BS: Doctor Who

Subject: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 13 - 02:41 PM

10 minutes to the 50th anniversary episode. Say what you like, it is enduring and I am going to enjoy it.

What do we want?

Time travel

When do we want it?

It's irrelevant...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Nov 13 - 02:48 PM

I'm not sure how soon PBS in the US gets these program episodes after they play in the UK, but I'm enjoying the Doctor and his companion Clara these days.

Have a great evening!

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 13 - 04:21 PM

Thanks. SRS. Dunno about PBS but it is being simultaneously being broadcast across the globe. I thought it was great:-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 23 Nov 13 - 10:35 PM

yes we get them and I am a big fan of the Doctor for many many years. Thank you PBS

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 13 - 10:53 PM

Just saw the 50th anniversary special. I love the shows with multiple Doctors. This one is great.

Funny thing happened here. I was looking for the episodes I had recorded and could not find any of them! Can't for the life of me figure out what happened to them...

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 03:43 AM

I had my doubts about this episode before it was shown and the trailers didn't help. The opportunity to make the whole thing a huge CGI whizz-bang battle knee-deep in daleks would be hard to resist: after all many people like that kind of thing. Instead, they took a completely different path. Not as great as story as the wonderful psychotic John Simm master who made you sympathise with him despite everything, but still one of the best. I'm not sure how they square the final minutes with the apparent age of doctors when they regenerate, but even so it was a nice little extra

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 09:02 AM

I'm a little confused (nothing new there then). We were reminded during the program that the doctor's who acted with their future selves would not remember the event. If this was anyone involved (which is presumably the case. otherwise Tennant/Hurt would still have memories of the team effort from their Hartnell/Troughton et al incarnations. So, if interaction with a future incarnation means forgetfulness then Matt Smith's incarnation should also forget, as Gallifrey was frozen in time by 13 Doctors Who. This included Peter Capaldi, so, as the latest, he should be the only one with memories of the action.
Of course, it looks like Capaldi was a late addition as he didn't appear on the list of actors playing the Doctor at the end.

A slip up perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 09:50 AM

I like Doctor Who but for me the only really true Doctor Who is Tom Baker, evidenced by his cameo on camera in the latest episode. For me, second in preference is Christopher
Eccleston although David Tenant and Matt Smith et. al. do creditable jobs.

I've watched the Doctor's meanderings through the early days of latex, smoke screens
and the many women who accompanied him and there, my preference has always been one who is rarely mentioned in the recent retrospectives, Lalla Ward's Romana, who I think is one of the most intriguing of all of the women characters.

It seems the writing, though sometimes unnecessarily convoluted with the Brit asides
sometimes hard to grasp, has improved over time and even more the high tech graphics
which really enhance the imagination.

It's a great amount of fun, though, and whenever I think of the adventurous spirit of
the Doctor in his most egregious complicated miasmas, I see Tom Baker's mischievous
broad grin and realize the Doctor in in the house.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 11:13 AM

A Doctor a day keeps the Apple away.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Jack Campin
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 04:37 PM

So what?

The thinking behind Dr Who fandom appears to be "it's British so who cares if it's crap?".

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: BrooklynJay
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 09:17 PM

I disagree with nearly everything in that article.

I was a fan of the show back in the 1980's. Actually, it was how I met my late wife - we were in a club that did some Doctor Who-related entertaining for children in hospitals and long-term care facilities.

The new version of the show, however, seems to exist on a different plane. Certainly, it's the "same" show, but the writing is on a much more adult level, the special effects are far more up-to-date, and I find the characters much more "emotionally engaging." Sometimes, IMO, a bit too much so. (I think there are a bit too many tearjerkers, this time around.)

Ultimately, everyone has a right to their opinion, but after reading that article, my first thought was, "What show was he watching?"


Jay

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Van
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 03:51 AM

Most of the article is rubbish but at least he got it right about Tom Baker!

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 04:22 AM

The article read to me like some editor said "There's a lot of hyping up of the 50th anniversary programme at the moment - here, Chris, write something that has the opposite view".

