Jun 23, 2024, 05:13 pm

News:

New, New TardisBuilders!


The Bradley Box

Started by Kingpin, Nov 22, 2013, 04:37 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

meantimebob

It really is horrible, in just about every single way. Even the paint job is shoddy.

Angelus Lupus

It's like... they started off as if they were going for accurate, with the roof and overall shape, but either they gave up halfway through, or someone in charge decided they didn't want it too different from the current Tardis. So what we got was a half-arsed compromise. That would explain the colour and the badge, but nothing explains the PTO sign sans-frame.
Yeah, there are far more accurate, and licensed, replicas. Why not use one of them?
Oh well, at least their Tardis was a more accurate replica than their Troughton.  ;D
A mixed-up non-conformist, trying to fit in.

galacticprobe

Aug 22, 2016, 05:22 am #32 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2016, 06:36 am by galacticprobe
Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
Hi Dino. To me it just seemed sloppy.

And you're right; it was. Even the photos that Steve posted of it at the DWE show how bad it really is.

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
When one is trying to recreate a particular period in history, wouldn't one examine available resources? Photos? DVDs?

Normally one would, if the interest in such a project is genuine. In this case, it apparently wasn't.

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
I was equally disappointed by the Character Creations 'Classic' TARDISes. If they intended it to be the TARDIS as seen in 'X', then darn well make sure it looks like that TARDIS. Maybe I'm too picky, and a lot of people wouldn't have noticed.

In this case I think a little latitude needs to be given. We're talking about a huge variety when it comes to TARDIS props and how one looked in "X" (or "y" or "Z" for that matter), and we're dealing with a toy company that's out to make money so they can pay bills and stay in business. For CO to have made each and every variation in TARDIS props for the discerning eye, then they would have needed to create moulds for dozens of different models, and that would have made their costs very high, and as such not profitable when you take into account the cost of sculpting the masters for making the moulds; whether done by hand or machine, at some point someone would have had to be the manual labor behind it, whether it was in the sculpting or the CAD drawings for 3-D printing of the masters (or having the masters tooled out of some stock, which would still have required manual intervention).

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
If the AAiSaT had been a low budget fan made special then I could forgive them getting things wrong, but it was made by the BBC and they have ALL the resources to hand to get things right.

True, but (and this is just me and from what I've heard), the one thing they didn't have was someone behind the project that really cared. I don't know how true that is, but it sure looks like it was.

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
The TARDIS had drip sills on at least two sets of windows right up until 1976 for goodness sake.

If the Brachacki prop was a complete 4-sided prop, with windows on the rear wall, then all windows other than the reworked doors would have had those drip sills. (I don't know if there was ever any photos of the original/altered Brachacki's rear side, but if the entire prop was built as a "complete" TARDIS, then there should have been windows on that rear wall.)

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
I don't want to come down hard on Steve Moffat because I really really do respect his talent as a writer, all the way back to 'Press Gang'.

And I think this is what irritates me the most about Moffat: he can write when he wants to! This is the man that gave us "The Curse of Fatal Death", not to mention some of the greatest episodes from Series 1-6, and those special episodes for Children In Need or Red Nose Day, and the 'Sherlock' episodes are top-notch! But he just lost steam somewhere between the end of Series 6 and the start of Series 7a, and never really bounced back.

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
Doctor Who has to have the capacity to try things and to experiment with the format. It arguably has the most flexible format of any TV show in history.

No argument there! There hasn't been another show like it before, or since, and we're not likely to see another like it for a long time to come (certainly not within my lifetime - at least this regeneration of it).

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
But the more recent Christmas specials have been underwhelming, and 'Sleep No More' was confusing... I still have no idea how the creatures were formed by the stuff I rub out of my eyes every morning! I mean, why? Why would that be remotely scary?

I'll give "Last Christmas" this: it was fun because of Nick Frost. Anyone else in the role of Father Christmas for that one and it would have been a total disaster. As for "Sleep No More", I think what Gatiss was trying to do was repeat what Moffat did with "Blink", and he failed miserably. Moffat never should have approved that script. Like I said, it was so bad I think the BBC was embarrassed by it and didn't want to have 'Written by Mark Gatiss' in the opening credits emblazoned across the screen, which is why they did not use the opening credits for that episode - something never done on 'Who' history before!

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
I had high hopes for Mark Gatiss' stories, but I think he hit his peak with 'The Unquiet Dead'.

