|
Post by mattplace on Dec 9, 2013 6:40:26 GMT
I recently watched the end of RTD's era(season 4) and the specials. By no means are they perfect, and there is technobabble (metacrisies) to get out of situations, but.. the difference is in my opinion.. ITS FUN. I have not enjoyed many of Moffatt era stories to the same levels as RTDs.. There are some good episodes, good moments.. But the "arc" of each season has been less fun and sometimes boring. River Song was great in the Library... after that it was just too much of her.. Amy's story was lacking interest for me, as as with a lot of the companions in New Who it became their story not the story of the Doctor Clara's was intriguing, for a while, but i got a bit sick of hearing Clara's theme... Bring in some new companions for Capaldi. I'd like to see a showrunner with a fresh approach, but still acknowledging what went before. TDOTD was great to watch, but the aftertaste was not so good, Either have All living Original Series or None appear(tom was fantastic tho).. I understand why Colin was not happy. At least the focus was on the Doctor again though... ps 18 emoticons Moffatt is a good writer, but i think there could be a better showrunner, Give it to Howard Overman from Misfits(up to season 3 anyway).. that would create a change.. tho maybe need a swear jar...
|
|
|
Post by edhipkiss on Dec 9, 2013 14:07:53 GMT
Paul - that's not quite the point I was making. It's like the old "sack the manager!" thing in football, when there is no obvious replacement and things often end up worse. All because of a knee-jerk reaction that things aren't good enough for a vocal minority (and the viewing figures would suggest it is currently a minority).
In fact you've made my point for me - whenever the show has rejuvenated itself behind the scenes, there's been a Gerry Davis, a Bob Holmes, a Barry Letts, a Terrance Dicks, even a JNT already working on the show who's been an obvious replacement. When RTD left, Moffatt was the obvious replacement. This time unless Mark Gatiss makes the step up - based on the current personnel working on the show - I fear for the future unless the appointment comes from outside the current set up.
Moffatt is isn't going to stay with the show forever. RTD did 4, and I reckon the next season could be Moffatt's last (a 5th max) right now we need a proper search for a replacement, because right now there simply isn't one. Get it wrong, and it's 1989 all over again.
More suggestions like Matt's for Howard Overman please!
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Coles on Dec 9, 2013 16:41:57 GMT
I don't think the show needs any big name 'showrunner' figure - and hopefully not figures such as 'Chibbers' or Gatiss - it needs a decent production TEAM as it used to have
No mention I see in ed's post of the show's key producer Innes Lloyd at all...that is the guy who first joined the show in seaon three back in April 1966 - producing the classic William Hartnell story; 'The Celestial Toymaker', and then got in Gerry Davis & Dr. Kit Pedler (thus gave us The Cybermen), introduced Barry Letts to the show (Lloyd hiring Letts as Director of 'Enemy of The World' in 1968) cast Patrick Troughton as The Doctor, and whose team came up with the whole concept of regeneration etc....
- Innes Lloyd being without doubt one of the MOST important and influential of the show's producers ever - alongside Verity, Barry, and Phil - a key figure on the show, whose vital contribution most fans (I assume those who came onboard later) seem to have either ignored, never known, or forgotten....but a behind the scenes figure with his team who has left more of a ongoing influence on the show than many who are loudly praised from the rooftops both then and now...
Producers/Script Editors Peter Bryant and Derrick Sherwin, also now both seemingly 'forgotten' figures too, under their reign those young lads Bob Holmes and Terry Dicks first got a look in on the show...
All of the better producers each had strong teams pooling their creative ideas rather than just one 'showrunner' (with it seems an obligatory big ego) dictating the direction and style of the show and SACKING those who may fall out with them....
