Colour Version of "The Daleks" coming 23rd November

[Haggis and tatties]

IMHO, that's part of the fun of 4k. The increased color palette, clarity, and sharpness, especially on a smaller screen (< 60") also makes it easier to perceive all of the optical and other effects used, unless additional post-production is used. It adds a tangentially new way to see the stories.

Besides, the pink shower curtains draping the corridors never looked like anything else - regardless of resolution.

Bingo!, that is what Who was all about, cheap theartre with good stories and acting, without having to leave your home.

Now i am off to roll up some tin foil and stick it into a glass tub, and my fluid link will be complete.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

The original doesn’t get taken away. Still there for all to enjoy.

The Daleks is a fine example of Terry Nation padding a story out. The Cushing movie proves the story can be cut down whilst losing nothing.

Very interested to see colourised Hartnell.

 

[Qonundrum]

The original doesn’t get taken away. Still there for all to enjoy.

The Daleks is a fine example of Terry Nation padding a story out. The Cushing movie proves the story can be cut down whilst losing nothing.

Very interested to see colourised Hartnell.

Yup. The original material exists and is still accessible. Alternate editions are harmless and can be fun in numerous ways.

And both were script-edited by David Whitaker, who knew his target audiences well. There are some terrific bonus features in "The Daleks" and even "The Keys of Marinus" that go more into Terry Nation's style.

That said, the TV original doesn't feel as clunky as the movie, and it's more interesting that the movie is about 8 minutes longer than the condensed omnibus of the original being colorized.

 

[Qonundrum]

I love Mark Ayres' work but colorization and heavy-handed recuts both turn me off. And yet...I'll still probably watch this out of morbid curiosity.

And I own the Cushing movies but haven't got around to watching them yet. I need to do that.

I'm not always keen on what some will undoubtedly call "bastardizations" either. It's not going to stop me from watching and seeing what works and looks and sounds better. After all, maybe it will be better. Right now, we're all just speculating in anticipation. It's fun to do, nothing more.

Do watch them. They're often fun, sometimes not, and you'll see a lot of similarities to lot more of the modern than you'd otherwise think.

The originals do exist. This isn't Star Wars where they replaced the originals outright. And unlike Star Wars, Doctor Who's first thirteen episodes had a bit more narrative drama and depth going on spread out among those 312-combined minutes.

Will this edit make the Doctor less of the antagonist? (First episode at least.)

I wouldn't be surprised if they'll try to cushion Cushing him up a bit, the 1965 flick easily serves as a template, and there's a lot in the tv original's part one and a couple other bits in part five that remind of this, but I also like how the original had a nice flowing character arc of the Doctor, which pays off beautifully by the end of "The Edge of Destruction" as all the details aren't dumped on the viewer in the first five minutes of the story. As the original run/arc focused on the humans as the focal point as well as being interesting and having some depth, making it easier for the Doctor to be antihero if not villain. Indeed, at best he'd be "amoral" until part seven of "The Daleks" when he spits out his disgust of the Daleks' "senseless, evil killing". I'm pretty sure that line will stay.

The original The Daleks was just too long. Dragged. That alone prevents me from rewatching it much. Hopefully, the new edit gives it a bit more zip. And I'm not bothered by colorization. I'm sure I'll check it out.

And it'll be nice to have a version of the first Dalek's story that will be (presumably) at least somewhat more palatable to modern audiences. Young folk (i.e., not me) now have a version of the story they might watch.

I just fast forward through those sloggy bits. It's not necessarily clunky, but it definitely is slow at times - though it's clunky for me to have to hit the button, but most shows and movies have their flows and ebbs and, if nothing else, it makes going to the bathroom easier, since remote controls didn't exist in 1963 as well. Gotta wonder how them kids coped... But it's still both awesome and funny how the parts that dragged the longest had the highest ratings. Says something or two about the audiences back then.

Not sure how "modern" can always be used as a crutch, though, as today's youth and young adults can still see these and even appreciate them - even in youtube channel videos, odd but true - despite not being overtly shiny and blaring in muzak as crutches. That says something about the strength of the original production, despite the issues that had them padding out episodes because of budget allocation and other issues as well.

And, yep, even young me back in the day recognized the theater aspects from dialogue such as in part one where they clearly were padding with the exchange about going to the city. Didn't stop my sense of curiosity over what was to follow, it was a strange new world and the atmosphere that flowed through the tv screen (metaphorically speaking) made up for it.

 

[diankra]

I'm not always keen on what some will undoubtedly call "bastardizations" either. It's not going to stop me from watching and seeing what works and looks and sounds better. After all, maybe it will be better. Right now, we're all just speculating in anticipation. It's fun to do, nothing more.

Do watch them. They're often fun, sometimes not, and you'll see a lot of similarities to lot more of the modern than you'd otherwise think.

