|
Post by constonks on Jan 12, 2017 4:55:54 GMT
As for DW60 a dramadoc of Tom Baker from building site to Little Britain, yes please!! Who would play Baker in that is the million dollar question Himself. Yes. Even as a child/teenager/twenty-something.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 12, 2017 9:30:43 GMT
As for DW60 a dramadoc of Tom Baker from building site to Little Britain, yes please!! Who would play Baker in that is the million dollar question Christopher Biggins
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jan 13, 2017 20:42:30 GMT
An Adventure in Time and Space celebrated something that had somewhat dwindled by the time an ill Wiliam Hartnell was forced out. Ratings were actually often lower in 1966 than they were in 1989, and that was against Coronation Street (an inexplicably popular UK soap opera). The subject actually closed on a very downbeat story really - Hartnell's regular acting career just about ended with Doctor Who. It was the way it was produced that made things more uplifting - little did any of the then regular crew know, it would celebrate its 50th anniversary and beyond. The inclusion of Matt Smith's Doctor was pure retrospectively celebrating what Doctor Who would become rather than the state of the show in 1966. The same could easily be done with the show in a similar state in 1989, although I'm not sure the 60th anniversary will garner a docu-drama like this. Be good if it did though. But it wasn't about post-Hartnell, it was about the creation of the show - which was a success story. William Hartnell's ill-health was just how it ended - and it was an upbeat ending about the show's future, given that the current Doctor Matt Smith appears at the end to show that his legacy has continued right up to the present day. It's totally different to what a 1989 docudrama would be, which is celebrating the show's failure - fine any other time of year but in an anniversary year would be inappropriate. And whose to say that couldn't happen with Survival? A good writer could easily make the ending hopeful and upbeat (making the movie both on Survival and about the show's survival). Get Munro back to write it and it could work really great: celebrate the 60th by showing the series' power to overcome its biggest obstacle and live on.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 14, 2017 16:07:35 GMT
But it wasn't about post-Hartnell, it was about the creation of the show - which was a success story. William Hartnell's ill-health was just how it ended - and it was an upbeat ending about the show's future, given that the current Doctor Matt Smith appears at the end to show that his legacy has continued right up to the present day. It's totally different to what a 1989 docudrama would be, which is celebrating the show's failure - fine any other time of year but in an anniversary year would be inappropriate. And whose to say that couldn't happen with Survival? A good writer could easily make the ending hopeful and upbeat (making the movie both on Survival and about the show's survival). Get Munro back to write it and it could work really great: celebrate the 60th by showing the series' power to overcome its biggest obstacle and live on. But then what's the point? Why not just make it about the show's revival?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2017 17:01:24 GMT
But it wasn't about post-Hartnell, it was about the creation of the show - which was a success story. William Hartnell's ill-health was just how it ended - and it was an upbeat ending about the show's future, given that the current Doctor Matt Smith appears at the end to show that his legacy has continued right up to the present day. It's totally different to what a 1989 docudrama would be, which is celebrating the show's failure - fine any other time of year but in an anniversary year would be inappropriate. And whose to say that couldn't happen with Survival? A good writer could easily make the ending hopeful and upbeat (making the movie both on Survival and about the show's survival). Get Munro back to write it and it could work really great: celebrate the 60th by showing the series' power to overcome its biggest obstacle and live on. Good point. 'Survival', as it turned out, would be a very fitting title for any anniversary special to dwell on, considering the plethora of books and audios in the 'wilderness years' as they have been known, and how the style of 'Survival' informed the style of Chris Eccleston's initial stories (with a streetwise new companion and regular return points in a Perivale-like environment). I don't for one minute think that such a special would be of interest to people outside Doctor Who (but then I might have previously thought that about the show's origins), but if it was, I can see this fitting the bill very nicely.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jan 28, 2017 0:43:50 GMT
And whose to say that couldn't happen with Survival? A good writer could easily make the ending hopeful and upbeat (making the movie both on Survival and about the show's survival). Get Munro back to write it and it could work really great: celebrate the 60th by showing the series' power to overcome its biggest obstacle and live on. Good point. 'Survival', as it turned out, would be a very fitting title for any anniversary special to dwell on, considering the plethora of books and audios in the 'wilderness years' as they have been known, and how the style of 'Survival' informed the style of Chris Eccleston's initial stories (with a streetwise new companion and regular return points in a Perivale-like environment). I don't for one minute think that such a special would be of interest to people outside Doctor Who (but then I might have previously thought that about the show's origins), but if it was, I can see this fitting the bill very nicely. Then again, a lot of bits of the show's origins wouldn't appear to be super inticing, and yet, look what Gatiss did. In good hands, Survival could really be something. Failing that, a Tom biopic would be something to behold.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 1, 2017 14:35:31 GMT
If we did the 85 cancellation, the question would concern Michael Grade's portrayal, and if they'd mention who he was with at that time that lead to Colin's dismissal...
