|
Post by grinch on Apr 28, 2022 19:45:48 GMT
To be honest, I think the self referential nature of a lot of releases is because it’s another symptom of Big Finish being a victim of its own success.
While it’s wonderful it has gained a wider audience thus allowing them to obtain the license for the Revived Series it also in my opinion comes at the cost of having more experimental and out there stories. I certainly don’t think for one second that modern Big Finish would ever allow such stories as The Holy Terror, LIVE 34 or even The Forge saga to be commissioned in this day and age.
|
|
|
Post by thelonecenturion on Apr 28, 2022 19:57:48 GMT
When we get one of these new Doctor box sets that just stands on its own feet, without a gimmick or a returning element, then we can be surprised. But it’s not happened yet and there’s no indication it’s on the horizon as of yet. You only have to listen to a handful of behind the scenes to understand how it all comes about; David Richardson. Returning Element. Irresistible. As for the first part, iantoharkness mentioned Water Worlds along with the Eleventh and Twelfth Doctor Chronicles. But yeah, it does seem as though David Richardson is the guy behind a lot of these returning elements, which is why I think it's probably healthy that each range has its own producer now.
|
|
|
Post by thewatcher on Apr 28, 2022 20:04:12 GMT
this is true it has now been loads of little gimmicks just give me good stories
|
|
|
Post by shallacatop on Apr 28, 2022 20:09:00 GMT
When we get one of these new Doctor box sets that just stands on its own feet, without a gimmick or a returning element, then we can be surprised. But it’s not happened yet and there’s no indication it’s on the horizon as of yet. You only have to listen to a handful of behind the scenes to understand how it all comes about; David Richardson. Returning Element. Irresistible. As for the first part, iantoharkness mentioned Water Worlds along with the Eleventh and Twelfth Doctor Chronicles. But yeah, it does seem as though David Richardson is the guy behind a lot of these returning elements, which is why I think it's probably healthy that each range has its own producer now. I wouldn’t count the Eleventh & Twelfth Doctor sets, to be honest; they’re Chronicles and are intentionally kept separate to the X Doctor Adventures. Although admittedly they’re a breath of fresh air, I loved the second Eleven one. Water Worlds has the, er, water worlds. It’s a gimmick that doesn’t need to exist. That’s not to say it won’t be good, but it’s an unnecessary constraint that serves no creative purpose. Introducing a new companion should suffice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2022 22:08:25 GMT
I certainly don’t think for one second that modern Big Finish would ever allow such stories as The Holy Terror, LIVE 34 or even The Forge saga to be commissioned in this day and age. I don't think the BBC would allow modern Big Finish to commission a lot of what the early years of the Doctor Who Main Range contained!!!
|
|
|
Post by thelonecenturion on Apr 28, 2022 22:19:06 GMT
As for the first part, iantoharkness mentioned Water Worlds along with the Eleventh and Twelfth Doctor Chronicles. But yeah, it does seem as though David Richardson is the guy behind a lot of these returning elements, which is why I think it's probably healthy that each range has its own producer now. Water Worlds has the, er, water worlds. It’s a gimmick that doesn’t need to exist. That’s not to say it won’t be good, but it’s an unnecessary constraint that serves no creative purpose. Introducing a new companion should suffice. I think the opposite is true. I'm pretty sure it was Dorney who pointed out that constraints like this often actually help creativity, because having some guidelines to work within forces the writers to do interesting things. Especially here, it makes total sense - the new companion is a marine biologist, who's used to working in the water, so of course she'd want to go to an alien world where her passion can be explored. It's also worth noting that while the other new boxsets are more like anthology releases, Rayner has said a couple of times now that this is going to be a proper series of the Sixth Doctor, so I think having a linking theme is a good use of the boxset format.
