|
Post by kimalysong on Sept 19, 2016 21:58:53 GMT
Unfortunately this was probably my least favorite Early Adventure released so far. I felt so unengaged not even sure I could tell you what this story was about. Nothing wrong with the story per say just not the type of story that appeals to me.
And I am kind of disappointed in the lack of Barbara. Ben's part may have been cut down in his first recast story but not like this. And I was so pumped for this one after listening and loving Domain of the Voord.
But ah well the philosopher in me says you can't love them all!
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on Sept 20, 2016 3:27:41 GMT
Unfortunately this was probably my least favorite Early Adventure released so far. I felt so unengaged not even sure I could tell you what this story was about. Nothing wrong with the story per say just not the type of story that appeals to me. And I am kind of disappointed in the lack of Barbara. Ben's part may have been cut down in his first recast story but not like this. And I was so pumped for this one after listening and loving Domain of the Voord. But ah well the philosopher in me says you can't love them all! Yeah, I felt the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Sept 27, 2016 21:40:44 GMT
I found it rather light, you enjoy it while you're listening, but once you stop you find you don't have any opinion one way or the other on what you just listened to. I genuinely, with about 30 minutes to go, wondered if Id give up and listen to something else instead that afternoon (listening as I do while I exercise). It wasn't the result of the casts performance.
The one standout I'd say was William Russell. 90 odd years old and still able to evoke a character he last played over 50 years ago as a far younger man. His Ian sounds like, feels like, Ian.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Sept 28, 2016 8:03:39 GMT
I agree, it was a shame to make such a big thing of recasting Barbara and then to have her missing for a large part of the story. Sometimes I wonder if BF worry too much about the reactions to recasts and end up overthinking - like the narration aspect. We didn't need it in the Third Doctor box, we don't need it here either. Narration for Companion Chronicles are fine, but let these be full (and I mean full) cast. I don't think BF have let us done so far with recasts so ... crack on! More Barbara and more of this Tardis team please.
Other than that I enjoyed it, not a standout release by any stretch, but a nice steady one and I love listening to William Russell.
Cheers
Tony
|
|
|
Post by Zagreus on Sept 29, 2016 1:12:13 GMT
Don't get rid of narration, please. It helps keep the range distinct, and do things that not having it doesn't allow, like having the Brig in, for instance, or the eyebrow talk scenes in Havoc of Empires. It helps set the tone. And since part of the Early Adventures' purported goal was to emulate the narrated soundtrack releases, I don't see why they'd ditch the narration any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Sept 29, 2016 1:23:17 GMT
I agree, it was a shame to make such a big thing of recasting Barbara and then to have her missing for a large part of the story. Sometimes I wonder if BF worry too much about the reactions to recasts and end up overthinking - like the narration aspect. We didn't need it in the Third Doctor box, we don't need it here either. Narration for Companion Chronicles are fine, but let these be full (and I mean full) cast. I don't think BF have let us done so far with recasts so ... crack on! More Barbara and more of this Tardis team please. Other than that I enjoyed it, not a standout release by any stretch, but a nice steady one and I love listening to William Russell. Cheers Tony The Early Adventures are meant to evoke the soundtracks for the 60's stories the BBC released, which included linking narration to describe the more visual aspect of a scene.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Sept 29, 2016 10:03:04 GMT
I agree, it was a shame to make such a big thing of recasting Barbara and then to have her missing for a large part of the story. Sometimes I wonder if BF worry too much about the reactions to recasts and end up overthinking - like the narration aspect. We didn't need it in the Third Doctor box, we don't need it here either. Narration for Companion Chronicles are fine, but let these be full (and I mean full) cast. I don't think BF have let us done so far with recasts so ... crack on! More Barbara and more of this Tardis team please. Other than that I enjoyed it, not a standout release by any stretch, but a nice steady one and I love listening to William Russell. Cheers Tony The Early Adventures are meant to evoke the soundtracks for the 60's stories the BBC released, which included linking narration to describe the more visual aspect of a scene. I have to admit that I'd forgotten that. I'd still like Full Cast stories with this team though Cheers Tony
|
|
|
Post by omega on Sept 29, 2016 10:04:36 GMT
The Early Adventures are meant to evoke the soundtracks for the 60's stories the BBC released, which included linking narration to describe the more visual aspect of a scene. I have to admit that I'd forgotten that. I'd still like Full Cast stories with this team though Cheers Tony Those soundtracks can be a great way to experience stories with missing episodes.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Sept 29, 2016 10:07:58 GMT
I have to admit that I'd forgotten that. I'd still like Full Cast stories with this team though Cheers Tony Those soundtracks can be a great way to experience stories with missing episodes. I agree, I have many of them ... I just forgot that the EA were trying to recreate them Cheers Tony
|
|
|
Post by omega on Sept 29, 2016 10:09:39 GMT
Those soundtracks can be a great way to experience stories with missing episodes. I agree, I have many of them ... I just forgot that the EA were trying to recreate them Cheers Tony That point was raised back when the EAs were announced, but that's largely been ignored in favour of simply having new stories for the First Doctor.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Sept 29, 2016 12:11:03 GMT
It always amuses me when Doctor Who fans use words in a way no Not-We would understand them.
