Cool rumour, Jim. Where did you hear this?
PM only on this one
Posted 21 July 2009 - 04:25 PM
Cool rumour, Jim. Where did you hear this?
Posted 21 July 2009 - 04:30 PM
Posted 21 July 2009 - 04:43 PM
The first three episodes of The Tenth Planet still exist. It's only the last one that's missing. And that should still be around, as well, really, since it was archived in the BBC Film Library. But, obviously, there was a cock-up somewhere along the line and the print seems to have been junked after some clips were taken from it for an edition of Blue Peter. Such is life.Alas as I understand it the same fate befell The Tenth Planet. Only a few clips and stills remain. The audio did, however, survive, somehow. iTunes used to have the radio drama adaptation, which was just the audio of the episode with one of the actors from later series (forget who) narrating the action bits; and I recall reading somewhere that the whole of the original audio, without the narration in places, was somewhere online. Have to say, I quite love that Lost in Time DVD set, and simultaneously I hate it for introducing me to footage from episodes I shall likely never have the pleasure of seeing.
I'd still say the new version is largely crap. Even on its own terms. All surface gloss and forced emotion.Well you're comparing chalk and cheese - both incarnations are completely different in the conditions under which they were produced. The original was a serialised programme concieved over 4 or 6 week stories on a crisp packet allowance whereas the new version is a season block of mainly stand-alone episodes, a huge budget (in comparison) and an American-inspired "story-arc" format.
It's about as meaningful as comparing 60s WHO to 90s...
Posted 21 July 2009 - 05:00 PM
Posted 21 July 2009 - 05:02 PM
bit of a dodgy line of discussion here - comparing the "clunky"ness of one bloke's "sonic" to another. Freud would have had something to say about the Doctor always waving his "screwdriver" around!New sonic seems a bit clunky, and yet simultaneously, somewhere in the deep, dark crevices of my mind, an impossibly tiny version of myself is running around frantically and throwing a temper tantrum because it can't have it.
Hmmm. I think it's the same sonic that River Song had in Silence In The Library/Forest Of The Dead, it would make sense for the Doctor to aquire it, CONSIDERING YOU-KNOW-WHAT.
But, yes I agree, I prefer 10's Sonic.Well you're comparing chalk and cheese - both incarnations are completely different in the conditions under which they were produced. The original was a serialised programme concieved over 4 or 6 week stories on a crisp packet allowance whereas the new version is a season block of mainly stand-alone episodes, a huge budget (in comparison) and an American-inspired "story-arc" format.Apart from the odd episode, I think the new version has been largely bloody awful and not a patch on the original series (pre-JN-T, anyway).
I think Moffat has a better grasp of Doctor Who than Davies, though. So, I think (hope) his era's going to be more to my liking than the outgoing one.
Gotta say, VERY strongly disagree, but i thinks its just New DW is so very different to the original, i happen to prefer the style the new one utilises to the one of the original series.
It's about as meaningful as comparing 60s WHO to 90s...
I heard a spectacular rumour about this, although I suspect that it may be wishful thinking on the part of the person concerned rather than anything I genuinely believe - still, it may as well go in spoiler tags. Seriously not trying to wind anyone up with this.
Spoiler
If it doesn't happen it doesn't happen but the chap was so insistent that either I'm very gullible and blindly spreading an utter lie, or ... not.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 05:28 PM
Of course it isn't "wrong for what is a family show".If that rumour is true it's more than a little dark - it's just totally wrong for what is a family show
Posted 21 July 2009 - 05:47 PM
In the realm of sf television I think it was Babylon 5 that pretty much started the idea of having arcs running through seasons. Every sf show since then has pretty much followed suit. It wasn't a criticism but an observation of the changing conditions between the two series.bit of a dodgy line of discussion here - comparing the "clunky"ness of one bloke's "sonic" to another. Freud would have had something to say about the Doctor always waving his "screwdriver" around!New sonic seems a bit clunky, and yet simultaneously, somewhere in the deep, dark crevices of my mind, an impossibly tiny version of myself is running around frantically and throwing a temper tantrum because it can't have it.
