|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 1, 2013 12:17:22 GMT -5
Here's the latest "Doctor Who" news, all from Digital Spy:
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 1, 2013 12:34:19 GMT -5
I know a lot of people loved Tom Baker. But I have had no experience with the guy as the Doctor. I seem to have some sort of allergy to the classic episodes. It's like I want to watch them, but I sit down to try, and within seconds, I'm bored, even though I'm sure they are fine. But the newer Who is must see TV. Dare I say it, but you sound a lot like the kids who moan about not being able to watch the original "Star Trek" TV series because it looks old, the special effects don't measure up, blah, blah, blah, you know the roster of usual complaints in that regard that we've been hearing for years. I will admit, however, that I'm not looking forward to the "Doctor Who" episodes from the 70s. The outfits are blatantly ridiculous, which in and of itself will be incredibly difficult for me to look passed. Then there will be the cheesy, tacky special effects that were a hallmark of that era, especially with respect to British television, which had meager budgets compared to what American TV had available for its shows. I'd prefer they jump right to the episodes from the 80s, but we know that's not going to happen. By the way, I had mentioned some weeks back about an episode that takes place on a desert planet that was produced in the 80s and my hoping that they would air that as one of their coming Sunday night Who episodes from the old shows, and while I might be incorrect here, I believe the episode(s) is called "Planet of Fire". I had remarked about some apparent "Star Wars" influences being noticeable in it, however, in the clips I have looked at from this episode, I still haven't seen some of the scenes where this was evident, which is why I still question a little if this is indeed the episode I was referring to previously. However, I'm still inclined to think that it probably is. I know where this string of episodes can be viewed if anyone is interested. They probably won't air this one anyway, but who knows ...I guess it's just as possible that they might, which is why I may put off looking at it for now. (And then when I go to watch it, it may no longer be available --that's the kind of luck I have usually.) |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 1, 2013 17:08:21 GMT -5
I stumbled upon this just now while doing a search to see if the old episodes that they have lined up for Sunday nights are actually listed anywhere, but found this instead by accident:Allow me to quote a few excerpts from that article here:Will there be more than one movie-style special? Perhaps even some more full-length episodes?
Alas, neither of those options appears to be the case. Unnamed sources known to Bleeding Cool have asserted that no new episodes of 'Doctor Who' will be seen after the end of season 7 (outside of the anniversary special, of course). - See more at: screenrant.com/doctor-who-anniversary-schedule-moffat/#sthash.8BX5JuoD.dpuf I love it when my instincts are proven to be correct, only in this instance, it actually also sucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Mar 1, 2013 19:59:59 GMT -5
I saw Planet of Fire years ago and don't remember it very well. I'm a big fan of Fifth Doctor, Peter Davison, because I did not expect to like him. Not because he was taking over after Tom Baker, but because he was an established actor. I thought the BBC would tailor Dr. Who around him, but they didn't. As to Who and the future of the show and budget problems, I would not worry too much. The BBC has always taken Doctor Who for granted and it has always been a slave to budget cuts. I doubt it will go away and if it does, it won't be gone for long.  |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 2, 2013 19:28:07 GMT -5
I can't find a schedule of the episodes they plan to run throughout the year, but I did find this just now:
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Mar 3, 2013 9:20:15 GMT -5
Rats ! I just rented Spearhead from Space from Netflix last week. Well I can tell you it was good and features the Autons who appear in the first Eccleston Who " Rose". Spearhead was also the first Who made in color. Now that I've seen it, here's my 2 cents on Tomb of the Cybermen. This is the first full serial I have seen featuring Patrick Troughton and I think he's great. I'm pissed that most of his episodes got erased. The BBC did that to most of Peter Cushing's Sherlock Holmes show in the 60's too. Short sighted idiots. Tomb was almost a Gothic Hammer Horror film set on another planet. In defense of some newer fans who hated the pacing, Moffat should have kept the serial breaks in the episode. I believe it was originally broadcast in 4 parts with cliffhanger endings. By cutting out the closing credit sequences, leaving our heroes in danger, the pacing is off and some scenes do drag. All in all my wife and I have become Troughton fans and I just dropped a bunch of them in my Netflx queue. I hope newer fans will enjoy the next installment featuring Doctor # 3, my first doctor, Jon Pertwee. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 3, 2013 12:07:34 GMT -5