The originals do exist. This isn't Star Wars where they replaced the originals outright. And unlike Star Wars, Doctor Who's first thirteen episodes had a bit more narrative drama and depth going on spread out among those 312-combined minutes.



I wouldn't be surprised if they'll try to cushion Cushing him up a bit, the 1965 flick easily serves as a template, and there's a lot in the tv original's part one and a couple other bits in part five that remind of this, but I also like how the original had a nice flowing character arc of the Doctor, which pays off beautifully by the end of "The Edge of Destruction" as all the details aren't dumped on the viewer in the first five minutes of the story. As the original run/arc focused on the humans as the focal point as well as being interesting and having some depth, making it easier for the Doctor to be antihero if not villain. Indeed, at best he'd be "amoral" until part seven of "The Daleks" when he spits out his disgust of the Daleks' "senseless, evil killing". I'm pretty sure that line will stay.



I just fast forward through those sloggy bits. It's not necessarily clunky, but it definitely is slow at times - though it's clunky for me to have to hit the button, but most shows and movies have their flows and ebbs and, if nothing else, it makes going to the bathroom easier, since remote controls didn't exist in 1963 as well. Gotta wonder how them kids coped... But it's still both awesome and funny how the parts that dragged the longest had the highest ratings. Says something or two about the audiences back then.

Not sure how "modern" can always be used as a crutch, though, as today's youth and young adults can still see these and even appreciate them - even in youtube channel videos, odd but true - despite not being overtly shiny and blaring in muzak as crutches. That says something about the strength of the original production, despite the issues that had them padding out episodes because of budget allocation and other issues as well.

And, yep, even young me back in the day recognized the theater aspects from dialogue such as in part one where they clearly were padding with the exchange about going to the city. Didn't stop my sense of curiosity over what was to follow, it was a strange new world and the atmosphere that flowed through the tv screen (metaphorically speaking) made up for it.

Yep, the Doctor changes from seeing Ian and Barbara as Susan's pets to being his friends.

 

[Tallguy]

Yep, the Doctor changes from seeing Ian and Barbara as Susan's pets THAT HE DOESN'T WANT and might try to get rid of... somehow? to being his friends.

Edited.

"Oh those two? I left them on lovely farm. They'll be much happier there my dear."

 

[Rich Watson]

Looks like this is going to more than just an edited colourised story. It also features new special effects and new scenes written by Russell and voiced by original series Dalek actor (and Parker from "Thunderbirds" ) David Graham.

So I'm guessing that's how they'll get it to 75 minutes by having Dalek Parker narrate the boring bits.

 

[Marc]

Looks like this is going to more than just an edited colourised story. It also features new special effects and new scenes written by Russell and voiced by original series Dalek actor (and Parker from "Thunderbirds" ) David Graham.

So I'm guessing that's how they'll get it to 75 minutes by having Dalek Parker narrate the boring bits.

I wonder how they managed to get David Graham.

Big Finish/Anderson Entertainment asked him about voicing Parker in the Thunderbirds audios but he declined due to "retirement".

 

[Rich Watson]

I wonder how they managed to get David Graham.

Big Finish/Anderson Entertainment asked him about voicing Parker in the Thunderbirds audios but he declined due to "retirement".

They offered enough to bring him out of retirement? Plus I'd imagine the BF work would have been a longer time commitment as well.

 

[Rich Watson]

Oh, and the one other key bit from the article in DWM is that this isn't a one off, there`ll be more to follow.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

I'm not always keen on what some will undoubtedly call "bastardizations" either. It's not going to stop me from watching and seeing what works and looks and sounds better. After all, maybe it will be better. Right now, we're all just speculating in anticipation. It's fun to do, nothing more.

Do watch them. They're often fun, sometimes not, and you'll see a lot of similarities to lot more of the modern than you'd otherwise think.

The originals do exist. This isn't Star Wars where they replaced the originals outright. And unlike Star Wars, Doctor Who's first thirteen episodes had a bit more narrative drama and depth going on spread out among those 312-combined minutes.



I wouldn't be surprised if they'll try to cushion Cushing him up a bit, the 1965 flick easily serves as a template, and there's a lot in the tv original's part one and a couple other bits in part five that remind of this, but I also like how the original had a nice flowing character arc of the Doctor, which pays off beautifully by the end of "The Edge of Destruction" as all the details aren't dumped on the viewer in the first five minutes of the story. As the original run/arc focused on the humans as the focal point as well as being interesting and having some depth, making it easier for the Doctor to be antihero if not villain. Indeed, at best he'd be "amoral" until part seven of "The Daleks" when he spits out his disgust of the Daleks' "senseless, evil killing". I'm pretty sure that line will stay.



