|
Post by Patrick Coles on Dec 1, 2013 12:53:41 GMT
I don't doubt you are quite right...but then that only emphasises the gulf between 'classic' and 'new' show - and they ought to be treating it as one and the same, which had they kept to the 'core strengths' of the original and just modernised the look and not radically altered (or indeed 'ba*stardised') the 'spirit' of the Dr.Who show would have been no problem at all...
the likes of, say, Barry Letts and Phil Hinchcliffe could take a deserved bow for THEIR eras and work, but at the same time they both were upholding and continuing a much loved and firmly established 'British TV Institution'
- it's the likes of Davies and Moffat who were keen to 'distance' THEIR modern show from the 'wobbling walls' sad old 'joke of a show' that THEY themselves tagged the decades running classic era show as being....thus if now their modern show starts to fall apart in retrospect over time as being all 'style over substance' then any such angst Moffat might now feel when his budget cutback modern show is put up against the revered classic 1963-1989 version has largely been of his own creation...
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 1, 2013 13:36:30 GMT
I can never understand why Moffat (or anyone) belittles the Classic Dr.Who show - without which WHERE would Moffat be now...? Because, to some degree, he probably feels the eminence of the classic show threatens the credibility of the new and probably makes it seem poor by comparison. He should look to someone like Mark Gatiss though, who is a great admirer of the original, has also been involved in writing for the new and feels no such either / or dilemma! This is something that I noticed in other ways, all the way back to 2005. Consider Rose, and how many competent male characters there are in it. Maybe there's a deleted scene, but I counted none, save the Doctor. That's a cheap trick, and makes us look a planet of plonkers - something not done even when fathead berks from the Ministry were ten a penny during Pertwee's day. There's no need to distort others to make oneself look big - it tends to have the opposite effect, if we recall the Master's response to the Keller machine. We should take pride in those who made what is possible today, instead of awkwardly pretending they can't be seen or heard like an embarrassing relative consigned to a cellar or attic. If an era is not to one's liking, rise above it and see beyond the limitations of the past rather than indirectly condemn with faint praise those who were the public face of those limitations. As had been said many times, there are no small parts - only small actors. So too with creative visions and past eras, I think. A little fair minded earnest thought can make what another presented as shallow seem deep and that which looked dull shine with unexpected lustre. Don't write off, write better! At its best, BF has done this, widening opportunities for past talent to explore new aspects of familiar characters in ways that surprise and entertain them along with their new and old fans. With a canon as extensive as Who is blessed with, snobbery is never a useful road to an enduring tale worth the telling, nor to sustaining a diverse and inclusive audience. New finds of missing material will only bring this point further to the foreground; a rich legacy such as Who's should be a source of inspiration rather than fearful disdain or mindless aping. Certain of the TV show's makers would do well to appreciate that, though others - be they past masters or yet to start on Who themselves - are surely in tune with the sentiment!
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Coles on Dec 1, 2013 14:31:26 GMT
funnily enough TIME is the key factor here....
when we look back later we see the 'acid test of Time' reveal the strengths and cruelly expose the limitations of an earlier TV show, film, or album, etc
'Rose' and the 2005 series was firmly aimed at a certain mindset, and with 'agendas' repeatedly and heavy handedly rammed home again and again - a clear Anti Royals bias, an Anti God, Anti Americans, anti middle classes, firm bias with a Gay aspect and pro Welsh promoting angle, plus an uncomfortable sexual undercurrent (references to having oral sex with faces in paving stones, etc) 'shoehorned in' as often as possible
Males were totally superflous thus got portrayed in a totally negative manner....even The Doctor, this supposedly much feared great 'oncoming storm' legend in his own lunchtime...needed a female teenage chav to bail him out, left, right and crentre (Fantastic !!)
no wonder Chris Eccleston 'jumped ship' ASAP....then swam as far away from the thing as he could !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2013 16:55:41 GMT
There's no need to distort others to make oneself look big - it tends to have the opposite effect
|
|
|
Post by Michael D. Kimpton on Dec 1, 2013 19:34:33 GMT
funnily enough TIME is the key factor here.... when we look back later we see the 'acid test of Time' reveal the strengths and cruelly expose the limitations of an earlier TV show, film, or album, etc 'Rose' and the 2005 series was firmly aimed at a certain mindset, and with 'agendas' repeatedly and heavy handedly rammed home again and again - a clear Anti Royals bias, an Anti God, Anti Americans, anti middle classes, firm bias with a Gay aspect and pro Welsh promoting angle, plus an uncomfortable sexual undercurrent (references to having oral sex with faces in paving stones, etc) 'shoehorned in' as often as possible Males were totally superflous thus got portrayed in a totally negative manner....even The Doctor, this supposedly much feared great 'oncoming storm' legend in his own lunchtime...needed a female teenage chav to bail him out, left, right and crentre (Fantastic !!) no wonder Chris Eccleston 'jumped ship' ASAP....then swam as far away from the thing as he could ! Actually, Eccleston planned to leave before they even started filming. He was only ever going to do 13 episodes; he just wanted to make the show a success so that if it got renewed, the next actor to play the Doctor would keep it a success... Now, one might not always agree with the way the show's going, but it IS still on the air.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Coles on Dec 1, 2013 20:15:23 GMT
Do we know that for a fact ?
