boffy
Full Member
Likes: 139
|
Post by boffy on Apr 10, 2021 18:50:18 GMT
I've been reading through old versions of BF's FAQ on the Wayback Machine, as one does. I find it interesting to see a few things they categorically said they wouldn't do, when they later went on to do exactly that or something similar. I'd like to be clear that I'm not criticising BF for this or calling them hypocrites. I've listened to a lot of the below stories, and enjoyed them thoroughly. I'm sure there are plenty of things I said 20 years ago which I wouldn't agree with now! I just think it makes for amusing trivia, and I hope it will amuse some of you too. Adapting existing Doctor Who storiesFAQ: We are not allowed to adapt books, unmade scripts, stage plays, comic strips, ancient texts from lost Atlantis etc. And nor would we want to.Later releases: Novel Adptations, Lost Stories (and Night Thoughts before that), Stage Plays, Comic Strip Adaptations, they even did Stargate: Atlantis for a while Recasting/regenerating The Master or The RaniFAQ: Within the confines of the three Doctors we are currently covering, Anthony Ainley *is* the Master, and we would certainly like to come to an arrangement with him to return to the role sometime. If that cannot be achieved, I see no point in recasting the role. That would be an insult to Anthony and our listeners. If we want a regular villain and the current Master isn't available, I'd rather create a brand new and exciting baddie.Similarly, I'd love to use the Rani sometime and even if we negotiated with Pip and Jane Baker, who own the copyright on the character, if we could not employ Kate O'Mara, again, what's the point? Far better to create a new character. Yes, of course the Master and Rani *could* regenerate, but clever as that concept is, it can also be badly overused (vis a vis Borusa on television).Later releases (Master): Dark Eyes 2 and too many others to list with Alex MacQueen's incarnation, arguably the Time Lord Victorious Short Trips with Jon Culshaw Later releases (Rani): The Rani Elite, Planet of the RaniRecasting incarnations of the DoctorFAQ: I will not recast those three Doctors under any circumstances - to do so would I believe be the height of bad taste. On TV they got away with it in The Five Doctors, and that should remain a unique event. William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton and Jon Pertwee were three great actors whose memory is better served by enjoying what we have rather than muddying it with sound-alikes. And to ask their family members to impersonate them would be insulting them and their fathers. It's a definite no-no.Later releases: Too many to list across various Companion Chronicles, Early Adventures, and Short Trips. Here's something of a summary. First: David Bradley (and his whole TARDIS crew) in the First Doctor Adventures, William Russell, Peter Purves, arguably Elliot Chapman Second: I believe just Frazer Hines? Third: I think just Tim Treloar so far? ( Third Doctor Adventures, various multi-doctor stories) Possibly Jon Culshaw soon (see below) While the above quote is specifically about the first 3 incarnations, I'll include some others here which I think are relevant. Ten, Eleven, and Twelve: Jacob Dudman ( The Doctor Chronicles, Short Trips) War: Jonathon Carley ( The War Doctor Begins) Jon Culshaw, a category unto himselfThe Master: see above Third Doctor (maybe): I'd expect that he'll be reading the Doctor's dialogue in Scourge of the Cybermen in an impression of Pertwee, but I don't think there's anything in the trailer to confirm or deny this. Fourth Doctor: I think just once? I won't say where because his appearance as such is not in the cast list, so would presumably be considered a spoiler. The Brigadier: The Grey Man of the Mountain, Third Doctor Adventures, and one other time where he's not in the cast list. Has he done any other Who-niverse characters for BF? Also relevant to the part about family members is that Lis Sladen's daughter Sadie Miller is now playing Sarah Jane Smith ( Return of the Cybermen, Third Doctor Adventures). Have BF done any other recasts with family members of the original actor? The Time War: I can't find a link now, but I vaguely recall them saying they didn't want to cover the Time War. I might be getting mixed up with various times it's been said that the TV show would never depict the Time War in detail, or perhaps where BF previously said they couldn't cover it back when their licence didn't include "new" Who.EDIT: Found it now, fuller quote here: I think that would possibly be one of the dullest things in the world [...] the Time War is much more effective as a mythical thing [...] I think it's best left alone.Later releases: The War Doctor, so many others that it has its own collection. Those are the ones I've found. My knowledge of DW and BF is not encyclopædic; corrections and additions are welcome
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 10:18:12 GMT
Not using Davros was in a very early FAQ... until they did use him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 10:24:13 GMT
Not using Davros was in a very early FAQ... until they did use him.