'Dr.Who' really needs to have a strong production team in place with another effective pooling of creative talents, duly harnessed by a producer, but not 'ruled' by any dictatorship overlord if it is to move forward to a stronger period...
|
|
|
Post by edhipkiss on Dec 9, 2013 17:09:33 GMT
I don't think the show needs any big name 'showrunner' figure - and hopefully not figures such as 'Chibbers' or Gatiss - it needs a decent production TEAM as it used to have No mention I see in ed's post of the show's key producer Innes Lloyd at all...that is the guy who first joined the show in seaon three back in April 1966 - producing the classic William Hartnell story; 'The Celestial Toymaker', and then got in Gerry Davis & Dr. Kit Pedler (thus gave us The Cybermen), introduced Barry Letts to the show (Lloyd hiring Letts as Director of 'Enemy of The World' in 1968) cast Patrick Troughton as The Doctor, and whose team came up with the whole concept of regeneration etc.... - Innes Lloyd being without doubt one of the MOST important and influential of the show's producers ever - alongside Verity, Barry, and Phil - a key figure on the show, whose vital contribution most fans (I assume those who came onboard later) seem to have either ignored, never known, or forgotten....but a behind the scenes figure with his team who has left more of a ongoing influence on the show than many who are loudly praised from the rooftops both then and now... Producers/Script Editors Peter Bryant and Derrick Sherwin, also now both seemingly 'forgotten' figures too, under their reign those young lads Bob Holmes and Terry Dicks first got a look in on the show... All of the better producers each had strong teams pooling their creative ideas rather than just one 'showrunner' (with it seems an obligatory big ego) dictating the direction and style of the show and SACKING those who may fall out with them.... 'Dr.Who' really needs to have a strong production team in place with another effective pooling of creative talents, duly harnessed by a producer, but not 'ruled' by any dictatorship overlord if it is to move forward to a stronger period... Uh... it wasn't intended as a definitive list - just a few names off the top of my head! I didn't mention Hinchcliffe, Adams, or my former next door neighbour Graham Williams either! As for your point about a team rather than "dictatorship overlord" - never going to happen. That's not how TV is produced these days. You have a showrunner and often the lead actor is an ExecProd as well - thankfully that at least hasn't happened on Who. Matt Smith approving scripts would be a bit much for me!
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Coles on Dec 10, 2013 16:37:40 GMT
Then Television will continue going downhill....
as for Graham Williams, I wouldn't have bothered mentioning him anyway, given the tosh he produced...
|
|
|
Post by scotttelfer on Dec 10, 2013 16:46:09 GMT
Then Television will continue going downhill.... as for Graham Williams, I wouldn't have bothered mentioning him anyway, given the tosh he produced... It depends how you look at it, really it isn't that different from how it was back in the day, the only difference is the jobs that were once done by one person have been split up and now there are people "higher up" effectively doing what others were doing. If you look at the executive producers, really you've just got a glorified script editor (who does everything a script editor used to do apart from edit the scripts, hence the name change) and a high up BBC executive who has an interest in the show, and occasionally a glorified producer (while a regular producer still works on the show). So there are more people, higher salaries and more complications in the command chain. I think most people would say that applies to pretty much every business these days.
