|
Plavski posted:Poor ratings killed Who before, it can do it again. Well, ratings at that time were very different from ratings now because if you didn't watch it when it broadcast you probably didn't watch it unless you went to the mild hassle of programming a VCR and having a tape (a thing some people found difficult, and could rapidly get expensive anyway). Now there's online streaming, buying it the next day on iTunes or similar, DVRs which are the same as the VCR but do a much better job, and DVD/blueray box sets when the season's over. It's a different consumer market is what I'm saying. e: I mean ratings will correlate with all these things, and executives cancel based on what the gently caress ever they think is meaningful, but yeah. Market's got a lot of complicating variables now.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
Why did it get cancelled?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Why did it get cancelled? it was too popular
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
I've heard rumours that they don't want to cancel it, but instead put it on an extended break when Moffat leaves, which is why we've heard no rumours of his successor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Attitude Indicator posted:it was too popular I take it this means it was not doing well on tv. Doctor Who seems so popular in the UK that it's hard to imagine a time where it wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:I take it this means it was not doing well on tv. Doctor Who seems so popular in the UK that it's hard to imagine a time where it wasn't. it had been running for close to 30 years. poo poo gets stale and people lost interest. it was probably good that there was a break, so it could come back fresh and exciting later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Poor ratings killed Who before, it can do it again. There's no way in hell it'll get cancelled again due to ratings. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:I've heard rumours that they don't want to cancel it, but instead put it on an extended break when Moffat leaves, which is why we've heard no rumours of his successor. I also believe any old bullshit I hear
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Moffat's successor will be Rob Shearman. There's a rumour I can get behind!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Moffat's successor will be Rob Shearman. There's a rumour I can get behind! Careful- just because someone makes good episodes doesn't mean he'll be a good showrunner. Remember who wrote Blink and The Doctor Dances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Wasn't Mark Gatiss being talked about as the replacement?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
^^ Mark's so busy with everything else. The guy loves the theatre too much to step away and run a show like Doctor Who for five years. Though I wouldn't put it past him to burn himself out. He's a bit of a workaholic.Jurgan posted:Careful- just because someone makes good episodes doesn't mean he'll be a good showrunner. Remember who wrote Blink and The Doctor Dances. Well then you want a showrunner who doesn't write and go back to script editors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Paul Cornell?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Moffat's successor will be Rob Shearman. There's a rumour I can get behind! Rob Shearman doesn't do TV. Moffat's had trouble getting Doctor Who through production as it is and he made like 5 very successful shows beforehand - Rob's written maybe six episodes of TV in his life. I say this as the biggest Shearman nerd on this forum - Rob does his best work on Who when he's dancing along the edges, twisting iconography and engaging in his brilliant weirdness. He can't be the one writing regeneration stories and straightforward midseason romps, his talents and creative genius simply don't lie in that direction. His influence on Doctor Who persists and grows even though he hasn't done a Who story since 2007 - Into the Dalek played with themes from Jubilee that Dalek didn't, for instance. It's enough to give me hope that we might be entering a real “post-Shearman” era of Doctor Who writing. It seems to be about that time, around 10 years after he “made his mark” on Doctor Who. If a near-future episode engages with the themes of history or tradition in the way that Jubilee and The Holy Terror did, respectively, I think it could be said with confidence that Rob's Doctor Who work has reached sufficient saturation in the creative consciousness of Who writers to begin influencing future Who in the same way that David Whitaker or Robert Holmes has done. Which would be pretty much the best thing ever,
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
RTD recently revealed that the BBC were seriously considering cancelling the show when he and Tennant announced their leaving, and he had to talk them into doing otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
