Well... THAT was different! :-)

[Starkers]

^ Yeah, until I started to buy the classic DVDs and watch the documentaries that accompany many of them I didn't realise just how low budget they were. I just finished watching Planet of Evil and, whilst not my favourite story by far, you have to be impressed at what they did with the resourses available to them.

 

[Starkers]

^Agreed. Sci always enjoys reminding us that he does not approve of the Classic Series because it was made with no budget, and before he was born.

In fact, I'd so far as to say it takes far more brilliance and talent to keep a monster franchise like Doctor Who alive and onscreen for thirty-years with none of the modern resources available, as it does for someone to write a grand script and shove a million bucks into it...

I make no claims about the original series (right now, anyway) other than that it really should have had a better cinematography.

Why should it have? It had the cinematography of the time. Even now those involved accept it was slow paced and nowhere near as well shot as Who now is, but it was how TV was filmed back them.

Its fine if you don't like classic Who, but it really is annoying when you so frequently look down your nose at professionals who worked their socks off for long hours with minimal resourses to produce enjoyable telly, week in week out.

 

[Sci]

I make no claims about the original series (right now, anyway) other than that it really should have had a better cinematography.

Why should it have? It had the cinematography of the time. Even now those involved accept it was slow paced and nowhere near as well shot as Who now is, but it was how TV was filmed back them.

Its fine if you don't like classic Who, but it really is annoying when you so frequently look down your nose at professionals who worked their socks off for long hours with minimal resourses to produce enjoyable telly, week in week out.

Has it occurred to you that I am not so much looking down my nose at the professionals as I am at the prevailing television practices of the time?

I think that Graeme Harper is a wonderfully talented director, for instance, and he worked on the original Doctor Who. I also happen to think that the kinds of cinematography practiced on the original series was creatively stifling and hurt the material. Television is a visual art, and I don't approve of practices that stifle the ability of its artists to fully develop the medium. I would not be the least bit surprised if the people who worked on the original Doctor Who would have greatly preferred a larger budget and more sophisticated cinematography.

 

[Captain Pike]

Out of the two, give me the 'classic' series anyday. Regardless of wonky sets, slower pacing and a tiny budget I find the stories (generally) are superior to about 90% of new Who. Though some of the latter JNT era stuff is pretty ropey.

 

[diankra]

Has it occurred to you that I am not so much looking down my nose at the professionals as I am at the prevailing television practices of the time?

I think that Graeme Harper is a wonderfully talented director, for instance, and he worked on the original Doctor Who. I also happen to think that the kinds of cinematography practiced on the original series was creatively stifling and hurt the material. Television is a visual art, and I don't approve of practices that stifle the ability of its artists to fully develop the medium. I would not be the least bit surprised if the people who worked on the original Doctor Who would have greatly preferred a larger budget and more sophisticated cinematography.

Ah, yes, and no. Of course television is visual, but its not film, and it's at its worst when it tries to be. It's at its second worst when it's just radio with a camera focused on the actor.
Good Who, good television, is basically about the actors, but with added spice from the way it's shot. Bad TV shouts 'The director is auditioning to make a film!' or ''Close your eyes now, and it really won't matter.' Harper and Camfield, among others, got the middle ground: Graeme Harper's original run serials look sparky, but the cinematorgraphy never gets in the way of the actors and dialogue stealing the scene.
And budget-wise: look at The Caves of Androzani: it's got no budget. Some of the sets are just dark backdrops with a bit of foreground scenery. It's got no 'big name' guest stars. And it's all the better for it, as instead of miscast 'stars' and overlit sets (see Warriors of the Deep), you just get good actors playing the part, and moody menace.

 

[Joy]

I watched Caves of Androzani the other day (my first time viewing it), and it was... AMAZING. And you're absolutely right; the minimalist approach really worked well for the story. Beautiful episode(s).

