|
Post by mattg on Nov 3, 2022 19:57:49 GMT
The memory cheats, as someone once said. Given that I regularly rewatch classic Who and the early seasons of Nu Who - and thoroughly enjoy both (Love and Monsters excepted obviously) I’m hardly relying on ‘memory’, cheating or otherwise, to evaluate either! Still, as continually eroding audience figures undeniably attest, the quixotic transition of Doctor Who from a classically liberal show boasting mass appeal into a niche, leftwing one few can muster any enthusiasm for has not exactly been the wisest stratagem of late. To put it mildly. P.S., Memo to Self: Must remember that Billy Hartnell’s first Doctor isn’t actually the first incarnation of the titular time lord anymore as he’s now relegated to being only the 12,988,874th. Or thereabouts. Thanks Chibnall.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,910
|
Post by RWels on Nov 3, 2022 20:48:44 GMT
The memory cheats, as someone once said. Given that I regularly rewatch classic Who and the early seasons of Nu Who - and thoroughly enjoy both (Love and Monsters excepted obviously) I’m hardly relying on ‘memory’, cheating or otherwise, to evaluate either! A friend of mine was so impressed with Conan the Destroyer, which he watched when he was small, that he could never really adjust his opinion; even though he KNEW that it was, at the very best, a guilty pleasure campfest. It's very hard to replace first impressions. So yeah you ARE relying on memory, even - or especially! - if you watch the show again.
|
|
|
Post by tom rogers on Nov 3, 2022 21:41:50 GMT
<snip> “It will be no loss to me as I haven't watched it since the first year or so of the reboot and I don't really think of it as the show I grew up with.” Agreed. I watched a couple of the first series shows and it was not my cup of tea. Saw a few minutes of a Tenant show with Liz Sladen and ran screaming and cursing from the room in horror. Along with the 50th anniversary show, that is my total experience with NuWho. NuWho is a different show for a different time and audience. To each their own.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Nov 3, 2022 22:01:55 GMT
I've also enjoyed it since came back, with the mid Matt Smith era filler episodes probably being the weakest & the River Song related arcs being too hard to follow & not making the best of a good character.
Luckily Steven Moffat managed to learn from his mistakes & the later 11th Doctor stories were stronger, then the first two 12th Doctor series were up to RTD's standards. Things slipped slightly in the 3rd when Moffat started to run short of ideas.
Chibnall's era started off awkward but get better as they went along.
|
|
|
Post by nathangeorge on Nov 4, 2022 11:16:00 GMT
I'm a bit concerned about future DVD and Blu-Ray releases in light of this news as Disney seem very hostile to their material getting a physical release, in the mistaken belief it pushes people toward the streaming service.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Nov 4, 2022 16:58:56 GMT
The memory cheats, as someone once said. Given that I regularly rewatch classic Who and the early seasons of Nu Who - and thoroughly enjoy both (Love and Monsters excepted obviously) I’m hardly relying on ‘memory’, cheating or otherwise, to evaluate either! Still, as continually eroding audience figures undeniably attest, the quixotic transition of Doctor Who from a classically liberal show boasting mass appeal into a niche, leftwing one few can muster any enthusiasm for has not exactly been the wisest stratagem of late. To put it mildly. P.S., Memo to Self: Must remember that Billy Hartnell’s first Doctor isn’t actually the first incarnation of the titular time lord anymore as he’s now relegated to being only the 12,988,874th. Or thereabouts. Thanks Chibnall. I watch classic episodes quite regularly too. As a kid in the 60s and 70s sometimes I would struggle to follow the stories. Now when I read about what went on behind the scenes with the scripts and production I understand why! And some stories were stretched out way beyond the number of episodes a child wanted to follow or, in some cases, was able to commit to on a Saturday evening for six weeks or even more. It has always been patchy. In the classic days there was sometimes the feeling that the writers could hardly be bothered. A feeling I get with some other series of the same era. And then there were the effects: balloons and aliens in rubberised cardigans... Maybe the difference now is you can tell it is made by "fans" which seems bring its own set of issues. I find it glib and too jokey.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Nov 4, 2022 22:08:29 GMT
I've found some classic stories could lose an episode or two & not lose anything important. The 6+ parters are usually the worst for this, with the odd exception.
