Old Who -v- New Who - discuss.

DerekP11

In my opinion the recent BBC Doctor Who reincarnations were crap. They failed to capture the unique "who feel" that enmanated from the original series,(except for unchanged Daleks) with its crappy, overlit, shot on tape look, but brilliant stories. This time round all effort is focused on 16mm film, big sets, precise special effects, but a distinct lack of real feeling into the ethos of earlier Who.

DerekP11

Before the thread was split, this reply was made in relation to the issue.

Point 1 (which probably needs its own thread): Can I ask you how the new series lacks the original's ethos? Do you not feel that some of this ethos is just the charm that came from working with miniscule budgets, from making credit titles with shopping bags? Most of the script-writers grew up with the show and their love of it often showed in the novels they wrote before the TV show came back...

I take that point, but working with miniscule budgets on the original series often forced the programme makers to fully extend themselves on creative scripts and careful use of very limited special effects. When working with a small budget, the end result can be utterly disasterous, unless you appreciate your position and set out to tell a great story within your financial constraints. The original series managed this, which is why Doctor Who became so successful. The new series has a bigger budget, is shot on film as opposed to the bland tape formats of yesteryear. The special effects, don't look corney and theres a lot more variety in terms of locations/sets etc. However, its my opinion that this creates a recipe for complacency, whereby the programme makers can easily become lazy and use the "budget" to excite viewers as opposed to the old fashioned method that costs nothing. ie. great characterization and storytelling.

Having grown up with Doctor Who, the latest series does nothing for me. In my opinion, the Doc was never "trendy" or "sexy". He was almost "Asexual". This made him the alien in human form that we could relate too.I fear the beebs latest attempts show signs of dragging him into the "Human" area (as discussed elsewhere in this forum) and he could be Dr. Who GP from Scunthorpe, with an eye for lager and girls.

popebenny16

he could be Dr. Who GP from Scunthorpe, with an eye for lager and girls.

"every planet has a North"

What I find interesting is that the regenerations have seen The Doctor getting younger. This is due to changes in popular culture I guess, could you imagine William Hartnell being a lead in a new TV show about Time and Space today? Also, when Doctor Who first started we had the likes of Quatermass cometing against him, both shows were led by middle-aged to elderly men who represented "Science" as 'professors' but over the years they have become more and more like action heros.

Point on that: Ecclestone and Tennant as last two Doctors, McGann before that.

In realtion to "old" Who, The BBC was a totally diferent place then and Who was, in many respects, just another Saturday (then horrifically midweek) regular show, you'd get Grandstand, Who, Allo-Allo, Noel Edmunds, Casualty, News, MOTD, film, bed. The budget and the schedule matched that, dont forget Who was on for all of the winter and/or spring schudles in those days.

Today its a flagship show, the amount of epesodes are dramatically cut down, the budget is better and, of course, technology has inproved making what are impressive fx cheap to make.

ixoy

That's true about the Doctors being younger but, IIRC, Davison was the youngest when he assumed the role...

Having said that I can't see a grouchy old Hartnell-esque type ever making it back. I'm not that fond of his crotechty Doctor as it is (I'm making my way through the old series, and currently on Season 3) but I wouldn't object to someone more around the Baker-age. I think a real reason Hartnell wouldn't work is that he'd lack an ability for a youthful audience to relate to him in any fashion, whereas at least some of the latter incarnations had humour (wonder how Troughton would go down..).

Having grown up with Doctor Who, the latest series does nothing for me. In my opinion, the Doc was never "trendy" or "sexy". He was almost "Asexual".

I actually agree with this point and always had trouble reconciling Susan as a result. If Susan was his granddaughter then that implied he had children, etc which emplied sex/reproduction and that didn't seem in keeping with what I thought of his character's asexuality. Some fans must surely have agreed with me given the Cartmel Masterplan was originally heading towards "Lungbarrow" which had a lovely convoluted way of explaining how Susan was really his granddaughter but how he never had to get dirty...

The new sexed-up Doctor, such as it was, works for me when he's not being too gooey-eyed with Rose (no longer a problem). I never really got why Rose got such special admiration other than it was the done thing for today's audience. It didn't ever gel with me as to what I remembered of the Doctor's character, although it was thankfully somewhat addressed in "School Reunion". Did you also perchance resent the Rose romantic undertones?

DerekP11

ixoy wrote:

Did you also perchance resent the Rose romantic undertones?

With an absolute vengence ixoy, if you could even call them undertones. For me, the Doc, should very easily manage to even ignore a naked woman, in favour of science and the crisis at hand. But then Im just an 70s/80s fart. Modern methods create old timers, faster than time itself.

Sesheta

Personally I never saw the Doctor as asexual - he just wasn't sexy until David Tennant started. Granted I wasn't mad on the relationship with Rose - after all she wasn't anything more special than any of the other companions and he never fell for any of them. I'm sure I can remember some low key flirting during the Tom Baker years but can't for the life of me think in what context and I don't mean the fact that he ended up married to Romana mark 2!).
In terms of age though, Tom Baker wasn't that much older than the new bunch when he got the role.

Diogenes

DerekP11 wrote:

Before the thread was split, this reply was made in relation to the issue.



I take that point, but working with miniscule budgets on the original series often forced the programme makers to fully extend themselves on creative scripts and careful use of very limited special effects. When working with a small budget, the end result can be utterly disasterous, unless you appreciate your position and set out to tell a great story within your financial constraints. The original series managed this, which is why Doctor Who became so successful.