Really?? I wonder why, rights issue?
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Apr 11, 2021 10:26:08 GMT
Simple Russell Vs Briggs Regards mark687
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 10:29:43 GMT
Not using Davros was in a very early FAQ... until they did use him.
Really?? I wonder why, rights issue? 11. You're doing a series of linked Dalek plays. Will Davros be there as well?
No, categorically not. Nick Briggs and I are massive Dalek fans and don't ascribe to the lazy notion that Daleks need Davros to do their talking for them. Throughout the Sixties and early Seventies, the Daleks came across as powerful adversaries, adept with cunning, intelligence and power. Once you stick Davros with them, they simply end up as mobile tanks, doing his dirty work. In Genesis of the Daleks, Davros was essential and unequalled. No matter how good David Gooderson and Terry Molloy are in the subsequent adventures, Davros seems to us to be superfluous to requirements. We're basing our Daleks on the ruthless conquerors of the Sixties. The Dalek Empire adventures do, we believe, echo those classic serials
[April 2000]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 10:30:26 GMT
Simple Russell Vs Briggs Regards mark687 Aye was going to say, a lot of that can be credited as just different Executive producers having different ideas/visons...still interesting to see how different they are in their approaches though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 10:32:43 GMT
Really?? I wonder why, rights issue? 11. You're doing a series of linked Dalek plays. Will Davros be there as well?
No, categorically not. Nick Briggs and I are massive Dalek fans and don't ascribe to the lazy notion that Daleks need Davros to do their talking for them. Throughout the Sixties and early Seventies, the Daleks came across as powerful adversaries, adept with cunning, intelligence and power. Once you stick Davros with them, they simply end up as mobile tanks, doing his dirty work. In Genesis of the Daleks, Davros was essential and unequalled. No matter how good David Gooderson and Terry Molloy are in the subsequent adventures, Davros seems to us to be superfluous to requirements. We're basing our Daleks on the ruthless conquerors of the Sixties. The Dalek Empire adventures do, we believe, echo those classic serials
[April 2000]
What a bizarre thing to say...imagine the big finish of today choosing not to explore an element they fully can...i certainly can’t think of one! 😁 Is interesting though, i do wonder what Gary Russell thinks of Big Finish since Briggs took over, if he has any opinion at all. Anyone got any quotes of him talking about it?
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Apr 11, 2021 10:34:24 GMT
Simple Russell Vs Briggs Regards mark687 Aye was going to say, a lot of that can be credited as just different Executive producers having different ideas/visons...still interesting to see how different they are in their approaches though. Oh Yes Indeed Regards mark687
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Apr 11, 2021 10:41:30 GMT
The time war was an area they said they will not go there.....
Now we have more mind bending misadventures set in it
Another area of careful what you wish for.
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Apr 11, 2021 10:52:58 GMT
That FAQ was made up in the early years of Big Finish when no one could even guess at how popular or prolific the Doctor Who audio venture would become. Briggs has gone on record quite recently about how The Lost Stories didn't appeal to him much, but it was the enthusiasm of David Richardson that won him over. The longer a creative endeavour goes on, the more it morphs.
I wonder how many creative decisions were routes that fans hoped the producers wouldn't go down but they found themselves being won over as well. I didn't find the idea of a Gallifrey series appealing in the slightest feeling it would ruin the mythos of the concept - I have every series on CD and enjoy them all (apart from possibly Series 6!)! I don't like the idea of recasting yet have enjoyed some of the Treloar and Bradley stories. The New Adventures adaptations have been top of my wish list since forever, and I still hope for more, so I'm thrilled they changed their mind about those.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 11:13:46 GMT
That FAQ was made up in the early years of Big Finish when no one could even guess at how popular or prolific the Doctor Who audio venture would become. ... not even the BBC I'd say!