Hmmm. I think it's the same sonic that River Song had in Silence In The Library/Forest Of The Dead, it would make sense for the Doctor to aquire it, CONSIDERING YOU-KNOW-WHAT.
But, yes I agree, I prefer 10's Sonic.Well you're comparing chalk and cheese - both incarnations are completely different in the conditions under which they were produced. The original was a serialised programme concieved over 4 or 6 week stories on a crisp packet allowance whereas the new version is a season block of mainly stand-alone episodes, a huge budget (in comparison) and an American-inspired "story-arc" format.Apart from the odd episode, I think the new version has been largely bloody awful and not a patch on the original series (pre-JN-T, anyway).
I think Moffat has a better grasp of Doctor Who than Davies, though. So, I think (hope) his era's going to be more to my liking than the outgoing one.
Gotta say, VERY strongly disagree, but i thinks its just New DW is so very different to the original, i happen to prefer the style the new one utilises to the one of the original series.
It's about as meaningful as comparing 60s WHO to 90s...
American inspired? In my experience most television shows over here say " continuity" and consist of a bunch of standalone episodes that share little in common aside from the cast. Mind, I'm limited to the experiences of things I've seen in passing or what relatives watch, as I myself don't watch much TV anymore.
Edited by Sniperscope, 21 July 2009 - 06:12 PM.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 06:05 PM
I can't dismiss the series so easily as that but I do partly agree with what you're saying about the gloss and over-emoting. But I tend to find most modern tv shows are like that at the moment making them largely unwatchable. Sure I prefer the original series but it was a wholely different beast. New DW still has enough of the charm to get me in every year and it's looking like a fairly radical change with Moff and Smith! Mind you I was thinking the other day that New Who is becoming more than a bit too panto with the specials so far - maybe Waters of Mars will change that?I'd still say the new version is largely crap. Even on its own terms. All surface gloss and forced emotion.Well you're comparing chalk and cheese - both incarnations are completely different in the conditions under which they were produced. The original was a serialised programme concieved over 4 or 6 week stories on a crisp packet allowance whereas the new version is a season block of mainly stand-alone episodes, a huge budget (in comparison) and an American-inspired "story-arc" format.
It's about as meaningful as comparing 60s WHO to 90s...
Edited by Sniperscope, 21 July 2009 - 06:15 PM.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 06:18 PM
Come on Zorin talk with me not down at me.Of course it isn't "wrong for what is a family show".If that rumour is true it's more than a little dark - it's just totally wrong for what is a family show
Posted 21 July 2009 - 06:44 PM
Come on Zorin talk with me not down at me.Of course it isn't "wrong for what is a family show".If that rumour is true it's more than a little dark - it's just totally wrong for what is a family show
Posted 21 July 2009 - 06:48 PM
What I was meaning is that I agree it's perfectly appropriate to handle that issue in DW - that's what the show does and it's a common topic in drama for all ages - to the main character actually enacting it.Come on Zorin talk with me not down at me.Of course it isn't "wrong for what is a family show".If that rumour is true it's more than a little dark - it's just totally wrong for what is a family show
Well wouldn't it be in the handling of the scene? I know a lot of the Dr Who programmes now are dark, much darker then when I was a kid.
Kids can handle things like that nowadays. But if it's done tastefully, why not?
Posted 21 July 2009 - 06:52 PM
Apart from the odd episode, I think the new version has been largely bloody awful and not a patch on the original series (pre-JN-T, anyway).