I beg to differ and suspect you're viewing the old series with a rose tinted quality. For every "Genesis of the Daleks" there was an "Invasion in Time" or "Happiness Patrol" or "Terminus"

Sometimes the writing rose above the budgetary limitations, some times they made advantages of their limitations, and alot of times the naffiness of the budget brought down the writing, and some times bad writing and cheap sets made the whole thing a bit of a joke.

The new series has a bigger budget, is shot on film as opposed to the bland tape formats of yesteryear.

Actually looking at Doctor Who confidental you'll see they're still shooting on video, it's just the technology has come on a bit since then.

The special effects, don't look corney and theres a lot more variety in terms of locations/sets etc. However, its my opinion that this creates a recipe for complacency, whereby the programme makers can easily become lazy and use the "budget" to excite viewers as opposed to the old fashioned method that costs nothing. ie. great characterization and storytelling.

I think if you compare the budget to the average american Sci Fi Tv show the average budget of a doctor who episode will be shy a zero in comparsion. So it's still a compartively low budget show.

Doctor Who has always been a kids show. And if you expect kids who have seen Harry Potter and Spiderman and the X-Men to suspend their disbelief to the point of believing some Equity rate card bloke in some sytrafoam and latex is going to get them behind the sofa you're mistaken.

Secondly I think the series creators have improved upon and modernized some of the series villians. A Dalek is now not four or five guys scooting around a BBC studio corridor. Common the Daleks in the old series were only meancing because we were told they were meancing. Ace could kick the crap out of them with a baseball bat, and stairs where their nemisis.

THe updated Daleks are an army (literally an army) and any one of them is an unstoppable unkillable invunerable monster.

The effects are used to paint on a bigger canvas.

Having grown up with Doctor Who, the latest series does nothing for me. In my opinion, the Doc was never "trendy" or "sexy". He was almost "Asexual". This made him the alien in human form that we could relate too.I fear the beebs latest attempts show signs of dragging him into the "Human" area (as discussed elsewhere in this forum) and he could be Dr. Who GP from Scunthorpe, with an eye for lager and girls.

Well he's been off the screens for what fifteen years? Television has evolved, what audiences want has evolved.

What you've got is a younger doctor, CE's Doctor was a darker, post time war doctor, and DT's is younger version of mix of Hartnell's playfullness, and Bakers attitude.

You've got good acting sparkling dialogue effects that don't embarss and let down the story, and some great storylines.

I think harking back to the dr who of your youth is an activity best conducted alone with your dvd collection

DerekP11

You were going quite well until this remark.

Diogenes wrote:

I think harking back to the dr who of your youth is an activity best conducted alone with your dvd collection

On that note, I'll gladly depart this forum, as I mistakenly thought it was a place to lament, discuss and enjoy all aspects of opinion in relation to the Doctor Who subject.......until you crashed in with "fuelled" comments like that above. Call me over sensitive if you like, but Ive had enough of "lone rangers" on this board in general. Its best I go, because if I don't, I'll only try to find a way to track you down and "explain" why your above comment just doesn't go down well within an internet forum and Ive far more important things to do.

If Ive misrepresented your comment, then defend away. Regardless, I won't be back, because this dark hole, that is Boards.ie, appears to harbour more misguided commentators than a biased episode of Match of the Day.

Sometimes, its good to get out and about in the real world.

Note to Mod: Please ban me, because this dude has rightly pissed me off with that uncalled for remark.

Diogenes

DerekP11 wrote:

You were going quite well until this remark.



On that note, I'll gladly depart this forum, as I mistakenly thought it was a place to lament, discuss and enjoy all aspects of opinion in relation to the Doctor Who subject.......until you crashed in with "fuelled" comments like that above. Call me over sensitive if you like, but Ive had enough of "lone rangers" on this board in general. Its best I go, because if I don't, I'll only try to find a way to track you down and "explain" why your above comment just doesn't go down well within an internet forum and Ive far more important things to do.

If Ive misrepresented your comment, then defend away. Regardless, I won't be back, because this dark hole, that is Boards.ie, appears to harbour more misguided commentators than a biased episode of Match of the Day.

Sometimes, its good to get out and about in the real world.

Note to Mod: Please ban me, because this dude has rightly pissed me off with that uncalled for remark.

I think you're being over over over sensitive. I think whinging that doctor who should hark back to the production values styles and storylines of the old series is like saying "Gee I think Enterprise should have more episodes like the space hippy one from Classic ST".* Society, Audiences, Writers, Production Values, filmaking technique have all leapt forward since Tom Baker's day. Harking back to the good old days is just "dang nabnit grumbling"

I mean c'mon, you think if Terry Nation was alive today and he saw the new doctor who he'd think "Nah give me el cheapo studio based latex monsters thats where the good writings at?" Or if he would look at the bigger canvas he had to paint with the greater scale and scope and ran like a demented lunatic. One needs only to look at Nation projects like the show "survivors" where he was trying to do something epic with no money and was reduced to survivors giving second hand accounts of what they see? Rather than show it?

I think you need to grow a thicker skin or indeed considering your demand to be banned I suggest you just start growing a epidermis. And enjoy a forum where someone can disagree with you without insulting you.

My comment re your DVD collection was simply to suggest what you ask for isn't possible or isn't going to happen so enjoy the old episodes for what they are, and accept the new episodes for what they are, throughly enjoyable family friendly Sci Fi.

