Lock Up Your Eyeballs - Chibnall's Back!

[The Mirrorball Man]

Supernatural manages, The X-Files managed. I think a lot of it is to do with how much filming is done on location, probably something to do with our labour laws too.

According to Stephen Fry:

"It’s a very odd thing, American television. Because, well, you know, they make 24 episodes and you’ve got about seven or eight days to do each hour episode, or an hour minus the commercials. And they have very little time, but they have a stupendous amount of money. So, simply, anything that goes wrong they just throw another camera, another crew... And at three in the morning on the FOX lot, for example, it’s busier than at three in the afternoon."

 

[Australis]

Chibnall was trrible with the first part of Torchwood s1, but he's come good since then IMO. It's a 2 parter, Moff's in charge, it'll be fine. And if it isn't, well, somethiugn else will come along.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Chibnall was trrible with the first part of Torchwood s1, but he's come good since then IMO. It's a 2 parter, Moff's in charge, it'll be fine. And if it isn't, well, somethiugn else will come along.

I think the main problem with Torchwood series one was the speed at which they had to get it started, produced and out the door.

 

[Australis]

That's probably true, when I think about it.

 

[captcalhoun]

i think the problem of Who VS US television is that Who frequently has longer days, especially if there's night shoots involved.

 

[Starkers]

Chibnall was trrible with the first part of Torchwood s1, but he's come good since then IMO. It's a 2 parter, Moff's in charge, it'll be fine. And if it isn't, well, somethiugn else will come along.

I think the main problem with Torchwood series one was the speed at which they had to get it started, produced and out the door.

I think it was part of the problem for sure, but I think they'd have always made it as adolesent in their desire to make it adult and edgy; it just would have been better made claptrap

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Chibnall was trrible with the first part of Torchwood s1, but he's come good since then IMO. It's a 2 parter, Moff's in charge, it'll be fine. And if it isn't, well, somethiugn else will come along.

I think the main problem with Torchwood series one was the speed at which they had to get it started, produced and out the door.

I think it was part of the problem for sure, but I think they'd have always made it as adolesent in their desire to make it adult and edgy; it just would have been better made claptrap

Maybe so, but perhaps with more time the dialogue would be better written so the characters would seem more likeable, and with a few rough edges sanded down it might feel better.

And I say that as someone who, for the most part, didn't really mind pre-CoE Torchwood.

 

[TedShatner10]

I agree. "Blink" and "Turn Left" are brilliant episodes while "Love & Monsters" had the potential to be a fascinating episode but I think it was misdirected.

I liked "Love & Monsters" as much as "Turn Left" and it was a less egregious story than "The Stolen Earth/Journey's End". But that's just my subjective opinion.

 

[Starkers]

The Stolen Earth/Journey's End were what they were, but Love and Monsters had the potential to be one of the best episodes of Who EVER. Unfortunately RTD couldn't (or didn't want to) reign himself in, which is a shame.

 

[Sci]

The Stolen Earth/Journey's End were what they were, but Love and Monsters had the potential to be one of the best episodes of Who EVER. Unfortunately RTD couldn't (or didn't want to) reign himself in, which is a shame.

I often find I go back and forth with "Love & Monsters." Sometimes I adore it, and sometimes I hate it.

But however one feels about "Love & Monsters," the fact that a single "Doctor-lite" episode didn't work out does not mean that the entire concept of Doctor-lite episodes are invalidated as a creative concept.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

The Stolen Earth/Journey's End were what they were, but Love and Monsters had the potential to be one of the best episodes of Who EVER. Unfortunately RTD couldn't (or didn't want to) reign himself in, which is a shame.

I often find I go back and forth with "Love & Monsters." Sometimes I adore it, and sometimes I hate it.

But however one feels about "Love & Monsters," the fact that a single "Doctor-lite" episode didn't work out does not mean that the entire concept of Doctor-lite episodes are invalidated as a creative concept.

On that I completely agree. I must admit I initially hated the idea (especially after my disappointment with "Love & Monsters") but I now recognize what a creative idea it is.

 

[Starkers]

Funnily enough given the choice I'd rather watch L&M than Turn Left. I personally found Turn Left hugely dissapointing, basically its a sci-fi trope I've seen so many times before that there was nothing original about it, it was only redeemed by great performances from Tate and Cribbens IMO. L&M at least has a bit of life and originality to it.

 

[TedShatner10]

"Turn Left" was in the vein of SG-1's "There For the Grace of God" or "2010", however "Love & Monsters" is pretty similar to "Citizen Joe", TNG's "Below Decks", and the early part of VOY's "Good Sheppard".

 

[Davros]

I cannot see him giving us anything worse than Delta and The Bannermen.

 

[Sci]

"Turn Left" was in the vein of SG-1's "There For the Grace of God" or "2010", however "Love & Monsters" is pretty similar to "Citizen Joe", TNG's "Below Decks", and the early part of VOY's "Good Sheppard".

It was called "Lower Decks," not "Below Decks."

And an episode that focuses on a member of the public rather than the central character is a much older concept than that particular TNG episode. Doesn't make it a bad concept.

 

[TedShatner10]

RTD's backstory to the current Doctor Who series has echoes of Tony Daniel's A Dry, Quiet War.

I also find "Love & Monsters" more immersive and rewatchable than other RTD scripts like "New Earth" (5/10) and "Tooth & Claw" (6/10).

I didn't really mind Chris Chibnall's "42" (5/10) either.