• 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!

What, or rather Who you won't be seeing in November

So not referencing them is bad, and referencing them is bad? I have a sneaking suspicion it could have been a three hour epic featuring every living Doctor and companion directed by Sam Mendes and people would have still moaned...

Absolutely - Dr Who's fanbase has always had a self-destructive tribalist clique keen to find excuses for hostility.

This is why I like to think of myself as a Blakes 7 fan who's merely Who-curious... :devil:
 
I would go so far as to say Susan would be more important than Ian.

I thought of her, but 1) There's no reason why she wouldn't have regenerated so you wouldn't need the same actress, and coversely, 2) Russell's a better actor than Ford - have you *seen* Shakedown? There's a reason she hasn't worked since the 60s...

There's no reason why she WOULD have regenerated if she's settled down on some relatively save planet. She would age (the first doctor aged to what he looked like when we first saw him with (as far as we know) no regenerations.
 
So not referencing them is bad, and referencing them is bad? I have a sneaking suspicion it could have been a three hour epic featuring every living Doctor and companion directed by Sam Mendes and people would have still moaned...
3 Hours, Good lord, imagine the padding, it'd be like Classic Who running up and down corridors and captured and escaping every 10 minutes ;)

Who's Sam Mendes? Runs off to Google (Ah, all I've seen of his is American Beauty)

Again, that would be a writing issue, not a problem with the premise, if it was 3 hours running up and down corridors.

Seriously, just implying that it would be padded like that doesn't mean the premise is bad, it just points out the need to avoid lazy, umimaginative writing!

It is possible to write 3 hours of solid entertainment! ;)

Mr Awe
 
So not referencing them is bad, and referencing them is bad? I have a sneaking suspicion it could have been a three hour epic featuring every living Doctor and companion directed by Sam Mendes and people would have still moaned...

Absolutely - Dr Who's fanbase has always had a self-destructive tribalist clique keen to find excuses for hostility.

I thought that was true for ANY and ALL fandoms.

Sincerely,

Bill
 
^ (two posts up) Creativity and ingenuity will fix those problems. Also, you have to think bigger. Those are issues because they'd have to cram everything into 75 minutes. Spread it out a bit!

Never mind about budget or actor availability or anything like that...

So not referencing them is bad, and referencing them is bad?

Huh? Referencing them is not bad. Them not appearing is bad.

Mr Awe

STCOOP implied having them voicing paintings was worse than not having them in it at all! Whereas to me it seems a very good all around compromise (always assuming that's what they've actually done)
 
^ Good writing doesn't have to be expensive. And, actor availability is just something to work with. If one actor isn't available, you go with another. It's a fallacy to assume all classic Doctors have to be present.

Ah, so referencing at the *expense* of an actual appearance is bad? That, I agree with.

Mr Awe
 
Also, the BBC could've thought bigger, more epic and not force the story in a single 75 minute slot!

Could they have thought that? Sure. Did they think that? Nope. They budgeted the special for a 60 minute slot. I'm really curious to see how well Moffat and his team make the budget stretch without the seams showing.
 
^ Good writing doesn't have to be expensive. And, actor availability is just something to work with. If one actor isn't available, you go with another. It's a fallacy to assume all classic Doctors have to be present.

Really? I bet if McGann were in it people would be moaning that, strictly speaking, he isn't a classic Doctor.

As for actor availability, given the man I was specifically talking about was Matt Smith because he jetted off soon after filming wrapped to work on Gosling's film I think his absense would have been noted!

Do you think I wouldn't love to see one or all of the classic Doctors in the special? I would, but this is the real world and we don't always get what we want, so if all we get are their voices so be it, it's not like they're being airbrushed out of existance, both RTD and Moffat have referenced all the classic docs many times.

As for the length of the bloody thing, this still bugs me, because length is no guarentee of quality. Heck I'll take Time Crash over the Two Doctors any day of the week!

The BBC allocated a budget for the special, and it seems likely that they allocated a time/length, because, you know, they have other shows to fit in, even on the 23rd November.
 
^ Yep, that's the problem, they thought small. Smaller than the 10th and 20th anniversary.

you know, I wanna bet the budget for the 50th probably exceeds the 10th and 20th put togeather, even adjusted for inflation :lol:
 
^ Good writing doesn't have to be expensive. And, actor availability is just something to work with. If one actor isn't available, you go with another. It's a fallacy to assume all classic Doctors have to be present.

Really? I bet if McGann were in it people would be moaning that, strictly speaking, he isn't a classic Doctor.

As for actor availability, given the man I was specifically talking about was Matt Smith because he jetted off soon after filming wrapped to work on Gosling's film I think his absense would have been noted!