Even by the 1980s plenty of ascended fans were working on the series, which was a mixed bag, especially when there too many times the stories needed some knowledge of previous stories to understand them fully. Pre-internet this put a fair amount of casual fans off. This eased back somewhat in the late 1980s.
|
|
|
Post by mattg on Nov 4, 2022 22:58:47 GMT
Given that I regularly rewatch classic Who and the early seasons of Nu Who - and thoroughly enjoy both (Love and Monsters excepted obviously) I’m hardly relying on ‘memory’, cheating or otherwise, to evaluate either! Still, as continually eroding audience figures undeniably attest, the quixotic transition of Doctor Who from a classically liberal show boasting mass appeal into a niche, leftwing one few can muster any enthusiasm for has not exactly been the wisest stratagem of late. To put it mildly. P.S., Memo to Self: Must remember that Billy Hartnell’s first Doctor isn’t actually the first incarnation of the titular time lord anymore as he’s now relegated to being only the 12,988,874th. Or thereabouts. Thanks Chibnall. Maybe the difference now is you can tell it is made by "fans" which seems bring its own set of issues. I find it glib and too jokey. Admittedly whilst not the greatest fan of RTD, nor indeed his often infantile/nonsensical scripts, I would never deny his obvious affection for the classic show. Ditto Moffat. Chibnall’s ‘fan’ status meanwhile is a little more difficult to discern these days given the metaphorical chainsaw he’s casually taken to Doctor Who’s decades-established lore… Regardless, RTD has his own problems now as he can’t rely on the strong cadre of writing talent that undeniably papered over the cracks of his own creative deficiencies like last time. Of course if he was smart he would dispense with the dubious ‘criteria’ that now debilitatingly (if unofficially) governs commissioning many new writers in modern media and start getting the talent back in. Alas though that would necessitate embracing nasty old meritocracy again and this is still the 21st century so… Anyway, to each their own and if you’re genuinely excited for this new era then I hope it’s all you want it to be! Peace.
|
|
John Wall
Member
Posts: 4,201
Member is Online
|
Post by John Wall on Nov 5, 2022 21:45:38 GMT
Well, DW must have got something right for us all to be here discussing it after 59 years 👍
In the 60s they were making 40+ episodes per year which reduced to 26 from 1970. Even 26 is a bit of a treadmill but throughout that time the show managed to transcend the treadmill. Considering how many stories and episodes have been made there’s been a certain amount of **** and the long-standing BBC requirement for something to fill the 5-30 on Saturday slot helped at times - such as the transition from Troughton to Pertwee.
We all have favourites - and I have no hesitation in using the plural!, stories we’ll put on when the hundreds of cable and satellite channels plus streaming services haven’t got anything worth watching, I watch a lotta DW 👍
There have always been times when it’s been all hands to the pumps just to get something in the can - that’s the nature of TV - but over the decades DW has benefited from some really good people. What’s made DW has been these people using the low budgets well, being imaginative, pushing the envelope, burning the candle at both ends, etc, etc. We can all think of stories where everything comes together - what I’d define as a “classic”. That’s script, performances, production and, yes, effects. Yes, there have been some dodgy effects but there were a lot of occasions when CSO worked. One of the reasons, imho, why the Hinchcliffe/Holmes era was so good was because the technology, and ambitions!, were maturing.
Here’s to the 59th anniversary in eighteen days time 🍺🥃
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,910
|
Post by RWels on Nov 6, 2022 16:39:16 GMT
Well, DW must have got something right for us all to be here discussing it after 59 years But in fairness, wasn't it also that there was nothing else on?
|
|
John Wall
Member
Posts: 4,201
Member is Online
|
Post by John Wall on Nov 6, 2022 20:18:12 GMT
Well, DW must have got something right for us all to be here discussing it after 59 years But in fairness, wasn't it also that there was nothing else on? Look at the Gerry Anderson series that were put up against DW in the ‘70s.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,910
|
Post by RWels on Nov 6, 2022 20:26:26 GMT
But in fairness, wasn't it also that there was nothing else on? Look at the Gerry Anderson series that were put up against DW in the ‘70s. OK but frankly it was a retorical question. DW wasn't literally the only children's program; but even I, who was born when old DW was already on its last legs, remember the days when school was out and the choices for cartoons were 1 (or none). To me old DW is like Bob Ross. It has an undeniable hypnotising charm while at the same time it is not a Rembrandt or Van Gogh.
|
|
John Wall
Member
Posts: 4,201
Member is Online
|
Post by John Wall on Nov 8, 2022 23:38:29 GMT
Look at the Gerry Anderson series that were put up against DW in the ‘70s. OK but frankly it was a retorical question. DW wasn't literally the only children's program; but even I, who was born when old DW was already on its last legs, remember the days when school was out and the choices for cartoons were 1 (or none). To me old DW is like Bob Ross. It has an undeniable hypnotising charm while at the same time it is not a Rembrandt or Van Gogh. No, it’s not Gone With The Wind, The Third Man or Lawrence of Arabia. It’s just a very enjoyable programme.
|
|
|
Post by Scot Ferre on Nov 9, 2022 3:21:48 GMT
OK but frankly it was a retorical question. DW wasn't literally the only children's program; but even I, who was born when old DW was already on its last legs, remember the days when school was out and the choices for cartoons were 1 (or none). To me old DW is like Bob Ross. It has an undeniable hypnotising charm while at the same time it is not a Rembrandt or Van Gogh. No, it’s not Gone With The Wind, The Third Man or Lawrence of Arabia. It’s just a very enjoyable programme. Yes, Bob Ross is certainly that!
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Nov 9, 2022 20:56:22 GMT
I have certainly enjoyed certain classic stories very much.
|
|