Again, no argument there.

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
I haven't really connected with any of the others he has written at all. Casting his mate, Reece Shearsmith, as Pat Troughton was a huge mis-step in AAiSaT; I don't think they even considered anyone else though.

Another case for that "empire building" - cast your mates in roles when there could be a better actor out there if you would only hold auditions... which you don't want to hold because then you can't just cast your mates in the roles. (And it happens here in the US as well, so this one really isn't UK or BBC specific.)

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
As for Empire building, I suppose the show runner has to do what they want to do with the series and put their stamp on it with confidence,...

To a certain extent, yes; I'll agree with that, but there is such a thing as going too far with it.

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
(JN-T did the same in the 80's)

Case in point... and look at the disaster 'Doctor Who' turned into under JN-T's reign. He wanted to put his mark in the series by changing Tom Baker's signature look, which many fans didn't like, nor did Baker. JN-T wanted to remove the comedic elements from the stories and make them more serious - something he said in an interview shortly after taking over, which is why all of the humor that was associated with the 4th Doctor's aloofness went away. Then he decided to get rid of the sonic screwdriver rather than just reducing the amount it was used - something else which upset fans. When Colin Baker took over the role, JN-T changed formats again from the then norm of 24-minute episodes to 45-minute episodes, and that was another flop. When he was told to replace Colin Baker, he rolled over and played "Yes Man". Then when Sylvester McCoy took the role, JN-T said in another interview that he wanted to bring some comedic elements into the stories because he felt they were lacking in it, and had too much drama in them. (No shaving-cream, Sherlock! And you're the one that did it!).

So, as many fans have dubbed him (and you'll probably find it on line in various places, which is where I read the phrase) "John-watch-me-run-'Doctor Who'-into-the-ground-Nathan-Turner" did exactly that: he started out all wrong and just went down hill from there, and didn't step away when he should have.

But here we have the opposite: Moffat started out strong and then seemed to lose interest, and when it was suggested that he hand things over to someone else, he flat out refused. It was only when Capaldi threatened to quit after Series 9 if Moffat wasn't replaced that the BBC stood their ground and "allowed" Moffat to step down.

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
but given what a global beast Doctor Who now is, that has to be a huge pressure.

And it no doubt is, which is why a showrunner needs to listen to the fan mail that's coming in, or what's being tweeted, and take heed - something Moffat has refused to do. (There have been many tweets and other postings here and there calling him the 'JN-T of the New Series'.)

That reliable source I keep mentioning doesn't work on 'Who', but does at the BBC, and quite often the productions cross in hallways, and there have been heard huge rows with Moffat and anyone - including Capaldi - that has suggested bringing back a previous companion, even one from the Classic years. Moffat rants on telling everyone "Absolutely not!" because he doesn't want any throwbacks to before he was showrunner - unless he created it, which is why we've seen so much of River Song between Series 5 and 7, and why she came back in "The Husbands of River Song", and of course, those Weeping Angels (but to be fare, those angels are creepy!).

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
I take it from what you have said that you believe Moffat and Gatiss would rather be working on Sherlock?

From what my source says, it's a fact. Moffat has already stated in interviews that he's got 'Sherlock' all planned out and ready for filming for its Series 4-6, yet when the BBC told Moffat that they wanted 'Doctor Who' to return to the format of 13 episodes plus a Christmas Special (for a total of 14 episodes per series), Moffat went into another of his shouting bouts saying "Absolutely not!" because he needs more time to work on 'Sherlock'.

Now, maybe it's just me, but if you've admitted that you've already got one show planned out through to filming stage for the next three series (when that show is only 3 episodes long - granted they're 90-minute episodes, but there's still only three per series), then all you need is a good director and you can hand things off to him and then review the "dailies" of filming to see if there is anything you don't like, and then order a retake after making adjustments. Then, you can turn your attention to what is a more demanding show, one with 13 episodes per series, and give it the attention it deserves. Looking at the two shows:

Sherlock: 3 (90-minute) episodes per series, all set for the next three series;
Doctor Who: 12 (or what used to be 13) 44-minute episodes per series, working from series to series and only start working on it when you're told that you're getting ready to start filming soon and you haven't gotten a single script in hand yet;

Well, the answer is sort of obvious where Moffat's passion really is, and it's not with 'Doctor Who' any longer.

