Somehow I have a hard time believing that you're going to make it though all ten parts of The War Games.
Forget about Moffat and Chibby. Who's ready to wait 12 - 20+ months for a new series of Doctor who?
- Thread starter Newspaper Taxi
- Start date
Somehow I have a hard time believing that you're going to make it though all ten parts of The War Games.
Its part of the E-Space Trilogy, and stars Red Pimp Suit JNT Tom Baker. I don't think even an unaltered Robert Holmes script from 1975-77 could make me watch a story under those circumstances, unless (like I said above), I had already watched all the stories from Doctors 1-3 and 5 that I haven't seen yet.
I love the 2nd Doctor, and I'm fine with longer stories if they're good. Unless The War Games is filmed on location in Paris, I'm sure I'll enjoy it. It was made long before JNT anyone like him got put in charge. There is no guarentee I'll like it, of course, but I'm already predisposed to liking it just based off the Doctor, the era, and the fact that the little I know about it seems awesome.
Just out of interest how much of City of Death did you watch? The first episode, it's true, is somewhat travelogue'y but it does get so much better. You have to be a trifle forgiving, if you're going to go to the trouble of filming in another country it's kind of silly not to show what you film. Arc of Infinity and The Two Doctors suffer from the same problem only they're both rubbish compared to CoD.
Keeper of Traken and Logopolis were always favourites of mine. Didn't like Peter Davison's debut Castrovalva though. :/ I wouldn't recommend the E-Space trilogy, from what I remember those sucked. Meglos, from memory isn't actually that bad, somewhere in the middle.
Well, I really enjoy The Two Doctors, and didn't notice the location filming ever hurting that story. Patrick Troughton and Colin Baker certainly didn't spend 15+ minutes wandering around wherever they were and acting like they were on vacation instead of being on Doctor Who. As for City of Death, I've tried to suppress the horrible memories, but I think I watched all of (or at least most) of the first episode. I hated every single second of it, from the Travel show footage that took up 60% of the episode, to Romana acting like a moron (because super intelligent fish out of water is entertaining and just great writing, and is in no way horrible, intelligence insulting filler to go along with all the walking around Paris filler) to the fact that the plot was almost non existent.
I think there were people with technology they shouldn't have had in a hotel room, and they may have wanted to steal the Mona Lisa. I say I think because the episode sure didn't want to give a plot, so I might have had to look that up on wikipeidia. Basically, it ended up being so padded there was about 3 minutes of story in the 25 minute episode, and the story it did have was terrible. Not the worst Doctor Who story overall by a long shot, but the second worst Tom Baker serial, after The Androids of Tara. But, Tara, for as terrible as it is, I still managed to get through it because it was actually a story, not vacation footage. It had a story, just a terrible one.
You must have missed the bit where Brains from Thrunderbirds and Supreme Commander Servalan take a coach ride around Seville because, well because they can I guess...
There is a lot of location footage in THE FIRST EPISODE but it really is a fantastic serial overall
There is a lot of location footage in THE FIRST EPISODE but it really is a fantastic serial overall
You must have missed the bit where Brains from Thrunderbirds and Supreme Commander Servalan take a coach ride around Seville because, well because they can I guess...
There is a lot of location footage in THE FIRST EPISODE but it really is a fantastic serial overall
Well, I don't remember the coach, but I'm sure it took less time then Tom Baker's vacation adventure. Also, "because they can" is still a better reason than "so the producer, writer and/or actor can get the BBC to pay for their vacation". Plus, I can guarantee that The Two Doctors had more plot in the first 25 minutes of the first episode then City of Death had in its first episode. Even if they had a lame scene or two, in the end there was a story and it never felt like the whole story was an excuse for a vacation. It also happened to have a good story, and was an overall fun adventure with my two of my favorite Doctors. City of Death was a horrible excuse for a BBC Travel Show that obviously only got made because they wanted to visit Paris on the BBC's expense, so they didn't even bother to have the writer put a real plot in the story. Its all one big excuse to visit Paris, as opposed to The Two Doctors which was made to showcase, well, two Doctors, and not to give the cast a working vacation.
David Graham isn't in "The Two Doctors." You must be thinking of "City of Death," in which he played Professor Kerensky. He was also Charlie the bartender in "The Gunfighters" and, of course, one of the original Dalek voices.
Do we have any choice in the matter?
This past season wore me out on DW, I welcome the break.
Sorry poor joke reflecting Dastani's(sp?) Glasses rather than me thinking it was the man who voiced Brains
Hmm, plot you say? Why did they need to go to Seville to showcase 2 Doctors? Sure a multi doctor story doesn't need additional spectacle? Remember as well they originally wanted to go to New Orleans!!
I'm fine with location shooting, and spectacle, even if a story doesn't need it. Seeing parts of (at the time) present day Earth that wasn't England was very, very rare, and a nice change. The point is that City of Death seems to only exist to have location shooting in Paris, and the plot (what there was) was a low priority afterthought. The whole serial was all about "Oh, look, we got the BBC to send us to Paris for no reason". The Two Doctors is an actual story, that just happened to have been filmed on location. Was the location filming needed? No, but its obvious that the location shooting wasn't the major part of The Two Doctors, the story and the meeting of the Doctors was the focus. They obviously planned the location shooting, but they still wrote an actual story, and the serial has less location filler in 90 minutes then City of death had in 25. Basically, the Two Doctors used its location as a setting, City of Death used it as the only draw for the story.
Sigh, can't really argue about plot when you haven't seen the full story, suffice to say there are strong plot related reasons why it's set in Paris. I'll leave you alone with your preconceptions now, just a shame you've missed out on a fun story (sure as hell more fun than the 2 doctors)
It's all opinion. Colin Baker is my favorite Doctor, and Patrick Troughton is a close second. They could spend 90 minutes reading the hpone book together and it would probably be in my top 10 Doctor Who stories. I personally thought that The Two Doctors was great, and loads of fun. Definitely a top tier story just for how great the Doctors are in it, they elevate it from pretty good to great. I'd be hard pressed to find a Tom Baker story I like as much as it, and I'm talking about the good Tom Baker stories. Probably The Talons of Weng-Chiang, and possibly Genesis of the Daleks, but that's about it.
I absolutely LOVE City of Death!You must have missed the bit where Brains from Thrunderbirds and Supreme Commander Servalan take a coach ride around Seville because, well because they can I guess...
There is a lot of location footage in THE FIRST EPISODE but it really is a fantastic serial overall
Mr Awe
Well, I've said this before, but my idea was to follow the pattern that they had for the 50th anniversary year and show a different classic Doctor adventure once a month. I would enjoy that and I don't think I would miss the fact it wasn't any new ones. And the new Christmas special could be twelve's monthly installment.
I still wish they'd bring in another production team to do a "Lost Adventures" season about the Eighth Doctor. Or at least a miniseries about him.
It's a nice idea, Christopher, but Moffat has explained why he thought such a thing wasn't feasible -- there would be the risk that the past Doctor would be more popular with audiences than the incumbent Doctor.
Frankly, I think that's nonsense. Multiple Star Trek and Stargate series ran simultaneously.
Frankly, I think that's nonsense. Multiple Star Trek and Stargate series ran simultaneously.
Similar threads