|
|
|
Post by lee jones on Dec 12, 2013 18:34:49 GMT
Well here's hoping Peter Capaldi does well as dr who and improves the show! Though I must confess to having mixed feelings on the new series of dr who. For me the new series has been somewhat of a mixed bag. Some have been quite good, while others have been a lot worse than anything in the 80s. Don't want to get into mudslinging and stuff and these aren't absolutes, just my thoughts. But if I was making dr who I'd possibly do the following; * No more stores with characters killing <incert baddie name here> with love. * Less snogging/kissing/etc in the show. No more "Mr sexy doctor". If I wanted a love story I'd have gone and bought a mills and boon novel. If the show's about in 10 years' time will we have hard core sex in the tardis? * Please - no young kids on the show! I forget where I read it but somewhere I read that even young kids don't like watching other young kids on the TV! * Less use of CGI and more intelligence. But not badly written and undecipherable scripts masquerading as "intelligent"; for example the all-new battlestar galatica. * Fewer cut scenes. One moment we're in the 25th century in deep space on a spaceship and then in the next breath in 18th century england. Often without so much as any sort of explination. * Slow the show down! If you liken it to eating food it's a bit like going for a McDonalds burger and then shoving it down your throat as fast as possible as opposed going to a normal resturant, spending time, eating, etc. * No more blary classical musical instruments. If I wanted to listen to a music program I would! * John Simm as the master. The character of the master has been changed to some sort of "Generic hollywood comic book/film evil guy thing". Like the doctor - in the old show - he used his intelligence but to evil ends -- now he can fire things from his hands, jump very high and turn into a CGI skeleton. Don't think John Simm is a bad actor btw, but maybe it was also just a bit too soon afer "Life on mars". Who was expecting Gene Hunt to appear, punch him in the stomach and say "Oi Dorathy! Stop fannying about..." and drag him back to the local cop-shop * Where's the 'scare' in dr who? I know I'm not a kid but that dosen't preclude the writers from trying! Or maybe - like everything else on TV - it's just another piece of safe TV? * Stop saying stuff like "Timey whimey!". I mean in the past on the old show I think some people used to complain about 'technobabble'. But any amount of that was better than stuff like "Timey Whimey". It almost sounds like baby talk. Will the doctor have to say "googooeegooo" next? I guess a show such as Dr who in reality can only really be as good as the scripts. A TV show is made up of a lot of bits and pieces. If the scripts are trash then even if the actors are good the scripts will still be trash. Granted, it'll be finely acted trash but still trash all the same. One question though. Could the new doctor played by Peter Capaldi be a reboot? Does that mean it is the show's second -- a re-re boot? Could that imply a show in trouble? Thinking about it all, and especially the xmas episodes also note that - well at least it seems to me - every dr who episode must always be better than the previous one. If anyone saw the recent Morecambe and wise documentary you'd have seen that it casued problems -- each M&W Xmas episode in the 70s had to be better than the last which placed more and more strain on everyone. Could the same be true for Dr who? Here's hoping Peter Capaldi will do a good job though. I'll be intrested to see if he has a completely new take on the doctor or weather or not he'll be constrained by scripts, budgets and the BBC wanting to flog the series worldwide. Just thinking about the 50th eps btw though; The 50th for me although it was watchable - I mean there's a lot worse on (e.g. Eastenders) it wasn't brilliant. It seemed to me as if the 50th was basically two stories neither of which had much in common but which neither could be used completely, e.g. the time war maybe because of budget constraints (prehaps the 50th only had the same budget as a normal episode?) and the Zygon story because there wasn't enough of it. So a lot of time was invested in constructing a 'bridge' between the two and making it work which left both stories relegated to a brief bit of CGI and a Zygon running about. And then there is the way Tom baker - the guy who's played the doctor for the longest time - was simply tacked onto the end of the show almost as an afterthought (and presumably to placate fans so they (the writers) could say to the fans "It's got one of the *old* doctors in it! Look!). I know some will say dr who is a kids show btw, but I've always held it to be more of a family show. If it was a kids' show wouldn't it be on CBBC only? ljones
|
|
|
Post by scotttelfer on Dec 12, 2013 19:42:22 GMT