As for the TV movie... it wasn't my first venture into Doctor Who-dom, but was close to. I had seen "The Impossible Planet" and "The Satan Pit" a couple years ago on either Sci-Fi Channel or PBS (can't remember), and really liked them. Never got around to watching any more DW and kinda forgot about it.

That is until about a month ago (wow, has it already been that long?!), when I was bored and the only thing that looked interesting in the TV Guide was Doctor Who on PBS. So I watched it. It was "The Girl in the Fireplace." I was hooked.

Through various means, I decided I would begin my trip into the series by watching the TV movie first, since it seemed from most comments around online to be kinda the start of "New Who". So, I watched that, loved it (for the utterly campy, "guilty pleasure" kind of movie that it is), then went straight for season one of the 2005 series. Watched straight from "Rose" all the way through "Planet of the Dead" in the span of a week (not a lot of homework to do around that time). Then started on Torchwood; I think I've gotten through episode 4 or 5 of season two. Kinda let up on my watching lately.

Mostly because my curiosity at the cute blond with a celery stick on his lapel made me pick a few of the better-reviewed episodes from each of Peter Davison's seasons to watch. And over the last week or so I've been watching the two seasons of Sarah Jane Adventures, to be caught up for the Doctor's arrival.

So... Yeah. A bit more info than probably needs be said.

My favorite Doctors in order so far, from most to least (but like them all):

Tenth
Fifth (very, VERY narrowly in second place; just about tied for first)
Eighth
Ninth

I watched the Five Doctors, but would still like to watch more eps from One through Four (plus Six and Seven) before adding them to my list. I can't wait to get into Sarah Jane's episodes... I REALLY like her; from what I've seen of her in New Who and SJA, she reminds me a LOT of me, so I feel kind of a kindred spirit with her.

Joy

 

[The]

Welcome to Doctor Who, Joy! Glad you're digging some Peter Davison. He was MY Doctor growing up, so I've got a fondness for that one. What did you think of TimeCrash with he and Tennant?

I must ask, though, you rank Number Nine last. Why? Just didn't do it for you?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

That's because it was made for more than tuppence! And yet for all that money, all that budget and effects and camerawork it's still inferior characterwise and storywise to those guys who made decades of Who on a budget of tuppence.

How utterly brilliant

"Evil of the Daleks" was made for something like a third of what it cost to make "City on the Edge of Forever." And Desilu had a backlot to work with! The Beeb was very good at stretching their funds.

 

[Joy]

Welcome to Doctor Who, Joy! Glad you're digging some Peter Davison. He was MY Doctor growing up, so I've got a fondness for that one. What did you think of TimeCrash with he and Tennant?

I must ask, though, you rank Number Nine last. Why? Just didn't do it for you?

Time Crash was actually the first thing I saw with Five in it; that and a really great 200+ page web comic called the "The Ten Doctors". Those are what made me interested enough to make Five the first classic Doctor I wanted to watch.

Nine's only ranked last because the others rank higher than him. Of what I've seen of the other Doctors so far (not a lot, but at least The Five Doctors and... *shudder*... Dimensions in Time), I'm sure he'll definitely not be on the bottom of the list. Before I began watching, I wasn't sure if I'd like him or not. David Tennant was/is "my" Doctor, he being my introductory Doctor to the whole thing.

But I felt it only right to begin at the beginning, and I found as season one progressed that I did rather like Nine. I just didn't get really attached before he was gone, and his passing of the torch wasn't really emotional for me. Not at ALL like I know Ten's passing is going to be (I just know I'm gonna be a total mess when it's all over); and I found myself quite shaken watching Five's last moments, too... Some powerful stuff.

As for the other Doctors... I tried to watch The Unearthly Child a couple weeks ago, and... yeah, got bored and quit. Eventually I'll make myself go back to it; it is my aim to watch anything and everything related to Doctor Who--the series, skits, parodies, etc--ever produced. Should keep me busy for the rest of my life. LOL

Since House MD is the only show I watch on a weekly basis that's still on the air, and I'm currently not into an ongoing book series, there wasn't much to look forward to longevity-wise...

