Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2018 9:36:56 GMT
What if Doctor Who had been brought back....wrong? Let's laugh and cringe at what might have been.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2018 2:12:34 GMT
Well, it would have been back for one spring and gone for good, I think. It wouldn't have survived a second false start on screen in a decade.
I guess it also matters what "wrong" would mean. More than a few on here would say they don't like New Who but they couldnt argue it wasn't a big hit when it came back. So the quality aside, it was a success. what would have been worse is if the show came back RIGHT and the audience didn't show up. That would have been the real kicker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2018 2:18:45 GMT
Well, it would have been back for one spring and gone for good, I think. It wouldn't have survived a second false start on screen in a decade. I guess it also matters what "wrong" would mean. More than a few on here would say they don't like New Who but they couldnt argue it wasn't a big hit when it came back. So the quality aside, it was a success. what would have been worse is if the show came back RIGHT and the audience didn't show up. That would have been the real kicker. More in the vein of bad Hollywood remake/cash grab/really bad attempts from executives who don't get 'it' to modernise it/etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2018 2:29:18 GMT
Well, we've seen what a bad Hollywood remake looks like so I guess we don't have to wonder too hard  I'd recommend that anyone read the Nth Doctor by Jean Marc Loficier as it's a great little book about all the attempts to make the Who movie in the 80s and 90s. Some of it will make your blood freeze and would have made the TV Movie seem like 2001 A Space Oddysey. There was also a nice piece in DWM a couple of years ago about the other pitches in the 2000s including Mark Gattis' one. |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 16, 2018 8:44:39 GMT
I guess it also matters what "wrong" would mean. More than a few on here would say they don't like New Who but they couldnt argue it wasn't a big hit when it came back. So the quality aside, it was a success. Indeed. Contrary to what the likes of maul will say, Russell did what Jacobs/Segal and even, in a sense, Cartmel had failed to do: make the show relevant again. Not just through better effects and reducing the lore for newcomers, but also through characters that felt more like then-modern British people, as well as a story structure that could support bigger arcs and reward viewer investment. For the great things the Cartmel Masterplan did, the multi-part 25 mins formatx4 stories was dead wrong for that kind of storytelling, Ace was hamstrung in what they could do because 'think of the children', and it wasn't an especially marketable concept to a mass audience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2018 9:44:57 GMT
Well, it would have been back for one spring and gone for good, I think. It wouldn't have survived a second false start on screen in a decade. I guess it also matters what "wrong" would mean. More than a few on here would say they don't like New Who but they couldnt argue it wasn't a big hit when it came back. So the quality aside, it was a success. what would have been worse is if the show came back RIGHT and the audience didn't show up. That would have been the real kicker. More in the vein of bad Hollywood remake/cash grab/really bad attempts from executives who don't get 'it' to modernise it/etc. Sherlock Holmes in Miami anyone?  |
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Apr 16, 2018 10:00:13 GMT
Some would say it did come back wrong......lol
|
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Apr 16, 2018 10:02:43 GMT
Doctor Who did come back wrong!
The 9th Doctor was scarred because of the Time War. No hold on, it was the 10th Doctor, No. It was the 11th Doctor, yes. He was scarred because of the Time War, until Moffat changed it to The War Doctor.
Right? Wrong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2018 10:02:58 GMT
Some would say it did come back wrong......lol & they who would say that are wrong |
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Apr 16, 2018 10:15:57 GMT
Doctor Who did come back wrong! The 9th Doctor was scarred because of the Time War. No hold on, it was the 10th Doctor, No. It was the 11th Doctor, yes. He was scarred because of the Time War, until Moffat changed it to The War Doctor. Right? Wrong? But the show can evolve, adapt and re-tread that's how its lasted 5ish Decades!