I find the constant Who-fan preoccupation with imminent cancellation odd. I guess it's the scar left by 1989 in the collective consciousness - Doctor Who has died before! The sky could fall in at any moment! - but this isn't the late-JNT era in terms of production, it's not the 80s (in terms of how fandoms and television behave), and for all his faults Moffat isn't Eric Saward. I think we're gonna be okay for a while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
And then in a surprise twist, the new showrunner turns out to be J.J. Abrams.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
We ever getting that Peter Jackson directed (or written, whatever, I don't remember) episode during Capaldis run or are we still waiting to find out when that's going to be?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:We ever getting that Peter Jackson directed (or written, whatever, I don't remember) episode during Capaldis run or are we still waiting to find out when that's going to be? I don't think that's ever gone beyond Jackson and Moff saying it'd be cool to happen. There's never been any definitive plans for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:I find the constant Who-fan preoccupation with imminent cancellation odd. I guess it's the scar left by 1989 in the collective consciousness - Doctor Who has died before! The sky could fall in at any moment! - but this isn't the late-JNT era in terms of production, it's not the 80s (in terms of how fandoms and television behave), and for all his faults Moffat isn't Eric Saward. And yet you just heard that the BBC was prepared to kill the golden goose because a Doctor and a showrunner were just hanging up the hat. What kind of confidence does that brew? TV is hard for everyone, no matter how successful. TV execs are the least sentimental about cultural value and absolutely adore good numbers and cheap budgets. If it gets "too hard" for any reason at all, they'll kill the goose in the sincere belief that it's best for the goose and little Pamela will get over it eventually and buy whatever new goose TV execs decide is appropriate for her, as long as its a cheap goose that everyone loves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Speaking of which, I like how Capaldi just drops Clara off at the end of each episode. It means decades of eventual Big Finish stories with a million different companions, each more fantastic than the last! I'm reminded that just before Tennant left, he was prone to saying that he was ~900 years old. And now we have Capaldi saying he's over two thousand. The Doctor REALLY got some milage out of 11, there's lifetimes of future stories just waiting there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:We ever getting that Peter Jackson directed (or written, whatever, I don't remember) episode during Capaldis run or are we still waiting to find out when that's going to be? he's probably been too busy with all that Hobbit junk, buuuut he'll also be finished with that at the end of the year (unless he'll be supervising the inevitable deluge of home video re-releases)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Shugojin posted:Anyone who thought Matt Smith is hot is a weirdo. I mean I love him. But he's loving weird looking. Seriously, I remember somebody calling him a "heartthrob pretty boy" and being so confused because he's a (delightfully) weird looking dude. Kurtofan posted:Why did it get cancelled? The guy running the BBC at the time - Michael Grade - was embarrassed by the show and wanted to get rid of it. The showrunner - John Nathan Turner - was a huge fan of the show but was tired of running it and wanted to move on, but the BBC made it clear that if he went the show would get canceled so he just kind of stuck around unenthusiastically manning the wheel. There was background tension going on between super-fan Ian Levine and Script Editor Eric Saward. Robert Holmes, the best writer the show ever had (and a former showrunner himself) died. The show was given a one year hiatus for "retooling" during which no feedback or acknowledgement was given AT ALL by the BBC over what changes they wanted made. Colin Baker was unceremoniously dumped out of the role. Sylvester McCoy's first year was terrible as the show tried to take a more light-hearted comedy approach seemingly in line with the campy view the BBC had of it. There was a kind of cringing resignation amongst a lot of fans that the show was embarrassing to watch and only trainspotter super-nerd types liked it anymore. Things got a little darker and more interesting in the last couple of years but by that point the writing was on the wall and I doubt anything could have saved it. Even then, the show was never actually cancelled, it just.... never came back. The final episode was filmed, they got word that there was no funding put aside for another season, JNT realized what was happening and quickly got McCoy in to do a pretty neat voiceover to end the show on, and then that was that, they just stopped making any more until the 96 TV movie and then the 2005 revival.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