* Not that I think we need any more Enterprise.

popebenny16

Yeah.

I mean c'mon, you think if Terry Nation was alive today and he saw the new doctor who he'd think "Nah give me el cheapo studio based latex monsters thats where the good writings at?" Or if he would look at the bigger canvas he had to paint with the greater scale and scope and ran like a demented lunatic. One needs only to look at Nation projects like the show "survivors" where he was trying to do something epic with no money and was reduced to survivors giving second hand accounts of what they see? Rather than show it?

I agree with that, infact isnt that the kernel of the whole new and improved Blakes 7 series, which sees Paul Darrow in conflict theith Terry Nations Estate?

However, I think what Derek means is the gradual building up of charater in each epsesode and during the duration of a charaters lifespan, which was easily seen in (breaching my own charter) old seasons. THAT SAID.... most of the female assistants did nothing more than scream, we do indeed forget the crappy stories of all seasons.

However for me the most powerful part of any Doctor Who Ep of ANY season was the fade out at the end of Love and Monsters when Elton Pope's mother vanished as she was walking him as a child signifiying her death all to the tune of Mr Blue Sky by ELO. There's noting that powerfull in the O.S.

In releation to this:

"I think you need to grow a thicker skin or indeed considering your demand to be banned I suggest you just start growing a epidermis. And enjoy a forum where someone can disagree with you without insulting you."

And:

"I think harking back to the dr who of your youth is an activity best conducted alone with your dvd collection"

Neither are neccessary, are they? Please read the charter.

As for this:

Note to Mod: Please ban me, because this dude has rightly pissed me off with that uncalled for remark.

I read all the posts, what he said could apply to me so.............. Shush.

You should be so lucky to get banned from here.

Your punishment is to post ten nice photos of Nicola Byrant in the official companion thread.

Finally:

"Regardless, I won't be back, because this dark hole, that is Boards.ie, appears to harbour more misguided commentators than a biased episode of Match of the Day"

MOtD?!!!! Black hole?!!! Go back to bloody bed, for christs sake, sleep it off.

Speaking of which, that's where I'm off to. See ye monday folks.

DerekP11

Diogenes wrote:

I think you're being over over over sensitive. I think whinging that doctor who should hark back to the production values styles and storylines of the old series is like saying "Gee I think Enterprise should have more episodes like the space hippy one from Classic ST".* Society, Audiences, Writers, Production Values, filmaking technique have all leapt forward since Tom Baker's day. Harking back to the good old days is just "dang nabnit grumbling"

I mean c'mon, you think if Terry Nation was alive today and he saw the new doctor who he'd think "Nah give me el cheapo studio based latex monsters thats where the good writings at?" Or if he would look at the bigger canvas he had to paint with the greater scale and scope and ran like a demented lunatic. One needs only to look at Nation projects like the show "survivors" where he was trying to do something epic with no money and was reduced to survivors giving second hand accounts of what they see? Rather than show it?

I think you need to grow a thicker skin or indeed considering your demand to be banned I suggest you just start growing a epidermis. And enjoy a forum where someone can disagree with you without insulting you.

My comment re your DVD collection was simply to suggest what you ask for isn't possible or isn't going to happen so enjoy the old episodes for what they are, and accept the new episodes for what they are, throughly enjoyable family friendly Sci Fi.

* Not that I think we need any more Enterprise.

Obviously you know feck all about TV/FILM production. I never at any point
called for a return to the old style production values, but I did suggest that a bigger budget can bring complacency to a production. Obviously what Im trying to discuss is far beyond your means of comprehension, hence your infantile assumptions and description of what Im "apparently" talking about.

I have a very thick skin, but it doesn't preclude me from becoming outraged at your daft and loose coments about what I should do with a DVD collection, when you havent actually comprehended what I was talking about.

Diogenes

DerekP11 wrote:

Obviously you know feck all about TV/FILM production.

I'm a professional film assistant editor who has worked on everything from 80 million dollar hollywood effects filled pieces to low budget documentaries and tv drama. I've worked with several Oscar and Bafta winners and writers of two of the most important books on the technique and history of film editing.

So y'know I consider myself a bit of a talented amateur.

I never at any point
called for a return to the old style production values, but I did suggest that a bigger budget can bring complacency to a production.

Ahem;

I take that point, but working with miniscule budgets on the original series often forced the programme makers to fully extend themselves on creative scripts and careful use of very limited special effects. When working with a small budget, the end result can be utterly disasterous, unless you appreciate your position and set out to tell a great story within your financial constraints. The original series managed this, which is why Doctor Who became so successful. The new series has a bigger budget, is shot on film as opposed to the bland tape formats of yesteryear. The special effects, don't look corney and theres a lot more variety in terms of locations/sets etc. However, its my opinion that this creates a recipe for complacency, whereby the programme makers can easily become lazy and use the "budget" to excite viewers as opposed to the old fashioned method that costs nothing. ie. great characterization and storytelling.

Now if that isn't a cry that the series should return to it's roots I don't know what is, but;

Obviously what Im trying to discuss is far beyond your means of comprehension, hence your infantile assumptions and description of what Im "apparently" talking about.

I have a very thick skin, but it doesn't preclude me from becoming outraged at your daft and loose coments about what I should do with a DVD collection, when you havent actually comprehended what I was talking about.