|
|
|
Post by doomlord on Apr 1, 2017 14:55:04 GMT
I would love to see a drama adaptation of Tom Baker's autobiography, 'Who On Earth is Tom Baker?' Even the stuff he experienced around wartime, post-war, off to the monastery, his National Service, bit-part actor, marrying into the family of the flower seed company and the insane mother-in-law, is a drama unto itself without the Doctor Who element! Stephen Mangan would be good to play Tom once the mid-1960s arrived (he'd have to pluck his eyebrows a little though).
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 16, 2017 23:48:53 GMT
I feel like doing Tom's life, beginning to end, might be a little much. Focusing purely on his Who years, going through literally everything a lead actor could without caving into substance abuse, would focus it up and give it thrust.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 17, 2017 13:22:36 GMT
It has to be the RTD 2005 revival. It's the only one that makes sense after An Adventure In Space And Time; a natural follow-up on the themes and ideas in the first docudrama.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 17, 2017 13:54:28 GMT
It has to be the RTD 2005 revival. It's the only one that makes sense after An Adventure In Space And Time; a natural follow-up on the themes and ideas in the first docudrama. No, a 'Survival' drama would be the logical extension: the birth in Adventure, and then the 'death'/fall of the programme, though with that hint of a brighter future. RTD would be more fitting the third part i.e. the resurrection/the return. That's basic three act/hero's journey story structure right there. Any writer or writing teacher worth their salt can see that.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 17, 2017 14:02:09 GMT
It has to be the RTD 2005 revival. It's the only one that makes sense after An Adventure In Space And Time; a natural follow-up on the themes and ideas in the first docudrama. No, a 'Survival' drama would be the logical extension: the birth in Adventure, and then the 'death'/fall of the programme, though with that hint of a brighter future. RTD would be more fitting the third part i.e. the resurrection/the return. That's basic three act/hero's journey story structure right there. Any writer or writing teacher worth their salt can see that. A docudrama of the death of the programme would not be a good way to celebrate the show's 60th anniversary. You don't want to say the show failed at some point in its long history during an anniversary year. A docudrama of the RTD era would cover the same themes present in the first docudrama of going against the odds to achieve the impossible, and the importance of standing for what you believe is right rather than following what the superiors want. Plus it would also deliver the message that Doctor Who always continues - a show that is impossible to kill, rather than showing it as a show that has died before.
|
|
|
Post by doomlord on Jun 17, 2017 14:21:06 GMT
I feel like doing Tom's life, beginning to end, might be a little much. Focusing purely on his Who years, going through literally everything a lead actor could without caving into substance abuse, would focus it up and give it thrust. I think the most interesting aspect of his life was before he became the Doctor which is why I didn't include that particular era in my previous post, as you said, a life story from beginning to end might be a little too much. If anything, I would have the drama end on a high and only have the last ten minutes of it focusing on him getting the part. A series of short sequences from the begging letter to the BBC he wrote from his floor mattress to him being called in to meet the producers, his building site scenario with the chaps finding out in the tabloids the big news he's been keeping secret these past few weeks, his costume fitting, his visit to Begonia Pope's house to collect the scarf with James Acheson (finally a full-length mirror shot of the Doctor!). Then I would interject short bursts of studio recording sequences of him acting in Doctor Who with a voice-over of Mary Whitehouse complaining about the horror and violence, studio recordings (recreations of memorable action/dialogue fan favourites) punching through montages of photocalls outside the Television Centre, children starting to recognise on the street, more children, then mobs of children adoring him, people adoring him, crowds flocking to see him at the DW Exhibition in Blackpool, his hand pulling the lever to switch on the Blackpool Illuminations, more crowds, hands holding pens and notepads surrounding him as he tries to please everyone... then eventually seeking relief by giving them the slip by the car laid on for him, sitting back on the back seat he can hardly believe the overwhelming adoration, the Blackpool lights whizzing past the window almost hypnotising him as he contemplates it all (we still hear Mary Whithouse's voice of complaint). "Stop the car!" The final scene would be Tom calling round to that family's house nearby, he's concerned about a sequence in the latest episode and just in time before it had finished airing, questioning if it would fuel Whitehouse's accusations. The total disbelief from the children in the living room as they watched from their seats at the TV, then looking back at the 'Doctor' sitting right next to them. Tom, with the widest grin you could ever muster...
