|
Post by acousticwolf on Feb 13, 2016 19:35:28 GMT
I remember Roger Delgado complaining in an interview once that he rarely got other work because everyone assumed he was constantly doing Doctor Who, when in fact he was only appearing in a few episodes. Of course, considering that he appeared in every episode of Season 8, I can see why folks might have gotten that impression. Ah those were the days, the master in every episode. Then again, perhaps not... Lol. Cheers Tony
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 21:07:58 GMT
What do you think Steven Moffat will do next? Well, that Sherlock show seems to be doing well..... I'd imagine he will be trying to to seperate himself from the adventure genre in his next project.
|
|
|
Post by randomjc on Feb 15, 2016 16:46:37 GMT
Do actors on American series tend to work on other things at the same time or are they just contracted to "the show". That may make a difference as it appears in British series that the actors are generally doing other things as well as "the show". I remember Roger Delgado complaining in an interview once that he rarely got other work because everyone assumed he was constantly doing Doctor Who, when in fact he was only appearing in a few episodes. I know that's not quite the same as (say) Capaldi, but I think it still stands. Cheers Tony Sometimes. Depending on the Draw of the star. But plenty of people have left TV shows to go into films. (Though Actors can pop around to bit parts in other shows, only requiring a days worth of shooting.
The thing to remember is even if an Actor is heavy in a particular episode, it's because they might be doing other things with the production. IF they are in 90% of the episode, well that does take longer to shoot, so it might explain why they aren't in much of previous or following episodes. Or if the actor is Directing an Episode, they try not to give them many parts in the actual episode.
I don't know if it's true in the UK, but there has always been a sharp divide in the States about TV and Film actors, it's almost a class system.
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Feb 15, 2016 18:56:37 GMT
I don't know if it's true in the UK, but there has always been a sharp divide in the States about TV and Film actors, it's almost a class system. That's an interesting observation. I don't think we have that in the UK, certainly not between TV and film. You are more likely to see it between tv/film and theatre, but that doesn't mean actors don't work in both because a lot of them do . Cheers Tony
|
|
|
Post by randomjc on Feb 15, 2016 21:29:36 GMT
I don't know if it's true in the UK, but there has always been a sharp divide in the States about TV and Film actors, it's almost a class system. That's an interesting observation. I don't think we have that in the UK, certainly not between TV and film. You are more likely to see it between tv/film and theatre, but that doesn't mean actors don't work in both because a lot of them do . Cheers Tony You definitely have older film stars who aren't perhaps a draw anymore, showing up on TV shows. It's the place where you go when you are on the rise, or your star has faded. It's been viewed as if you work TV you aren't as good an actor as Film actors. (True or not is another story) But I do see that divide slipping away as years go by.
I can't speak to theatre as a divide between TV and Film, but I got the feeling Theatre was more artsy, but film made you famous.
|
|
|
Post by kimalysong on Feb 16, 2016 0:16:56 GMT
I don't know if it's true in the UK, but there has always been a sharp divide in the States about TV and Film actors, it's almost a class system. That's an interesting observation. I don't think we have that in the UK, certainly not between TV and film. You are more likely to see it between tv/film and theatre, but that doesn't mean actors don't work in both because a lot of them do . Cheers Tony It was true in the past but I think it's way less true now especially since a lot of people agree the best writing is now on TV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2016 1:03:33 GMT
That's an interesting observation. I don't think we have that in the UK, certainly not between TV and film. You are more likely to see it between tv/film and theatre, but that doesn't mean actors don't work in both because a lot of them do . Cheers Tony It was true in the past but I think it's way less true now especially since a lot of people agree the best writing is now on TV. The dynamic has shifted so much in fact that film now often attempts to emulate television in a way never really seen before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2016 1:11:33 GMT
I suppose the only good thing about there being no new Doctor Who on TV for a while is that we can at least have a bit of a rest from the "Moffat must go" stuff... as he is. Yet the "Chibnall must go" threads won't start popping up on Doctor Who forums until 2018...
|
|
|
Post by omega on Feb 16, 2016 2:09:30 GMT
I suppose the only good thing about there being no new Doctor Who on TV for a while is that we can at least have a bit of a rest from the "Moffat must go" stuff... as he is. Yet the "Chibnall must go" threads won't start popping up on Doctor Who forums until 2018... There's one on Gallifrey Base already. The mods there have banned threads titled "Will Chibnall...?" because the people starting them were getting really silly and suggesting things like he bring back the Chip Man (no idea what that's all about, but that was the point the mods banned threads with that theme).
