Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 18:22:10 GMT
Another thing to bear in mind (again, not to beat the ratings horse more and to keep this about GM), growth in TV ratings terms doesn't mean the same thing it did, even just a few years ago. It's no longer just about increases and decreases week to week: it's about IPlayer, on-demand, streaming, watching on devices other a tv set. They now even include data 30 days on from initial broadcast. Considering how the BBC's funded and how that informs what shows it does and doesn't keep on the air, that's not chicken feed. And of course it is worth remembering when the Hinchcliffe seasons had high ratings, that Doctor Who was planted right in the middle of what DWM once stated was the strongest Saturday night line up BBC1 ever had - in the 1970's heyday of stay at home Telly viewers. Football Scores, Basil Brush, Dr Who, The Generation Game - it had a captive bums on seats family audience. I had to watch New Faces on the B/W portable in the Kitchen, as Sontarans, Wirrn, Cybermats and Davros scared the 3.5 - 4 year old me for a time, amongst other things I could not resist peering round the door (behind the sofa style) to see. Needless to say I was drawn to it like a moth to a flame.... What I am saying is, far from a criticism here, but the BBC I feel are banking on the series having a viewership who will not feel compelled to switch over, with the series placed withing other dependable long distance runners. Unless it really is poor, which I very much doubt given the time and investment from the new team - merely not perhaps 'cult' enough for us 'connoisseurs' with an overdeveloped critical reflex and entitlement syndrome, it should be safe there. Ratings (cough - spit) should be judged by the overall pattern for the evening - 'spike or dip' - the viewer decides whether it stays, or goes. Possibly - just an armchair schedulers non too expert an opinion from me, that's all .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 18:34:25 GMT
I’d really appreciate it if people would try not to reference future stories at all in this thread! Even contextualising episode titles is making me twitch. What? Not even the Christmas special with Carol Ann Ford? Sorry - won't mention it.
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Oct 19, 2018 18:54:30 GMT
I added spoiler tags to the posts containing specific conjectures about future episodes.
Please keep this thread to spoilers for Ghost Monument. No future spoilers here please.
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Oct 19, 2018 19:11:08 GMT
BBC America was watched by 1.119 million. A drop of 18%. I think that we need to recognise that there was always going to be a spike in ratings out of curiosity about the new female Doctor, and that there will be some confirmation bias when things stabilise. Peple have been predicting this on both sides of the fence. The will undoubtedly be a proportion of viewers who have decided not to watch the new series on the grounds of this change. If long term fans and BF listeners have their fair share then we cannot expect the wider viewing to be neutral in this. The pay off for Chibnall will be if the series gains traction and gains new viewers who have not been Dr Who regulars, over the course of the run. That is to say, if viewing figures start to grow back, as opposed to the gradual shedding of viewers over the course of each recent run of episodes. It is early days yet, but like Audity, I see no benefit in seeing the series face cancellation nor will i be happy if the doubters amongst us (myself included) have to say 'I told you so'. A cancellation this time around could have a domino effect for the likes of Big Finish, The Magazine and Books, as, being tightly controlled in a way they never used to be, the brand as a whole may end up being 'rested'. Careful what we wish for... Doctor Who needs to be Produced by someone who can do drama. Not necessarily by a writer. Why do we need a Showrunner? They run out of ideas very quickly. The casting has to be taken seriously- Jodie was a gimmick. The writing needs tightening up - the Sonic Screwdriver is making it far too easy to get out of situations. The Sonic is a tool, not a magic wand. The companions always have family involvement. This never happened when the TARDIS had a faulty directional unit. Those are some things to wish for!
