• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Doctor Who due a major shake-up as bosses aim for 'brand new show' in 2018

While I thought the character sucked, I think the actor could have played a good Danny Pink if the character had actually been written well, and hadn't been so anti-Doctor. It didn't help that Clara was also written so badly once Danny was introduced. While I consider Danny Pink and Clara two of my most hated (recurring) characters in all of Doctor Who, I don't blame the actors. I blame Moffat and the writers of Series 8.
 
Trying to recreate something like the tenant period is a big risk,didnt they try something like that with voyager and ent trying to create a other kirk-spock- bones formula?.
 
Trying to recreate something like the tenant period is a big risk,didnt they try something like that with voyager and ent trying to create a other kirk-spock- bones formula?.

Well, Doctor Who will probably have better writers then ENT or VOY (generally) had, and it probably won't be putting any female cast members into catsuits just to draw in teenage male viewers (although DW has also been guilty of that a long time ago), so its a few steps ahead of those shows right from the start. I mean, I don't think they'll really try to copy Tennant's run, but even if they did they'd almost certainly end up making a better show then ENT or VOY.
 
The Kirk-Spock-Bones formula was more due to the chemistry and friendship between the actors.

That's virtually impossible to recreate when you're slapping together a cast like they do now.

Better writing and direction is what DW needs.
 
The Kirk-Spock-Bones formula was more due to the chemistry and friendship between the actors.

That's virtually impossible to recreate when you're slapping together a cast like they do now.

Why in the world would you imagine that casting directors today put less effort into their work than casting directors 50 years ago? Given how many fantastic ensemble casts there are in TV today, I can't imagine why you'd think that.
 
Why in the world would you imagine that casting directors today put less effort into their work than casting directors 50 years ago? Given how many fantastic ensemble casts there are in TV today, I can't imagine why you'd think that.

No, not less effort, just less likelihood of those people being friends or sharing the same chemistry as the three in question.

The chemistry part is pretty much a happy accident. It's certainly not something that can be forced, or even expected. Shows are put together for maximum ratings (they hope) and they get who they think is good for a role.
 
No, not less effort, just less likelihood of those people being friends or sharing the same chemistry as the three in question.

The chemistry part is pretty much a happy accident. It's certainly not something that can be forced, or even expected. Shows are put together for maximum ratings (they hope) and they get who they think is good for a role.

That is not true at all. Chemistry between actors is one of the primary things that casting directors look for. It's not an accident at all -- there's a well-defined procedure to it. Actors under consideration for an ensemble cast are given "chemistry reads," tested alongside each other to see which combinations have the best spark between them. That's just as much a basic part of the casting process today as it was half a century ago. There are auditions, readings, screen tests, a whole lengthy process designed to take chance out of the equation as much as possible.

Besides, real-life friendship has little to do with it. This is a job. It's a skill that's developed over years of training, and while it's meant to look as close to reality as it can, it's not the same thing. People who are good friends in real life may not have any onscreen rapport, and people who can't stand each other in real life can have fantastic onscreen chemistry.

And even if it did matter, again, why would anything be different today? Why would today's actors be less likely to just happen to be good friends? It's not like Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley were friends before TOS. They'd barely met. Shatner and Nimoy had worked together once on The Man from UNCLE, and they'd had only one scene together in that episode. And remember, all three of them were cast separately -- first Nimoy, then Shatner, then Kelley, even though Roddenberry had been trying to get Kelley onboard since the first pilot. So they weren't cast specifically with their mutual chemistry in mind -- that was a lucky accident in that case. But with today's ensemble casts, testing specifically for chemistry between actors is a routine part of the casting process. So if anything, you have it backward.

Also, shows have always been put together for maximum ratings. Why in the world would you think it was ever any different? That's how commercial broadcasting has always worked as far back the days of radio.
 
With counter-globalism on the rise, anybody think we're going to lose having Doctor Who airing simultaneously as the BBC in America?
 
With counter-globalism on the rise, anybody think we're going to lose having Doctor Who airing simultaneously as the BBC in America?