|
|
|
Post by acousticwolf on Feb 16, 2016 16:35:39 GMT
The mods there have banned threads titled "Will Chibnall...?" because the people starting them were getting really silly and suggesting things like he bring back the Chip Man (no idea what that's all about, but that was the point the mods banned threads with that theme). Possibly "Man with Chips" from "The Bells of St.John". Cheers Tony
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 7:11:08 GMT
I suppose the only good thing about there being no new Doctor Who on TV for a while is that we can at least have a bit of a rest from the "Moffat must go" stuff... as he is. Yet the "Chibnall must go" threads won't start popping up on Doctor Who forums until 2018... There's one on Gallifrey Base already. The mods there have banned threads titled "Will Chibnall...?" because the people starting them were getting really silly and suggesting things like he bring back the Chip Man (no idea what that's all about, but that was the point the mods banned threads with that theme). I'd like to see him step away from recurring antagonists like the Daleks, Cybermen and Sontarans, and try out some wholly original adversaries. It feels like ages since we've had a truly notable addition to the monster menagerie.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Feb 17, 2016 10:33:49 GMT
I suppose the only good thing about there being no new Doctor Who on TV for a while is that we can at least have a bit of a rest from the "Moffat must go" stuff... as he is. Yet the "Chibnall must go" threads won't start popping up on Doctor Who forums until 2018... There's one on Gallifrey Base already. The mods there have banned threads titled "Will Chibnall...?" because the people starting them were getting really silly and suggesting things like he bring back the Chip Man (no idea what that's all about, but that was the point the mods banned threads with that theme). I'd like to see Man With Chips return.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Feb 17, 2016 14:57:52 GMT
A lot of US shows use ensemble casts where whole portions of the cast dissappear for weeks on end and nobody notices. This makes sense to me, except when it comes to the principle, like Hugh Laurie in House, I don't recall him ever disappearing, let alone for weeks on end. I never watched House but there's always been a history of lead-lite episodes in US shows. Episodes of Star Trek where Picard/Sisko/Janeway had one line/scene. Episodes of Buffy and Angel were made with very light roles for the lead - it was stated for that very reason was Buffy invisible for an ep and Angel a puppet. And that's just the episodes where they had a clever reason for light roles for the principal player. Joss Whedon has said he screwed up when creating Angel as you couldn't make that a show on that schedule with only three leads and that's why he increased the cast. Lost had light roles and episodes off for everyone, even Jack. Moonlighting would do an Agnes-heavy (and David and Maddie light) episode every year... and Herbert was added to make the cast bigger. Studio 60 had an episode where none of the three lead characters appeared.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 20:19:18 GMT
This makes sense to me, except when it comes to the principle, like Hugh Laurie in House, I don't recall him ever disappearing, let alone for weeks on end. I never watched House but there's always been a history of lead-lite episodes in US shows. Episodes of Star Trek where Picard/Sisko/Janeway had one line/scene. Episodes of Buffy and Angel were made with very light roles for the lead - it was stated for that very reason was Buffy invisible for an ep and Angel a puppet. And that's just the episodes where they had a clever reason for light roles for the principal player. Joss Whedon has said he screwed up when creating Angel as you couldn't make that a show on that schedule with only three leads and that's why he increased the cast. Lost had light roles and episodes off for everyone, even Jack. Moonlighting would do an Agnes-heavy (and David and Maddie light) episode every year... and Herbert was added to make the cast bigger. Studio 60 had an episode where none of the three lead characters appeared. Bear in mind though that these are all series with stable ensemble casts. In contrast to something like The Next Generation which has close to a dozen in their regular cast, Doctor Who nowadays really only has two or three at maximum: the Doctor and his companions. It's more akin to the double acts or trinities of something like The Man from U.N.C.L.E and The Original Series than Firefly. Additionally, the show is run by longtime fans who probably remember the general mystique surrounding the Doctor's role in his stories. A popular theory for the failure of the original show after all, was that the Doctor himself kept getting shunted off to the side and placed into a supporting cast role, so there's always going to be a certain level of resistance to the idea of a lead light episode. Especially now that they're trying to prove the validity of this new incarnation.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Feb 17, 2016 20:37:29 GMT
I never watched House but there's always been a history of lead-lite episodes in US shows. Episodes of Star Trek where Picard/Sisko/Janeway had one line/scene. Episodes of Buffy and Angel were made with very light roles for the lead - it was stated for that very reason was Buffy invisible for an ep and Angel a puppet. And that's just the episodes where they had a clever reason for light roles for the principal player. Joss Whedon has said he screwed up when creating Angel as you couldn't make that a show on that schedule with only three leads and that's why he increased the cast. Lost had light roles and episodes off for everyone, even Jack. Moonlighting would do an Agnes-heavy (and David and Maddie light) episode every year... and Herbert was added to make the cast bigger. Studio 60 had an episode where none of the three lead characters appeared. Bear in mind though that these are all series with stable