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Oct 19, 2018 19:12:05 GMT
I added spoiler tags to the posts containing specific conjectures about future episodes. Please keep this thread to spoilers for Ghost Monument. No future spoilers here please. Alright.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Oct 19, 2018 19:14:38 GMT
Another thing to bear in mind (again, not to beat the ratings horse more and to keep this about GM), growth in TV ratings terms doesn't mean the same thing it did, even just a few years ago. It's no longer just about increases and decreases week to week: it's about IPlayer, on-demand, streaming, watching on devices other a tv set. They now even include data 30 days on from initial broadcast. Considering how the BBC's funded and how that informs what shows it does and doesn't keep on the air, that's not chicken feed. And of course it is worth remembering when the Hinchcliffe seasons had high ratings, that Doctor Who was planted right in the middle of what DWM once stated was the strongest Saturday night line up BBC1 ever had - in the 1970's heyday of stay at home Telly viewers. Football Scores, Basil Brush, Dr Who, The Generation Game - it had a captive bums on seats family audience. I had to watch New Faces on the B/W portable in the Kitchen, as Sontarans, Wirrn, Cybermats and Davros scared the 3.5 - 4 year old me for a time, amongst other things I could not resist peering round the door (behind the sofa style) to see. Needless to say I was drawn to it like a moth to a flame.... What I am saying is, far from a criticism here, but the BBC I feel are banking on the series having a viewership who will not feel compelled to switch over, with the series placed withing other dependable long distance runners. Unless it really is poor, which I very much doubt given the time and investment from the new team - merely not perhaps 'cult' enough for us 'connoisseurs' with an overdeveloped critical reflex and entitlement syndrome, it should be safe there. Ratings (cough - spit) should be judged by the overall pattern for the evening - 'spike or dip' - the viewer decides whether it stays, or goes. Possibly - just an armchair schedulers non too expert an opinion from me, that's all . I certainly get that worry. Alas, that's the nature of geek media: all the lore and minutae we love has to some times take a backseat, in order for said media to be around long enough to produce more lore and minutae.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 19:40:42 GMT
Okay... 1) Probably not something to be talking about in a general, non-spoiler thread; Masterdoc and davy already argued it was out there, it's fair game to talk about. And has been for several months.
And 2, this is a spoiler thread, so fair game again and 3) You asked the question. I gave you an answer.
Yes, I did indeed argue that - but in the spoiler thread for the series in general which is entirely separate from the individual episode threads. People wanting to watch new episodes without spoilers should be able to avoid that thread and go in relatively cold when a new ep hits. Anyone in that thread has the gift of foreknowledge but the price for that gift is they can't moan if anything gets "spoiled" for them. I wouldn't advocate any spoilers outside of that thread till post-release. When news hits the public domain it's fair game to talk about - as I always say you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube - but its got to be in the right threads.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 19:49:28 GMT
I think that we need to recognise that there was always going to be a spike in ratings out of curiosity about the new female Doctor, and that there will be some confirmation bias when things stabilise. Peple have been predicting this on both sides of the fence. The will undoubtedly be a proportion of viewers who have decided not to watch the new series on the grounds of this change. If long term fans and BF listeners have their fair share then we cannot expect the wider viewing to be neutral in this. The pay off for Chibnall will be if the series gains traction and gains new viewers who have not been Dr Who regulars, over the course of the run. That is to say, if viewing figures start to grow back, as opposed to the gradual shedding of viewers over the course of each recent run of episodes. It is early days yet, but like Audity, I see no benefit in seeing the series face cancellation nor will i be happy if the doubters amongst us (myself included) have to say 'I told you so'. A cancellation this time around could have a domino effect for the likes of Big Finish, The Magazine and Books, as, being tightly controlled in a way they never used to be, the brand as a whole may end up being 'rested'. Careful what we wish for... Doctor Who needs to be Produced by someone who can do drama. Not necessarily by a writer. Why do we need a Showrunner? They run out of ideas very quickly. The casting has to be taken seriously- Jodie was a gimmick. The writing needs tightening up - the Sonic Screwdriver is making it far too easy to get out of situations. The Sonic is a tool, not a magic wand. The companions always have family involvement. This never happened when the TARDIS had a faulty directional unit. Those are some things to wish for! Quite fair comments here from thethirddoctor- surely fellow posters - the very randomness of the classic series, where the job of the producer was to secure original scripts that could stretch to 4/6 episodes gave freedom for ideas of which the producer needed only worry as to whether it could be made within the budget? Now we have the budget and ability