|
MrL_JaKiri posted:And does that make them bad necessarily? Of course not. Doesn't mean I would want to trade in the look of series 5-8 for a few more episodes. There is enough Doctor Who out there to last you a lifetime. What difference do a few episodes make? quote:For one thing, it's not a scenario I've constructed. For another, "Money people are fired by new boss, series runs overbudget causing issues, old money people get asked back again" doesn't really leave that much wiggle room. I checked on wikipedia (I know, great research, right?), and it seems like Vampires of Venice was probably pretty expensive, and so was creating "the largest set ever built" at its location for The Pandorica Opens. That's pretty ambitious. A lot more ambitious than having Tennant and John Simm shout at each other from across a parking lot. New logo, new actors, new sets, new writers, new producers. Moffat made so many crazy, radical decisions, how is it even possible to tell what made the difference. Maybe they just drew the same conclusions you did regardless of the actual circumstances. Or Moffat felt bad for being so overly dramatic. I wasn't there. 
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
And More posted:There is enough Doctor Who out there to last you a lifetime. There really isn't 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:There really isn't  Good grief, you're insatiable. Twelve more episodes wouldn't sustain you either.
And More fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
As I said before, I'm not really that into the revival. Send me a tenner and I promise to not watch any more episodes this series
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Sorry, you'll just have to suffer through your tax-paid entertainment like the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
And More posted:Sorry, you'll just have to suffer through your tax-paid entertainment like the rest of us. It's not tax paid
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
It would be nice to have names and sources for all this behind the scenes stuff- not that I don't believe the story but it feels incomplete.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:It's not tax paid The TV licence fee is a tax.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:It would be nice to have names and sources for all this behind the scenes stuff- not that I don't believe the story but it feels incomplete. They don't tend to air dirty laundry like that. The only reason we know about the most public part of the whole nonsense was because it was...well in public. That was the "You are erased from Doctor Who" nonsense. Would be nice though, if only to get all of the facts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Burkion posted:The only reason we know about the most public part of the whole nonsense was because it was...well in public. That was the "You are erased from Doctor Who" nonsense. I don't really get this part. What does she have to do with Moffat's gently caress up? Skinner was executive producer on series 7. Was she supposed to save that series somehow after Moffat had screwed up producing series 5?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
And More posted:I don't really get this part. What does she have to do with Moffat's gently caress up? Skinner was executive producer on series 7. Was she supposed to save that series somehow after Moffat had screwed up producing series 5? It's because they were loving .
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
And More posted:Series 1-4 just mostly look like trash. Admittedly it's been at least a year since I watched 1&2 again but I recall them being pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Admittedly it's been at least a year since I watched 1&2 again but I recall them being pretty decent. I know the weird lighting in the first few seasons doesn't do the show any favours, visually speaking. The sort of lighting that gives everyone a waxy sheen, and makes everything look a bit cheap. I suppose the CGI is ropey, and really hasn't aged well, but to be fair, it's a sci-fi adventure on a budget, and they use practical non-CGI methods when they can. And on a more personal level, if I can get over a monster made of bubble wrap, I can get over a badly CGI'd shitfest, though the latter lacks the charm of the former.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
I love that weird lighting! Series 1 looks like it was made to air on the Sci-Fi network and that's a big part of its charm for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Also, series 1-4 were filmed on videotape, I believe, so that contributes a certain look and feel to it as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
HD DAD posted:Also, series 1-4 were filmed on videotape, I believe, so that contributes a certain look and feel to it as well. I hope they're better stored than past years masters  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Honestly the RTD seasons never looked that bad to me. They were pretty much on par with their contemporaries- Doctor Who has never had a super sky high budget or anything, so expecting that is kind of ridiculous. Seasons 5 to now look more polished, but mostly because of better equipment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
I watched Rose again for the first time in ages recently because a friend of mine was interested in trying some Who, and the day before had mentioned he didn't like mannequins. It's.. not aged well. The weird Vaseline lens takes some getting used to. We also watched Eleventh Hour, and he enjoyed that immensely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:It's because they were loving . Seems like Moffat can't stop shagging producers. Cerv posted:Compared to other TV series of those years? Or compared to the show now? I don't really have a point of reference in that regard. The Lost Room, maybe? A lot of it comes down to the lighting. The bad CGI really only bothers me in the more recent series since most of that stuff just seems superfluous. I mean, just look at this poo poo: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