I have never watched the classic episodes and I know how each Doctor is slightly different from the others. So could you sum up each Doctor in a few words in whichever way you believe would best describe their personality?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Spikeguy posted:I have never watched the classic episodes and I know how each Doctor is slightly different from the others. So could you sum up each Doctor in a few words in whichever way you believe would best describe their personality? First Doctor: Grumpy, mildly angry yet ultimately loving grandfather. Second Doctor: Cosmic hobo, eccentric father/big brother figure. A clown. Third Doctor: James Bond with Science and gadgets, venusian judo. A Dandy. Tom Baker: Tom Baker. Fifth Doctor: Put upon optimist, overworked dad in over his head. Sixth Doctor: Angry, arrogant, terrific fashion sense. Carrot cake. Seventh Doctor: Master planner, wheels within wheels. Eighth Doctor: Romantic, war weary, optimist. War Doctor: Weary, tired, defiant. Ninth Doctor: PTSD, furious, death seeking-hopeful. Tenth Doctor: Half hearted, regretful, self defeating, lucky. Eleventh Doctor: Forgetful, makes poo poo up on the fly, hopes for the best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Spikeguy posted:I have never watched the classic episodes and I know how each Doctor is slightly different from the others. So could you sum up each Doctor in a few words in whichever way you believe would best describe their personality? Hartnell/1: Grumpy, cynical grandfather. Troughton/2: Deceptively foolish Pertwee/3: James bond in a cape T. Baker/4:  Davison/5: Reserved and subtle C. Baker/6: Brash and pompous McCoy/7: Appropriately, sly. And devious. McGann/8: Romantic, kind of wistful? He's hard to describe. That's my take on them, anyways. thexerox123 fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Rob Shearman doesn't do TV. Moffat's had trouble getting Doctor Who through production as it is and he made like 5 very successful shows beforehand - Rob's written maybe six episodes of TV in his life. I wish I could see more Shearman in recent Who. But when I hear his work, the thing that stands out the most is his characterization and commentary on the human condition, neither of which fit the rapid-fire pace of the current series or its intense focus on defining the title character. Much as we all love the line (which feels more like an RTD-ism than Shearman), it doesn't mean anything to point out that the Doctor is similar to Daleks. And it's easy to argue against the concept since he's a fictional character whose existence is defined by the media we're currently experiencing - in no iteration of the Doctor can you see the Daleks' central idiom: not their destructive tendancies, but their xenophobia. The whole series is about the Doctor going places and meeting new beings. No, what makes Jubilee so special is that it reminds us those are tendencies we see in ourselves, by taking the culture of the (relatively) recent past and letting it stay dominant for a century. Occupation, subjugation, genocide... that's what we do. And even Daleks don't torture for pleasure. It's a tough line to walk, but drawing the characterization from our recent past keeps the story from falling into the exaggerated meanies you see in a lot of "humans are the real monsters" stories. Toclafane, anyone? The other thing that makes Shearman stand out, and the reason he'd never work as showrunner, is his need to gently caress with the Doctor Who format. Obviously I don't need to say anything about Scherzo, but even things like his choice of companion in Holy Terror or the fake opening of Jubilee leading into the story's total rearrangement of the Doctor Who story structure... it's easy to see why he's only done a few, it must be extremely draining. We haven't seen a lot of that kind of shakeup, though. Remember the all the grumbling about how "Moffat" Deep Breath was? Things have gotten very formulaic, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:Hartnell/1: Grumpy, cynical grandfather. Only in the first couple stories. By season 2, he's a staunch anti-authoritarian who deals with problems by causing chaos and mischief. So basically a geriatric, moralistic Bart Simpson.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Scherzo is a story where a girl's only caretaker repeatedly yells and belittles her while she's scared and alone, then forces her into joining with him and tells her to kill the child that is the result of that joining. It is the absolute worst thing in Who I've experienced and it terrifies me that anyone praises it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