to make most things plausible, visually, yet the series seems bound by domestic parochial mini soap drama's of the companions. We never found out anything of Sarah Jane or Jo Grant's personal lives, yet they were amongst the best loved and identifiable companions we have had. And even JNT thought the Sonic had to go as it was a lazy plot device. To this day my Father cites the fact that the 10th Doctor made it snow with the sonic as a emblematic of his own contempt for the new series decline. We all have valid opinions and care about the show - but these things take away the genius of the format as far as I can see. I never cared for continuity - I just like to put in a good four parter which has more imagination than any comparative show/film, with plenty more on tap to watch. Too often when re-watching new series who, things seem generic and bank on the viewer 'identifying' with characters the same way as if they were straight out of East Enders of Holby City. The contemporaneous pop culture nature of characters and stories is in contrast to the literate writers of the past who drew upon often obscure and cerebral inspirations, which provided depth to older viewers.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Oct 19, 2018 20:08:24 GMT
surely fellow posters - the very randomness of the classic series, where the job of the producer was to secure original scripts that could stretch to 4/6 episodes gave freedom for ideas of which the producer needed only worry as to whether it could be made within the budget? Now we have the budget and ability to make most things plausible, visually, yet the series seems bound by domestic parochial mini soap drama's of the companions. We never found out anything of Sarah Jane or Jo Grant's personal lives, yet they were amongst the best loved and identifiable companions we have had. And even JNT thought the Sonic had to go as it was a lazy plot device. To this day my Father cites the fact that the 10th Doctor made it snow with the sonic as a emblematic of his own contempt for the new series decline. We all have valid opinions and care about the show - but these things take away the genius of the format as far as I can see. I never cared for continuity - I just like to put in a good four parter which has more imagination than any comparative show/film, with plenty more on tap to watch. Too often when re-watching new series who, things seem generic and bank on the viewer 'identifying' with characters the same way as if they were straight out of East Enders of Holby City. The contemporaneous pop culture nature of characters and stories is in contrast to the literate writers of the past who drew upon often obscure and cerebral inspirations, which provided depth to older viewers. Not trying to be a stickler, but a small correction: The script editor was in charge of sourcing scripts, not the producer.
Now on the point about serials: there's certainly a lot to like about the format, and a lot of invention to admire. However, it came with drawbacks of its own: many times ep3s would end up being padded with chases and imprisonment, as all the important plot elements would be in 2 and 4, so 3 just sort of sat there. Six parters had similar problems of narrative stretching, where many scenes had nothing to do with the conflict or theme of the story (I recently noticed how often they loved showing people go through doors and tunnels in six parters, even when nothing is being said), and that magnified in the 7 and 10 parters (I don't think it's heresy to point out how much of War Games is just running backwards and forwards between sides). And while the stories were often memorable, many writers openly joke and admit to wholesale ripping from famous books and movies: much of Holmes' work is basically him remaking all his favourite Hammer and Universal Pictures as Who serials. Even Terrance Dicks, with his blue suit and jolly red face, calls his homages 'what other people would call ripping off'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 20:21:17 GMT
Doctor Who needs to be Produced by someone who can do drama. Not necessarily by a writer. Why do we need a Showrunner? They run out of ideas very quickly. The casting has to be taken seriously- Jodie was a gimmick. The writing needs tightening up - the Sonic Screwdriver is making it far too easy to get out of situations. The Sonic is a tool, not a magic wand. The companions always have family involvement. This never happened when the TARDIS had a faulty directional unit. Those are some things to wish for! Quite fair comments here from thethirddoctor- surely fellow posters - the very randomness of the classic series, where the job of the producer was to secure original scripts that could stretch to 4/6 episodes gave freedom for ideas of which the producer needed only worry as to whether it could be made within the budget? Now we have the budget and ability to make most things plausible, visually, yet the series seems bound by domestic parochial mini soap drama's of the companions. We never found out anything of Sarah Jane or Jo Grant's personal lives, yet they were amongst the best loved and identifiable companions we have had. And even JNT thought the Sonic had to go as it was a lazy plot device. To this day my Father cites the fact that the 10th Doctor made it snow with the sonic as a emblematic of his own contempt for the new series decline. We all have valid opinions and care about the show - but these things take away the genius of the format as far as I can see. I never cared for continuity - I just like to put in a good four parter which has more imagination than any comparative show/film, with