eugene Roddenberry Mindset," which I later changed to a reworking of a Dead Kennedy's lyric, "Wesley's Humans Uber Alles. S-T-N-G Uber Alles." I can even point to specific instances:
"Doctor Who and the Silurians", Episide 4: The Doctor extends his hands to the Silurian who had killed Squire and Baker and asked, "Hello. Are you a Silurian?"
"The Ambassadors of Death", Episode 7: The Doctor respects General Carrington's dignity and well-meaning by telling Carrington that he understood why he did what he did.
"The Curse of Peladon", Episode Four: the denouement, when the dying Hepesh wishes King Peladon success and Peladon does not punish the rebels because they all ultimately wanted the same thing -- what was best for their society.
The strength of Doctor Who is ultimately that the Doctor is not human, and thus can explicitly point out our flaws and hypocrisies because s/he is external and, in some way, above our foibles. While Roddenberry was in charge of _Star Trek_, it never could grow to this level because he believed that the only way humanity survived was "my way or the highway."
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Apr 25, 2019 16:00:12 GMT
Ice Warriors worked because Qurios worked to the limitations of 1967, keeping the camera numbers short and thinking in terms of how they did old Who. Like how Clent is hit with the power pack instead of having it thrown at him. With the limitations of the bulky Ice Warrior costumes, that worked very well. JMO, but I would have preferred that all of the animations work to the limitations of the technology of the era. I suspect that it would have been bad for commercial release. (Heck, I would want the animation to preserve any goof in costuming and special effects.) It also might have made them easier to produce.
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Apr 4, 2019 1:15:52 GMT
Thanks, everyone. I will probably go for those multi-region players. Although, as a software developer, I should just write the code to run on my Linux laptop.
|
|
|
Post by lousingh on Apr 3, 2019 15:24:34 GMT
Import the UK version that is what I did I have not done that in ages. What are the issues I need to look out for?
|
|