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Apr 28, 2022 22:37:45 GMT
I certainly don’t think for one second that modern Big Finish would ever allow such stories as The Holy Terror, LIVE 34 or even The Forge saga to be commissioned in this day and age. I don't think the BBC would allow modern Big Finish to commission a lot of what the early years of the Doctor Who Main Range contained!!! Most definitely. More’s the pity I say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2022 23:30:37 GMT
I certainly don’t think for one second that modern Big Finish would ever allow such stories as The Holy Terror, LIVE 34 or even The Forge saga to be commissioned in this day and age. I don't think the BBC would allow modern Big Finish to commission a lot of what the early years of the Doctor Who Main Range contained!!! Nick has said as much. That when the show came back they were OK for a while but probably about the time RTD had to tell BBCWW not to take the licence away from BF, as they wanted it back in-house since the show was printing money by then. But the branding department suddenly had a lot more notes, dos and donts etc. The most famous probably is not bein allowed to use any Master for quite a while while the show was prepping Jacobi and Simm and for a solid period afterwards. To be fair, BF have made up for lost time with Master appearances (not a complaint)! I think there is a middle patch tho. Constraints are of course an issue but sometimes a stricter brief helps to focus. Its like Netflix...you can browse it for forever to find something to watch. If you had less choice..you would decide easily. I think there is a name for that effect - that the human brain can only handle up to about 12 choices coherently without becoming overwhelmed. Its also a bit of a misnomer because some hooks which may seem like crossovers for the sake of it are actually really wonderful and totally needed the crossover - the latest 3DA for one. The Second Doc and Jamie were essential to it and helped it feel much less padded and more of an epic. At the same time, no matter how the quality is - familiarity does breed contempt at some point. It also makes the idea of having ALL of time and space seem rather small when the same lot keep meeting. Rufus as The Monk is fab fun but even he is a bit overused for me now. And to continue the flip-flop notion of this post (!), I can still see why the boxset era does need a sell. Tennant on the box WILL shift some more. BF are not on massive profits, we know that much. So each sale does help. I can see why it is an easy option to put out a buffet with a little nibble for all rather than a massive main course some wont venture near. Aaaaand to flip back (!) - there is only so much of that you can do before people say "Ive tried that..." I will try and not be too harsh at the moment, many actors could not record in pandemic times and we are now in a period of a lot of releases recorded then bein released. The lack of Sylv is the obvious illiustration - he just is too remote with shite broadband or whatever and could not be recorded well. So I dare say some people were used a bit more than even BF planned. Which is not a free pass but somewhat of a factor. As I said in my initial post pre-bump...I buy em all anyway like a lot of us do so really it just needs to be a story we like. It just affects my initial excitement. And that can work wonderfully - some of my most anticipated releases have been misses and some I was not so fussed about I adored. I can see why more will wait for sales years down the line on many releases, especially with world affairs costing us all more and more for every item we buy from soap to bread, far ahead of pay increases. In times like those where inflation is a concern...people of course will cut luxuries. Some may move to downloads (also helps the environment), some will check out far less, or wait for reviews. It is still early days for BF in this new era. Time to learn is still here. And with Sylv and Colin nearly 80 and Tom nearly 90...it cannot be an indefinite enterprise unless more embrace recasts or New Series Doctors come on more often which seems less likely - I think Tennant has been so present due to lockdowns keepin him from world travel. Que sera sera and that. But as I always cite from Shakespeare; "The plays the thing" - keep quality up and I am here for any spinoff or unrelated range.
|
|
|
Post by shallacatop on Apr 29, 2022 5:39:04 GMT
Water Worlds has the, er, water worlds. It’s a gimmick that doesn’t need to exist. That’s not to say it won’t be good, but it’s an unnecessary constraint that serves no creative purpose. Introducing a new companion should suffice. I think the opposite is true. I'm pretty sure it was Dorney who pointed out that constraints like this often actually help creativity, because having some guidelines to work within forces the writers to do interesting things. Especially here, it makes total sense - the new companion is a marine biologist, who's used to working in the water, so of course she'd want to go to an alien world where her passion can be explored. It's also worth noting that while the other new boxsets are more like anthology releases, Rayner has said a couple of times now that this is going to be a proper series of the Sixth Doctor, so I think having a linking theme is a good use of the boxset format. But as debated at the time of him saying that it doesn’t take into account the experience as a customer and a listener. It may be a more creative process for a writer (although I’d imagine it could be equally as limiting - as with anything in life it differs from individual to individual!), but to do it three times over doesn’t guarantee for a better story and it instantly makes something repetitive and limiting, which makes it a harder sell for the story itself. You can make it make sense within the story, but it doesn’t necessarily make it right for the listener. That’s not to say you can’t produce three brilliant stories (although I’m struggling to think of a Big Finish example with such a gimmick producing the goods across the set), but it does seem like you’re starting off on the back foot because an unnecessary constraint is being imposed on the output. Ultimately none of this discussion or the points I’m making are a hard and fast rule. Just because an initial announcement is uninspiring doesn’t make the story so. But quite often it does result in being quite forgettable. There’s completely new and standalone stories that are the same, but they get a bit more respect from me for trying. Believe it or not, I actually quite like Big Finish!