plenty more on tap to watch. Too often when re-watching new series who, things seem generic and bank on the viewer 'identifying' with characters the same way as if they were straight out of East Enders of Holby City. The contemporaneous pop culture nature of characters and stories is in contrast to the literate writers of the past who drew upon often obscure and cerebral inspirations, which provided depth to older viewers. I never understand why giving characters lives makes it "soap opera". Jo and Sarah were beloved characters that were a product of TV nearly a half century ago. You put them on screen as they were then and they would absolutely be so unrelatable and out of place because TV drama is much more character driven now than in their era. A lot of fans may not like, say, 10 and Rose...but it made the show the most watched in the country for the first time ever. What worked in 1971 doesn't mean it's gonna work in 2018. When Sarah finally got her own successful show - a bona fide children's show no less, unlike Who - even it featured the "soap opera". We even saw her attempting to marry Nigel Havers...that wasn't on the cards in 1975! It's not a Who thing, or a sci-fi thing...it's the way modern TV drama works for better and worse. And JNT getting rid of the sonic didn't do much for the stories, did it? For all it's called a magic wand, I'd rather we have it than have to spend 5 minutes figuring out how to open a door or turn something on. We get much less time per story than JNT had, I'd rather use it for something more interesting than something we know the sonic can do anyway. Is some of it's use lazy? Yes. Has it ever been anything than even remotely killed a story for anyone? I can't say I've ever seen anyone say they would give an ep a bad review based solely on the sonic so I don't think so. I'm not terribly sure why the role of producer vs. writer would resolve any of this anyway. Whoever writes the show would still be working on the coal face of pop culture circa 2018, 2019 etc. They're not going to suddenly start writing in the style of Robert Holmes or David Whittaker any more than a modern novelist is going to write like Tolkien or Christie. Likewise if there was a model adopted where the showrunner didn't write, how does that stop them commissioning bad scripts anyway? We'd still get the same kind of thing. We're all a product of our time. We're not going to go back to a classic era style story structure just by changing the production model. Of course that means this series will, with enough time passed, look archaic too. TV of 2068 may look back on this era as massively primitive...but you can't make a show for a ghost audience of the past or indeed a future one - only the one you can grab now. I'd have thought much of this would be very obvious to BF fans - they have made so many stories with the classic Doctors that just would never have been remotely possible storytelling wise in the classic era.
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Oct 19, 2018 20:49:14 GMT
I never understand why giving characters lives makes it "soap opera". Jo and Sarah were beloved characters that were a product of TV nearly a half century ago. You put them on screen as they were then and they would absolutely be so unrelatable and out of place because TV drama is much more character driven now than in their era. A lot of fans may not like, say, 10 and Rose...but it made the show the most watched in the country for the first time ever. What worked in 1971 doesn't mean it's gonna work in 2018. When Sarah finally got her own successful show - a bona fide children's show no less, unlike Who - even it featured the "soap opera". We even saw her attempting to marry Nigel Havers...that wasn't on the cards in 1975! It's not a Who thing, or a sci-fi thing...it's the way modern TV drama works for better and worse. And JNT getting rid of the sonic didn't do much for the stories, did it? For all it's called a magic wand, I'd rather we have it than have to spend 5 minutes figuring out how to open a door or turn something on. We get much less time per story than JNT had, I'd rather use it for something more interesting than something we know the sonic can do anyway. Is some of it's use lazy? Yes. Has it ever been anything than even remotely killed a story for anyone? I can't say I've ever seen anyone say they would give an ep a bad review based solely on the sonic so I don't think so. I'm not terribly sure why the role of producer vs. writer would resolve any of this anyway. Whoever writes the show would still be working on the coal face of pop culture circa 2018, 2019 etc. They're not going to suddenly start writing in the style of Robert Holmes or David Whittaker any more than a modern novelist is going to write like Tolkien or Christie. Likewise if there was a model adopted where the showrunner didn't write, how does that stop them commissioning bad scripts anyway? We'd still get the same kind of thing. We're all a product of our time. We're not going to go back to a classic era style story structure just by changing the production model. Of course that means this series will, with enough time passed, look archaic too. TV of 2068 may look back on this era as massively primitive...but you can't make a show for a ghost audience of the past or indeed a future one - only the one you can grab now. I'd have thought much of this would be very obvious to BF fans - they have made so many stories with the classic Doctors that just would never have been remotely possible storytelling wise in the classic era. They'd have to make a conscious effort to look for writers with those qualities.