Do you think I wouldn't love to see one or all of the classic Doctors in the special? I would, but this is the real world and we don't always get what we want, so if all we get are their voices so be it, it's not like they're being airbrushed out of existance, both RTD and Moffat have referenced all the classic docs many times.

As for the length of the bloody thing, this still bugs me, because length is no guarentee of quality. Heck I'll take Time Crash over the Two Doctors any day of the week!

The BBC allocated a budget for the special, and it seems likely that they allocated a time/length, because, you know, they have other shows to fit in, even on the 23rd November.

But, Matt Smith IS in it! And, surely, some of it could've been covered during the last series. It wouldn't have required a larger budget if it was in some of the normal episodes. Not all, just a few.

True, length is no guarantee of quality. But, the biggest problem as of late is rushed endings. More time can fix that. You can have a more epic story without a rushed ending.

Nothing can guarantee quality, but more time can give more flexibility to achieve it.

Obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree. I am set to enjoy the anniversary, I'll just be missing true appearances of the classic Docs.

The saddest thing for me is that this is probably the last chance for some of the original actors to appear as their Doctor.

Mr Awe
 
^ Yep, that's the problem, they thought small. Smaller than the 10th and 20th anniversary.

Did they, though? We don't know how epic the story will be, as we've not seen it yet. The number of Doctors present has little bearing on the episode's scale. :)
 
Oh, sure, you could probably make a Nine Doctors work if you had, like, three 90 minute episodes a la Sherlock to run it over. But they don't.

Well, I think that's part of the complaint. The thought is that the Anniversary could have been more than a single episode. Basically, pull out all the stops and spare no expense kind of thing.

I'm not commenting on the episode. I think it'll be good. It might even be a satisfying anniversary special (the tease into it last episode was good and I'm avoiding most spoilers). However, "its too much to fit into a single episode" seems to illustrate the problem rather than explain away the problem.
 
^ And, if they didn't want to increase the budget, just use the last few stories of series 7 for the anniversary. They did that a bit with the series finale but certainly one story of the regular series could've featured a classic Doctor or two?

I truly am expecting that I'll enjoy Day of the Doctor. Nothing leads me to think it'll be bad. And, if it is good, I doubt I'll be complaining! :)

I just worry about a rushed ending and wish they would've included at least some of the classic Doctors in what may well be the last opportunity for them. That does seem to be a huge waste.

Mr Awe
 
So not referencing them is bad, and referencing them is bad? I have a sneaking suspicion it could have been a three hour epic featuring every living Doctor and companion directed by Sam Mendes and people would have still moaned...

Absolutely - Dr Who's fanbase has always had a self-destructive tribalist clique keen to find excuses for hostility.

This is why I like to think of myself as a Blakes 7 fan who's merely Who-curious... :devil:

And I've always admitted to have watched Trek first - it originally used to be on *between* Pertwee's seasons...
 
I would go so far as to say Susan would be more important than Ian.

I thought of her, but 1) There's no reason why she wouldn't have regenerated so you wouldn't need the same actress, and coversely, 2) Russell's a better actor than Ford - have you *seen* Shakedown? There's a reason she hasn't worked since the 60s...

There's no reason why she WOULD have regenerated if she's settled down on some relatively save planet. She would age (the first doctor aged to what he looked like when we first saw him with (as far as we know) no regenerations.

True, but I'd rather an actress who could still act... And I prefer to view toe woman in white in End Of Time as Susan rather than the Doctor's mum, cos the latter makes no fucking sense...
 
So not referencing them is bad, and referencing them is bad? I have a sneaking suspicion it could have been a three hour epic featuring every living Doctor and companion directed by Sam Mendes and people would have still moaned...

Absolutely - Dr Who's fanbase has always had a self-destructive tribalist clique keen to find excuses for hostility.

I thought that was true for ANY and ALL fandoms.

Sincerely,

Bill

It certainly can be, but in my experience DW fandom is especially bad for it.
 
So not referencing them is bad, and referencing them is bad? I have a sneaking suspicion it could have been a three hour epic featuring every living Doctor and companion directed by Sam Mendes and people would have still moaned...
3 Hours, Good lord, imagine the padding, it'd be like Classic Who running up and down corridors and captured and escaping every 10 minutes ;)

Who's Sam Mendes? Runs off to Google (Ah, all I've seen of his is American Beauty)

Again, that would be a writing issue, not a problem with the premise, if it was 3 hours running up and down corridors.

Seriously, just implying that it would be padded like that doesn't mean the premise is bad, it just points out the need to avoid lazy, umimaginative writing!

It is possible to write 3 hours of solid entertainment! ;)

Mr Awe
Yea, it was a joke reaction (See Mr. Winky Face)

I would be ecstatic if it was 3 hours, even with padding (I enjoy the Pertwee and earlier 6 parters with all the Corridor running and capture/escape. Though, those were done that way, because it was a weekly Serial)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top