|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 28, 2016 23:31:22 GMT
Next they'll be saying Billie Piper will play the 13th Doctor.
|
|
|
Post by SG. on Jan 29, 2016 2:23:49 GMT
So I've watched the first two series of Torchwood over the past week. While series 1 is truly abysmal on so many levels (with maybe 2 or 3 episodes actually having any merit) but series 2 is pretty decent, Chibnall's episodes especially. Adrift? Fragments? I'd love him to incorporate some of the darker elements into Doctor Who, like UNIT brutality. Hell, bring in James Marsters, he'd be a good substitute if Barrowman's unavailable.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jan 29, 2016 3:39:45 GMT
Next they'll be saying Billie Piper will play the 13th Doctor. Capaldi seeing the Pompeiians he saved reminded him that he saves people. So, Doctor seeing Rose reminded him to fall in love with himself?
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jan 29, 2016 3:43:50 GMT
You don't cast Doctor Who and tell them how to *act*. You give them a character and lines and they play it, that's their job. Speaking a theater director/producer of 25+ years. You hope that you cast well because you want the performer to bring something special or unique to a particular character but to say that writing or direction doesn't impact and/or shift the way a performers approaches the role and/or alters the character and the material doesn't make any sense to me. Actors are wonderful & creative creatures but honestly what you end up seeing onstage, or on screen is just as much the words that have been written as well as the direction of the piece as it is something which comes from the actor. It is a collaborative process that requires a director to figure out if a particular actor needs a gentle nudge or a major shove to push the performance in a direction a director wants it to proceed. Any director/writer/producer worth their salt that just backs away from a performer is abandoning his/her duty to the show. Performances can alter mid stream and/or evolve and that will partly come from the actor but it isn't without major conversations between the actor & director/, and if available, writer. Don't get me wrong. I'm always preaching to actors to make choices but there comes a point where that actor is usually going to have to justify those choices to the director. In short, David Tennant was a Doctor I really started out loving but by the time his run ended up, I found the whole woe is me, I'm just the lonely Doctor wondering the universe to be incredibly frustrating. And I'd lay dollars to donuts that change came on down from up high in the writing. Actors have imput certainly but TV is very much a writer dominated field, so if you ever a see a character acting differently, and/or out if character, 99% if it is usually the writer or director. Ah, thank you. This is a more eloquent way of putting what I was getting at.
|
|
|
Post by icecreamdf on Jan 29, 2016 5:30:46 GMT
I'm going to miss Moffat. I liked Broadchurch, and some of Chibnall's Torchwood stories have been good, but none of his Who stuff has been anything special. I'm just glad that they didn't give the job to Gatiss though.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 29, 2016 9:20:11 GMT
Next they'll be saying Billie Piper will play the 13th Doctor. Capaldi seeing the Pompeiians he saved reminded him that he saves people. So, Doctor seeing Rose reminded him to fall in love with himself? Does he really need to be reminded to do that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2016 16:58:02 GMT
I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that our new Head Writer is the same person who thought it was a good idea to have an episode about aliens that f*** people to death, then calling it adult and mature Doctor Who. Sure, Chris Chibnall was definitely the more reliable choice than Neil Cross would have been... Right.
Still, I do need to watch Broadchurch and anything else he's written before I totally judge his competence as a writer and as an ideas man.
I wasn't a huge fan of the Silurian two-parter either. I did find 42, Dinosaurs on a Spaceship and The Power of Three fun though, but they still had their obvious flaws which were obvious. Like the rushed and awful ending of The Power of Three.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2016 17:11:14 GMT
I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that our new Head Writer is the same person who thought it was a good idea to have an episode about aliens that f*** people to death, then calling it adult and mature Doctor Who. Sure, Chris Chibnall was definitely the more reliable choice than Neil Cross would have been... Right. Still, I do need to watch Broadchurch and anything else he's written before I totally judge his competence as a writer and as an ideas man. I wasn't a huge fan of the Silurian two-parter either. I did find 42, Dinosaurs on a Spaceship and The Power of Three fun though, but they still had their obvious flaws which were obvious. Like the rushed and awful ending of The Power of Three. I ... kind of agree. The Power of Three seemed like a very enjoyable RTD homage, with a tremendous villain, and then the ending just, well, happened and it was over. Same thing happened at the end of Dinosaurs on a Spaceship. I enjoyed the Silurian story and 42, though. I remain open-minded about Chris Chibnall. 'That' clip from 1986 is bum-clenchingly bad though. We often say things when we are younger, that we regret, but we don't also have the chance - or the inclination - to do so on television. The problem with that kind of criticism is that it then falls upon the critic to prove they can produce better things, if they get the chance. I'm not laying into Chris, but the clip is out there and in the public domain. For those who don't welcome Chris, it's worth remembering there are many other script-writers who will hopefully still write for the show - including Neil Cross, or Jamie Matheson, or Steven Moffatt. Of course, it's all speculation and will continue to be for two years! It's good to speculate, and I am at the very least, grateful to the BBC for allowing the show to continue and allowing another showrunner to take the reins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2016 17:38:40 GMT
The problem to date is we've no clear view of how much of the stories we've seen has been down to Chris and how much hasn't. I'm hearing all sorts of stories about how Cold Blood and Power of Three were drastically changed during filming to tone them down.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Jan 29, 2016 17:53:48 GMT