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 16, 2018 14:04:56 GMT
Doctor Who did come back wrong! The 9th Doctor was scarred because of the Time War. No hold on, it was the 10th Doctor, No. It was the 11th Doctor, yes. He was scarred because of the Time War, until Moffat changed it to The War Doctor. Right? Wrong? But the show can evolve, adapt and re-tread that's how its lasted 5ish Decades!
Regards
mark687
But you see, according to the holy Gospel of Maul, it's still 1983. Anyone can write for the show, but also must be only Holmes; nothing should ever change or evolve with the times; the show should only be fun, but also be very morbid, depressing and hardcore. Oh, and !!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 16, 2018 14:06:35 GMT
And anyway, if it had come back wrong, well, most of us wouldn't be on here today.
In fact, it's debtable if BF would be here today either, given Russell basically saved them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2018 16:29:09 GMT
Doctor Who did come back wrong! The ratings would suggest otherwise! Post 2005 Doctor Who was very successful and the show has a high profile. Enough to get a 'special' episode on Christmas Day and for me to be walking around shops in Cork/Limerick and seeing Doctor Who merchandise on the shelves... there's nothing wrong about that! |
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Apr 16, 2018 17:04:59 GMT
Doctor Who did come back wrong! The ratings would suggest otherwise! Post 2005 Doctor Who was very successful and the show has a high profile. Enough to get a 'special' episode on Christmas Day and for me to be walking around shops in Cork/Limerick and seeing Doctor Who merchandise on the shelves... there's nothing wrong about that! Please don't edit my quote to change what I actually said. |
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Apr 16, 2018 17:06:30 GMT
But the show can evolve, adapt and re-tread that's how its lasted 5ish Decades!
Regards
mark687
But you see, according to the holy Gospel of Maul, it's still 1983. Anyone can write for the show, but also must be only Holmes; nothing should ever change or evolve with the times; the show should only be fun, but also be very morbid, depressing and hardcore. Oh, and !!!!!!!!!!! You're just embarrassing yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 16, 2018 17:50:19 GMT
But you see, according to the holy Gospel of Maul, it's still 1983. Anyone can write for the show, but also must be only Holmes; nothing should ever change or evolve with the times; the show should only be fun, but also be very morbid, depressing and hardcore. Oh, and !!!!!!!!!!! You're just embarrassing yourself. Rhubarb. |
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Apr 17, 2018 4:24:42 GMT
The ratings would suggest otherwise! Post 2005 Doctor Who was very successful and the show has a high profile. Enough to get a 'special' episode on Christmas Day and for me to be walking around shops in Cork/Limerick and seeing Doctor Who merchandise on the shelves... there's nothing wrong about that! Please don't edit my quote to change what I actually said. He didn't. He just quoted the part he wanted to respond to. It's commonly done on internet forums. (I've done it myself, some times, if I want to respond to part of what someone said but not the whole thing.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 7:43:33 GMT
Please don't edit my quote to change what I actually said. He didn't. He just quoted the part he wanted to respond to. It's commonly done on internet forums. (I've done it myself, some times, if I want to respond to part of what someone said but not the whole thing.) I would like to request that this thread be closed. I wanted this to be fun jokey thread and it's turning into something I didn't want to be. |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 17, 2018 9:01:16 GMT
He didn't. He just quoted the part he wanted to respond to. It's commonly done on internet forums. (I've done it myself, some times, if I want to respond to part of what someone said but not the whole thing.) I would like to request that this thread be closed. I wanted this to be fun jokey thread and it's turning into something I didn't want to be. Because of one person. Bit drastic? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 9:22:04 GMT
I would like to request that this thread be closed. I wanted this to be fun jokey thread and it's turning into something I didn't want to be. Because of one person. Bit drastic? Because that one person will feel inticed to harass other people because of it and has a history of adding toxicity into topics like this. I don't want that for my fellow forum members. Nucules, with all due respect, I get that you don't like my contributions to the forum, you've made that very clear: notthebigfinishforum.freeforums.net/thread/4345/change, but you don't have to add to them. |
|