|
|
dorney
Big Finish Creative Team
Likes: 3,073
|
Post by dorney on Apr 29, 2022 7:12:31 GMT
I think the opposite is true. I'm pretty sure it was Dorney who pointed out that constraints like this often actually help creativity, because having some guidelines to work within forces the writers to do interesting things. Especially here, it makes total sense - the new companion is a marine biologist, who's used to working in the water, so of course she'd want to go to an alien world where her passion can be explored. It's also worth noting that while the other new boxsets are more like anthology releases, Rayner has said a couple of times now that this is going to be a proper series of the Sixth Doctor, so I think having a linking theme is a good use of the boxset format. But as debated at the time of him saying that it doesn’t take into account the experience as a customer and a listener. It may be a more creative process for a writer (although I’d imagine it could be equally as limiting - as with anything in life it differs from individual to individual!), but to do it three times over doesn’t guarantee for a better story and it instantly makes something repetitive and limiting, which makes it a harder sell for the story itself. You can make it make sense within the story, but it doesn’t necessarily make it right for the listener. That’s not to say you can’t produce three brilliant stories (although I’m struggling to think of a Big Finish example with such a gimmick producing the goods across the set), but it does seem like you’re starting off on the back foot because an unnecessary constraint is being imposed on the output. Ultimately none of this discussion or the points I’m making are a hard and fast rule. Just because an initial announcement is uninspiring doesn’t make the story so. But quite often it does result in being quite forgettable. There’s completely new and standalone stories that are the same, but they get a bit more respect from me for trying. Believe it or not, I actually quite like Big Finish! Well, I did disagree with that at the time as well, iirc. Not least because it’s kind of impossible to take into account the experience ‘as a customer and a listener’ for a set that literally hasn’t been released yet and I’d argue that a process that benefits the writer creatively benefits the customers and listeners in turn. But I certainly don’t think it automatically or instantly makes something repetitive and limiting for anyone - writer, listener or customer. Frankly, I don’t believe any brief does.
|
|
|
Post by shallacatop on Apr 29, 2022 7:30:30 GMT
But as debated at the time of him saying that it doesn’t take into account the experience as a customer and a listener. It may be a more creative process for a writer (although I’d imagine it could be equally as limiting - as with anything in life it differs from individual to individual!), but to do it three times over doesn’t guarantee for a better story and it instantly makes something repetitive and limiting, which makes it a harder sell for the story itself. You can make it make sense within the story, but it doesn’t necessarily make it right for the listener. That’s not to say you can’t produce three brilliant stories (although I’m struggling to think of a Big Finish example with such a gimmick producing the goods across the set), but it does seem like you’re starting off on the back foot because an unnecessary constraint is being imposed on the output. Ultimately none of this discussion or the points I’m making are a hard and fast rule. Just because an initial announcement is uninspiring doesn’t make the story so. But quite often it does result in being quite forgettable. There’s completely new and standalone stories that are the same, but they get a bit more respect from me for trying. Believe it or not, I actually quite like Big Finish! Well, I did disagree with that at the time as well, iirc. Not least because it’s kind of impossible to take into account the experience ‘as a customer and a listener’ for a set that literally hasn’t been released yet and I’d argue that a process that benefits the writer creatively benefits the customers and listeners in turn. But I certainly don’t think it automatically or instantly makes something repetitive and limiting for anyone - writer, listener or customer. Frankly, I don’t believe any brief does. I don’t believe you did respond after the initial response. If you think it’s impossible to take into account the experience for a listener when you are writing a product that is to be consumed, then I really question the decisions made. I don’t think it’s that hard to comprehend that three stories utilising the same element or setting can make something repetitive and I’m shocked you do. Nobody is saying it automatically happens, but you certainly run the risk. Then again, you wrote Best Year Ever, so I’m not quite convinced about your logic. Sorry.