The problem to date is we've no clear view of how much of the stories we've seen has been down to Chris and how much hasn't. I'm hearing all sorts of stories about how Cold Blood and Power of Three were drastically changed during filming to tone them down. That is an excellent point worth remembering. Pretty much every script for the past ten years has passed through the word processor of either RTD or Steven Moffat, not to mention the various story editors. Nothing is just written, everything is rewritten. I'd agree with the thought that if all we had to base our expectations on were Torchwood series 1, then we would all be justified in our concern but when you factor in the second series and Broadchurch, then a different picture emerges. The truth is we just don't know what Doctor Who will be like with CC at the helm and we have a long wait to find out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2016 18:24:55 GMT
Torchwood Series 1 was a mess but having read RTD's Writer's Tale, Chibnall performed minor miracles getting it delivered on time. He'd never done anything on that scale, RTD was still massively busy on Who so couldn't do very much and the BBC wanted the show 4 months earlier than RTD initially was told. So while, yes, it's poor - it was a massively rushed job and Russell credits Chris massively in the book for managing to deliver it at all.
Series 2 was better, of course but you have to ignore some of the awfulness of series 1 - like the date-rapes to even slightly like Owen, for one - and it's series 3 where it finally delivered and Chibnall was gone by then.
You've got to take a step back though and look at it from the industry viewpoint - Torchwood was a later night BBC3 programme at launch, all but buried on the schedules. When Chibnall's run was done, the BBC were ready to put it on as event TV prime time BBC1. That's a success story by any metric and Chris played a huge role in that. Broadchurch is of course a phenomenon. Law And Order: UK gets big figures (and features many, many Who alumni in regular roles not least Peter Davison and Freema Aygeman. The guy's delivered successful populist tv for years. That's what the Beeb care about, not whether fans who will watch the show anyway liked a filler ep or two he wrote years ago as a hired-hand.
|
|
|
Post by seeley on Jan 29, 2016 18:36:06 GMT
I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that our new Head Writer is the same person who thought it was a good idea to have an episode about aliens that f*** people to death, then calling it adult and mature Doctor Who. Sure, Chris Chibnall was definitely the more reliable choice than Neil Cross would have been... Right. To be fair, no less a personage than Russell T. Davies also seemed to think that was a good idea, saying "when we're launching a new adult science fiction drama, it's kind of inevitable you're going to do the sex monster." So yeah, it sounds like a terrible idea, but if thinking otherwise is a fatal strike against being showrunner, then New Who would have been a dismal failure. RE the Power of Three: In post-production, however, it was decided to make major changes to the episode. In part, this was to introduce the slow invasion storyline earlier: originally, “Cubed” began with scenes such as the adventure with Henry VIII and Amy at the engagement party (in which she was specifically not asked to be a bridesmaid because she was unreliable and prone to vanish for extended periods of time), but much of the action was resequenced in editing. The other significant cut involved the climax. As recorded, there was an extended action sequence in which Rory took down the two orderlies. The Shakri was not a hologram, and instead was defeated when Amy and Rory attacked him with the syringes retrieved from the orderlies, and the Doctor used his sonic screwdriver on the Shakri's devastating ocular weaponry. However, it was felt that this part of the episode detracted from the focus on Amy and Rory's life together, and so Chibnall prepared new material to replace it. The problem to date is we've no clear view of how much of the stories we've seen has been down to Chris and how much hasn't. I'm hearing all sorts of stories about how Cold Blood and Power of Three were drastically changed during filming to tone them down. That is an excellent point worth remembering. Pretty much every script for the past ten years has passed through the word processor of either RTD or Steven Moffat, not to mention the various story editors. Nothing is just written, everything is rewritten. True, though Moffat, by his own admission, is a very hands-off script-editor. I forget the precise quote, but he said something to the effect of "These are qualified professionals, they don't need me telling them how to write." As for the caliber of Chibnall's writing, I think it is worth noting that Gary Russell has never been a renowned author. He nonetheless did a fine job as executive producer of Big Finish. It's not a perfect comparison (Russell wasn't head-writer for BF,) but I think it bears noting.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Jan 29, 2016 19:16:06 GMT
The problem to date is we've no clear view of how much of the stories we've seen has been down to Chris and how much hasn't. I'm hearing all sorts of stories about how Cold Blood and Power of Three were drastically changed during filming to tone them down. Considering 42 is better than The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood (IMO), I'm guessing RTD was a better script editor than Moffat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2016 19:16:32 GMT
I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that our new Head Writer is the same person who thought it was a good idea to have an episode about aliens that f*** people to death, then calling it adult and mature Doctor Who. Sure, Chris Chibnall was definitely the more reliable choice than Neil Cross would have been... Right. To be fair, no less a personage than Russell T. Davies also seemed to think that was a good idea, saying "when we're launching a new adult science fiction drama, it's kind of inevitable you're going to do the sex monster." So yeah, it sounds like a terrible idea, but if thinking otherwise is a fatal strike against being showrunner, then New Who would have been a dismal failure.