I'm sure you can tell me, who's never been on a film set or in a cutting room, what exactly you meant, and what I'm missing. Furthermore all I suggested that your nostalgia should be just that and you should accept the old series as just that, the old. You should stop demanding the new series doesn't match the old series because television or audiences haven't evolved or have but don't appreciate the writing, or the writing is worse. Or something. You've too smart for me, I need you to explain it for me. Using Crayon. And block writing. Please.

DerekP11

I'm a professional film assistant editor who has worked on everything from 80 million dollar hollywood effects filled pieces to low budget documentaries and tv drama. I've worked with several Oscar and Bafta winners and writers of two of the most important books on the technique and history of film editing.

So y'know I consider myself a bit of a talented amateur.

Well, well, well. That puts us in a bit of a quandry. The word "assistant" comes before the word "film" by the way, and the word "professional" is rarely used to describe any grade. Before retiring from the business nearly 3 years ago (at a young enough age) due to total and absolute disillusionment, I had amassed a huge array of skills in the area. Was trained up, many many years ago on a Hi-Band U-Matic suite. (remember them) Then came the computer controlled version. (mickey:D was the abbreviation, if memory serves me correctly.Eventually graduated all the way up to non-linear on an Avid. Still have the Avid suite in the attic if your interested. (kept it, just in case of a come back) The beta sp deck is in my living room and the wife wants it moved.:D Im also a fully trained up video camera man, but only got as far as the assistant grade on 16mm film.(loved loading, hated unloading) Learned my way around a "Steiner", just before they became obsolete in the real world. I know Ardmore like the back of my hand and ran my own production co. for 10 years. Corporate, Ads, Music Vids, Docs (abroad) etc. I shot, directed and edited most of it. So, now that we've got the "mine is bigger than yours" thing out of the way (I accept I started it) lets get back to the real business.

Despite you quoting me, there is still no evidence that I am calling for a return to the production values of the original series. I clearly gave an opinion as to why the small budget was made to work (and you should know that many many successful low budget films made it, due to innovation and great scripts.)

I then went on to say, that a bigger budget, can lead to complaceny. (surely some of those 80 million dollar blockbusters you off-lined suffered from this too) Both you and I know that the bigger the budget on some SFX projects, the less emphasis there is on good old fashioned storytelling and characterisation. Remakes provide ample evidence.

It is my opinion that the new series lacks the "character" of the original. Now that does not mean, I am calling for a return to the original production values. Unfortunetly, the only way I could really prove my point, would be to reshoot an original episode with higher production values.

I have the highest respect for the improving technology in the Film/TV business. I started my career with a silent Bell & Howel Super 8mm camera, projector and splicer. I graduated to a Chinon sound version of the same kit. Even then it was all hopelessly out of date and I couldn't wait (when finances permitted it) to move up to the famous JVC camcorder. Instant results and quite often worse results than my old cine camera. Why? Because I got complacent in my trade and all before I even did my Inter Cert! My first lesson in appreciating the art of film making came before I even went to film school. The next lesson learned was the one that involved "executive producers", "bean counters" and "marketing heads". Maybe that has something to do with my opinion on the new series.

Just for the record, Im not an oul fart. Im 35. Started my "production" career at the age of 12 and became burnt out by 31. No Oscars or BAFTAs or direct association with any winners, unless Cilla Black won, but did get a mention at the Dublin amateur film and video festival in 1987. The art of editing can only be learned from watching Film/TV and spending years in an edit suite perfecting it. It was and remains my favourite part of the process and was my strongest area. Never read one book on the subject. The smoking ban killed my kind in the edit suite.

Over to you Diogenes.

Diogenes

DerekP11 wrote:

Well, well, well. That puts us in a bit of a quandry. The word "assistant" comes before the word "film" by the way, and the word "professional" is rarely used to describe any grade. Before retiring from the business nearly 3 years ago (at a young enough age) due to total and absolute disillusionment, I had amassed a huge array of skills in the area. Was trained up, many many years ago on a Hi-Band U-Matic suite. (remember them) Then came the computer controlled version. (mickey:D was the abbreviation, if memory serves me correctly.Eventually graduated all the way up to non-linear on an Avid. Still have the Avid suite in the attic if your interested. (kept it, just in case of a come back) The beta sp deck is in my living room and the wife wants it moved.:D Im also a fully trained up video camera man, but only got as far as the assistant grade on 16mm film.(loved loading, hated unloading) Learned my way around a "Steiner", just before they became obsolete in the real world. I know Ardmore like the back of my hand and ran my own production co. for 10 years. Corporate, Ads, Music Vids, Docs (abroad) etc. I shot, directed and edited most of it. So, now that we've got the "mine is bigger than yours" thing out of the way (I accept I started it) lets get back to the real business.

Despite you quoting me, there is still no evidence that I am calling for a return to the production values of the original series. I clearly gave an opinion as to why the small budget was made to work (and you should know that many many successful low budget films made it, due to innovation and great scripts.)

I then went on to say, that a bigger budget, can lead to complaceny. (surely some of those 80 million dollar blockbusters you off-lined suffered from this too) Both you and I know that the bigger the budget on some SFX projects, the less emphasis there is on good old fashioned storytelling and characterisation. Remakes provide ample evidence.

It is my opinion that the new series lacks the "character" of the original. Now that does not mean, I am calling for a return to the original production values. Unfortunetly, the only way I could really prove my point, would be to reshoot an original episode with higher production values.