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Jun 17, 2017 15:34:51 GMT
It has to be the RTD 2005 revival. It's the only one that makes sense after An Adventure In Space And Time; a natural follow-up on the themes and ideas in the first docudrama. No, a 'Survival' drama would be the logical extension: the birth in Adventure, and then the 'death'/fall of the programme, though with that hint of a brighter future. RTD would be more fitting the third part i.e. the resurrection/the return. That's basic three act/hero's journey story structure right there. Any writer or writing teacher worth their salt can see that. You are correct.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 17, 2017 18:01:46 GMT
No, a 'Survival' drama would be the logical extension: the birth in Adventure, and then the 'death'/fall of the programme, though with that hint of a brighter future. RTD would be more fitting the third part i.e. the resurrection/the return. That's basic three act/hero's journey story structure right there. Any writer or writing teacher worth their salt can see that. A docudrama of the death of the programme would not be a good way to celebrate the show's 60th anniversary. You don't want to say the show failed at some point in its long history during an anniversary year. A docudrama of the RTD era would cover the same themes present in the first docudrama of going against the odds to achieve the impossible, and the importance of standing for what you believe is right rather than following what the superiors want. Plus it would also deliver the message that Doctor Who always continues - a show that is impossible to kill, rather than showing it as a show that has died before. I emphasize three act structure. The end of an act two appears like no hope, but in truth, it's setting up something bigger and better. Survival fits that to a T, and would indeed 'deliver the message that Doctor Who always continues - a show that is impossible to kill' as Survival was, well, about precisely that. The show didn't die, and kept on going in a new form. Arguably, that's Who to its very, very core - same show, new face.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 17, 2017 20:25:14 GMT
A docudrama of the death of the programme would not be a good way to celebrate the show's 60th anniversary. You don't want to say the show failed at some point in its long history during an anniversary year. A docudrama of the RTD era would cover the same themes present in the first docudrama of going against the odds to achieve the impossible, and the importance of standing for what you believe is right rather than following what the superiors want. Plus it would also deliver the message that Doctor Who always continues - a show that is impossible to kill, rather than showing it as a show that has died before. I emphasize three act structure. The end of an act two appears like no hope, but in truth, it's setting up something bigger and better. Survival fits that to a T, and would indeed 'deliver the message that Doctor Who always continues - a show that is impossible to kill' as Survival was, well, about precisely that. The show didn't die, and kept on going in a new form. Arguably, that's Who to its very, very core - same show, new face. The three act structure is great for a single TV episode or film but not for individual episodes or films. The problem if you have act two as a film or TV episode is that it ends on a downer. The hero is yet to win and the odds that he will look impossible. I'll also emphasise that again, we're talking about what should be done as a docudrama in the show's 60th year. If you have a docudrama about the show's original end then you're A: saying the show has died before and B: admitting that the show hasn't really been on the air sixty years. Even with showing the books and Big Finish releases the casual audience would just say 'Well the show isn't really 60 years old then, so why are we celebrating its anniversary?' A docudrama on the RTD era on the other hand would be much more optimistic. Optimism is what you would want to show in an anniversary year, not cynicism (which is what showing how the classic series ended would be, because you'd be showing the BBC and Michael Grade as the antagonists who succeed in killing Doctor Who).
|
|
|
Post by doomlord on Jun 17, 2017 21:44:04 GMT
No-one has mentioned a three episodes drama, only you have, bringing that into this topic where everyone is clearly talking about a one-off drama play in the same way as AAiSaT, is irrelevant to the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 17, 2017 21:45:27 GMT
No-one has mentioned a three episodes drama, only you have, bringing that into this topic where everyone is clearly talking about a one-off drama play, is irrelevant. I'm not mentioning a three episode drama, I'm saying a one-off drama as a separate act two following An Adventure In Space And Time wouldn't work.
|
|
|
Post by doomlord on Jun 17, 2017 21:49:24 GMT
Why would it be an Act II to AAiSaT? It would be a drama in its own right.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jun 17, 2017 21:52:37 GMT
Why would it be an Act II to AAiSaT? It would be a drama in its own right. The argument is that a docudrama of the show's death would be act two, with a potential future RTD era docudrama act three. I don't agree though because a docudrama of the show's original death in 1989 would be too morbid for a 60th anniversary docudrama.
|
|