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Oct 19, 2018 20:52:23 GMT
surely fellow posters - the very randomness of the classic series, where the job of the producer was to secure original scripts that could stretch to 4/6 episodes gave freedom for ideas of which the producer needed only worry as to whether it could be made within the budget? Now we have the budget and ability to make most things plausible, visually, yet the series seems bound by domestic parochial mini soap drama's of the companions. We never found out anything of Sarah Jane or Jo Grant's personal lives, yet they were amongst the best loved and identifiable companions we have had. And even JNT thought the Sonic had to go as it was a lazy plot device. To this day my Father cites the fact that the 10th Doctor made it snow with the sonic as a emblematic of his own contempt for the new series decline. We all have valid opinions and care about the show - but these things take away the genius of the format as far as I can see. I never cared for continuity - I just like to put in a good four parter which has more imagination than any comparative show/film, with plenty more on tap to watch. Too often when re-watching new series who, things seem generic and bank on the viewer 'identifying' with characters the same way as if they were straight out of East Enders of Holby City. The contemporaneous pop culture nature of characters and stories is in contrast to the literate writers of the past who drew upon often obscure and cerebral inspirations, which provided depth to older viewers. Not trying to be a stickler, but a small correction: The script editor was in charge of sourcing scripts, not the producer.
Now on the point about serials: there's certainly a lot to like about the format, and a lot of invention to admire. However, it came with drawbacks of its own: many times ep3s would end up being padded with chases and imprisonment, as all the important plot elements would be in 2 and 4, so 3 just sort of sat there. Six parters had similar problems of narrative stretching, where many scenes had nothing to do with the conflict or theme of the story (I recently noticed how often they loved showing people go through doors and tunnels in six parters, even when nothing is being said), and that magnified in the 7 and 10 parters (I don't think it's heresy to point out how much of War Games is just running backwards and forwards between sides). And while the stories were often memorable, many writers openly joke and admit to wholesale ripping from famous books and movies: much of Holmes' work is basically him remaking all his favourite Hammer and Universal Pictures as Who serials. Even Terrance Dicks, with his blue suit and jolly red face, calls his homages 'what other people would call ripping off'.