I have the highest respect for the improving technology in the Film/TV business. I started my career with a silent Bell & Howel Super 8mm camera, projector and splicer. I graduated to a Chinon sound version of the same kit. Even then it was all hopelessly out of date and I couldn't wait (when finances permitted it) to move up to the famous JVC camcorder. Instant results and quite often worse results than my old cine camera. Why? Because I got complacent in my trade and all before I even did my Inter Cert! My first lesson in appreciating the art of film making came before I even went to film school. The next lesson learned was the one that involved "executive producers", "bean counters" and "marketing heads". Maybe that has something to do with my opinion on the new series.

Just for the record, Im not an oul fart. Im 35. Started my "production" career at the age of 12 and became burnt out by 31. No Oscars or BAFTAs or direct association with any winners, unless Cilla Black won, but did get a mention at the Dublin amateur film and video festival in 1987. The art of editing can only be learned from watching Film/TV and spending years in an edit suite perfecting it. It was and remains my favourite part of the process and was my strongest area. Never read one book on the subject. The smoking ban killed my kind in the edit suite.

Over to you Diogenes.

Wow are you finished with your ,admittly self started, p****** context?
You challenged me that I knew nothing about film and video editing, I clearly do. Frankly if someone of you level of experience can look at say "the rise of the cyberman" and think that was film, well, bless. The washed out bleachness of the halogen lights, screams video. I could also get into a point about how it couldn't have been shot on film because the 2k scan for visual effects (which would be required if the series was shot on film) would be out of the league of a british science fiction series also meant shooting video was a necessity because the 625 lines of PAL means effects don't need to match the picture quality of the "film" they're being compositing it into.

However you're the one who called me on my experience. I didn't accuse you of knowing nothing about film or tv when you claimed it was shot on film, I just polited pointed out that if you look at confidential you can clearly see that they're shooting on tape. I didn't make this into a pissing context. You did.

Thats all I'm going to say about your extended rant about your career it's beyond irrelevant. I only mentioned what I did because you challenged me that I knew f all about the business that is my bread and butter.

I'll try and pick out the stuff relevant to the thread from your rant that the smoking ban killed your career.

Despite you quoting me, there is still no evidence that I am calling for a return to the production values of the original series. I clearly gave an opinion as to why the small budget was made to work (and you should know that many many successful low budget films made it, due to innovation and great scripts.)

I then went on to say, that a bigger budget, can lead to complaceny. (surely some of those 80 million dollar blockbusters you off-lined suffered from this too) Both you and I know that the bigger the budget on some SFX projects, the less emphasis there is on good old fashioned storytelling and characterisation. Remakes provide ample evidence.

Hey there are plenty of good remakes. Thomas Crown Affair, The Brady Bunch, Clueless, Battlestar Gallactica (sic).

Yeah and there are plenty examples of appalling low budget feature films. Surely in your varied career you came across "fatal deviation" the appalling subpar Kerry based Jean Claude Van Dam kick boxing movie made on a shoestring. Low budget does not ullimately mean good script. Plenty of people have made low budget films that has gathered dust on shelves because they're bad and no one wants to know. As a film bod I'm sure you too can name the number of irish films that never got a cinema release over the past half decade because they are just ****.

There are plenty of substandard incredibly cringeworthy episodes of "classic who" who that the purist just ignore. FFS "The Happiness Patrol" had McCoy fight an effing licorice all sort (I know this will never be well regarded Doctor's seriesm who but jesus the sight of the doctor fighting a frankenstein Bertie Basset is a "classic jump the shark" bit).

Old Who had woeful bits. Period end of discuss. From the Whomobile to any number of naff childish devices. It was a product of it's times and should be accepted as that.

You could no more expect old who to match to new who as to ask who would win in a brawl a trained heavyweight champion in the present day, and a bare knuckle brawler from the turn of the century.

It is my opinion that the new series lacks the "character" of the original. Now that does not mean, I am calling for a return to the original production values. Unfortunetly, the only way I could really prove my point, would be to reshoot an original episode with higher production values.

You probably need to clarify what you mean by character. You've now got idiosyncratic doctors, with sparkling dialogue ("Am I being rude again?" "yes" "Glad that worked those would have been terrible last words") plots that I think match any of the old series, (without the epicness in duration they outdo the old in scale) There have just been moments in this series that have given pathos and back story to the doctor that was different but not bad from the original (the doctor rarly had a backstory, any interaction from galafry was a plot device or any character from his history was used to open a story arch)

As to reshooting an original episode, what shoot the whole thing as it was shot or reimagine? Its an intriguing idea, but more interesting as a "3 doctors" concept. Something that if it hasn't happened by the next christmas special I'll be annoyed.

PS As to the "assistant" and "professional", I assumed I was talking to a layman, and frankly if I call myself my acutal title people assume I work in publishing.