After The War posted:Only in the first couple stories. By season 2, he's a staunch anti-authoritarian who deals with problems by causing chaos and mischief. So basically a geriatric, moralistic Bart Simpson. Yeah, after he gets over the initial hump with Ian and Barbara, he becomes a mischievous and endearing fun Grandpa. He's too old to put up with any nonsense and speaks his mind because gently caress you, he's an old man and he'll say what he wants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Yeah, after he gets over the initial hump with Ian and Barbara, he becomes a mischievous and endearing fun Grandpa. He's too old to put up with any nonsense and speaks his mind because gently caress you, he's an old man and he'll say what he wants. "...up there is the scanner scope, over there is a chair with a panda on it, sheer poetry!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
It helps that people tend to forget that Hartnell wasn't as old and frail as he played the character to be (he was only 55 when he started, after all), so he would sort of use that to his advantage and occasionally be way more spry than he looked like he was capable of being (like when he gets in the fight with that dude in The Romans). I've been doing a classic series watch, about halfway through The Dalek Master Plan so far, and the interrogation scene in The Space Museum has been my favorite Hartnell moment so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
After The War posted:Only in the first couple stories. By season 2, he's a staunch anti-authoritarian who deals with problems by causing chaos and mischief. So basically a geriatric, moralistic Bart Simpson. Hartnell's definitely the one that I've watched the least of, so I'm not surprised I was a bit off on that one. Haha. I should probably fix that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:Hartnell's definitely the one that I've watched the least of, so I'm not surprised I was a bit off on that one. Haha. Definitely watch The Romans if you haven't, it's sheer farce and Hartnell has a blast. Especially when they call his bluff about being a famous musician 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Potsticker posted:Scherzo is a story where a girl's only caretaker repeatedly yells and belittles her while she's scared and alone, then forces her into joining with him and tells her to kill the child that is the result of that joining. It is the absolute worst thing in Who I've experienced and it terrifies me that anyone praises it. Bad things in a story does not equate to a bad story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Theglavwen posted:Bad things in a story does not equate to a bad story. Exactly, there are some questionable choices at the end of Love and Monsters, but that doesn't stop it from being one of the better episodes of the revival.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Theglavwen posted:Bad things in a story does not equate to a bad story. That's true, but I don't think that this is how the Doctor, the hero, should behave. His actions, especially his treatment of Charlie in the beginning are not ever condemned in any way. Quite the opposite, as he's the one that comes out ahead in the end, saves the day and all that rubbish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Potsticker posted:That's true, but I don't think that this is how the Doctor, the hero, should behave. His actions, especially his treatment of Charlie in the beginning are not ever condemned in any way. Quite the opposite, as he's the one that comes out ahead in the end, saves the day and all that rubbish. Did you listen to Neverland/Zagreus before getting to Scherzo?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Potsticker posted:That's true, but I don't think that this is how the Doctor, the hero, should behave. His actions, especially his treatment of Charlie in the beginning are not ever condemned in any way. Quite the opposite, as he's the one that comes out ahead in the end, saves the day and all that rubbish. It's really THEY who come out ahead in the end, as the gestalt being they've become. Separately, it's the Doctor who feels himself being drawn to push things even further and become akin to a God (and we get a glimpse of what that would have been like at the end of the Divergent Arc) and it is Charley who "humanizes" him and grounds him in the way that the best companions always have. But by that point in the story, they're two halves of the same whole, and Charley is every bit as involved in the victory over their "child" as the Doctor is. Both would have been devoured/absorbed/overcome separately, the triumph/"saving the day" can't be looked at as solely the Doctor's. As to why he treats her the way he does at the beginning of the story, it is condemned by Charley, and explained away (though not explicitly, and it doesn't excuse his rough treatment of her) by his revelation of how deeply the lack of time is affecting his sense of self.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
Probably been asked a million times but could I get a short list of some of the better classic eps? Preferably 5th doctor on (and three) as I've seen some Hartnell, 2 and Baker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 00:07
|
|