that might be what was later claimed...but was it really true at the time...?
seems odd Eccleston talked of 'looking forward to being The Doctor for a whole new generation of children'...if he planned beforehand to quit after a mere 13 episodes
He also had spoken of looking forward to 'dressing in period costume for each story' (as William Hartnell often did)...yet he turned up in a current leather jacket looking like he'd just left the pub or the betting office, and wore that everyday 'clobber' pretty much throughout his very short stint...
thus his shock exit duly 'co*cking up' all the pre-planned memorabilia, toys , etc that originally bore his image or face for the Xmas market...a good number of marketing items were apparently rendered redundant by his departure I can recall reading in the press at the time..
even the 'Dr.Who' annual that year looked odd with him depicted with weird eyes yet Tennant looking much more normal - surely that was never any originally planned idea ? - bring a character back with a 'new face' after umpteen years off air then CHANGE it almost immediately ?....yeah !!
and a few interviews I read at the time strongly suggested the 'Bad Wolf' saga was being made up as Davies went along and that NO big regeneration scene was originally planned to go in at the end of it...David Tennant hadn't been cast when Eccleston departed either so no 'handing over' scene was done with the pair
odd too that Eccleston apparently had some sort of 'gagging order' lasting a number of years following his departure, and he refused to do any DVD commentaries - with rumours that the abrupt departure of Caroline Skinner from the present show was something to do with Eccleston not appearing in the 50th Anniversary show...
Eccleston's quick exit announced before the first series even had properly got going looks about as 'planned' as George Lazenby's from the James Bond role was.....!
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Dec 1, 2013 22:49:28 GMT
I remember it was only 2-3 weeks in into the run, just after a 2nd series had been commisioned.
IIRC Charles Dickens mentions that the Doctor's leather jacket makes him look like a navvy.
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 2, 2013 7:16:53 GMT
Additional Additional Musing: Equipment: It's been a long time since we had a Doctor who was a bit musical. True, they did toy briefly with the idea of lumbering Pertwee with a guitar but that was happily scotched long before filming. So, why not give Capaldi's model something he can fit in his pocket, that offers a range of interesting sounds whether one is a novice or a virtuoso, that can range from playful to melancholy, an instrument that mixes old with new. Something even historical notables like Abraham Lincoln kept in their pocket? Yes, I'm talking about a harmonica. Unlike the medieval origins of Troughton's recorder, the harmonica emerged around the 1820s. Capaldi need not have a mop top to be with it, if he has one of these! Talents from Max Geldray to Stevie Wonder to you name it all put this humble little instrument to a wide range of uses, and I think it'd provide a nice bit of colour to the next Doctor's style. Aside from the musical whimsy, the oldest Doctor could also tootle away for medicinal purposes - just as some people (with COPD) do today.