Diogenes

DerekP11 wrote:

Well, well, well. That puts us in a bit of a quandry. The word "assistant" comes before the word "film" by the way, and the word "professional" is rarely used to describe any grade. Before retiring from the business nearly 3 years ago (at a young enough age) due to total and absolute disillusionment, I had amassed a huge array of skills in the area. Was trained up, many many years ago on a Hi-Band U-Matic suite. (remember them) Then came the computer controlled version. (mickey:D was the abbreviation, if memory serves me correctly.Eventually graduated all the way up to non-linear on an Avid. Still have the Avid suite in the attic if your interested. (kept it, just in case of a come back) The beta sp deck is in my living room and the wife wants it moved.:D Im also a fully trained up video camera man, but only got as far as the assistant grade on 16mm film.(loved loading, hated unloading) Learned my way around a "Steiner", just before they became obsolete in the real world. I know Ardmore like the back of my hand and ran my own production co. for 10 years. Corporate, Ads, Music Vids, Docs (abroad) etc. I shot, directed and edited most of it. So, now that we've got the "mine is bigger than yours" thing out of the way (I accept I started it) lets get back to the real business.

Despite you quoting me, there is still no evidence that I am calling for a return to the production values of the original series. I clearly gave an opinion as to why the small budget was made to work (and you should know that many many successful low budget films made it, due to innovation and great scripts.)

I then went on to say, that a bigger budget, can lead to complaceny. (surely some of those 80 million dollar blockbusters you off-lined suffered from this too) Both you and I know that the bigger the budget on some SFX projects, the less emphasis there is on good old fashioned storytelling and characterisation. Remakes provide ample evidence.

It is my opinion that the new series lacks the "character" of the original. Now that does not mean, I am calling for a return to the original production values. Unfortunetly, the only way I could really prove my point, would be to reshoot an original episode with higher production values.

I have the highest respect for the improving technology in the Film/TV business. I started my career with a silent Bell & Howel Super 8mm camera, projector and splicer. I graduated to a Chinon sound version of the same kit. Even then it was all hopelessly out of date and I couldn't wait (when finances permitted it) to move up to the famous JVC camcorder. Instant results and quite often worse results than my old cine camera. Why? Because I got complacent in my trade and all before I even did my Inter Cert! My first lesson in appreciating the art of film making came before I even went to film school. The next lesson learned was the one that involved "executive producers", "bean counters" and "marketing heads". Maybe that has something to do with my opinion on the new series.

Just for the record, Im not an oul fart. Im 35. Started my "production" career at the age of 12 and became burnt out by 31. No Oscars or BAFTAs or direct association with any winners, unless Cilla Black won, but did get a mention at the Dublin amateur film and video festival in 1987. The art of editing can only be learned from watching Film/TV and spending years in an edit suite perfecting it. It was and remains my favourite part of the process and was my strongest area. Never read one book on the subject. The smoking ban killed my kind in the edit suite.

Over to you Diogenes.

Wow are you finished with your ,admittly self started, p***** context?
You challenged me that I knew nothing about film and video editing, I clearly do. Frankly if someone of you level of experience can look at say "the rise of the cyberman" and think that was film, well, bless. The washed out bleachness of the halogen lights, screams video. I could also get into a point about how it couldn't have been shot on film because the 2k scan for visual effects (which would be required if the series was shot on film) would be out of the league of a british science fiction series also meant shooting video was a necessity because the 625 lines of PAL means effects don't need to match the picture quality of the "film" they're being compositing it into.

However you're the one who called me on my experience. I didn't accuse you of knowing nothing about film or tv when you claimed it was shot on film, I just polited pointed out that if you look at confidential you can clearly see that they're shooting on tape. I didn't make this into a pissing contest. You did.

Thats all I'm going to say about your extended rant about your career, it's beyond irrelevant. I only mentioned what I did because you challenged me that I knew f all about the business that is my bread and butter.

I'll try and pick out the stuff relevant to the thread from your rant that the smoking ban killed your career.

Despite you quoting me, there is still no evidence that I am calling for a return to the production values of the original series. I clearly gave an opinion as to why the small budget was made to work (and you should know that many many successful low budget films made it, due to innovation and great scripts.)

I then went on to say, that a bigger budget, can lead to complaceny. (surely some of those 80 million dollar blockbusters you off-lined suffered from this too) Both you and I know that the bigger the budget on some SFX projects, the less emphasis there is on good old fashioned storytelling and characterisation. Remakes provide ample evidence.

Hey there are plenty of good remakes. Thomas Crown Affair, The Brady Bunch, Clueless, Battlestar Gallactica.

Yeah and there are plenty examples of appalling low budget feature films. Surely in your varied career you came across "fatal deviation" the appalling subpar Kerry based Jean Claude Van Dam kick boxing movie made on a shoestring. Low budget does not ullimately mean good script. Plenty of people have made low budget films that has gathered dust on shelves because they're bad and no one wants to know. As a film bod I'm sure you too can name the number of irish films that never got a cinema release over the past half decade because they are just ****.

There are plenty of substandard incredibly cringeworthy episodes of "classic who" who that the purist just ignore. FFS "The Happiness Patrol" had McCoy fight an effing licorice all sort (I know Mc Coy will never be well regarded Doctor's apex, but jesus the sight of the doctor fighting a frankenstein Bertie Basset is a "classic jump the shark" bit).

Old Who had woeful bits. Period end of discuss. From the Whomobile to any number of naff childish devices. It was a product of it's times and should be accepted as that.

You could no more expect old who to match to new who as to ask who would win in a brawl a trained heavyweight champion in the present day, and a bare knuckle brawler from the turn of the century.

It is my opinion that the new series lacks the "character" of the original. Now that does not mean, I am calling for a return to the original production values. Unfortunetly, the only way I could really prove my point, would be to reshoot an original episode with higher production values.