Even the worst of ideas can be redeemed by writing the bad idea in a certain way. There could have been so many ways that Day One could have been redeemed if it took risks and didn't insist on just being a cringe-worthy B-movie that people may or may not have liked.
With an idea like that, maybe it could have taken a more psychological or creepy tone? Why did the monster have to be written as a desperate barely-a-villain and not like an intimidating "I'll do whatever it takes to get what I want" kind of character?
Yeah... That's how I would have fixed that totally stupid episode. I didn't like the Buffy episode with the Mantis either, for the sort of same reasons.
*Tut tut* Who was the genius who thought these kinds of episodes were a good idea anyway?
|
|
|
Post by seeley on Jan 29, 2016 19:20:33 GMT
To be fair, no less a personage than Russell T. Davies also seemed to think that was a good idea, saying "when we're launching a new adult science fiction drama, it's kind of inevitable you're going to do the sex monster." So yeah, it sounds like a terrible idea, but if thinking otherwise is a fatal strike against being showrunner, then New Who would have been a dismal failure.
Even the worst of ideas can be redeemed by writing the bad idea in a certain way. There could have been so many ways that Day One could have been redeemed if it took risks and didn't insist on just being a cringe-worthy B-movie that people may or may not have liked.
With an idea like that, maybe it could have taken a more psychological or creepy tone? Why did the monster have to be written as a desperate barely-a-villain and not like an intimidating "I'll do whatever it takes to get what I want" kind of character?
Yeah... That's how I would have fixed that totally stupid episode. I didn't like the Buffy episode with the Mantis either, for the sort of same reasons.
*Tut tut* Who was the genius who thought these kinds of episodes were a good idea anyway?
I've not seen the episode, so I'm not defending it. I'm just saying that Chibnal's conduct with it does not disqualify him from showrunning Doctor Who.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2016 19:46:51 GMT
The problem to date is we've no clear view of how much of the stories we've seen has been down to Chris and how much hasn't. I'm hearing all sorts of stories about how Cold Blood and Power of Three were drastically changed during filming to tone them down. Considering 42 is better than The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood (IMO), I'm guessing RTD was a better script editor than Moffat. This is one of the things that gives me teal hope. I think 42 is possibly the clearest example we have in Doctor Who of Chris left pretty much to his own devices, whereas it appears that Day One was at least partly RTD's idea. I'm not that familiar with his Torchwood season 2 work, I've never rewatched it, but might have to give it a go. And date rape Owen never bothered me (I like flawed characters, who says everyone has to be nice, it was the way that seemed to get forgotten about and he became a romantic interest that was a bit hard to swallow.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Jan 29, 2016 20:59:22 GMT
Even the worst of ideas can be redeemed by writing the bad idea in a certain way. There could have been so many ways that Day One could have been redeemed if it took risks and didn't insist on just being a cringe-worthy B-movie that people may or may not have liked.
With an idea like that, maybe it could have taken a more psychological or creepy tone? Why did the monster have to be written as a desperate barely-a-villain and not like an intimidating "I'll do whatever it takes to get what I want" kind of character?
Yeah... That's how I would have fixed that totally stupid episode. I didn't like the Buffy episode with the Mantis either, for the sort of same reasons.
*Tut tut* Who was the genius who thought these kinds of episodes were a good idea anyway?
I've not seen the episode, so I'm not defending it. I'm just saying that Chibnal's conduct with it does not disqualify him from showrunning Doctor Who. Dude stop with having an open mind about stuff that won't be written or produced for another two years will ya? You will give the internet a bad name.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 2, 2016 6:51:48 GMT
One of the greatest shows on television, a world wide phenomenon and it's taking another year off. And replacing the front runner.
As long as Doctor Who is owned by the BBC, then it will always be on the verge of being off the air.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Feb 2, 2016 9:00:12 GMT
Twelve months is too long to wait, bring back the Doctor. Don't hesitate!
Yes, I went there.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Feb 2, 2016 9:33:31 GMT
One of the greatest shows on television, a world wide phenomenon and it's taking another year off. And replacing the front runner. As long as Doctor Who is owned by the BBC, then it will always be on the verge of being off the air. Looking at it another way, the BBC are happy to announce TWO seasons at the same time...
|
|