And the stance he takes seems to be that big special effects are what counts, rather than intelligence. While I think that the intelligence aspect is missing from many of the more recent Doctor Who stories, a lot of the ones since Ecclestone are quite deep. I think its often true that older shows and films had more thought in them before special effects gained so much status. One of the earliest Star Trek episodes was an exploration of racist attitudes, for example. Similarly, I saw an ancient Kung Fu episode recently about a girl who had been raped by soldiers who had seen many of their comrades killed confederates, and so on: an intricate web of responsibility was woven. And at some point almost every character had the line 'If I am not entitled to revenge, who is?'. The closing line of the film was 'No-one'. That's more thought provoking and intelligent than the vast majority of programmes and to my mind shows up remarks about how impressive the Millenium Falcon as irrelevant.

In the Tennant final series there are quite a few (short!) mediations on death, both individually and of species. All quiet and conversational. Of course, if your idea of a good programmes is lots of explosions and flames with bodies and vehicles thrown everywhere with almost all the killing of anonymous people who you have built up no rapport with ... well, its not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 04:38 AM

I watched the whole Eccleston series yesterday. Not much to do if you hadn't gathered ;-) Some silly bits but, in the main, very well done indeed. IMHO. I never noticed before but in the first one (I think) it shows the doctor in the crowd at JFKs assassination! How did they know I would be watching it this weekend? :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 04:48 AM

In his Doctor Who days, Tom Baker used occasionally to pop into the pub in Bayswater (London W2) where our band was playing and listen to the music. A very friendly chap who always bought us a pint and chatted away to us - and dressed just as he did onscreen!

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 05:12 AM

My little sister watched the very first episode, with I believe William Hartnell as the Doc, trembling behind the sofa. As she had nightmares that night my dad banned the programme! Even in black and white, it really was quite terrifying for innocent children in those days; we were accustomed to Bill and Ben and Andy Pandy etc. I hated the sound of the Tardis firing up. And Doctor Who's face on the screen in a blaze of light. Along with Quatermass And The Pit, it was one of the traumatising events of our young lives!

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 05:29 AM

Quatermass and the Pit definitely was scary!

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 05:49 AM

Quatermass and the Pi was superb! And you can watch each episode on YouTube if you want to relive the thrill...

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 05:50 AM

And if you thought Quatermass and the Pi was superb - Quatermass and the Pit was even better!

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 05:54 AM

No - It was a modern crossover, Will. Quatermass and the Life of Pi. All about the invasion of an alien tiger by boat...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 05:56 AM

The whole of the first Dr Who story (4 episodes) was re-shown last Thursday on BBC4(from 22:30)

It may still be available on 'watch again' or I-Player

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 09:16 AM

I wonder if it was among the first TV serials to use 'electronic' music? I think it was produced by synthesisers, quite a new thing for those times. Quatermass was excellent but very, very scary. I bet if we watched it now we'd fall off the sofa laughing, not hide behind it. How tender we were then. Nowadays, children are hard as nails and watch all kinds of strong stuff without turning a hair! By the way (thread drift) does anyone remember The Trollenberg Terror? The Thing turned out to be a rubbery-looking creature rather similar to the Loch Ness monster, and it came into a house, whereupon I fled the TV room!

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 11:45 AM

Quatermass is still impressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 06:31 AM

If I had a nickel for everyone who disagreed with me (as in the article above) I would be a very rich man. I have never assumed the show was good just because it was British. Origin countries do not affect my taste, though I have my doubts about Bollywood.

Dr Who is good because you have to think about each story. You have to put things together. They do not feed you everything on a silver spoon. If you think something doesn't fit then you need to consider it from a different angle.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 08:10 AM

I am a hard-boiled hater of sci-fi self-important waffle, and the Doctor has his share of this, as I know from my small sample of perhaps 20 episodes. But in its best moments (- too rare for my taste -), it has that typically British twinkling in its eye when quoting British and other clichés - rightly cherished by fans. I read that Douglas Adams wrote some of the scripts, who of course in his books offers a higher concentration of British humour.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 09:51 AM

Just checked on iPlayer for those early ones mentioned by Nigel and, sadly, it says 'Not available' :-( Wonder why - It was less than a week ago.