|
|
dorney
Big Finish Creative Team
Likes: 3,073
|
Post by dorney on Apr 29, 2022 7:53:20 GMT
Well, I did disagree with that at the time as well, iirc. Not least because it’s kind of impossible to take into account the experience ‘as a customer and a listener’ for a set that literally hasn’t been released yet and I’d argue that a process that benefits the writer creatively benefits the customers and listeners in turn. But I certainly don’t think it automatically or instantly makes something repetitive and limiting for anyone - writer, listener or customer. Frankly, I don’t believe any brief does. I don’t believe you did respond after the initial response. If you think it’s impossible to take into account the experience for a listener when you are writing a product that is to be consumed, then I really question the decisions made. I don’t think it’s that hard to comprehend that three stories utilising the same element or setting can make something repetitive and I’m shocked you do. Nobody is saying it automatically happens, but you certainly run the risk. Then again, you wrote Best Year Ever, so I’m not quite convinced about your logic. Sorry. I’m pretty certain I did respond but we could get in a loop here so let’s not worry. I think it’s easily possible to try to factor in what a listener response might be, but ultimately you can’t know for certain. As there’s a lot of listeners in the future and you’re writing in the present and are just one person. And of course utilising the same element in three stories could make something repetitive but my point is that it doesn’t do that automatically, that lacks imagination. As ever, it all depends on how it’s deployed and written.
|
|
|
Post by shallacatop on Apr 29, 2022 8:24:13 GMT
I don’t believe you did respond after the initial response. If you think it’s impossible to take into account the experience for a listener when you are writing a product that is to be consumed, then I really question the decisions made. I don’t think it’s that hard to comprehend that three stories utilising the same element or setting can make something repetitive and I’m shocked you do. Nobody is saying it automatically happens, but you certainly run the risk. Then again, you wrote Best Year Ever, so I’m not quite convinced about your logic. Sorry. I’m pretty certain I did respond but we could get in a loop here so let’s not worry. I think it’s easily possible to try to factor in what a listener response might be, but ultimately you can’t know for certain. As there’s a lot of listeners in the future and you’re writing in the present and are just one person. And of course utilising the same element in three stories could make something repetitive but my point is that it doesn’t do that automatically, that lacks imagination. As ever, it all depends on how it’s deployed and written. I don’t think anybody is saying that you automatically make something repetitive. The point is that you run the risk of it and it makes for a harder sell. Nobody sees the Water Worlds announcement and goes “oh god I bloody love water I’m all over this”. They’re either indifferent to that approach, positively receiving a new companion or they’re lamenting the need for a theme / gimmick / other word. Again, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re bad stories or are going to be repetitive. But you’re introducing the risk of that and I don’t really see the advantages of doing that. You say it’s a good constraint as a writer; that’s great, but why does it have to be the same constraint across the board? Just feels like often Big Finish get caught up in stuff and it becomes over stuffed and frequently detrimental. A new companion suffices, a new era for a Doctor suffices, a brand new range suffices.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 29, 2022 10:57:27 GMT
If anything, I think there's a counterargument that the amount of references in releases is a sign that BF are taking the listener/customer TOO much into account: that they're so worried stuff won't sell or be engaged with if you don't put in x character or y sequel to z story to entice them. 'Good writing' is of course important, but let's be frank, you can't market 'this has good writing' like you can a picture of Jacobi or Kingston or tricked up Daleks.
My own stance is, while I get the sentiment shalla's talking about, I think trying to constantly put yourself in the audience's shoes is not all that healthy or helps improve the writing: you're just constantly second guessing your choices and being more worried about 'will someone somewhere else I don't know and can't guarantee like this' than doing what you think will serve the drama best. That can lead to writing that's vanilla, toothless and lacks personality - risk taking means there's as much chance you won't like it as you will. Not sure where this idea that 'risks means good automatically' came from - you can get a Live 34 or Spare Parts as much you can get a DU or Boy Time Forgot out of it, because it's a risk i.e. no sure guarantees.
|
|
|
Post by shallacatop on Apr 29, 2022 11:05:08 GMT
If anything, I think there's a counterargument that the amount of references in releases is a sign that BF are taking the listener/customer TOO much into account: that they're so worried stuff won't sell or be engaged with if you don't put in x character or y sequel to z story to entice them. 'Good writing' is of course important, but let's be frank, you can't market 'this has good writing' like you can a picture of Jacobi or Kingston or tricked up Daleks.
My own stance is, while I get the sentiment shalla's talking about, I think trying to constantly put yourself in the audience's shoes is not all that healthy or helps improve the writing: you're just constantly second guessing your choices and being more worried about 'will someone somewhere else I don't know and can't guarantee like this' than doing what you think will serve the drama best.