It was a team effort. Don't make out that the Producer didn't have any input. There is plenty evidence during the Letts/Dicks and Holmes/Hinchcliffe eras, that they held meetings with writers asking what story ideas they had. Nobody is suggesting a return to the equivalent of 7 and 10 parters. The Monk trilogy was bad enough. And, where just about to have a giant spiders story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 21:04:40 GMT
I never understand why giving characters lives makes it "soap opera". Jo and Sarah were beloved characters that were a product of TV nearly a half century ago. You put them on screen as they were then and they would absolutely be so unrelatable and out of place because TV drama is much more character driven now than in their era. A lot of fans may not like, say, 10 and Rose...but it made the show the most watched in the country for the first time ever. What worked in 1971 doesn't mean it's gonna work in 2018. When Sarah finally got her own successful show - a bona fide children's show no less, unlike Who - even it featured the "soap opera". We even saw her attempting to marry Nigel Havers...that wasn't on the cards in 1975! It's not a Who thing, or a sci-fi thing...it's the way modern TV drama works for better and worse. And JNT getting rid of the sonic didn't do much for the stories, did it? For all it's called a magic wand, I'd rather we have it than have to spend 5 minutes figuring out how to open a door or turn something on. We get much less time per story than JNT had, I'd rather use it for something more interesting than something we know the sonic can do anyway. Is some of it's use lazy? Yes. Has it ever been anything than even remotely killed a story for anyone? I can't say I've ever seen anyone say they would give an ep a bad review based solely on the sonic so I don't think so. I'm not terribly sure why the role of producer vs. writer would resolve any of this anyway. Whoever writes the show would still be working on the coal face of pop culture circa 2018, 2019 etc. They're not going to suddenly start writing in the style of Robert Holmes or David Whittaker any more than a modern novelist is going to write like Tolkien or Christie. Likewise if there was a model adopted where the showrunner didn't write, how does that stop them commissioning bad scripts anyway? We'd still get the same kind of thing. We're all a product of our time. We're not going to go back to a classic era style story structure just by changing the production model. Of course that means this series will, with enough time passed, look archaic too. TV of 2068 may look back on this era as massively primitive...but you can't make a show for a ghost audience of the past or indeed a future one - only the one you can grab now. I'd have thought much of this would be very obvious to BF fans - they have made so many stories with the classic Doctors that just would never have been remotely possible storytelling wise in the classic era. They'd have to make a conscious effort to look for writers with those qualities. But they can only make, reasonably, an effort to look for writers with qualities that will lead to good, populist Doctor Who. It may not be to our taste but we can't expect the second coming of Holmes any more than the upcoming Twilight Zone series can expect a new Rod Serling. For all we know, plenty of new series writers could write good classic Who - but they're not being commissioned to write for a bygone era just as Star Trek Discovery writers aren't being asked to write "wagon train to the stars" for Shatner and Nimoy. Times change. Tastes change. Audiences change. Even Shakespeare gets edited and re-contextualised. I can only really see "they should make it the way I remember it when I was a kid" in the above posts and nothing competes with your own nostalgia if you only want to watch the show with the rose (small 'r') tinted specs.
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Oct 19, 2018 21:10:46 GMT
They'd have to make a conscious effort to look for writers with those qualities. But they can only make, reasonably, an effort to look for writers with qualities that will lead to good, populist Doctor Who. It may not be to our taste but we can't expect the second coming of Holmes any more than the upcoming Twilight Zone series can expect a new Rod Serling. For all we know, plenty of new series writers could write good classic Who - but they're not being commissioned to write for a bygone era just as Star Trek Discovery writers aren't being asked to write "wagon train to the stars" for Shatner and Nimoy. Times change. Tastes change. Audiences change. Even Shakespeare gets edited and re-contextualised. I can only really see "they should make it the way I remember it when I was a kid" in the above posts and nothing competes with your own nostalgia if you only want to watch the show with the rose (small 'r') tinted specs. Wow! I only saw Enemy of the World, and Web of Fear in 2013/14. Both were great. I didn't watch it with "rose tinted specs".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 21:20:56 GMT