Anyway - I will find them again I suppose.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 12:56 PM

Quatermass and the Pit is my favourite thing ever, both the TV series and the film. I spend my life praying that they never let Mark Gatis remake it. Nigel Kneale - sure he gave us the dreaful Beasties but he have us Quatermass and The Stone Tape so his immortality is assured.

Enjoying lots of DR Who DVDs right now. The best EVER Dr Who story is The Daemons which touches the Folk Horror Zeitgeist perfectly, complete with witchery, Roger Delgado, pagan black magic, long barrows, Bok & Morris Dancing. All this and Katy Manning too - but the ultimate swoon belongs to the beauteous Damaris Hayman.

*

Sadly Nu-Who (Tennant at al) is overblown ill-conceived histrionic shite lacking in substance, magic, humanity and joy. Hardly the wonder Ecclestone got out when he did.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 02:01 PM

C'mon, Jack - Lots of people do like it, including me. I enjoyed the early ones as much as you but can see lots of good in the new as well. What joy do you get from pissing on someone else's parade?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 06:14 PM

I agree about the Daemons. Damaris Hayman was wonderful in that part and Roger Delgado is the definitive Master although Derek Jacobi would have given him a run for his money if they hadn't killed him off so promptly.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 06:36 AM

Spoofing sci-fi is shamefully easy. Here is an example of a Dr Who parody worth watching.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 09:51 AM

Nu-Who is already a parody of itself. After the Americanising of The Movie I was prepared to give Chris Ecclestone a chance, but proper actors like him are too mercurial to become fodder for the typecasting essential to a character like Dr Who. Even so, the grand (but ultimately insubstantial) concepts and CGI swamped it from the off. What followed was less parody than travesty; seeing John Hurt in that pantomime the other week was just plain embarrassing. Very poor indeed. Torchwood fared better, I thought, by keeping its feet firmly on the ground.

Enjoyed seeing the first William Hartnell story with the cavemen; interesting to remember that until Nation introduced us to the Daleks, Dr Who was essentially a Kiplingesque history romp!    Still looking forward to watching the David Bradley drama Adventure in Time & Space, which has satisfied far more extreme members of the Old Who Faithful than me!

And DtheG - I am not pissing on anyone's parade, nor do I take any joy from the fact that something I care for very much has been utterly rubbished by an ill-conceived make-over that is all bling & no bang. Offer me your objections by all means - tell me why you think I am wrong - but please keep the personal sniping out of it, eh?

Anyway here's my Dalek Derek enjoying the serenity of the Fylde coast just yesterday...

Daleks Invasion Earth 27.11.2013

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 09:58 AM

Enjoyed seeing the first William Hartnell story with the cavemen; interesting to remember that until Nation introduced us to the Daleks, Dr Who was essentially a Kiplingesque history romp!   

Anyone would think there was a lot of Dr Who between the start & the introduction of the Daleks to read that.
The story with the Daleks followed on immediately from the first story with the cavemen.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 10:21 AM

tell me why you think I am wrong - but please keep the personal sniping out of it, eh?

Sorry that you feel it is personal sniping, Jack, but I seem to remember you have done this before. You once accused me of personal abuse and when I asked you what you found offensive or abusive about my comments you did not answer. Anyway, no point in living in the past. Unless you are a Jethro Tull fan :-)

There was no personal sniping involved. I am just interested why you feel the need to use such terms as "overblown ill-conceived histrionic shite lacking in substance, magic, humanity and joy." where a simple "I don't like the new series" would more than convey the point. It seems that some people have the need to justify their dislike of some things by assigning bad attributes to them.

The only objections I can offer is that I feel the 'Nu-Who' is to my tastes and I enjoy it immensely. Your diatribe against it seems to indicate that your tastes are somehow better than mine. The discussion I alluded to previously was, again if memory serves me correctly, about rap music. I am no fan in particular, as I am no fan of opera, contemporary jazz or Irish music. But I would not dream of categorising any of them as bad. Just not to my taste and that is an extremely subjective thing. Doctor Who since 2005(?) has been, in my opinion, a lot deeper, better produced and more entertaining than the old one. I can appreciate the early days but there was a lot wrong with them that I am happy to ignore.