You probably need to clarify what you mean by character. You've now got idiosyncratic doctors, with sparkling dialogue ("Am I being rude again?" "yes". "Glad that worked out, those would have been terrible last words" "Who looks at a screwdriver and thinks, this could be a little more sonic?") plots that I think match any of the old series, (without the epicness in duration but they outdo the old in scale) There have just been moments in this series that have given pathos and back story to the doctor that was different but not bad from the original (the doctor rarly had a backstory, any interaction from galafry was a plot device or any character from his history was used to open a story arch)

As to reshooting an original episode, what shoot the whole thing as it was shot or reimagine? Its an intriguing idea, but more interesting as a "3 doctors" concept. Something that if it hasn't happened by the next christmas special I'll be annoyed.

PS As to the "assistant" and "professional", I assumed I was talking to a layman, and frankly if I call myself my acutal title people assume I work in publishing.

popebenny16

Diogenes and DerekP11 kindly read your PM's.

DerekP11

Diogenes, I made two points.

1. I expressed an opinion about the original series and the new series. You disagreed, but made a remark about a DVD collection, that was unnecessary and I reacted.

2. In response, I claimed you knew "feck all" about Film/TV production. You came back with a paragraph about your role in the industry. I referred to this as a "quandary" (mis-splelt in my original post) because it put both of us in a predicament as we work or have worked in the industry and will have knowledgable opinion.

So, for saying you know feck all about Film/TV production and in an attempt to stop world war 3, please accept the following apology....

SORRY

Its big and meant. Now as for your further comments about my last post, which could not have possibly caused any upset to you, let me say this in relation to them.

Wow are you finished with your ,admittly self started, p***** context?
You challenged me that I knew nothing about film and video editing, I clearly do. Frankly if someone of you level of experience can look at say "the rise of the cyberman" and think that was film, well, bless. The washed out bleachness of the halogen lights, screams video. I could also get into a point about how it couldn't have been shot on film because the 2k scan for visual effects (which would be required if the series was shot on film) would be out of the league of a british science fiction series also meant shooting video was a necessity because the 625 lines of PAL means effects don't need to match the picture quality of the "film" they're being compositing it into.

I didn't admit to starting any p****** contest. I admitted to causing your retort in relation to your experience in the industry, because I said you must know "feck all" about Film/TV production.Ive apologised for that. As for your questioning of my knowledge in relation to your point about the current series, Film or tape, I regret saying, "shot on film" now,(whoops I should've played safe and said Digital format) because I didn't envisage someone like yourself dragging it up and using it in an attempt to display any kind of "superior knowledge". I know technology has moved on. We should too.

As for the rest of your above quote....is that not an attempt to start a p****** contest and utterly bore the life out of readers. Why don't both of us cop on.

However you're the one who called me on my experience. I didn't accuse you of knowing nothing about film or tv when you claimed it was shot on film, I just polited pointed out that if you look at confidential you can clearly see that they're shooting on tape. I didn't make this into a pissing contest. You did.

Didn't see confidential,(film or tape thing again) don't even care about it. Gave my opinion on new series from my viewpoint. This forum is about Dr Who, full stop. Don't have a hang up, because "I called you on your experience". For christs sake, are assistant editors that insecure these days.:D I raised the stakes, you called my hand and I showed it. Game is over. No winner.

Thats all I'm going to say about your extended rant about your career, it's beyond irrelevant. I only mentioned what I did because you challenged me that I knew f all about the business that is my bread and butter.

I wasn't ranting about my career, just merely pointing out my background. I actually thought it would help you and other readers understand my viewpoint. To say its beyond irrelevent is perhaps a little disrespectful. I challenged you to sweet fanny adams. I made a remark and you responded. I didn't know you were happily beating away on a keyboard in some edit suite for a living.

I'll try and pick out the stuff relevant to the thread from your rant that the smoking ban killed your career.

Never said it killed my career. Said it "killed my kind in an edit suite". I had many other strings to my bow. Should've put a smilie after that statement. No need to make fun of it.

Hey there are plenty of good remakes. Thomas Crown Affair, The Brady Bunch, Clueless, Battlestar Gallactica.

Yeah and there are plenty examples of appalling low budget feature films. Surely in your varied career you came across "fatal deviation" the appalling subpar Kerry based Jean Claude Van Dam kick boxing movie made on a shoestring. Low budget does not ullimately mean good script. Plenty of people have made low budget films that has gathered dust on shelves because they're bad and no one wants to know. As a film bod I'm sure you too can name the number of irish films that never got a cinema release over the past half decade because they are just ****.

There are plenty of substandard incredibly cringeworthy episodes of "classic who" who that the purist just ignore. FFS "The Happiness Patrol" had McCoy fight an effing licorice all sort (I know Mc Coy will never be well regarded Doctor's apex, but jesus the sight of the doctor fighting a frankenstein Bertie Basset is a "classic jump the shark" bit).

Old Who had woeful bits. Period end of discuss. From the Whomobile to any number of naff childish devices. It was a product of it's times and should be accepted as that.

You could no more expect old who to match to new who as to ask who would win in a brawl a trained heavyweight champion in the present day, and a bare knuckle brawler from the turn of the century.