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 2, 2013 9:46:14 GMT
A simple but effective visual break from the previous Doctors would be a beard. Yes, I'm talking about a return of a Doctor who's handy with his fists. Be it Venusian aikido or what have you, in self defense and only as a last resort to incapacitate an aggressor. Companions: Perhaps the Doctor could take on board an assassin... ...Pertwee never met the Cybermen or the Ice Warriors... I agree with a 3rd Doctor type-elegant yet able to get physically involved. Perhaps with the slight unpredictability and sarcasm of Doctor number 6. Yes, next time that an alien gets out of line, have the Doctor karate chop the poo out of him!! Doctor with beard and The Master without could be a 'you can't judge a book by it's cover' lesson, like in Galaxy 4-it might be interesting. An assassin-I don't think so-I always thought The Doctor was foolish trusting Turlough. He might end up with a cosmic meat cleaver stuck into one of his hearts! Pertwee met the Ice Warriors on Peladon-twice. Very naughty, Paul-I suggest a dose of The Curse Of Peladon as soon as possible or I'll send The King's Champion along shortly. LOL Companion-If it was a spoof, I suggest Gordon Ramsey-I can just see him attacking a Krynoid with a salad fork while excessive bleeping fills the soundtrack! Guess I have to be thankful I'm going from move MMM rather than YYY, eh Toymaker? Thanks for the memory jog! I don't know why Pertwee's brush with the Ice Warriors didn't spring to memory. I guess the stories are just a little busy, creature wise. And the Ice Warriors aren't exactly in the solo spotlight as they are in say, Seeds Of Death. The idea of a killer aboard the TARDIS who the Doctor wants to lead to a nobler path has proven fertile ground for interesting character development and stories. Leela was honorable but more than a savage before she left for a fate worse than the mind probe. Sara Kingdom also learned to be a bit less trigger happy over time, too. Heck, maybe the bloke might not be a killer - but have a cultural/ritual obligation to eat him. Sort of a bizarro Wookie life debt, if you like. That could give a little more room to play! Glad for the thumbs up re the whiskers. Lots of decent sorts have 'em, in this show, others and real life. After all, the Brig was hardly semi-dodgy for his mustache! However, its absence might explain the Brigade Leader more than the eye patch! Now, what kind for the previously clean-shaven Time Lord? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard#Styles
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 9:50:52 GMT
Do we know that for a fact ? No. It's been suggested elsewhere (by himself included) that he didn't sit that comfortably with Russell Davies and the production style and left partly because of this. The details aren't fully known though so it isn't possible to say categorically x or y was the sole reason. It's a shame his tenure wasn't longer though as he made a very good doctor; despite having certain issues with it, the very first series of the new run has been the best so far for me. They've slowly slipped downhill since then (despite the odd classic such as "Blink").
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Coles on Dec 2, 2013 10:02:14 GMT
Yeah I thought it was all 'rumours' re Eccleston - his apparent concerns re 'the production style' says alot tho' !
I've also read that he clashed with the producer Phil Collinson too, the excuse in the press at the time was that 'staying in Cardiff for 13 weeks made him miss his girlfriend too much...' (aahh...)
which when you consider the much older William Hartnell was staying in digs weekdays whilst doing the show some 48 weeks a year for three years (hence Verity gave him the odd week off, which is why we got a 'Doctor lite' or absent episode in many stories then)...only made Eccleston look a bit of a feeble plonker ! (tho' presumably the press story was fabricated, but it hardly made him look very good....)
re above, besides the Ice Warriors Jon Pertwee's Doctor also encountered the Cybermen too....in 'The Five Doctors' (when a Rassilon warrior robot sorted them out) ...and a Cyberman is seen as one of the imprisoned creatures within the miniscope in 'Carnival of Monsters' too
|
|
|
Post by Michael D. Kimpton on Dec 2, 2013 10:21:23 GMT
I wonder why the "MISSING EPISODES" forums have evolved to being dedicated to slamming everything about the Modern Series?
Can we PLEASE get back to basics??
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 2, 2013 11:04:48 GMT
re above, besides the Ice Warriors Jon Pertwee's Doctor also encountered the Cybermen too....in 'The Five Doctors' (when a Rassilon warrior robot sorted them out) Well spotted Patrick - like Dan's examples, I plumb forgot about The Five Doctors. Mind you - wasn't exactly in Pertwee's original run any more than Omega was in Troughton and Hartnell's... I guess what I was driving at is that there's no need to cram in every big monster/villain in every Doctor's era. Stories and quality, variety and surprise, should come first.
|
|
|
Post by Paul McDermott on Dec 2, 2013 11:12:54 GMT
I wonder why the "MISSING EPISODES" forums have evolved to being dedicated to slamming everything about the Modern Series? Can we PLEASE get back to basics?? Have they, Michael? Can't say I've noticed it. I've just kicked around a few ideas here about what the past may suggest re the future, in light of the public response to recent returns. It seems a few others are happy to take the time to discuss them, and I think we're all glad for doing so. Patrick had similar concerns to your own re "appropriateness" but they've abated. It seems we're all playing nicely too. Leastways, Laurence seems to think so - and that's good enough for me. Sure beats the "gimme missing eps now or X is a liar" nadir we've seen before. And I'm happy to talk about other things in other threads too - just like the other posters here, including yourself. Likewise, I don't think we all post in all threads - we each have our preferences and areas of expertise. Seems like that's how it should be, no?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 12:45:59 GMT
I wonder why the "MISSING EPISODES" forums have evolved to being dedicated to slamming everything about the Modern Series? Maybe because some people don't actually like the modern series that much?
|
|