Out of interest I found this article on the official BBC Doctor Who guide. It contains the comments - "Given that The Dæmons is so archetypal of Barry Letts' period as producer, it is no surprise that the minority of fans who greatly dislike the approach that he brought to the series have, contrary to the general reaction, been vociferously critical of it. Perhaps the most scathing review of all was by Chris Newbold in Perigosto Stick Issue Two, dated August 1991: 'It is my considered opinion, as someone who has seen almost all the Doctor Who stories it is possible to see, that The Dæmons is without doubt one of the worst. I say that in full possession of the knowledge that it is thought of as an example of the very best of Doctor Who, an "all-time classic". Naturally I find it hard to see how this view can possibly have come about, unless it is part of a more general belief that the Pertwee years represent Doctor Who at its best. I do not subscribe to such a view.'"

It does go on but you will be able to read it yourself if you so wish. Nowhere, however, does Newbold seem to simply say 'It is rubbish' in the way you dismiss the new series.

I would also ask you to note who started the thread and, while I fully understand that anyone is able to post any comment on any thread, you need to understand that I started this particular party and if I feel that someone is not entering the spirit of it, I shall say so.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 11:40 AM

Anyone would think there was a lot of Dr Who between the start & the introduction of the Daleks to read that.

Ooops! You're quite right of course. That's me trusting what I read in the Radio Times when I half asleep this morning!

*

but I seem to remember you have done this before. You once accused me of personal abuse and when I asked you what you found offensive or abusive about my comments you did not answer.

There you go again! Keep it abstract, DtheG - nice & impersonal!

*

In expressing an opinion here I might go on to say why I have that opinion - as I've done in this case - which is not as simple as saying 'It is rubbish!' (which it is) but I'm not going too deeply into any sort critical evaluation either. This is not the place. Anyway, I think I've explained that.

It's not simply a matter of taste either, it's the feeling of being sold a pup, which I dare say is all part of the media Zeitgeist of the present age which increasingly isolates both itself and the viewer from any sort of human reality at all by miring both its mythos & meta-mythos in the faux-realms of CGI & celebrity that seems to be the driving force of TV these days. People obviously like it, that's why its being made, but I find it utterly phoney.

One of the issues I have with Nu-Who is that its two major spin offs were so much better than the parent series. Torchwood was solid enough until it blew it with that last week-long thing which lost the plot rather BUT The Sarah Jane Adventures was bang on the nail & worthy of the Old Dr Who Tradition from beginning to end - & great fun to boot. All of which made the parent series seem all the more wanting in the things that made the original so compelling : from the creaky special effects and ubiquitous quarry landscapes, to the eccentric Radiophonic soundtracks with embodied perfectly the humanity of the drama.

I have my favourites of these (at the moment its Carey Blyton's neo-medieval score for The Silurians (1970) full of buzzing crumhorms & elemental percussion effects) but the other week I was watching the Colin Baker story Attack of the Cybermen (1985) which is remarkable for its stellar supporting cast including Brian Glover. At around 12 minutes into the first episode the Tardis materialises in the Trotters Lane scrapyard of I.M Foreman thus referencing the first ever episode, but Malcolm Clarke responds with a twisted radiophonic analogue of 'Old Ned' in homage to another TV show entirely! Genius! A perfect moment for me, one that maintains a tradition going back to the pioneering work of Daphne Oram, and to that of Delia Derbyshire who gave us the Dr Who theme in the first place - a seminal moment in the Electronic Tradition which is now blown out by Nu-Who's bombastic orchestral arrangement.

But one more reason to be irked!