I think you’re taking the wrong thing away from my post. It’s not about constantly putting yourself in the audiences shoes. It’s about commissioning a set based on a gimmick or theme across three a full set and not understanding how that could potentially be repetitive or doesn’t come across as uninspiring. That’s the exact same as also considering your sales if you don’t include a Dalek or whatever. It’s before you get to actually writing; it’s the commissioning stage. That’s where you have to take into account what people will or won’t like, surely? As I say, the gimmick doesn’t say we won’t get three brilliant stories, but you’re automatically introducing risk to the customer. That seems very easily avoidable to me without constantly second guessing your choices whilst writing. You can just picture it now. “I was in my staycation in Whitby, paddling along the Yorkshire coast, and I thought ‘gosh, wouldn’t it be irresistible to do three episodes set in the water!’.”
|
|
|
Post by theillusiveman on Apr 29, 2022 15:53:19 GMT
To be honest, I think the self referential nature of a lot of releases is because it’s another symptom of Big Finish being a victim of its own success. While it’s wonderful it has gained a wider audience thus allowing them to obtain the license for the Revived Series it also in my opinion comes at the cost of having more experimental and out there stories. I certainly don’t think for one second that modern Big Finish would ever allow such stories as The Holy Terror, LIVE 34 or even The Forge saga to be commissioned in this day and age. Yeah its truly a shame that the BBC wont let them really do experimental or dark stories anymore
|
|
dorney
Big Finish Creative Team
Likes: 3,073
|
Post by dorney on Apr 30, 2022 8:45:53 GMT
I’m pretty certain I did respond but we could get in a loop here so let’s not worry. I think it’s easily possible to try to factor in what a listener response might be, but ultimately you can’t know for certain. As there’s a lot of listeners in the future and you’re writing in the present and are just one person. And of course utilising the same element in three stories could make something repetitive but my point is that it doesn’t do that automatically, that lacks imagination. As ever, it all depends on how it’s deployed and written. I don’t think anybody is saying that you automatically make something repetitive. The point is that you run the risk of it and it makes for a harder sell. Nobody sees the Water Worlds announcement and goes “oh god I bloody love water I’m all over this”. They’re either indifferent to that approach, positively receiving a new companion or they’re lamenting the need for a theme / gimmick / other word. Again, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re bad stories or are going to be repetitive. But you’re introducing the risk of that and I don’t really see the advantages of doing that. You say it’s a good constraint as a writer; that’s great, but why does it have to be the same constraint across the board? Just feels like often Big Finish get caught up in stuff and it becomes over stuffed and frequently detrimental. A new companion suffices, a new era for a Doctor suffices, a brand new range suffices. Oh I can completely see why it might make a harder sell, but I’m really interested in what makes the stories better, rather than something that makes the sell easier. in the case of Water Worlds specifically, we actually don’t know what the constraint was, so we don’t know that it was the same across the board. It’s easily possible that there were no constraints and the three writers came up with stories set on water worlds independently that were sufficiently different to all be worth a commission (not as unlikely as it might sound, given Hebe’s job, it’s the sort of place the brain goes when developing a list of ideas). Or alternatively, there might be quite a bit more in the way of constraint - an arc, perhaps, that links these stories together and means they have to be set in these places. I basically doubt the entire brief was just ‘three stories set on Water Worlds’, though happy to be proved wrong.
|
|
|
Post by thelonecenturion on Apr 30, 2022 9:20:22 GMT
I don’t think anybody is saying that you automatically make something repetitive. The point is that you run the risk of it and it makes for a harder sell. Nobody sees the Water Worlds announcement and goes “oh god I bloody love water I’m all over this”. They’re either indifferent to that approach, positively receiving a new companion or they’re lamenting the need for a theme / gimmick / other word. Again, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re bad stories or are going to be repetitive. But you’re introducing the risk of that and I don’t really see the advantages of doing that. You say it’s a good constraint as a writer; that’s great, but why does it have to be the same constraint across the board? Just feels like often Big Finish get caught up in stuff and it becomes over stuffed and frequently detrimental. A new companion suffices, a new era for a Doctor suffices, a brand new range suffices. Oh I can completely see why it might make a harder sell, but I’m really interested in what makes the stories better, rather than something that makes the sell easier. in the case of Water Worlds specifically, we actually don’t know what the constraint was, so we don’t know that it was the same across the board. It’s easily possible that there were no constraints and the three writers came up with stories set on water worlds independently that were sufficiently different to all be worth a commission (not as unlikely as it might sound, given Hebe’s job, it’s the sort of place the brain goes when developing a list of ideas). Or alternatively, there might be quite a bit more in the way of constraint - an arc, perhaps, that links these stories together and means they have to be set in these places. I basically doubt the entire brief was just ‘three stories set on Water Worlds’, though happy to be proved wrong. Actually, yeah, from Joshua Pruett's Vortex interview, he mentions that he pitched seven different stories to Jacqueline Rayner. It does seem unlikely then that he had to deliver seven pitches set on water worlds. And actually, the first story isn't even set on a water world, it's just set in the sea on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by shallacatop on Apr 30, 2022 9:23:31 GMT