Posted 21 July 2009 - 06:57 PM
Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:02 PM
The Old Who, is charmingly bad tbh. Don't get me wrong, I completely love it. I just don't see how it can be better than the revived series, which in my mind, is by far much better.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:10 PM
I guess in the end it's not all about production values but how you emotionally connect to something. On the whole I don't find the plots in new DW more compelling as narratives or conceptually but I do think they are more compelling as a visual experience. Acting is neither here nor there as a qualifier - every era of tv is a product of different acting styles and is often determined by the background of the actors or the limitations ofvthe mode of production. Old Who like all BBC drama was shot like a play. New who is more cinematic and unencumbered by outdated technology. For me the two shows are wonderful but different. If I weigh up my favourite doctors or episodes the old series wins hands down but that's just me.The Old Who, is charmingly bad tbh. Don't get me wrong, I completely love it. Pertwee, Hartnell and Troughton are my 2nd, 3rd and 4th favorite Doctors. I just don't see how it can be better than the revived series, which in my mind, is by far much better. The prodution values are much better, the storylines are far more compelling, and the acting is a major step up from the TV Acting in the old series.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:13 PM
Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:21 PM
The Old Who, is charmingly bad tbh. Don't get me wrong, I completely love it. I just don't see how it can be better than the revived series, which in my mind, is by far much better.
I do have to agree. Don't get me wrong, I have a collection of some classic Who eps on DVD and on iTunes (the classic Whos on iTunes aren't bad value, to be honest) and I love its charms. But - and this is my professional judgement kicking in, I have to admit - I find the new series superior in every department.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:25 PM
Captain Jack, Mickey, Pete, Wilf (who is the Christmas assistant - cue cries of rejoice that The Cribbins is back in the TARDIS after his 1960's cinematic outing!!)....?The Old Who, is charmingly bad tbh. Don't get me wrong, I completely love it. I just don't see how it can be better than the revived series, which in my mind, is by far much better.
I do have to agree. Don't get me wrong, I have a collection of some classic Who eps on DVD and on iTunes (the classic Whos on iTunes aren't bad value, to be honest) and I love its charms. But - and this is my professional judgement kicking in, I have to admit - I find the new series superior in every department.
I find the new series lacking in one chief department: Companions. They've pretty much all been female, and the men have never gone along for the whole ride. I recall my friends at one point joking the Doctor is secretly an intergalactic pimp. I don't really have a problem with female companions, I just wish not all of them would be women. And then on top of that, I found Agyeman and Piper's characters to be weaker than some of the past companions. Plus I'm slightly partial to the Brigadier
Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:27 PM
The Old Who, is charmingly bad tbh. Don't get me wrong, I completely love it. I just don't see how it can be better than the revived series, which in my mind, is by far much better.
I do have to agree. Don't get me wrong, I have a collection of some classic Who eps on DVD and on iTunes (the classic Whos on iTunes aren't bad value, to be honest) and I love its charms. But - and this is my professional judgement kicking in, I have to admit - I find the new series superior in every department.
I find the new series lacking in one chief department: Companions. They've pretty much all been female, and the men have never gone along for the whole ride. I recall my friends at one point joking the Doctor is secretly an intergalactic pimp. I don't really have a problem with female companions, I just wish not all of them would be women. And then on top of that, I found Agyeman and Piper's characters to be weaker than some of the past companions. Plus I'm slightly partial to the Brigadier
Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:30 PM
Captain Jack, Mickey, Pete, Wilf (who is the Christmas assistant - cue cries of rejoice that The Cribbins is back in the TARDIS after his 1960's cinematic outing!!)....?The Old Who, is charmingly bad tbh. Don't get me wrong, I completely love it. I just don't see how it can be better than the revived series, which in my mind, is by far much better.
I do have to agree. Don't get me wrong, I have a collection of some classic Who eps on DVD and on iTunes (the classic Whos on iTunes aren't bad value, to be honest) and I love its charms. But - and this is my professional judgement kicking in, I have to admit - I find the new series superior in every department.