This shall definitely keep me busy! :-)

Joy

 

[captcalhoun]

I would not be the least bit surprised if the people who worked on the original Doctor Who would have greatly preferred a larger budget

EVERY TV producer wishes they had more money to make the show better, even on shows like TNG or Heroes, so that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

 

[Starkers]

I make no claims about the original series (right now, anyway) other than that it really should have had a better cinematography.

Why should it have? It had the cinematography of the time. Even now those involved accept it was slow paced and nowhere near as well shot as Who now is, but it was how TV was filmed back them.

Its fine if you don't like classic Who, but it really is annoying when you so frequently look down your nose at professionals who worked their socks off for long hours with minimal resourses to produce enjoyable telly, week in week out.

Has it occurred to you that I am not so much looking down my nose at the professionals as I am at the prevailing television practices of the time?

I think that Graeme Harper is a wonderfully talented director, for instance, and he worked on the original Doctor Who. I also happen to think that the kinds of cinematography practiced on the original series was creatively stifling and hurt the material. Television is a visual art, and I don't approve of practices that stifle the ability of its artists to fully develop the medium. I would not be the least bit surprised if the people who worked on the original Doctor Who would have greatly preferred a larger budget and more sophisticated cinematography.

Yes but its like decrying silent films because you can't hear the actors, or black and white films because you'd prefer colour. These people had to work under the constraints they had to work under, and frankly the majority of directors do their best work when they don't have a budget, it's when they get money and power that things go to pot.

Seriously were the first three Star Wars films enhanced by Lucas being able to go back and jazz them up with more special effects? No. Empire was the best of the bunch and it had the least done to it. If Lucas hadn't been as constrained as he was whilst making SW we'd have all kinds of ridiculous things in it.

Jaws works because Speilberg wasn't able to get the resourses he wanted, the lousy mechanical shark meaning he had to rely on glimpses and a whole lot more unseen menace, which made it a better film.

I think what I'm saying is that sometimes directors need their creativity to be stifled to give us their best work.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Another thing you're getting at is that finessing is often much more interesting than in your face action and/or effects.

 

[Cutter John]

Another thing you're getting at is that finessing is often much more interesting than in your face action and/or effects.

Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay proved that point a long time ago.

As for the other Doctors... I tried to watch The Unearthly Child a couple weeks ago, and... yeah, got bored and quit.

Ah don't feel too bad. That ones a little hard going. I'm a big fan and even I can't watch past the first few minutes of episode two.

Storytelling was a lot different back in the day. Slower paced. And the lack of color, real SFX, and continuity references to watch for means a lot of the first two Doctor stories (with exceptions) can be rough going for a modern fan. My only real suggestion is to watch those early stories one episode at a time til you get the hang of it.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Ah don't feel too bad. That ones a little hard going. I'm a big fan and even I can't watch past the first few minutes of episode two.

Really? I can understand not liking the cavemen stuff, but in my opinion, "An Unearthly Child" itself is still the best introduction to the Doctor Who concept.

When you watch "Rose", you can see that RTD is doing pretty much the same thing and ticking the same boxes, and it works, while the TV movie goes in a completely different direction and fails miserably.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

The first episode of An Unearthly Child is wonderful but everything beyond that is rubbish.

 

[The]

The first episode of An Unearthly Child is wonderful but everything beyond that is rubbish.

Agreed! I never watch beyond the point where they land in the past for the first time. I'd suggest Joy watch Edge of Destruction for a simple little Hartnell episode that takes place entirely in the TARDIS. After that, The Aztecs is considered one of the classics, and one of his best. Also, The Time Meddler is a great later Hartnell.

Joy, since you've seen the end of Number Five, you should go back watch his beginning, Logopolis / Castrovalva.

Also, if you have a desire to see some of Number Four (who is considered to be the epitome of The Doctor for a multitude of generations) I would highly suggest Genesis of the Daleks for serious, and City of Death for some hilarity.