I don’t think anybody is saying that you automatically make something repetitive. The point is that you run the risk of it and it makes for a harder sell. Nobody sees the Water Worlds announcement and goes “oh god I bloody love water I’m all over this”. They’re either indifferent to that approach, positively receiving a new companion or they’re lamenting the need for a theme / gimmick / other word. Again, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re bad stories or are going to be repetitive. But you’re introducing the risk of that and I don’t really see the advantages of doing that. You say it’s a good constraint as a writer; that’s great, but why does it have to be the same constraint across the board? Just feels like often Big Finish get caught up in stuff and it becomes over stuffed and frequently detrimental. A new companion suffices, a new era for a Doctor suffices, a brand new range suffices. Oh I can completely see why it might make a harder sell, but I’m really interested in what makes the stories better, rather than something that makes the sell easier. in the case of Water Worlds specifically, we actually don’t know what the constraint was, so we don’t know that it was the same across the board. It’s easily possible that there were no constraints and the three writers came up with stories set on water worlds independently that were sufficiently different to all be worth a commission (not as unlikely as it might sound, given Hebe’s job, it’s the sort of place the brain goes when developing a list of ideas). Or alternatively, there might be quite a bit more in the way of constraint - an arc, perhaps, that links these stories together and means they have to be set in these places. I basically doubt the entire brief was just ‘three stories set on Water Worlds’, though happy to be proved wrong. The article doesn’t specify anything about the commission, brief, etc. but the synopsis makes it seem pretty intentional; “Marine biologist Hebe is thrown in at the deep end as the Doctor takes her on a tour of water worlds and makes a big splash – but that's only the beginning, and Hebe's past may shape the future of the entire world...” www.bigfinish.com/news/v/a-new-start-for-the-sixth-doctorAgain, I’m not saying the three stories won’t be brilliant. I just find it quite a self imposed restraint that runs the risk of repetition and theming for the sake of it. It often feels like that’s the core of the commission, alongside returning elements that others have voiced on this thread, and the end product is often quite forgettable or doesn’t land. Again, this is me as a consumer and my experience, not as a writer, producer, etc. Like you, I’m happy to be proven wrong by all of these releases!
|
|
dorney
Big Finish Creative Team
Likes: 3,073
|
Post by dorney on Apr 30, 2022 9:30:49 GMT
Oh I can completely see why it might make a harder sell, but I’m really interested in what makes the stories better, rather than something that makes the sell easier. in the case of Water Worlds specifically, we actually don’t know what the constraint was, so we don’t know that it was the same across the board. It’s easily possible that there were no constraints and the three writers came up with stories set on water worlds independently that were sufficiently different to all be worth a commission (not as unlikely as it might sound, given Hebe’s job, it’s the sort of place the brain goes when developing a list of ideas). Or alternatively, there might be quite a bit more in the way of constraint - an arc, perhaps, that links these stories together and means they have to be set in these places. I basically doubt the entire brief was just ‘three stories set on Water Worlds’, though happy to be proved wrong. The article doesn’t specify anything about the commission, brief, etc. but the synopsis makes it seem pretty intentional; “Marine biologist Hebe is thrown in at the deep end as the Doctor takes her on a tour of water worlds and makes a big splash – but that's only the beginning, and Hebe's past may shape the future of the entire world...” www.bigfinish.com/news/v/a-new-start-for-the-sixth-doctorAgain, I’m not saying the three stories won’t be brilliant. I just find it quite a self imposed restraint that runs the risk of repetition and theming for the sake of it. It often feels like that’s the core of the commission, alongside returning elements that others have voiced on this thread, and the end product is often quite forgettable or doesn’t land. Again, this is me as a consumer and my experience, not as a writer, producer, etc. Like you, I’m happy to be proven wrong by all of these releases! Sorry, but that’s still missing the point. We don’t actually know what the brief was. We don’t know whether the theme was imposed on all stories at commissioning stage, and if it was we don’t know that it’s just for the sake of it. The quote from the article doesn’t actually suggest what you’re suggesting it does.
|
|