I find the new series lacking in one chief department: Companions. They've pretty much all been female, and the men have never gone along for the whole ride. I recall my friends at one point joking the Doctor is secretly an intergalactic pimp. I don't really have a problem with female companions, I just wish not all of them would be women. And then on top of that, I found Agyeman and Piper's characters to be weaker than some of the past companions. Plus I'm slightly partial to the Brigadier
The BRIGADIER is coming back... in a SARAH JANE ADVENTURE next season. As is Tennent.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:32 PM
They were DAD'S ARMY, weren't they? On loan from Studio 2. It was a BBC department swap. DOCTOR WHO got the Home Guard as extras and Croft & Perry next door got Jon Pertwee and Liz Sladen as the first MRS SLOCOMBE and MISS BRAHMS? I've seen the framed photos on Level Three....Oh, I quite agree about the Brigadier. In fact, by far my favourite era of old Who was the Pertwee "family" of Liz, then Jo, Sergeant Benton, Captain Yates (hilariously, one of the most wooden actors to appear on TV in the 70s, but endearingly so) and Roger Delgardo's Master. Even the regular soldiers, who looked like extras in Dad's Army, were like old friends.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:37 PM
The Old Who, is charmingly bad tbh. Don't get me wrong, I completely love it. I just don't see how it can be better than the revived series, which in my mind, is by far much better.
I do have to agree. Don't get me wrong, I have a collection of some classic Who eps on DVD and on iTunes (the classic Whos on iTunes aren't bad value, to be honest) and I love its charms. But - and this is my professional judgement kicking in, I have to admit - I find the new series superior in every department.
I find the new series lacking in one chief department: Companions. They've pretty much all been female, and the men have never gone along for the whole ride. I recall my friends at one point joking the Doctor is secretly an intergalactic pimp. I don't really have a problem with female companions, I just wish not all of them would be women. And then on top of that, I found Agyeman and Piper's characters to be weaker than some of the past companions. Plus I'm slightly partial to the Brigadier
Oh, I quite agree about the Brigadier. In fact, by far my favourite era of old Who was the Pertwee "family" of Liz, then Jo, Sergeant Benton, Captain Yates (hilariously, one of the most wooden actors to appear on TV in the 70s, but endearingly so) and Roger Delgardo's Master. Even the regular soldiers, who looked like extras in Dad's Army, were like old friends.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:37 PM
Captain Jack, Mickey, Pete, Wilf (who is the Christmas assistant - cue cries of rejoice that The Cribbins is back in the TARDIS after his 1960's cinematic outing!!)....?The Old Who, is charmingly bad tbh. Don't get me wrong, I completely love it. I just don't see how it can be better than the revived series, which in my mind, is by far much better.
I do have to agree. Don't get me wrong, I have a collection of some classic Who eps on DVD and on iTunes (the classic Whos on iTunes aren't bad value, to be honest) and I love its charms. But - and this is my professional judgement kicking in, I have to admit - I find the new series superior in every department.
I find the new series lacking in one chief department: Companions. They've pretty much all been female, and the men have never gone along for the whole ride. I recall my friends at one point joking the Doctor is secretly an intergalactic pimp. I don't really have a problem with female companions, I just wish not all of them would be women. And then on top of that, I found Agyeman and Piper's characters to be weaker than some of the past companions. Plus I'm slightly partial to the Brigadier
The BRIGADIER is coming back... in a SARAH JANE ADVENTURE next season. As is Tennent.
Again, the men don't stick around long. Mickey was in a few eps here and there, Jack was in it for, what, a quarter of a season at best and then a small handful of episodes? Female companions seem to be in it for the whole, near the whole, of a season, or even multiple seasons, whereas the men only crop up occasionally. I fail to see why it can't be like the good old days, with a male and female companion for the whole, or near the whole.
And thanks for that news about the Sarah Jane Adventures.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:39 PM
Captain Jack, Mickey, Pete, Wilf (who is the Christmas assistant - cue cries of rejoice that The Cribbins is back in the TARDIS after his 1960's cinematic outing!!)....?The Old Who, is charmingly bad tbh. Don't get me wrong, I completely love it. I just don't see how it can be better than the revived series, which in my mind, is by far much better.
I do have to agree. Don't get me wrong, I have a collection of some classic Who eps on DVD and on iTunes (the classic Whos on iTunes aren't bad value, to be honest) and I love its charms. But - and this is my professional judgement kicking in, I have to admit - I find the new series superior in every department.