Anyone "normal" would look at something with eight cast members and consider that as having a 'full cast'. A Doctor Who fan uses 'full cast' to mean 'without narration'.
|
|
dorney
Big Finish Creative Team
Likes: 3,063
|
Post by dorney on Sept 29, 2016 12:32:42 GMT
I think it tends to get termed 'fully dramatised' in audio drama, but I can see how the term evolved.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Sept 29, 2016 12:38:26 GMT
I think it tends to get termed 'fully dramatised' in audio drama, but I can see how the term evolved. Oh we all do it with some term or another, I find such things interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 16:08:33 GMT
I think it tends to get termed 'fully dramatised' in audio drama, but I can see how the term evolved. I first came across the term 'full-cast' on the old BBC Radio Collection cassette releases, as in "A BBC Radio 4 Full-Cast Dramatisation", which was the norm for those radio plays released on cassette (and later CD). For me the term differentiated the radio plays from TV soundtrack releases. But full-cast dramatisation didn't mean there was no narration... a lot of those plays had the actors in character setting the scene or abridging events. (Dr Watson and Hastings would be two prominent examples of this.) So how the term evolved and is now interpreted by us is interesting. As if a play is written as a monologue and features one actor that could correctly be deemed to be 'full cast', but it might raise some eyebrows here if BF used that term for a single-handed play. So 'full cast' itself can be misleading.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Sept 30, 2016 8:17:04 GMT
I think it tends to get termed 'fully dramatised' in audio drama, but I can see how the term evolved. I first came across the term 'full-cast' on the old BBC Radio Collection cassette releases, as in "A BBC Radio 4 Full-Cast Dramatisation", which was the norm for those radio plays released on cassette (and later CD). For me the term differentiated the radio plays from TV soundtrack releases. But full-cast dramatisation didn't mean there was no narration... a lot of those plays had the actors in character setting the scene or abridging events. (Dr Watson and Hastings would be two prominent examples of this.) So how the term evolved and is now interpreted by us is interesting. As if a play is written as a monologue and features one actor that could correctly be deemed to be 'full cast', but it might raise some eyebrows here if BF used that term for a single-handed play. So 'full cast' itself can be misleading. Did I cause all this? Cheers Tony
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2016 8:44:22 GMT
I first came across the term 'full-cast' on the old BBC Radio Collection cassette releases, as in "A BBC Radio 4 Full-Cast Dramatisation", which was the norm for those radio plays released on cassette (and later CD). For me the term differentiated the radio plays from TV soundtrack releases. But full-cast dramatisation didn't mean there was no narration... a lot of those plays had the actors in character setting the scene or abridging events. (Dr Watson and Hastings would be two prominent examples of this.) So how the term evolved and is now interpreted by us is interesting. As if a play is written as a monologue and features one actor that could correctly be deemed to be 'full cast', but it might raise some eyebrows here if BF used that term for a single-handed play. So 'full cast' itself can be misleading. Did I cause all this? Yes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2016 16:08:24 GMT
I must admit I'm baffled why anyone would think the presence of narration means these aren't full cast. I think the recent second doctor companion chronicles set caused some confusion as it wasn't full cast but some of the stories were so close to being so that the line got a bit muddled.
The other thing that I guess could be influencing people is whether they view the role of the Doctor as being played by William Russell or voiced over by the narrator. Since the cast list shows William as playing both Ian and the Doctor I go for the former.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Sept 30, 2016 17:43:35 GMT
I agree, it was a shame to make such a big thing of recasting Barbara and then to have her missing for a large part of the story. Sometimes I wonder if BF worry too much about the reactions to recasts and end up overthinking - like the narration aspect. We didn't need it in the Third Doctor box, we don't need it here either. Narration for Companion Chronicles are fine, but let these be full (and I mean full) cast... Other than that I enjoyed it, not a standout release by any stretch, but a nice steady one and I love listening to William Russell. This story having such a wonderful focus on Ian is one of the things that makes me think Barbara might have been a cautiously conservative last-minute addition to it. I also think the sense of Barbara's absence might seem somewhat exaggerated by both Barbara and The Doctor ("traditionally") being in absentia, but then again that seems to be a big part of affording a well-deserved spotlight to Ian here. I've some mixed feelings still about the use of narration... On the one hand, there's lots you can do with it to add detail and interest to a story, and as with the Companion Chronicles we're generally allowed more listening to a particular popular cast member, which is a wonderful treat anytime. On the other hand I think Big Finish's usual goal to recreate the experience of the television series is a far better one than the goal of recreating BBC's recreations of existing stories that seem to require narration because the video has gone missing and they are are no longer negotiable in content. As it stands, the narration hasn't spoiled a single one of these nor the CC box sets for me, but there have been many times I've wondered if they wouldn't have worked rather well without it. I think I will entrust it to Big Finish though as I think they've done very well with these regardless.