I envy your newfound love of the show. I've been watching it for thirty-one years, now. Always happy to see new fans come along...

 

[Allyn Gibson]

The first episode of An Unearthly Child is wonderful but everything beyond that is rubbish.

You are Alan Moore, and I claim my five pounds.

 

[Cutter John]

Ah don't feel too bad. That ones a little hard going. I'm a big fan and even I can't watch past the first few minutes of episode two.

Really? I can understand not liking the cavemen stuff, but in my opinion, "An Unearthly Child" itself is still the best introduction to the Doctor Who concept.

Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. Like everyone else I love the first chapter (and the alternate 'pilot' version from the dvd even moreso) Its when the cavemen show up in part 2 that I lose interest.

Just out of curiosity, was it ever determined in the story that they were on Earth? For all we know that could have been the pre-history of Mondas.

Agreed! I never watch beyond the point where they land in the past for the first time. I'd suggest Joy watch Edge of Destruction for a simple little Hartnell episode that takes place entirely in the TARDIS. After that, The Aztecs is considered one of the classics, and one of his best. Also, The Time Meddler is a great later Hartnell.

Plenty of agreement here. The War Machines is another interesting one. Its almost a preview of Pertwee's era, with the Doctor playing sort of an advisory role to the military.

Joy, since you've seen the end of Number Five, you should go back watch his beginning, Logopolis / Castrovalva.

And of course, the legendary Earthshock.

I envy your newfound love of the show. I've been watching it for thirty-one years, now. Always happy to see new fans come along...

No kidding! Its always so discouraging when you hear Nu fans who think the original is silly, cheap looking, and boring.

 

[Joy]

I did watch Castrovalva, since it was Five's first story. My aim is to watch at least the beginning and end episodes for each Doctor, and then in addition any episodes between that are well-recommended.

I probably won't watch the eps of Five's that I didn't watch until much later; I kinda want to "save the best for last", as Five is definitely tied with Ten as my favorite Doctor.

As for nuWho fans who diss the classics... Well, poo on them. If it weren't for Classic Who, there wouldn't be any nuWho.

And I'm one of those rare young adults whose majority of favorite TV shows date from before 1990. One of my all-time favorites is Wild Wild West. I also love Beverly Hillbillies, Bonanza, I Love Lucy, Andy Griffith, etc. etc. If it used to be rerun on TV Land, I probably love it. My mother did a very good job passing on her taste in television shows (and music, for that matter; my favorite singer at age 2 1/2 was Neil Diamond).

So while I may shake my head and giggle at the cheesiness of some of the stuff in the Classic Who episodes, it's out of love. And shoot, I grew up watching reruns of the original Star Trek, so there's not much to really get all up in arms about sfx-wise.

Joy

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Oh I dunno, it is a bit silly plotwise but it does all make sense. Highlander 2 is just a mess, so badly put togeather that people change clothes and swords mid fights!

It wasn't so much that which annoyed me, as the fact that the writers and filmmakers blatantly mutilated so much of the original Highlander mythos (Immortals as aliens, etc). The Dr Who movie also seems to show very little regard to the original material.

Making it all the more annoying that Highlander 2 is actually by the people who made Highlander, then again the original is one of those films that succeeds inspite of itself. It really shouldn't work but it does. And it really never needed a sequel!

I agree with The I'm afraid, if anything they were too faithful in many respects and ended up with some bastard child of Dr Who that didn't do enough to satisfy the fans, but which was too jammed full of stuff for the casual viewer. I don't know if it affected how RTD chose to bring the show back, but you have to admit his tactic worked best. Don't show the regeneration, start with the Doctor in the middle of an adventure and don't get bogged down with much of what's gone before right away and what you end up with is a highly succesful series that, after 4+ years of drip feeding us history, now has few past major revelations to really reveal, IMO.

You know the Renagade Version is actually better.