Doesn't BBC America help fund Doctor Who's production? As long as that's the case, I'd expect them to be able to continue simultaneous releases.
 
That is not true at all. Chemistry between actors is one of the primary things that casting directors look for. It's not an accident at all -- there's a well-defined procedure to it. Actors under consideration for an ensemble cast are given "chemistry reads," tested alongside each other to see which combinations have the best spark between them. That's just as much a basic part of the casting process today as it was half a century ago. There are auditions, readings, screen tests, a whole lengthy process designed to take chance out of the equation as much as possible.

Besides, real-life friendship has little to do with it. This is a job. It's a skill that's developed over years of training, and while it's meant to look as close to reality as it can, it's not the same thing. People who are good friends in real life may not have any onscreen rapport, and people who can't stand each other in real life can have fantastic onscreen chemistry.

And even if it did matter, again, why would anything be different today? Why would today's actors be less likely to just happen to be good friends? It's not like Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley were friends before TOS. They'd barely met. Shatner and Nimoy had worked together once on The Man from UNCLE, and they'd had only one scene together in that episode. And remember, all three of them were cast separately -- first Nimoy, then Shatner, then Kelley, even though Roddenberry had been trying to get Kelley onboard since the first pilot. So they weren't cast specifically with their mutual chemistry in mind -- that was a lucky accident in that case. But with today's ensemble casts, testing specifically for chemistry between actors is a routine part of the casting process. So if anything, you have it backward.

Also, shows have always been put together for maximum ratings. Why in the world would you think it was ever any different? That's how commercial broadcasting has always worked as far back the days of radio.


Not to mention all the times that real-life romantic couples have been cast together in films and failed to demonstrate even the slightest hint of onscreen chemistry.
 
Apart from the soldier angle, I largely saw Danny Pink as a bit too similar to Mickey (Although Mickey and Rose were already a couple)-the Doctor being unapproving of Danny is similar in a few ways, even with the name-calling ("Rickey" "P.E" etc.). Maybe a bit of jealousy from his past incarnation too (They seemed to be developing more feelings for each other in "Time of the Doctor"-something that the Twelfth aknowledges) In both cases they gained more mutual respect (Although in the Mickeys/ Doctor's case it might've been in part due to his shift in personality from the regeneration). With Amy and Rory, we had pretty much the complete opposite-the Doctor was pretty much their marriage counselor, and pretty much approved of Rory from day one-it was Rory who had trouble coming around to that...
 
Enterprise definitely tried to do that. Exactly on the nose too, with their triad consisting of the Captain, the Vulcan, and the Southerner.
One of my favorite things about Enterprise...except that the Captain was the least entertaining of the three.
 
Well, after a whole year off, Doctor Who managed only a measly 5.68 million share in the UK ratings with its Christmas special, just barely edging out ITV's Emmerdale in its time slot. Coronation Street beat it in the ratings, albeit not by much.

For BBC execs, it must be starting to look like 1986 all over again... :brickwall:
 
For BBC execs, it must be starting to look like 1986 all over again...
Hardly. In Britain, anything that gets five million viewers is considered a smash hit. Granted, this is low compared to other Doctor Who Christmas specials, but it is significantly higher than the typical season nine episode got (several of which actually did dip below five million).

Besides, if BBC has a problem with the numbers, it's their own fault for keeping a burnt out and disinterested showrunner in charge.
 
You have to remember that Moffat was supposed to leave after Husbands, and this year's Christmas special wasn't even meant to exist.
But the BBC insisted that he stay through 2017, so here we are.
It's sad to see that Capaldi gets some of the blame as well, because I love his Doctor and the way he's written. He's able to portray the character without going from one extreme to the other, like Tennant with his OTT dramatics or Smith with his childish ways.
 
Whilst the Christmas special was nowhere near as bad as I'd expected, it looked cheap and amateurish.

Capaldi is fantastic, and I stand by Moffat's tenure as being devoid of the real dreck that was the worst that RTD foisted on us, but...Who's past it's sell by date.

It's time for cancellation or a wholesale rethink...
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top