|
|
|
Post by dastari on Oct 3, 2016 8:08:43 GMT
I'm sure it'll have no bearing on the story, but the cover gives off this strange Myst/ Riven vibe to it. Does anyone else feel the same? I keep wondering why the Doctor is looking through a Stargate. I wonder if it wasn't a similar situation to The Yes Men, which was written prior to the decision to recast and thus was written with it in mind. While that makes complete sense, it still doesn't negate the fact that the original series would never have two regulars gone at the same time. If they were going to write Barbara out for two and a half episodes to give Carole Ann Ford a break than the Doctor should have been in it throughout. If the next story pulls the same load of bull then I'm seriously rethinking my Early Adventures subscription. Doing "an actor on vacation" is fine every once in a while, but not in every story or in 3/4 of the stories from the first season of Early Adventures. I can see why Jemma Powell is playing the recast Barbara due to her playing the character breifly on television, but of all the recastings so far, her's is - to me - the least successful. Her acting is fine but her concession to playing Jacqueline Hill's role is simply to utter every line in crisp RP, something Jacqueline never really did. Also the very obvious fact that she is a lot younger than her fellow travellers is apparent here in a way that it never was for Tim Treloar or Eliot Chapman. A lot of people are saying that she needs more time, but Chapman and Treloar hit the ground running from their first episodes. It's clear that they realized the gravity of what they were being asked to do and studied the characters and the previous performance to the point that they could recreate it. It doesn't seem like Powell did any of that background work. She just reads the lines very stiffly and precisely and gives Barbara no inflection. I questioned her casting from the beginning, because she only had about a half dozen lines in An Adventure in Space and Time, and she didn't sound much like Jacqueline Hill in that either. I rather liked Carol Ford's take on Barbara, sufficiently different to Susan, the Doctor or her narrator's voice to identify. I loved Ford's take on Barbara in the Lost Stories that she did as well as Here There be Monsters, but for whatever reason she'd lost that performance in Domain of the Voord where Barbara sounds barely any different than Susan. After seeing how well Chapman and Treloar did as recasts I'm not against the idea of recasting Barbara, but I feel in this case we got stunt casting of a name we'd recognize rather than their looking for someone who could really do the role justice. It's kind of telling to me that in the interview they don't even mention the recast or ask anyone what they thought of working with Powell. Don't get rid of narration, please. It helps keep the range distinct, and do things that not having it doesn't allow, like having the Brig in, for instance, or the eyebrow talk scenes in Havoc of Empires. It helps set the tone. And since part of the Early Adventures' purported goal was to emulate the narrated soundtrack releases, I don't see why they'd ditch the narration any time soon. For the most part, though, the narration really drags the stories down pace-wise and lead to these awkward pauses while they do a sound effect and then go back to the narration. It sounds tacky. Yes, very rarely the narration serves a purpose and allows them to do something that they wouldn't otherwise, but usually it's pointless. I'd rather just leave it up to the writer. If he feels the need for it include it. If not, don't. That way you can emulate the narrated soundtracks for stories missing episodes and the ones without narration are emulating stories that we have in the archive. Unfortunately this was probably my least favorite Early Adventure released so far. Agreed. Every story in the first series ranged from a 7/10 to 8/10 for me. This one scores a 6/10. Ford and Russell try to save this, but there's just nothing really exciting. While it is trying to be an authentic Hartnell story, except for the fact that the original series would never have let two regulars go at the same time, it's unfortunately trying to be one of the more boring Hartnell stories. My complete thoughts can be found here.
|
|
|
Post by Zagreus on Oct 3, 2016 17:25:25 GMT
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree with regards to the narration. I've only ever thought it was clunky in some of the early Lost Stories. And, in my opinion, the pacing is just different, not "off". But then again, I'm a really big fan of the format, so my tastes may just differ.
|
|