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 12:11 PM

Ah well, Jack. One man's meat and all that. In both terms of taste and what is considered personal :-) I still cannot see what you are finding either offensive or personal about my comments but I think we will just have to agree that we are on a different wavelength. You ignore what you believe are my 'personal snipes' and I will believe that "overblown ill-conceived histrionic shite lacking in substance, magic, humanity and joy." is constructive criticism :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 12:12 PM

Jack, the series already had a touch of self-parody when I last saw it (in the 1980s), but most of the waffle was meant seriously (down to unintentionally funny). As I wrote above, in its best parts it played on existing clich&eaute;s such as Morris dancing.

I concede that sci-fi in general had its part in making our society (slightly) more sensitive to ethical problems of technology than it would have been without it. Nowadays, the most dangerous monsters are no longer as easy to identify as they seemed in HG Wells's time. Popular fiction must find new narratives. As far as I have read, the Doctor sticks to his "dinosaur" race, in all his "regenerations". Am I ill-informed?

Similar observations apply to the James Bond franchise, where the humour is even sparser.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 02:17 PM

the series already had a touch of self-parody when I last saw it

Allow me to offer that parody and self-parody are two different things; the former mocks & trivialises, whilst the latter is can be an unconscious affectation by which it measures the shortfall between its perceived glory days and the depths to which it has sunk through no fault of its own. One may self-parody ones self in a way that is endearing & self-referentially quaint; one may also do it a way that is self-serving to the point of pretentiousness. That Nu-Who does so (i.e. self-parodies Nu-Who) is part / parcel of the vacuous concepts it uses in lieu of any actual narrative (something it has in common with Harry Potter). The Day of the Doctor was a classic case of self-parody at its most soul-sappingly tedious. Episode 799? Pah! Not even close!

In any case Attack of the Cybermen was broadcast in 1985 and manges to be charmingly self-parodic & cracking stuff throughout, right down the supporting cast. Amazingly - and weirdly - it was broadcast the same month (but several days before) Wilfred Brambell died. How's that for coincidence?

*

what you believe are my 'personal snipes'

Anything with YOU in the sentence basically.

and I will believe that "overblown ill-conceived histrionic shite lacking in substance, magic, humanity and joy." is constructive criticism :-)

That's just basic observation, DtheG. The criticism I've accounted for above and in my last post there (28 Nov 13 - 11:40 AM).

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 02:50 PM

I wonder if it was among the first TV serials to use 'electronic' music?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delia_Derbyshire

I'll give them credit for at least being original for the first and last 30 seconds of each show.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 04:06 PM

I'd credit them with more than that, Jack! The Radiophonic scores of Dr Who are a classic tradition in their own right & one of the joys of British popular music making of the last 50 years that inspired a whole generation of electronic musicians. As I said above, it was such free-form feral experimentalism that nailed much of the Dr Who ethos throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s - though some of the McCoy scores betray a synth-pop vibe that might seem at tad anomalous to more traditional forms that were still typical in 1985!

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 04:28 PM

Sorry, Jack. Still don't understand. Are you saying anything that refers to someone by person is a personal snipe? If so then surely you are doing the same? Surely you cannot disagree with someone's comment without referring to whoever made it? What am I missing? We don't need to go into parliamentary jargon and use 'The speaker on the other side' or whatever do we?

I agree that your quote is a basic observation, but it is still only your view. Sorry, but I cannot see how to phrase that without referring to 'you'. Is that a personal snipe too? My view is almost diametrically opposed as I find the new series well conceived and executed on all fronts. Like the original it does have it's flaws, but so do I!

Good job I didn't put my original comment of "You ignore what you believe are my 'personal snipes' and I will ignore your views" isn't it :-) I wish we could talk this through over a few jars but I am not going to be near Fleetwood (Is that right) for a while. You up near Skipton any time soon?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 04:56 PM

Guest, Grishka:
Nowadays, the most dangerous monsters are no longer as easy to identify as they seemed in HG Wells's time.
Ah yes, the beautiful people, the pastoral Eloi.
And the ugly, depraved, Morlocks.
Such a clear cut, black & white distinction. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 05:28 AM

Sorry to go off topic but I did start the thread after all :-)

I have had a good think, slept on it and I think you are right, Jack. Anything with a YOU in it does make it personal and I do apologise if by doing so I caused any offense. I will certainly have a think and a few breaths before any future posts. In my defense I think that most people do fall into the same trap. On this thread, at least, it stops here. Thanks for that

What I intended to say after the criticism of the Nu-Who is that I have a different view and believe it is a well produced and executed series. I can compare it to the old Doctor as I am of that age (60) where I have fond memories of the early ones. I think the plot lines and the themes in the new series have improved significantly as have the effects and production quality. It does not have the raw originality of the old one but, then again, it never could.