Now, you're being nice and approachable. Personally, Im not enamoured by your quoted remakes. (thats just me, don't get offended) However I did say that "some" low budget stuff was good. Real film makers can do it on the shoestring, like Dr. Who did it for years.(your opinion may differ) The overall genre of low budget is poor. Concorde Anois AKA Roger Corman didn't do it for me. Charles Bands Empire Pictures did some great stuff though. As for Irish stuff, I think its got worse over the years, particularly its attempts in horror etc. When I was in film school,(1990) I highlighted films called, "BAD TASTE", directed by Peter Jackson and "THE EVIL DEAD" directed by Sam Raimi as inspirational to me. I was frowned upon and sidelined, especially because my work emulated them.(didn't bother me then, doesn't bother me now.) Both directors went on to become very successful film makers, one an Oscar winner. I would've been just another Irish copycat. Nowadays the Irish Film scene is only making very poor imitations of 70s/80/s sci-fi/horror and trying to portray it as "creative". I don't need to name them for you Diogenes, you know what Im talking about. In my opinion, idigenous irish film making, is strangled at birth at a creative level and dictated by the choosen few. Another story for another forum.

Forgive me, Im all out of Who at this point.

PS As to the "assistant" and "professional", I assumed I was talking to a layman, and frankly if I call myself my acutal title people assume I work in publishing.

Perfectly understandable. Apologies for being pedantic. But someone has to be.;)

popebenny16

Any chance of you two getting this back on topic?

As far as I am concerned the scritps, diglogue and production values are a lot better for the Eccleson and Tennant Doctors - however, they have only bening going 27 shows so far, plenty of time for the BBC to drop the ball.

There were over 700 shows up till 89. In 700 shows you're going to get a fair quota of bad ones, either from pointless scripts with too many four parters obligidly having one part consisting of "running around the place doing nothing" or pointless villans, eg, Cybermen, who were, frankly, rubbish until RTG got his hands on them.

The effects they had then were of their time and budget, today's Who has a million sterling an episode spent on it and looks it. Then again in 30 years it may look positivly stone age.

DerekP11

Whatever you say oh great moderator of the quarry!

Diogenes

popebenny16 wrote:

Any chance of you two getting this back on topic?

I'm not responding to Derek's post as it has next to nothing to do with Dr Who and everything to do with Derek.

The effects they had then were of their time and budget, today's Who has a million sterling an episode spent on it and looks it. Then again in 30 years it may look positivly stone age.

The current budget of Dr Who is not a Million Sterling an Episode. It's nowhere near that.

To put that sum in perspective, if Dr Who had a million sterling an episode it would be one of the most expensive tv programs ever made in the world. "Lost" has a $1million dollar per episode budget (basically because of the massive cast and their absurd salaries), and I believe the new US series "Heroes" is running at $1.5 per episode, if Dr Who had that level of budget it would arguably be the most expensive tv program in the world.

I'd say the budget is around half a million per episode.

popebenny16

Dont know about that, the budget for the first season of ST:NG was $1.5 mill per ep after all (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/tng/geordi.shtml) for example, but I even remember when it was announced that was the budget and I didnt pull the mill sterling out of the air either - its in "Who's Next", Virgin Books, 2005 which is a guide to both old and new serials.

DerekP11

I'm not responding to Derek's post as it has next to nothing to do with Dr Who and everything to do with Derek.

Well in that case, I'll assume, my apology and friendly overtures are being rejected. No worries.

popebenny16

Found this as well:

"What budget does the new series have?
This is unknown, as the BBC does not disclose exact budgets of ongoing productions. However, newspaper reports of £1 million per episode can probably be discounted. Experts on BBC television production such as members of the Doctor Who Restoration Team have cast doubt on the likelihood of such a high budget. Still, this is a lavish production, with much more money being spent on it than was ever spent on the original 1963-1989 series. The new series has been fully commissioned and produced by the BBC and was largely funded directly from the license fee. The 2005 series received some advance money from the CBC in Canada, and the closing credits of the North American broadcasts of those episodes list CBC as a co-producer. It appears that the production of new episodes is now being fully financed from the license fee, but the very healthy overseas sales are certainly not hurting the series' standing."

Sourse Outpost Gallifrey.

The answer is that we just dont know, but those reports werent plucked from the air and unless otherwise proved I'm going along with them. What does it matter ayhow?

And lads, OK, enough with talking about each other, even in passing, or that yellow card will become a red.

DerekP11

Looks like there is already a debate flowing elsewhere in relation to "old who Vs new who." Check this link out on the oficial Tom Baker site.

http://www.tombaker.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=4141

ixoy

DerekP11 wrote:

Looks like there is already a debate flowing elsewhere in relation to "old who Vs new who." Check this link out on the oficial Tom Baker site.

http://www.tombaker.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=4141

Ah that debate though is far more centred around how there's too many Earth-based episodes now, something which I completely agree with. There are horribly few episodes not set on Earth and this is, we're told, because of budget.

I don't necessarily buy that. Stargate has a small buget but manages to at least go to other planets, even if they resemble Earth. The new show should do that too - are there no suitable quaries left in England?

I think limiting the show too much to Earth is a bad idea. It'll make the show potentially more stale, more quickly (especially with the two spin-offs set on Earth as well) and there's not even a good story reason (at least Pertwee's era had a plausible concept). It's Time and Relative Dimensions in Space people and 'The Satan Pit/Impossible Planet' aside, we ain't been seeing much of that. Anyone else agree on that point?

popebenny16

I was thinking the same but didnt RTD also say that the space stories had the lowest viewing figures - I wonder........

Space stories can be done well on the cheap - Frontier in Space is an example. The space stories this time round have been poor imo, gimmicky more than anything else.