|
|
boffy
Full Member
Likes: 139
|
Post by boffy on Apr 11, 2021 11:24:31 GMT
I'm certainly glad they did go on use Davros. I, Davros was the first of their Doctorless Who-niverse stories I listened to. Without that, I probably would have never tried the wonderful Dalek Empire or CybermanBriggs has gone on record quite recently about how The Lost Stories didn't appeal to him much, but it was the enthusiasm of David Richardson that won him over. I don't suppose you happen to remember where he said that? I'd be interested to read/listen to it.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Apr 11, 2021 11:50:27 GMT
Have BF done any other recasts with family members of the original actor? The wonderful Daisy Ashford played the role of her mother’s character Liz Shaw in Primord. She will be reprising the role in forthcoming Third Doctor adventures too, I believe. As well as Sadie Miller in honor of her Mother Elizabeth Sladen as Sarah Jane Smith and David Troughton done a couple of Short Trip readings as an approximation of his Father Regards mark687
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on Apr 11, 2021 12:21:40 GMT
Really?? I wonder why, rights issue? 11. You're doing a series of linked Dalek plays. Will Davros be there as well?
No, categorically not. Nick Briggs and I are massive Dalek fans and don't ascribe to the lazy notion that Daleks need Davros to do their talking for them. Throughout the Sixties and early Seventies, the Daleks came across as powerful adversaries, adept with cunning, intelligence and power. Once you stick Davros with them, they simply end up as mobile tanks, doing his dirty work. In Genesis of the Daleks, Davros was essential and unequalled. No matter how good David Gooderson and Terry Molloy are in the subsequent adventures, Davros seems to us to be superfluous to requirements. We're basing our Daleks on the ruthless conquerors of the Sixties. The Dalek Empire adventures do, we believe, echo those classic serials
[April 2000]
One detail to note about the quote is that it is specifically talking about including Davros in Dalek Empire and suggest that both Russell and Briggs preferred for the Daleks to not have Davros as leader and/or spokesman. They did not rule out any possibility of Davros appearing in ranges other than Dalek Empire. Davros' first appearance in MR48 focussed on Davros without Daleks and led to the I, Davros series building on his role in Genesis of the Daleks. Very few stories have featured Davros as leader of the Daleks - The Curse of Davros did which may be a reason why the title was changed from the original Waterloo of the Daleks to frame it as a Davros story rather than a Dalek story. They did not rule out including Davros at all so stories of Davros without the Daleks or in opposition to the Dalkes are in line with this view
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 12:22:47 GMT
11. You're doing a series of linked Dalek plays. Will Davros be there as well?
No, categorically not. Nick Briggs and I are massive Dalek fans and don't ascribe to the lazy notion that Daleks need Davros to do their talking for them. Throughout the Sixties and early Seventies, the Daleks came across as powerful adversaries, adept with cunning, intelligence and power. Once you stick Davros with them, they simply end up as mobile tanks, doing his dirty work. In Genesis of the Daleks, Davros was essential and unequalled. No matter how good David Gooderson and Terry Molloy are in the subsequent adventures, Davros seems to us to be superfluous to requirements. We're basing our Daleks on the ruthless conquerors of the Sixties. The Dalek Empire adventures do, we believe, echo those classic serials
[April 2000]
What a bizarre thing to say...imagine the big finish of today choosing not to explore an element they fully can...i certainly can’t think of one! 😁
Is interesting though, i do wonder what Gary Russell thinks of Big Finish since Briggs took over, if he has any opinion at all. Anyone got any quotes of him talking about it? Speaks to the status quo of the time, doesn't it? Let's see... By April 2000, Big Finish had just released The Genocide Machine, their seventh ever story in the Main Range. Huh... The only new recurring element at that point -- exclusive to Big Finish -- was Evelyn and she'd only been introduced the previous month. A lot of these answers feel like a way to surrepticiously outline a mission statement for what they wanted to do with recurring elements of the show without needing to directly address the then current zeigeist of fandom. Covering their bases. A recast of the Third Doctor, for instance, at that time would have been only four years after Jon Pertwee's passing, rather than the almost two-decade gap of The Third Doctor Adventures. The "adapting existing Doctor Who stories" question feels like a bit of a fudge (hello 2001's Sword of Orion), but looks as though it covered that question of whether or not they were going to officially release (or wholly adapt) their content from the Audio Visuals days. From listeners and on the production side. Project: Twilight was originally pitched with a recurring character from those plays before it was vetoed. I guess it also plays into the idea that it's brand new content, rather than retrodden ground. I think the realm of too many continuity references was still seen as one of the biggest bugbears back in those days. That's got to be a difficult tightrope to walk back then. Your biggest draw to listeners is your use of familiar elements, but you can't use them too generously or it'll feel like trading on past glories...