I just fast forward through those sloggy bits. It's not necessarily clunky, but it definitely is slow at times - though it's clunky for me to have to hit the button, but most shows and movies have their flows and ebbs and, if nothing else, it makes going to the bathroom easier, since remote controls didn't exist in 1963 as well. Gotta wonder how them kids coped... But it's still both awesome and funny how the parts that dragged the longest had the highest ratings. Says something or two about the audiences back then.

Not sure how "modern" can always be used as a crutch, though, as today's youth and young adults can still see these and even appreciate them - even in youtube channel videos, odd but true - despite not being overtly shiny and blaring in muzak as crutches. That says something about the strength of the original production, despite the issues that had them padding out episodes because of budget allocation and other issues as well.

And, yep, even young me back in the day recognized the theater aspects from dialogue such as in part one where they clearly were padding with the exchange about going to the city. Didn't stop my sense of curiosity over what was to follow, it was a strange new world and the atmosphere that flowed through the tv screen (metaphorically speaking) made up for it.

Kids actually sat and watched a show right through back then because there were no other distractions, no phone, no internet, no tablets, no gaming consoles, nothing but sitting in front of the Tv and watching 25 mins of Who once a week, hence why it never dragged, and 25 mins just flew past, and young me's head would have exploded if a entire serial were to be shown on one go on a Saturday evening back in 75., which might explain why i have never seen a classic episode of Who that dragged. ha

 

[Christopher]

Kids actually sat and watched a show right through back then because there were no other distractions, no phone, no internet, no tablets, no gaming consoles, nothing but sitting in front of the Tv and watching 25 mins of Who once a week

They did have phones then. And if someone gave you a call during a show, you'd actually have to go to whatever room the phone was in and talk to them, instead of sending them to voicemail or texting them back or whatever.

Also, families actually talked to each other instead of staring at their devices all day, so that could be a distraction too. Or a neighbor or a salesperson or a pollster could knock on the door. Or you could be distracted by the book or comic book or magazine or newspaper you were reading when the show came on. Plus homes had radios, phonographs, tape decks, pianos, etc. that other members of the family could be listening to or playing while you wanted to watch your show. It's absurd to say there was "nothing" to distract people just because they didn't have modern distractions. We just had different ones.

 

[Rich Watson]

I used to walk to school in bare feet over broken glass and when I got home all I had to eat was a bowl of cold gravel. (If I misbehaved I had to eat two.)

And if you try telling that to the kids of today they won't believe you.

 

[Christopher]

I used to walk to school in bare feet over broken glass and when I got home all I had to eat was a bowl of cold gravel. (If I misbehaved I had to eat two.)

You left out "uphill both ways."

 

[Tallguy]

You left out "uphill both ways."

So did the original sketch.

 

[Tallguy]

None of these shows were meant to hold anyone's attention past 30 minutes. When I started watching Who it was the Tom Bakers, one episode every afternoon, weekdays. Awesome.

Then when the local PBS FINALLY started showing other Doctors they would show them as "movies". You ever try to watch Inferno in a single sitting? Torture. Heck, Spearhead from Space is a slog if you watch it all at a go.

Oddly Robot wasn't so bad.

So this might be an interesting experiment.

 

[Christopher]

Then when the local PBS FINALLY started showing other Doctors they would show them as "movies". You ever try to watch Inferno in a single sitting? Torture. Heck, Spearhead from Space is a slog if you watch it all at a go.

Yeah, but even though my PBS station showed them at 10 PM on Saturday nights, I still stayed up way, way past my bedtime to watch them. (At least until we got a VCR. But I still often stayed up to watch them anyway.)

 

[Redfern]

When I started watching Who it was the Tom Bakers, one episode every afternoon, weekdays. Awesome. Then when the local PBS FINALLY started showing other Doctors they would show them as "movies".

My PBS affiliate WFSU (well, one of two, the other being GPB, given my cable lineup) started August 1982 with individual episodes daily, 5 days a week. Then come that Saturday (maybe the next), it played the entire serial ("Robot") as a "movie". Then, come January 1984, Georgia Public Broadcasting, started to play the "movie" cuts, also on Saturday nights. So for a few years, I got between 290 minutes (4.83 hours) and 375 minutes (6.23 hours) of DW material a week. That's assuming the "movies" for both stations are 4 part serials or both 6 part stories. True, that doesn't compare to BBC America running all day or all week marathons, but as this was nearly 40 years ago, before niche cable stations were getting a real foothold, it seemed amazing.

 

[Rich Watson]

Getting a physical release in February which will also include the full seven episodes.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CN1HTNFV?ref_=cm_sw_r_mwn_dp_5ARZ4M5XH5Q3R5XC86H1&language=en_US

 

[Turbo]

According to that, the original seven episodes are on DVD in black and white "with all special features from the previous release", even in the Blu-ray set; it doesn't sound like they're colorized or further cleaned up. I imagine that it's a repressing of the DVD from The Beginning boxset.