The new one has been made for today's audience which, thank heavens, is vastly different from the one in 1963. Just as I am a different person from that 10 year old lad sat in front of the 14" black and white screen. Neither I nor the Doctor can go back to then. Oh, hang on... :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 11:54 AM

Yes, the New Who is definitely different, but is for a different age.
When Dr Who first started I was still going to Saturday morning cinema. The serials there had cliffhangers which were resolved the following week by showing you bits you'd missed the week before. (someone escaping from the far side of a car just before it went over a cliff) but you couldn't be sure that you hadn't just missed spotting it the week before, so took it on trust.
Black & white tv followed the same system as the only people who could check what had actually been shown were the owners of the film reels themselves.
With the advent of VCRs the show had to be consistent in what was shown at the end of one week & the beginning of the next.

Also, by the time of the 'great revival', children seemed to have shorter attention spans, so less stories were spread over several weeks. (make the shows longer to encompass a whole self-contained story). Of course, this whole argument is somewhat confounded by the whole-series 'story arcs' they seem to use.


The discussion - like the programme itself - continues.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 08:12 PM

Some time since I watched an episode (David Tennant was the Doctorat the time), but I thought I'd put this on to record and just watched it today, seeing it was the Golden Jubilee one.

Rather disappointed, it was too much of a smash bang wallop jape. The best thing was John Hurt, I'd have loved to see him playing the Doctor in a better constructed episode. He brought the kind of gravitas to the role that it would benefit from.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 03:58 AM

Fascinating that you feel that, McGrath, because that is exactly what I thought it wasn't. The daleks barely appeared, for example, and the temptation to make them the central enemy must have been huge - after all, all Who-enthusiasts have known since the special was announced that it was about the greatest battle between the Time Lords and the daleks...

Then the main story was a morality one: is it legitimate to sacrifice one person to saved hundreds, and if so is it also legitimate to sacrifice billions to save hundreds of billions? And that aspect of story was done almost entirely in conversation, with no action scenes.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 06:05 AM

My Scottish cousin DMcG reflects my views too :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 09:19 AM

The smash bang wallop I was objecting to wasn't so much the action movie kind, but the sort that involves masses of undigested and unintegrated plot devices, which seemed just intended to drag in a whole gamut of faces from previous episodes. It just felt thrown together to keep the punters happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 11:01 AM

It must have been a bit difficult to follow for anyone who had not seen through that last Matt Smith series and probably a few before. Having said that I think DMcGs comments stand true even looking at it as a stand alone episode. But, as I said earlier, personal taste is, well, personal and it will not be everyone's cup of tea.

Looking forward, or possibly backwards or sidewards, to the Peter Capaldi years. Not sure if he is the twelfth or thirteenth. If it is the latter it could be his last life! Unless of course they come up with some off time based reason why it is not :-)

How come they never mention Peter Cushing BTW?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 01:31 PM

Just watched the Brian Cox lecture too. Superb.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Doctor Who
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 07:05 PM

It's a matter of taste. I favour a magical realism approach, more or less what Chesterton summed up (long before the term was invented) as "I can believe the impossible, but not the improbable", going on to elaborate "Tell me that the great Mr Gladstone, in his last hours, was haunted by the ghost of Parnell, and I will be agnostic about it. But tell me that Mr Gladstone, when first presented to Queen Victoria, wore his hat in her drawing--room and slapped her on the back and offered her a cigar, and I am not agnostic at all. That is not impossible; it's only incredible."

So stuff about multiple Doctors flitting around various time zones is fine, but it's what happens in between I have a problem with. All that stuff with Queen Elizabeth for example...