But they can only make, reasonably, an effort to look for writers with qualities that will lead to good, populist Doctor Who. It may not be to our taste but we can't expect the second coming of Holmes any more than the upcoming Twilight Zone series can expect a new Rod Serling. For all we know, plenty of new series writers could write good classic Who - but they're not being commissioned to write for a bygone era just as Star Trek Discovery writers aren't being asked to write "wagon train to the stars" for Shatner and Nimoy. Times change. Tastes change. Audiences change. Even Shakespeare gets edited and re-contextualised. I can only really see "they should make it the way I remember it when I was a kid" in the above posts and nothing competes with your own nostalgia if you only want to watch the show with the rose (small 'r') tinted specs. Wow! I only saw Enemy of the World, and Web of Fear in 2013/14. Both were great. I didn't watch it with "rose tinted specs". Really? You didn't know about them before hand, wish for any and all recovered eps possible and then thank the heavens we got them back? You hadn't read about them, read the target books or heard the soundtracks? You didn't have a pre-existing relationship with the characters, cast and crew on both? You went in completely cold to them devoid of any baggage from years of being a Who fan? In the 50th anniversary year? Nonsense. Rose tinted specs doesn't just mean rewatching things you've already seen. I'm not sure you get that based on that response.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Oct 19, 2018 21:39:31 GMT
surely fellow posters - the very randomness of the classic series, where the job of the producer was to secure original scripts that could stretch to 4/6 episodes gave freedom for ideas of which the producer needed only worry as to whether it could be made within the budget? Now we have the budget and ability to make most things plausible, visually, yet the series seems bound by domestic parochial mini soap drama's of the companions. We never found out anything of Sarah Jane or Jo Grant's personal lives, yet they were amongst the best loved and identifiable companions we have had. And even JNT thought the Sonic had to go as it was a lazy plot device. To this day my Father cites the fact that the 10th Doctor made it snow with the sonic as a emblematic of his own contempt for the new series decline. We all have valid opinions and care about the show - but these things take away the genius of the format as far as I can see. I never cared for continuity - I just like to put in a good four parter which has more imagination than any comparative show/film, with plenty more on tap to watch. Too often when re-watching new series who, things seem generic and bank on the viewer 'identifying' with characters the same way as if they were straight out of East Enders of Holby City. The contemporaneous pop culture nature of characters and stories is in contrast to the literate writers of the past who drew upon often obscure and cerebral inspirations, which provided depth to older viewers. Not trying to be a stickler, but a small correction: The script editor was in charge of sourcing scripts, not the producer. Another key detail here: while it wasn't uncommon for producers to meet with writers, responsibility for sourcing, trialing, comissioning and then guiding/rewriting fell with the script editor. While they would make suggestions on where to go and what would be desirable, once again, the brunt of that work was on the script editor. We have documentary evidence from Letts, Hinchcliffe, JNT and others that this was how they worked and to suggest otherwise doesn't line up with the facts, unless you're going to claim you know more about these eras than the men who actually made them.
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Oct 19, 2018 21:42:38 GMT
Wow! I only saw Enemy of the World, and Web of Fear in 2013/14. Both were great. I didn't watch it with "rose tinted specs". Really? You didn't know about them before hand, wish for any and all recovered eps possible and then thank the heavens we got them back? You hadn't read about them, read the target books or heard the soundtracks? You didn't have a pre-existing relationship with the characters, cast and crew on both? You went in completely cold to them devoid of any baggage from years of being a Who fan? In the 50th anniversary year? Nonsense. Rose tinted specs doesn't just mean rewatching things you've already seen. I'm not sure you get that based on that response. That's quite lame. I've seen many tv shows and films made before I was born. I didn't watch those through rose tinted specs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 21:47:42 GMT
They'd have to make a conscious effort to look for writers with those qualities. But they can only make, reasonably, an effort to look for writers with qualities that will lead to good, populist Doctor Who. It may not be to our taste but we can't expect the second coming of Holmes any more than the upcoming Twilight Zone series can expect a new Rod Serling. For all we know, plenty of new series writers could write good classic Who - but they're not being commissioned to write for a bygone era just as Star Trek Discovery writers aren't being asked to write "wagon train to the stars" for Shatner and Nimoy. Times change. Tastes change. Audiences change. Even Shakespeare gets edited and re-contextualised. I can only really see "they should make it the way I remember it when I was a kid" in the above posts and nothing competes with your own nostalgia if you only want to watch the show with the rose (small 'r') tinted specs. It is not a case of rose tinted specs for me, certainly. The vast majority of classic Who I have come to via VHS releases from the age of 15-32 (I am 47 now). I have seen in that time, bog standard run-around's that I only appreciate because they are 'Doctor Who' and yet others stand out as simply classic drama, that I know I will watch again and again because they are bloody