I'm still wondering if they intend to air "Planet of Fire" as part of their "Doctor Who Revisited" retrospectives. I know that it's long enough to air for two hours without commercial breaks, so with commercials they would have to allot two-and-a-half hours for that one if they intend to show it, unless they were to decide to cut some of it instead. I'm not sure they would do that though because it would probably anger the hardcore Who fans. I'm reluctant to watch it online, not only because they may decide to show it, but because the video quality at just 380 for where it's available isn't that great. It's acceptable for online viewing, but clearly they've been cleaning up the 'Revisited' episodes that they're showing and are enhancing them for 16X9 HD flatscreen TVs, which is why I would hold out if they intend to show this one on BBCA. I just wish I could find a schedule of the ones they intend to air somewhere so I'll know one way or the other whether it's going to be broadcast.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Mar 3, 2013 12:37:35 GMT -5
I want to see Planet of Fire again too. Netflix has a ton of Who on DVD. Most of them are re-mastered versions that would be worth waiting for via mail. The Peter Davison era is interesting because he had big shoes to fill after Tom Baker. His Doctor is surprisingly ruthless, despite his quiet demeanor. My guess is Doctors Revisited will air The Caves of Androzani for Davison's special because it was voted one of the top 3 Who episodes in the show's history. It's also Davison's last so you will see him regenerate into Doctor 6: Colin Baker.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 3, 2013 14:01:56 GMT -5
My guess is Doctors Revisited will air The Caves of Androzani for Davison's special because it was voted one of the top 3 Who episodes in the show's history. It's also Davison's last so you will see him regenerate into Doctor 6: Colin Baker. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Mar 3, 2013 14:36:32 GMT -5
Yes, my wife thought it was hilarious that they're running Spearhead from Space as the Pertwee Special. We just picked it at random. We're not lucky either. ;D
On the upside, it's a good episode. I may watch it again anyway.
The whole Davison thing is just a gut feeling. I have no idea what they are going to do. I may check with Blogtor Who which has been the most reliable source I have found for Who stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 3, 2013 14:37:34 GMT -5
Now that I've seen it, here's my 2 cents on Tomb of the Cybermen. This is the first full serial I have seen featuring Patrick Troughton and I think he's great. I'm pissed that most of his episodes got erased. The BBC did that to most of Peter Cushing's Sherlock Holmes show in the 60's too. Short sighted idiots. Tomb was almost a Gothic Hammer Horror film set on another planet. In defense of some newer fans who hated the pacing, Moffat should have kept the serial breaks in the episode. I believe it was originally broadcast in 4 parts with cliffhanger endings. By cutting out the closing credit sequences, leaving our heroes in danger, the pacing is off and some scenes do drag.
The problem with an old episode like that, now edited into a full-length feature, is how they were filmed back then. You could see that rehearsals of scenes were at best limited and probably rarely reshot if something went wrong with a take. I'm sure this was related to budgetary factors, so some of it comes off looking as though it was filmed as an afternoon television serial, which it was at the time in fact. However, as I said last week --the core of the character and how he operated, and the way the show was designed and meant to function as a tale is still evident in what they're producing for the series today, only with better filming techniques, hardware, and superior special effects, all of which give a far superior look and feel to these newer productions by comparison. Television was still in its relatively early days back when "Tomb of the Cybermen" was produced though. Think about it --TV didn't start really coming into its own until the mid-1950s; 1954, 55, 56, and onward. "Tomb of the Cybermen" was shot in 1967, when I was only three years old, so television had only been around and in most homes for about a decade or so, which isn't long at all. Sure, TOS was around and shooting in color, but they were working with limited resources as well despite shooting in color --one of the first shows to actually do that. So I'm not surprised by the quality of "Tomb of the Cybermen" ...I just wish studios had been a little more tolerant back then, were willing to allow a certain amount of the budget to go toward wasted film stock concerning reshoots where necessary and so forth, and that better production people, especially on the directing end, had been hired for such efforts in those days, especially in Britain. We didn't even get the Doctor Who serials here in the States back then. To us it was an alien series that we were pretty much unaware of, and which didn't show up here until later in the 70s I believe, as far as I can recollect.
