|
|
Post by Philip Hindley on Jan 4, 2010 16:24:34 GMT
Well what did you all think? I would give it 6/10  |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Rumbold on Jan 4, 2010 18:59:13 GMT
Blimey have they lost that already? Very careless....
7/10 for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Hindley on Jan 9, 2010 15:31:27 GMT
go on then I'll give it 7......
|
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jan 9, 2010 22:00:41 GMT
Any advance on 7, do I hear 8.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Hindley on Jan 10, 2010 10:22:59 GMT
8.......then...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ron Bowes on Jan 14, 2010 17:53:00 GMT
1 out of 10 - Was really looking forward to it and it was total pants. Why do they have to change all the characters backgrounds and introduce new ideas into a classic piece of sci fi?
What made it worse is that it made the 1980s triffids look cool! You would have thought with CGI they could have done a better job.
|
|
|
|
Post by davemachin on Jan 14, 2010 18:13:35 GMT
I find there are too many effects at their disposal these days and it encourages laziness with the programme makers. Anything that can be imagined can be created but no one is thinking imaginatively enough to counter this. On paper it would be possible to create the best and most mind blowing dramas ever but it's the opposite. It seems it is time to scale things down again to a low tech approach which would make for more absorbing human dramas. I do not expect anyone to take note of this suggestion but I think it is what is needed.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by James C on Jan 14, 2010 21:17:15 GMT
I enjoyed it , Eddie Izzard was a bit annoying at times. 9/10. Better than the remake of SURVIVORS.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jan 14, 2010 22:14:47 GMT
I find there are too many effects at their disposal these days and it encourages laziness with the programme makers. Anything that can be imagined can be created but no one is thinking imaginatively enough to counter this. On paper it would be possible to create the best and most mind blowing dramas ever but it's the opposite. It seems it is time to scale things down again to a low tech approach which would make for more absorbing human dramas. I do not expect anyone to take note of this suggestion but I think it is what is needed. Dave I don't disagree. There has to be a balance between the script and the effects. If the script is too ambitious then the inability of the effects to deliver can let things down. However it's also possible for fancy effects to try and paper over holes in the script. Just remember "Nice video, shame about the song" from Not The Nine O'Clock News. At the end of the day though a good script will always stick in the memory. Think of some of Tom Baker's lines in "Genesis of the Daleks" or "Revenge of the Cybermen" or so much of the sparkling dialogue in Blakes Seven. I recall that Terrance Dicks has often outlined the three things needed for a good Dr Who: "Script, script and script". |
|
|
|
Post by davemachin on Jan 15, 2010 17:27:01 GMT
You're not wrong John!
There is a fine line to balance here but a good script will stay in the mind longer than good visuals with no story will. That's been proved as so many of us remember with affection so much drama and television from times past when budgets and sfx were limited but the writing was so much more potent. An intriguing idea will be remembered long afterwards but I truly wonder how much of today's drama will be regarded as highly? The strong original concepts aren't there any more. It's a real responsibility too to use all the effects at the programme maker's disposal with taste and discipline. I don't think they know how to do this currently.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jan 15, 2010 19:03:26 GMT
You're not wrong John! There is a fine line to balance here but a good script will stay in the mind longer than good visuals with no story will. That's been proved as so many of us remember with affection so much drama and television from times past when budgets and sfx were limited but the writing was so much more potent. An intriguing idea will be remembered long afterwards but I truly wonder how much of today's drama will be regarded as highly? The strong original concepts aren't there any more. It's a real responsibility too to use all the effects at the programme maker's disposal with taste and discipline. I don't think they know how to do this currently. Dave Speak sense and people will agree with you ! I find that the "old" Dr Who, etc is far superior - even if technically dodgy. The Dalek War boxset just arrived and I'm looking forward to watching it. I grew up with Jon Pertwee and Katy Manning - Frontier In Space would, and could, never be made today. It's a leisurely story with good characterisation - there's not a lot of action, etc just a Malcolm Hulke script. |
|
|
|
Post by davemachin on Jan 15, 2010 19:50:33 GMT
I usually like Malcolm Hulke's stuff but Frontier isn't one of his best. I'd agree. It does have it's good moments even so. The Silurians is my favourite of his and it has moral and ecological undercurrents to it as well as managing to tell a good adventure story. A fine example of how to make a longer story interesting without flagging in the middle. You get to know the characters well in a seven parter too so that you care what happens to them by the end. This is something I feel is lacking in the new series with it's breakneck pace and self-contained 45 minute epics.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Jan 15, 2010 20:28:59 GMT
Mac Hulke wrote some of the best stories from that era imho. What was really good, in retrospect, was how so many of the Letts/Dicks stories worked on different levels. I saw them as a kid - watching them again decades later I realised that they were also making topical comments, but in a way that didn't stop them being enjoyable as action/adventure.
|
|
|
|
Post by lee jones on Jan 16, 2010 14:57:47 GMT
I enjoyed it , Eddie Izzard was a bit annoying at times. 9/10. Better than the remake of SURVIVORS. Apologies for going OT and I missed the day of the triffids '09 but I quite agree with the above! The modern-day remake of survivors is appaling. Nothing you won't find anywhere else; nastiness, annoying camera angles, little plot (more soap-style), blary music, etc. Meh. x.x :-( ljones |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Hindley on Jan 16, 2010 16:09:35 GMT
I find there are too many effects at their disposal these days and it encourages laziness with the programme makers. Anything that can be imagined can be created but no one is thinking imaginatively enough to counter this. On paper it would be possible to create the best and most mind blowing dramas ever but it's the opposite. It seems it is time to scale things down again to a low tech approach which would make for more absorbing human dramas. I do not expect anyone to take note of this suggestion but I think it is what is needed. Exactly too many CGI EFFECTS! Spoiling what could be good drama. Dave |
|