good. Pyramids of Mars stood out from Revenge of the Cybermen when I got both the same day when I was 15, Genesis of the Daleks stood out as something else after watching Sontaran Experiment back in 1992 when I was 21, Terror of the Zygons when I was 17. Indeed, all the top rated classic era stories stood out from the crowd as quite remarkable when I saw them on VHS back in the 1990's simply because they were not the norm for old telly programmes of their time. Too often when revisiting 'the best of the best' of the new series, I do not find the same scope, as good as they are, such as 'blink', 'dalek', 'heaven sent' etc. They are excellent drama, but few an far between at the same level to what the classic series offered. Web of Fear I too only saw when it was rediscovered, and was taken back at what a supposedly children's programme managed in terms of horror and killer twists in the tale. Listening to Evil of the Daleks on audio, without visuals, still packs a punch, 50 years on. It is what reputations are made of. Nothing to do with what I saw as a kid, but a reputation that leads non fans of a certain age, who DID watch it back in the day to say, time and time again - 'Doctor Who USED to be GOOD' - past tense. Please take this as someone who does not dislike the new series, but merely listens to what people say, who have watched it longer than I, or we fans have in context of other choices of viewing contemporaneous to transmission. Oh - and The War Games is rated as 'a good drama' for its scope and ambition, by those non-fans who remember old fashioned plays. A lot does happen in those 10 episodes, give or take 2-3 treading water episodes. Apparently the rot really set in during Davisons era, with too much running around corridors to fill in time, as he himself acknowledged and was pointed out to me 34 years ago by my parents. So, I admit the critique, but it is not those aspects I am attempting to defend. It would be futile to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 21:50:58 GMT
Really? You didn't know about them before hand, wish for any and all recovered eps possible and then thank the heavens we got them back? You hadn't read about them, read the target books or heard the soundtracks? You didn't have a pre-existing relationship with the characters, cast and crew on both? You went in completely cold to them devoid of any baggage from years of being a Who fan? In the 50th anniversary year? Nonsense. Rose tinted specs doesn't just mean rewatching things you've already seen. I'm not sure you get that based on that response. That's quite lame. I've seen many tv shows and films made before I was born. I didn't watch those throw raise tinted specs. As have I...and we're not talking about "other" here. We're talking about the thing we're - as Daver said above - supposedly all fans of and passionate about. You can't watch Who without the baggage the same way you can things you don't care about. I'd have thought that obvious. Clearly not. Still...keep moving goalposts - it's easier to debate that way! And I'm sorry you find my thoughts "lame". Knowing the forums resident grinch doesn't agree with me kinda tells me I'm probably onto something though, thanks If I started thinking like you, I'd be calling NHS 24 lickety split.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Oct 19, 2018 22:29:35 GMT
I never understand why giving characters lives makes it "soap opera". Jo and Sarah were beloved characters that were a product of TV nearly a half century ago. You put them on screen as they were then and they would absolutely be so unrelatable and out of place because TV drama is much more character driven now than in their era. Personally I don't mind characters having semblances of actual lives that much, but it does bother me when a story is shorter than ever but still there's excessive focus on character's lives when the main genera that seems to be touted gives the show other things to be about. I mean, there obviously has been a fundamental change when I used to watch things like Star Trek or Doctor Who and wonder when, oh when are we going to have a little more of characters' personal lives or families, and next you know I'm watching them and wondering when, oh when we are going to have a little less of it. It seems more like just a pendulum swing a lot of the time than striking any happy medium. For the New Series, Companions having strong family connections has given us some great characters, but sticking too close to them has often seemed to mean being Earthbound and getting to see less of the universe - but this may be an area where Chibnall can strike a better balance than his predecessors? I will say that I think the new season has been very good in that regard so far, I think it is giving us some dramatic views of the companion's personal lives but thankfully I don't think it's been excessive. And JNT getting rid of the sonic didn't do much for the stories, did it? For all it's called a magic wand, I'd rather we have it than have to spend 5 minutes figuring out how to open a door or turn something on. Agree with you there, I don't blame the Sonic so much for being magical so far even when I would agree it was overused in Ghost Monument, if everything else you're trying to do with an episode leaves you only 10 or 15 seconds for a magical resolution of some kind. I almost wish the quest to regain the TARDIS could have been a two-parter to better accommodate everything, but that may not have fit Chibnall's vision for the dynamics of season and I'm probably okay with how it worked out.
|
|