And More posted:Seems like Moffat can't stop shagging producers. Holy crap, someone other than me who's seen The Lost Room  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Holy crap, someone other than me who's seen The Lost Room  That show's got some serious lighting. And the acting. And the special effects. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:I watched Rose again for the first time in ages recently because a friend of mine was interested in trying some Who, and the day before had mentioned he didn't like mannequins. It's.. not aged well. The weird Vaseline lens takes some getting used to. Part of it is deliberate - it was made to look like other prime time television programmes, rather than a science fiction story, in order to draw in the kind of people who wouldn't ordinarily want to watch it. Part of it was that Keith Boak was a moron.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Part of it is deliberate - it was made to look like other prime time television programmes, rather than a science fiction story, in order to draw in the kind of people who wouldn't ordinarily want to watch it. Be fair. Most of it was because Keith Boak was a moron.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
BIG DOCTOR WHO NEWS COMING I think it's that you can play Colony Sarff in Doctor Who Game Maker
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
"It's bigger than that, Karela, it's large" to quote Creature from the Pit
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
The collector got guilted into giving up that ep3?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:The collector got guilted into giving up that ep3? It's according to the BBC Doctor Who twitter account so it's probably a new episode of Doctor Who Confidential or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
If they just announced that they had all of the Second Doctor's era back and restored, they could drop the mic and I would forgive so much
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
It's the return of the Terileptils 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
The Creature from the Pit is like you took the comedy bits from The Stones of Blood and The Androids of Tara and removed the serious bits and then had it script edited by Douglas Adams. Which is pretty much exactly what happened.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Burkion posted:They don't tend to air dirty laundry like that. But then, how do we even know about the 'two people who were responsible for getting the show done' bit? What are their names? Who fired them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Astroman posted:It got better. They missed a golden opportunity. "I see you've done up the planet. I don't like it." Kikka posted:Also, talking about favorite Cybermen, mine is the one that gives the Doctor a badass shoulder massage. The correct answer is always Handles.  MrL_JaKiri posted:BIG DOCTOR WHO NEWS COMING Probably new companion announcement. So am I the only one who was a little disappointed that we didn't see Davros start to actually regenerate? The second 12 started to grab the cable I was thinking "Goddamn it, now Davros is gonna grow new legs and start shooting sparks everywhere."
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Ensign_Ricky posted:So am I the only one who was a little disappointed that we didn't see Davros start to actually regenerate? The second 12 started to grab the cable I was thinking "Goddamn it, now Davros is gonna grow new legs and start shooting sparks everywhere." It was poorly executed in explaining it, but I got the impression that the "regeneration" was just intended to renew Davros' old and tired body (ironically, this was the original intended interpretation of Hartnell to Troughton) to give him a little more life. The Doctor intended it to spark him up enough to see the sun rise one last time before he died, Davros intended it to revitalize his ancient body AND to allow the Daleks to overcome their bodies eventual breakdown into that still living goop in the sewer (they have eternal life but not eternal youth), as opposed to actually completely physically regenerating them into new forms. It's one of the reasons that I don't think the show should be playing around so casually with regeneration energy, because it kinda becomes a catch-all to do anything you want, as well as being easily misinterpreted as to the effects of what is meant to be happening in any given situation. Jerusalem fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Just like the sonic screwdriver.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Just like the sonic screwdriver. I actually almost wrote that myself, it's the first thing that came to mind - introduced to do a specific thing, then suddenly it's basically a magic device that does everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Ensign_Ricky posted:The correct answer is always Handles. WHAT?! *cant hear through helmet, keeps shaking Tom like a big bully*
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:But then, how do we even know about the 'two people who were responsible for getting the show done' bit? What are their names? Who fired them? Here you go, a period article. quote:Private Eye states however that delays and budget issues have emenated from executive producer Piers Wenger, who has now stepped down from BBC Wales head of drama, and then left the BBC to work for Film4, and that it was the dismissal of previous producers Tracie Simpson and Peter Bennett by Wenger and fellow exec producer Beth Willis that caused some of the delays and chaos – and who refused to return to work for the pair when the jobs were offered back to them, working on their own show Baker Boys featuring a number of recent Who alumni. Simpson and Bennett learned how you Get poo poo Done through working closely with Phil Collinson, the original day-to-day producer; Simpson was production manager and Bennett was first AD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/entries/953c5b1f-3cc8-4db9-8184-f1b6567260f1quote:BBC Three announces Doctor Who Spin Off Welp. That's a thing i guess?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
It's apparently a spin-off set in Coal Hill school. Called Class. From the "acclaimed YA author, Patrick Ness", whoever he is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Hahah, gently caress off person who runs that Twitter account.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 23:08
|
|