* Less snogging/kissing/etc in the show. No more "Mr sexy doctor". If I wanted a love story I'd have gone and bought a mills and boon novel. If the show's about in 10 years' time will we have hard core sex in the tardis? * Please - no young kids on the show! I forget where I read it but somewhere I read that even young kids don't like watching other young kids on the TV! * John Simm as the master. The character of the master has been changed to some sort of "Generic hollywood comic book/film evil guy thing". Like the doctor - in the old show - he used his intelligence but to evil ends -- now he can fire things from his hands, jump very high and turn into a CGI skeleton. Don't think John Simm is a bad actor btw, but maybe it was also just a bit too soon afer "Life on mars". Who was expecting Gene Hunt to appear, punch him in the stomach and say "Oi Dorathy! Stop fannying about..." and drag him back to the local cop-shop * Where's the 'scare' in dr who? I know I'm not a kid but that dosen't preclude the writers from trying! Or maybe - like everything else on TV - it's just another piece of safe TV? I guess a show such as Dr who in reality can only really be as good as the scripts. A TV show is made up of a lot of bits and pieces. If the scripts are trash then even if the actors are good the scripts will still be trash. Granted, it'll be finely acted trash but still trash all the same. One question though. Could the new doctor played by Peter Capaldi be a reboot? Does that mean it is the show's second -- a re-re boot? Could that imply a show in trouble? A couple of these I can make notes on: It will never happen, for all people hate Moffat at least he has taste (so thankfully the straight to DVD "The Conception of River Song" by "Fuzzy S. Gardens" (aka Karen Gillan) was never commisioned despite a script being provided). It was one of the creators of Doctor Who actually on why a kid shouldn't be included in the initial line-up (basically kids hate any kid who is younger than them, although some people never grow out of that). Sydney Newman put a stop to those plans. John Simm wanted a more serious Master, but RTD was the one who wanted the madman character we showed. Indeed, there are some stories that occasionally work, but a lot of the scariness is being forced. There are some good stories, but they don't seem to be able to get it to work on a long term basis. There's no point in giving the old saying about polishing turds but that sadly is something that is a problem across all television, and sadly the actors (or presenters in the case of real life events) often get the blame for a bad writer or producer. Look at that BFI afterparty thing on the 23rd of November. Everyone was quick to attack Zoe Ball (and the other guy), and admittedly a few less drinks all round could have helped but there were serious production flaws before you even begin with them. Now that's an example we can all agree could have been carried out much better and the same applies to drama. However, it doesn't help when people start attacking writers for "plot holes" that are intended to be there. If there's a dodgy script it will show itself, you don't need to scrutinise it to find the problem. The show isn't in trouble, it is more popular than it has ever been and the statistics are there to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by malcolmostlere on Dec 12, 2013 21:07:56 GMT
[ Well here's hoping Peter Capaldi does well as dr who and improves the show! Though I must confess to having mixed feelings on the new series of dr who. For me the new series has been somewhat of a mixed bag. Some have been quite good, while others have been a lot worse than anything in the 80s. Don't want to get into mudslinging and stuff and these aren't absolutes, just my thoughts. But if I was making dr who I'd possibly do the following; * No more stores with characters killing <incert baddie name here> with love. * Less snogging/kissing/etc in the show. No more "Mr sexy doctor". If I wanted a love story I'd have gone and bought a mills and boon novel. If the show's about in 10 years' time will we have hard core sex in the tardis? * Please - no young kids on the show! I forget where I read it but somewhere I read that even young kids don't like watching other young kids on the TV! * Less use of CGI and more intelligence. But not badly written and undecipherable scripts masquerading as "intelligent"; for example the all-new battlestar galatica. * Fewer cut scenes. One moment we're in the 25th century in deep space on a spaceship and then in the next breath in 18th century england. Often without so much as any sort of explination. * Slow the show down! If you liken it to eating food it's a bit like going for a McDonalds burger and then shoving it down your throat as fast as possible as opposed going to a normal resturant, spending time, eating, etc. * No more blary classical musical instruments. If I wanted to listen to a music program I would! * John Simm as the master. The character of the master has been changed to some sort of "Generic hollywood comic book/film evil guy thing". Like the doctor - in the old show - he used his intelligence but to evil ends -- now he can fire things from his hands, jump very high and turn into a CGI skeleton. Don't think John Simm is a bad actor btw, but maybe it was also just a bit too soon afer "Life on mars". Who was expecting Gene Hunt to appear, punch him in the stomach and say "Oi Dorathy! Stop fannying about..." and drag him back to the local cop-shop * Where's the 'scare' in dr who? I know I'm not a kid but that dosen't preclude the writers from trying! Or maybe - like everything else on TV - it's just another piece of safe TV? * Stop saying stuff like "Timey whimey!". I mean in the past on the old show I think some people used to complain about 'technobabble'. But any amount of that was better than stuff like "Timey Whimey". It almost sounds like baby talk. Will the doctor have to say "googooeegooo" next? I guess a show such as Dr who in reality can only really be as good as the scripts. A TV show is made up of a lot of bits and pieces. If the scripts are trash then even if the actors are good the scripts will still be trash. Granted, it'll be finely acted trash but still trash all the same. One question though. Could the new doctor played by Peter Capaldi be a reboot? Does that mean it is the show's second -- a re-re boot? Could that imply a show in trouble? Thinking about it all, and especially the xmas episodes also note that - well at least it seems to me - every dr who episode must always be better than the previous one. If anyone saw the recent Morecambe and wise documentary you'd have seen that it casued problems -- each M&W Xmas episode in the 70s had to be better than the last which placed more and more strain on everyone. Could the same be true for Dr who? Here's hoping Peter Capaldi will do a good job though. I'll be intrested to see if he has a completely new take on the doctor or weather or not he'll be constrained by scripts, budgets and the BBC wanting to flog the series worldwide. Just thinking about the 50th eps btw though; The 50th for me although it was watchable - I mean there's a lot worse on (e.g. Eastenders) it wasn't brilliant. It seemed to me as if the 50th was basically two stories neither of which had much in common but which neither could be used completely, e.g. the time war maybe because of budget constraints (prehaps the 50th only had the same budget as a normal episode?) and the Zygon story because there wasn't enough of it. So a lot of time was invested in constructing a 'bridge' between the two and making it work which left both stories relegated to a brief bit of CGI and a Zygon running about. And then there is the way Tom baker - the guy who's played the doctor for the longest time - was simply tacked onto the end of the show almost as an afterthought (and presumably to placate fans so they (the writers) could say to the fans "It's got one of the *old* doctors in it! Look!). I know some will say dr who is a kids show btw, but I've always held it to be more of a family show. If it was a kids' show wouldn't it be on CBBC only? ljones Completely mystified how you could describe the 50th as two stories with not much in common. On first viewing I worked out how very linked the two story strands of the 50th were. A small scale storyline One planet threaten One possible solution - bomb, but if used would kill millions of innocents. Number of doctors initially available to solve problem one. Number of doctors needed to actually solve problem three. Species involved two And a small scale problem (the door) needing the computing power of three regenerations of the sonic screwdriver to solve. & A large scale storyline with One galaxy threaten. One possible solution - a mega bomb, but if used would kill billions. And so on .......... In short I cannot remember ever two more interlinked story strands in a single dr who story. The fact that SM managed to get all that and multiple references to old dr who & new dr who in the 50th amazed me. Not to mention a DWZF* rating of one. More than my brain thought would be possible, admittedly less than my heart wanted. But then my heart is stupid on such matters. *DWZF ( Doctors With Zimmer Frames - the number of DWs in a multi doctor story who appear more than 15 years after they originally left the show)
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Coles on Dec 14, 2013 12:09:22 GMT
I get a bit fed up with people forever saying things like:
'It will NEVER happen...' or 'You Couldn't DO THAT these days...'
it's really NOT TRUE at all but just a bleat to defend a certain 'zappy' weaker show style that masks a stronger approach, and is mostly made by those in the industry who know more talented and creative people would do it a lot better...and see them out of a job !
after Graham Williams & Douglas Adams had reduced the show to a inept infantile joke in the late seventies one could easily have replied to those calling for a more serious intelligent style with: 'It will NEVER happen...' and 'You CAN'T do TV like that anymore...' etc
BUT they did - Tom Baker's final season - when K9 quickly got the boot ! - & the Peter Davison era plus most Colin Baker tales (bar a couple) were done in a far more serious style, in Davison's time they doubled the audience as a good number had got so fed up with all the silly stuff under Williams/Adams they had stopped watching Tom Baker....it was reflected in Tom's final season figures BUT was as a direct result of what had gone before, when the show had got sillier and sillier thanks to a knee jerk BBC reaction to that odious self appointed Guardian of the nation Mary Whitehouse !