But to me, the pacing and [seemingly] amateurish production values are what kill those old episodes more than anything and make them so hard to watch. Everything produced now is so far superior that it's hard to look at something produced that far back and not get annoyed by the primitive production values. We've all been spoiled to that extent for a long time now.
And I wouldn't compare the production values of TOS to that of what was being done in Britain at the same time with "Doctor Who". Yes, those original optical special effects in TOS seem hokey today, and the sets certainly weren't that great compared to the production values of the present (consider "Enterprise" for instance, which has been off then air for about eight years already at this point, as a point of comparison), but the editing was good, and they would reshoot scenes where necessary rather than just throwing everything --the good and the bad takes-- together and calling it an episode. Desilu Studios made an earnest effort to make the show as good as they possibly could with what they had to work with. I think even "The Cage" certainly makes that clear, which is why that series stands as superior even for back then IMO.
Anyway, stream of consciousness rambling now OFF |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 4, 2013 12:37:52 GMT -5
I think they should have done more to show the regenerations.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 4, 2013 13:23:31 GMT -5
The difference is that the original Star Trek actually had great stories, great action, and while the effects may not stand up in many cases, the writing and acting does.
It wasn't SO low budget that it wouldn't work.
You can say a lot about the original series, but you can't say it is boring.
I find that I have no problem watching older shows. I recently, never having watched it, got into Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. The first season was very good. The second is almost unwatchable, and I'm struggling.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 4, 2013 17:51:42 GMT -5
The difference is that the original Star Trek actually had great stories, great action, and while the effects may not stand up in many cases, the writing and acting does. It wasn't SO low budget that it wouldn't work. I find that I have no problem watching older shows. I recently, never having watched it, got into Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. The first season was very good. The second is almost unwatchable, and I'm struggling. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Mar 5, 2013 9:27:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 5, 2013 10:58:57 GMT -5
Actually, I believe releasing the pilot in theaters was a marketing technique, not unlike releasing the pilot to Clone Wars. If you watch a show knowing what it is, you can enjoy it. The first season wasn't bad at all. The second season though? Pretty bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 5, 2013 15:49:17 GMT -5
Actually, I believe releasing the pilot in theaters was a marketing technique, not unlike releasing the pilot to Clone Wars. If you watch a show knowing what it is, you can enjoy it. The first season wasn't bad at all. The second season though? Pretty bad. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 5, 2013 18:31:27 GMT -5
It wasn't just that--he was using rejected BSG designs for the ships.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Mar 5, 2013 18:48:01 GMT -5
I'm very fond of the Buck Rogers show. And my fondness goes beyond Erin Grey. I agree that the first season is much better. The second season lost some of it's Pulpy feel. We won't even discuss the bird guy. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 5, 2013 23:47:36 GMT -5
It wasn't just that--he was using rejected BSG designs for the ships.
Windows 8 is F---ing weird. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 5, 2013 23:52:20 GMT -5
I'm very fond of the Buck Rogers show. And my fondness goes beyond Erin Grey. I agree that the first season is much better. The second season lost some of it's Pulpy feel. We won't even discuss the bird guy. ;D
I liked the Intro to the show for its first season. But it was too hokey for me to take even the least bit seriously, and by the time Hawk joined the cast, I was already long gone. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 6, 2013 19:22:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 7, 2013 9:10:17 GMT -5
I think that any 50th anniversary special that does not become a multi-doctor story would be a big time disappointment.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbasil on Mar 7, 2013 10:49:51 GMT -5
I think there's going to be a multi-doctor story and I have a feeling all the living Doctors are going to be in it. They have been playing fast and loose with this for months. I understand they want to keep things a secret, but it's getting ridiculous. I know that Davison and all the older doctors are putting out an Audio story from Big Finish in November. I usually download their stuff but I'm buying the CD. At this point even Moffat must realize he has to deliver the goods on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 11, 2013 9:26:45 GMT -5
I doubt we'll get it, but I would LOVE to see McGann regenerate into Ecclesston.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 11, 2013 21:28:25 GMT -5
Doctor Who - 50 Years of Time and Space - Skyfall  |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 12, 2013 18:10:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 18, 2013 13:57:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Mar 20, 2013 14:48:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Mar 20, 2013 17:29:34 GMT -5
It would be interesting if she were somehow the Doctor's granddaughter.
|
|