|
|
boffy
Full Member
Likes: 139
|
Post by boffy on Apr 11, 2021 12:48:40 GMT
The "adapting existing Doctor Who stories" question feels like a bit of a fudge (hello 2001's Sword of Orion), but looks as though it covered that question of whether or not they were going to officially release (or wholly adapt) their content from the Audio Visuals days. To be fair “adapting existing Doctor Who stories” is my wording, not theirs. I hadn't considered the AV remakes when I wrote that. The FAQ did say didn't want to go “rehashing existing material”, but I take that to refer to other people's material. I don't believe they ever said they wouldn't be remaking any AVs.
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Apr 11, 2021 14:14:40 GMT
I'm certainly glad they did go on use Davros. I, Davros was the first of their Doctorless Who-niverse stories I listened to. Without that, I probably would have never tried the wonderful Dalek Empire or CybermanBriggs has gone on record quite recently about how The Lost Stories didn't appeal to him much, but it was the enthusiasm of David Richardson that won him over. I don't suppose you happen to remember where he said that? I'd be interested to read/listen to it. I believe it was this one - Nick talks a little about how Big Finish was when he took over as well. www.bigfinish.com/podcasts/v/2021-03-14-cybermen-beginning
|
|
|
Post by fitzoliverj on Apr 11, 2021 17:27:24 GMT
In "Talking 'bout my regeneration" somebody was sceptical about doing the Lost Stories (done), and it might have been then that monster-of-the-month audios were ruled out (they came in after about a year); one that thing that was mentioned as a possibility, but which hasn't been tackled, is Rowan Atkinson adventures!
|
|
|
Post by captainpugwash on Apr 12, 2021 10:10:23 GMT
11. You're doing a series of linked Dalek plays. Will Davros be there as well?
No, categorically not. Nick Briggs and I are massive Dalek fans and don't ascribe to the lazy notion that Daleks need Davros to do their talking for them. Throughout the Sixties and early Seventies, the Daleks came across as powerful adversaries, adept with cunning, intelligence and power. Once you stick Davros with them, they simply end up as mobile tanks, doing his dirty work. In Genesis of the Daleks, Davros was essential and unequalled. No matter how good David Gooderson and Terry Molloy are in the subsequent adventures, Davros seems to us to be superfluous to requirements. We're basing our Daleks on the ruthless conquerors of the Sixties. The Dalek Empire adventures do, we believe, echo those classic serials
[April 2000]
What a bizarre thing to say...imagine the big finish of today choosing not to explore an element they fully can...i certainly can’t think of one! 😁 Is interesting though, i do wonder what Gary Russell thinks of Big Finish since Briggs took over, if he has any opinion at all. Anyone got any quotes of him talking about it? I think Gary said he hadn’t listened to any since he left as then he couldn’t offer his opinion. I do feel Gary’s approach and Nicks are vastly different. Gary seems to want to push forward whereas Nick seems to always look back.
|
|
|
Post by thelonecenturion on Apr 12, 2021 10:35:39 GMT
What a bizarre thing to say...imagine the big finish of today choosing not to explore an element they fully can...i certainly can’t think of one! 😁 Is interesting though, i do wonder what Gary Russell thinks of Big Finish since Briggs took over, if he has any opinion at all. Anyone got any quotes of him talking about it? I think Gary said he hadn’t listened to any since he left as then he couldn’t offer his opinion. I do feel Gary’s approach and Nicks are vastly different. Gary seems to want to push forward whereas Nick seems to always look back. In what way does Nick look back? To me, it seems like Briggs and David Richardson's top priority is making sure there's something for everyone, while maintaining a high standard for all their releases.
|
|