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 !
But with Timothy Dalton, then Pierce Brosnan (& now Daniel Craig) plus 'The New Avengers' show in 1976 each later got far more serious in style once again
so the bleat about "it CAN'T be done"...or "it will NEVER happen" just is NOT true....and is complete nonsense
The truth is that a fresh production company could take over doing 'Doctor Who' with Peter Capaldi tomorrow...no problem as the core concept is every bit as strong as ever thanks to the creativity of the sixties people who originally made & guided the programme
all they need do is DROP all the piffle as Lee Jones lists above, get in STRONGER scriptwriters who don't write themselves into a corner & reach for the big red re-set switch or go all 'Timey Whimey' on us...etc , have a decent script editor, good directors and produce an exciting compelling more intelligent show still with CGI effects but used properly, with strong guest cast giving us DECENT portrayal of leading foes and put BACK the evil menace properly into the enemies, most notably The Daleks, Cybermen, Autons, Ice Warriors etc
make a handful of Daleks MORE evil & menacing than a vast CGI Epic "Hollywooden" invasion fleet we all know will instantly just vanish...
make Cybermen ruthless and unhuman...more like 'Hollywood Wives' (LOL) than lumbering 'clodhoppers' !!
Restore the companion(s) to that role - companions - not forever over featured as the silly 'be all & end all' mystery figure (yawn !) that is used as the main central figure... because we really haven't got a clue as to how to write The Doctor's character....etc
Get in a strong actor as a cunning MENACING subtle new Master, but then only use him occasionally in the odd story, not forever popping up !
above all get back to the true 'spirit' of the original show, but in a modernised up to date manner, with logical followable stories anyone can just sit back, enjoy and get engrossed in, with credible characterisations as opposed to silly shallow smug stereotypes (that are quite utterly forgettable)
It could EASILY be done in truth, and while the core fanbase is already in place (with many older fans still faithfully watching out of sheer loyalty to the show they loved and just hoping the thing will one day pick up and improve) plus younger viewers who WILL always stay watching it IF it's exciting & scares the hell out of them...!! (the viewers from 'behind the sofa' lot) there would be no problem in not only holding the present audience, but increasing it if the story quality were to improve.
Casting an older actor as The Doctor is an important first step...just hope they don't blow it !
BETTER script writers are the key factor here - lose the 'same old same old' crowd of writers who have proved so clueless...
oh...and LOSE that idiot Murray Gold with all his dreadfully OTT muzak...!
So NEVER say NEVER....
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Kurth on Dec 14, 2013 15:07:58 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.
|
|
|
Post by edhipkiss on Dec 14, 2013 15:54:20 GMT
Yep. No doubt we can look forward to yet another of his bland reworkings of the Doctor Who Theme when Capaldi takes over.