ensemble casts. In contrast to something like The Next Generation which has close to a dozen in their regular cast, Doctor Who nowadays really only has two or three at maximum: the Doctor and his companions. It's more akin to the double acts or trinities of something like The Man from U.N.C.L.E and The Original Series than Firefly. Additionally, the show is run by longtime fans who probably remember the general mystique surrounding the Doctor's role in his stories. A popular theory for the failure of the original show after all, was that the Doctor himself kept getting shunted off to the side and placed into a supporting cast role, so there's always going to be a certain level of resistance to the idea of a lead light episode. Especially now that they're trying to prove the validity of this new incarnation. Yeah, that these were ensemble shows was the original point. We've come full circle The question was asked about how US shows can make 20-odd episodes a year without 'Doctor-lite' style episodes and someone pointed that was because they made ensemble shows and everyone got time off, then it was mooted it wasn't necessarily the case with the leads in these ensemble shows. And I was replying showing there was a history of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 21:24:43 GMT
Bear in mind though that these are all series with stable ensemble casts. In contrast to something like The Next Generation which has close to a dozen in their regular cast, Doctor Who nowadays really only has two or three at maximum: the Doctor and his companions. It's more akin to the double acts or trinities of something like The Man from U.N.C.L.E and The Original Series than Firefly. Additionally, the show is run by longtime fans who probably remember the general mystique surrounding the Doctor's role in his stories. A popular theory for the failure of the original show after all, was that the Doctor himself kept getting shunted off to the side and placed into a supporting cast role, so there's always going to be a certain level of resistance to the idea of a lead light episode. Especially now that they're trying to prove the validity of this new incarnation. Yeah, that these were ensemble shows was the original point. We've come full circle The question was asked about how US shows can make 20-odd episodes a year without 'Doctor-lite' style episodes and someone pointed that was because they made ensemble shows and everyone got time off, then it was mooted it wasn't necessarily the case with the leads in these ensemble shows. And I was replying showing there was a history of it. Oh, jolly good I've caught up. Kicking off from that, I'd like to see Chibnall try a dry run to see if an ensemble cast would work in Doctor Who. I don't think it's ever truly been done before (unless you count the UNIT cast as one).
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Feb 17, 2016 22:25:47 GMT
'Ensemble cast'? Agents of UNIT, anyone?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 22:41:54 GMT
Yeah, that these were ensemble shows was the original point. We've come full circle The question was asked about how US shows can make 20-odd episodes a year without 'Doctor-lite' style episodes and someone pointed that was because they made ensemble shows and everyone got time off, then it was mooted it wasn't necessarily the case with the leads in these ensemble shows. And I was replying showing there was a history of it. Oh, jolly good I've caught up. Kicking off from that, I'd like to see Chibnall try a dry run to see if an ensemble cast would work in Doctor Who. I don't think it's ever truly been done before (unless you count the UNIT cast as one). I don't think an ensemble cast would really work within the format. Each week, Doctor Who has to establish in a different setting with different characters and the threat of the week - and too many characters would bog that down considerably , especially with thirteen episodes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 7:29:15 GMT
Oh, jolly good I've caught up. Kicking off from that, I'd like to see Chibnall try a dry run to see if an ensemble cast would work in Doctor Who. I don't think it's ever truly been done before (unless you count the UNIT cast as one). I don't think an ensemble cast would really work within the format. Each week, Doctor Who has to establish in a different setting with different characters and the threat of the week - and too many characters would bog that down considerably , especially with thirteen episodes. I'm forced to agree with you there. As neat an idea as it is, I don't think it'd be creatively feasible for television or audio. The Doctor would have to be stuck in a largely static location and aside from the early half of the Third Doctor's era, it's a state of being that's almost anathema to the show's main objective.
|
|
|
Post by paulmorris7777 on Feb 23, 2016 21:39:54 GMT
Overall I'm happy with the announcement. I like Moffatt and what he has done with DW, he has been a very good showrunner. But it is possible to think it is time for him to go without being one of the anti-Moffatt brigade. Life depends on change and renewal and I think it is time for him to go, before he gets Who-ed out. Best quit while you are at the top of your game and leave audiences wanting more and that is what he seems to be doing. As for Chibnall, he wouldn't have been my choice (but then what, really, do I know about it?). But I'm haapy enough. He has a good record in TV drama generally, Broadchurch etc. and his Who episodes have all been OK to good. Just imagine if there had been internet forums when Robert Holmes was announced as Terrance Dicks' replacement - the man who wrote The Krotons and The Space Pirates?!?! The man whose Terror of the Autons script caused questions to be asked in Parliament - is he going to lose the family audience?!?! And yet we all know how he turned out. And, yet, after Terror of the Autons he went and wrote some of the best Doctor Who episodes in the history of the show, before replacing Terrance Dicks. Chinball hasn't even written for Capaldi!
|
|