I find the new series lacking in one chief department: Companions. They've pretty much all been female, and the men have never gone along for the whole ride. I recall my friends at one point joking the Doctor is secretly an intergalactic pimp. I don't really have a problem with female companions, I just wish not all of them would be women. And then on top of that, I found Agyeman and Piper's characters to be weaker than some of the past companions. Plus I'm slightly partial to the Brigadier
The BRIGADIER is coming back... in a SARAH JANE ADVENTURE next season. As is Tennent.
Again, the men don't stick around long. Mickey was in a few eps here and there, Jack was in it for, what, a quarter of a season at best and then a small handful of episodes? Female companions seem to be in it for the whole, near the whole, of a season, or even multiple seasons, whereas the men only crop up occasionally. I fail to see why it can't be like the good old days, with a male and female companion for the whole, or near the whole.
And thanks for that news about the Sarah Jane Adventures.
In fairness, if you take out the Pertwee UNIT years, the male companions are much less prominent - Ian, Ben, Jamie, Harry, Adric, Turlough... - than the female screamers.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:47 PM
Captain Jack, Mickey, Pete, Wilf (who is the Christmas assistant - cue cries of rejoice that The Cribbins is back in the TARDIS after his 1960's cinematic outing!!)....?The Old Who, is charmingly bad tbh. Don't get me wrong, I completely love it. I just don't see how it can be better than the revived series, which in my mind, is by far much better.
I do have to agree. Don't get me wrong, I have a collection of some classic Who eps on DVD and on iTunes (the classic Whos on iTunes aren't bad value, to be honest) and I love its charms. But - and this is my professional judgement kicking in, I have to admit - I find the new series superior in every department.
I find the new series lacking in one chief department: Companions. They've pretty much all been female, and the men have never gone along for the whole ride. I recall my friends at one point joking the Doctor is secretly an intergalactic pimp. I don't really have a problem with female companions, I just wish not all of them would be women. And then on top of that, I found Agyeman and Piper's characters to be weaker than some of the past companions. Plus I'm slightly partial to the Brigadier
The BRIGADIER is coming back... in a SARAH JANE ADVENTURE next season. As is Tennent.
Again, the men don't stick around long. Mickey was in a few eps here and there, Jack was in it for, what, a quarter of a season at best and then a small handful of episodes? Female companions seem to be in it for the whole, near the whole, of a season, or even multiple seasons, whereas the men only crop up occasionally. I fail to see why it can't be like the good old days, with a male and female companion for the whole, or near the whole.
And thanks for that news about the Sarah Jane Adventures.
In fairness, if you take out the Pertwee UNIT years, the male companions are much less prominent - Ian, Ben, Jamie, Harry, Adric, Turlough... - than the female screamers.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:57 PM
Hard to believe that it's only been four years since he left the series, but he's the Doctor that sticks in my memory; he was my first.The endearing thing for me is that already Eccleston's series is looking a bit creaky. As perhaps it should.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 08:03 PM
Edited by Sniperscope, 21 July 2009 - 08:12 PM.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 08:09 PM
Hard to believe that it's only been four years since he left the series, but he's the Doctor that sticks in my memory; he was my first.The endearing thing for me is that already Eccleston's series is looking a bit creaky. As perhaps it should.
Posted 21 July 2009 - 08:17 PM
The thing that got me was him feeling sorry for that poor pig-creature in the Slitheen episode; I don't know why, but it struck quite a chord with me, maybe because I'm such an animal lover.He was my first and I hardly remember him. But aye, hard to believe it was only four years ago. Seems like Tennant's been in the role a lot longer.Hard to believe that it's only been four years since he left the series, but he's the Doctor that sticks in my memory; he was my first.The endearing thing for me is that already Eccleston's series is looking a bit creaky. As perhaps it should.
Posted 22 July 2009 - 03:51 AM
I want to see Cornish smugglers in DOCTOR WHO - don't ask me why!!?