|
|
|
Post by malcolmostlere on Dec 14, 2013 16:56:46 GMT
I get a bit fed up with people forever saying things like: 'It will NEVER happen...' or 'You Couldn't DO THAT these days...' it's really NOT TRUE at all but just a bleat to defend a certain 'zappy' weaker show style that masks a stronger approach, and is mostly made by those in the industry who know more talented and creative people would do it a lot better...and see them out of a job ! after Graham Williams & Douglas Adams had reduced the show to a inept infantile joke in the late seventies one could easily have replied to those calling for a more serious intelligent style with: 'It will NEVER happen...' and 'You CAN'T do TV like that anymore...' etc BUT they did - Tom Baker's final season - when K9 quickly got the boot ! - & the Peter Davison era plus most Colin Baker tales (bar a couple) were done in a far more serious style, in Davison's time they doubled the audience as a good number had got so fed up with all the silly stuff under Williams/Adams they had stopped watching Tom Baker....it was reflected in Tom's final season figures BUT was as a direct result of what had gone before, when the show had got sillier and sillier thanks to a knee jerk BBC reaction to that odious self appointed Guardian of the nation Mary Whitehouse ! 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 ! But with Timothy Dalton, then Pierce Brosnan (& now Daniel Craig) plus 'The New Avengers' show in 1976 each later got far more serious in style once again so the bleat about "it CAN'T be done"...or "it will NEVER happen" just is NOT true....and is complete nonsense The truth is that a fresh production company could take over doing 'Doctor Who' with Peter Capaldi tomorrow...no problem as the core concept is every bit as strong as ever thanks to the creativity of the sixties people who originally made & guided the programme all they need do is DROP all the piffle as Lee Jones lists above, get in STRONGER scriptwriters who don't write themselves into a corner & reach for the big red re-set switch or go all 'Timey Whimey' on us...etc , have a decent script editor, good directors and produce an exciting compelling more intelligent show still with CGI effects but used properly, with strong guest cast giving us DECENT portrayal of leading foes and put BACK the evil menace properly into the enemies, most notably The Daleks, Cybermen, Autons, Ice Warriors etc make a handful of Daleks MORE evil & menacing than a vast CGI Epic "Hollywooden" invasion fleet we all know will instantly just vanish... make Cybermen ruthless and unhuman...more like 'Hollywood Wives' (LOL) than lumbering 'clodhoppers' !! Restore the companion(s) to that role - companions - not forever over featured as the silly 'be all & end all' mystery figure (yawn !) that is used as the main central figure... because we really haven't got a clue as to how to write The Doctor's character....etc Get in a strong actor as a cunning MENACING subtle new Master, but then only use him occasionally in the odd story, not forever popping up ! above all get back to the true 'spirit' of the original show, but in a modernised up to date manner, with logical followable stories anyone can just sit back, enjoy and get engrossed in, with credible characterisations as opposed to silly shallow smug stereotypes (that are quite utterly forgettable) It could EASILY be done in truth, and while the core fanbase is already in place (with many older fans still faithfully watching out of sheer loyalty to the show they loved and just hoping the thing will one day pick up and improve) plus younger viewers who WILL always stay watching it IF it's exciting & scares the hell out of them...!! (the viewers from 'behind the sofa' lot) there would be no problem in not only holding the present audience, but increasing it if the story quality were to improve. Casting an older actor as The Doctor is an important first step...just hope they don't blow it ! BETTER script writers are the key factor here - lose the 'same old same old' crowd of writers who have proved so clueless... oh...and LOSE that idiot Murray Gold with all his dreadfully OTT muzak...! So NEVER say NEVER.... Not sure i follow your logic, you blame Tom Bakers very low final season viewing figures on the season before. A season with markedly higher viewing figures. A lesser mortal may have thought the new more serious direction Dr who took had simply put off many of the viewers who liked the stories of the Adam/ Williams era. Surely the eventually recovery of the audiance figures followed after the seriousness was turned down a bit and the doctor started throwing cricket balls. I myself immensely enjoyed the Adams era. However, the following season was one of only two seasons ever which i did not watch religiously. Because I found it had changed very mutch for the worst, and was basically just not fun to watch anymore. I doubt I was alone in feeling that, and that sort of feeling was then reflected in the viewing figures. This explains the Baker last season audiance drop,much more than some strange delayed dislike for a season causing a significant reduction in the following season. www.themindrobber.co.uk/ratings.html
|
|
|
Post by Patrick Coles on Dec 14, 2013 19:06:08 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 ?
Dr.Who was actually quite serious for the eras of: Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee & the CLASSIC portion of Tom Baker's era...plus Davison's & the bulk of Colin Baker's era - while would you rather watch McCoy in 'Curse of Fenric', 'Ghost Light' & 'Remembrance of The Daleks'- or 'Time And The Rani' and 'Delta And the Bannermen' ?
so the idea of the show being 'FUN to watch' is not the premise of the vast majority of the programme from sixties to eighties...
Douglas Adams himself admitted 'The humour did NOT come over AS INTENDED' (his own words) thus he was honest enough to admit that it DIDN'T work...
People I knew who had 'given up' on it began watching it again later when Peter Davison took over, and it was moved to a later timeslot
I do think Tom Baker had after about seven years been in the role far too long as well...he often let his boredom with a script show ('Horror of Fang Rock' notably - director Paddy Russell spoke of a 'sulky' Tom giving the supporting cast a rough time on that one...and it showed)
Under Williams Tom was forever being bailed out by the tin dog, was often strutting about 'barking' at people and the entire thing was in need of a facelift
I don't think Peter Davison playing a bit or cricket or throwing a cricket ball can really be defined as 'toning down the seriousness' - were 'Earthshock', or 'Resurrection of The Daleks',' Frontios', 'Planet of Fire', 'The Caves of Androzani'(another non jokey classic) really 'toned down' seriousness...I hardly think so !
|
|
|
Post by malcolmostlere on Dec 14, 2013 23:38:24 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 ? Dr.Who was actually quite serious for the eras of: Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee & the CLASSIC portion of Tom Baker's era...plus Davison's & the bulk of Colin Baker's era - while would you rather watch McCoy in 'Curse of Fenric', 'Ghost Light' & 'Remembrance of The Daleks'- or 'Time And The Rani' and 'Delta And the Bannermen' ? so the idea of the show being 'FUN to watch' is not the premise of the vast majority of the programme from sixties to eighties... Douglas Adams himself admitted 'The humour did NOT come over AS INTENDED' (his own words) thus he was honest enough to admit that it DIDN'T work... People I knew who had 'given up' on it began watching it again later when Peter Davison took over, and it was moved to a later timeslot I do think Tom Baker had after about seven years been in the role far too long as well...he often let his boredom with a script show ('Horror of Fang Rock' notably - director Paddy Russell spoke of a 'sulky' Tom giving the supporting cast a rough time on that one...and it showed) Under Williams Tom was forever being bailed out by the tin dog, was often strutting about 'barking' at people and the entire thing was in need of a facelift I don't think Peter Davison playing a bit or cricket or throwing a cricket ball can really be defined as 'toning down the seriousness' - were 'Earthshock', or 'Resurrection of The Daleks',' Frontios', 'Planet of Fire', 'The Caves of Androzani'(another non jokey classic) really 'toned down' seriousness...I hardly think so ! Well more accurately perhaps I should have said " much less enjoyable" rather than not fun. I do however find many fairly serious things can be fun , I have fun trying to answer more questions correctly than my brother whilst watching university challenge for example. Also in my post I made no negative comment on pre Adams/Williams Tom Baker Dr Who's. in general I slightly prefer them to the Adams /Williams era . However I greatly preferred both sorts to the last Tom Baker season. Hence my watching few of them, and the audience figures suggest that many thought similarly. (Unless it was of course all due to the mysterious delayed effect that you apparently believe). So if S M left current Who , and a new Show runner came in . And shows were done in a more serious style in the next season , but the audience figures went down 2 million. Would you then be saying that the audience reduction was only because of a delayed effect from the season before being done in a less serious style? Regarding post Tom Baker Dr Whos are you saying that all the old seasons from then on were all uniformly at the same level of seriousness ? And finally, personally I always prefered K9 saving the day, compared to the alternative of Venusian karate or the sonic screwdriver which seemed to happen ad infinitum during the Pertwee era.
|
|