At least his replacement (whose name escapes me at the moment) is a hardcore 'Doctor Who' fan since the Hartnell days, and is very well open to bringing back former companions, even from the Classic years - and possibly having a multi-Doctor story with the actors that still have the ability to pull it off (and I hear McGann is chomping at the bit for one of these and has been since he heard the series was coming back in 2004; he hoped he would be considered for reprising the role, but we all know how that went; Eccleston was a great 9th Doctor, but McGann is still a little bitter over it all) - I think the show will fair better than it is at the current moment. It's also why Moffat's comment about Series 10 being "like a brand new show" scared the frack out of me. He's been forced out; what the hell is he going to do to the show and the fans on his way out of the door?

Dino.
"What's wrong with being childish?! I like being childish." -3rd Doctor, "Terror of the Autons"

tony farrell

Aug 22, 2016, 03:00 pm #33 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2016, 03:13 pm by Tony Farrell
Quote from: galacticprobe on Aug 22, 2016, 05:22 am

Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
When one is trying to recreate a particular period in history, wouldn't one examine available resources? Photos? DVDs?

Normally one would, if the interest in such a project is genuine. In this case, it apparently wasn't. True, but (and this is just me and from what I've heard), the one thing they didn't have was someone behind the project that really cared. I don't know how true that is, but it sure looks like it was.


I really don't know how you can say that Dino - Mark Gatiss is a long-standing fan of Dr Who and cared passionately about AAIS&T (it took him many years to persuade the BBC to produce it and - in the end - his repeated approaches to the Beeb were only met with success because of the 50th Anniversary when the corporation took the decision to promote Dr Who across all its output).

Quote from: galacticprobe on Aug 22, 2016, 05:22 am
Quote from: ionsith on Aug 21, 2016, 10:57 am
The TARDIS had drip sills on at least two sets of windows right up until 1976 for goodness sake.

If the Brachacki prop was a complete 4-sided prop, with windows on the rear wall, then all windows other than the reworked doors would have had those drip sills. (I don't know if there was ever any photos of the original/altered Brachacki's rear side, but if the entire prop was built as a "complete" TARDIS, then there should have been windows on that rear wall.)


I refer the honourable gentleman to our very own reference section and the many photos which prove that the Brachacki prop was a complete prop which always had two sets of doors and that the rear doors' windows retained their drip sills until the mid-Pertwee era. There's not much point in having an accurate reference section if you're not going to make use of it Dino. Please refer to http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=4489.0 for more information.

As regards the Bradley Box, it gained only about two minutes' screen-time of which, in its primary scene to remind Hartnell of the role he'd lost, it was shrouded in night-time fog. AAIS&T wasn't about the Tardis prop.

Yes, a better job of its proportions could have been done but that completely misses the point - why spend a fortune on something that was going to be barely used/seen? It is only people like us - here on TB - that would know that the Bradley box only bears a passing resemblance to 'the real McCoy'! But, as I say, that misses the point; AAIS&T wasn't about the Tardis, it was about the early years of Doctor Who, it was about Hartnell, Newman, Lambert and the rest of the incredibly talented cast and crew who - in the face of strong resistance - caused a screen-legend to be born!

Whilst I readily admit that I'm not a great fan of some - make that a lot - of his work, as regards the comments about Steven Moffat not listening to the show's more vociferous fans - why should he? It was JN-T's listening to a group of hard-core fans (and one in particular) which brought Dr Who to its knees in the first place - the show forgot what is was about (to entertain a wide-based family audience) and instead it became a narrow-based, self-referential 'fan fest' whose audience share had collapsed.

T

P.S., have a listen to Reece Shearsmith's impersonation of Pat Troughton - it is absolutely spot on. Unfortunately in AAIS&T he was just given a truly awful wig!

Angelus Lupus

Why spend time/money/effort to make it accurate? Well... for one because the fans deserve it, but more importantly because it was pretty obvious that their big set-piece recreations were going to end up on display at the DWE, where many, many eagle-eyed fans would be taking hundreds of photos.
Plus, you make it well enough, like, say, the console, then you could, oh I dunno.. use it in an actual episode?

As for Gatiss caring... well his insistence on casting friends with no regard to their suitability (and then doing it again and giving in to their absurd costume choice of huge glasses) proves that he's more interested in playing with the toys than creating good stories. I'd rather re-watch Keys Of Marinus than Sleep No More.
A mixed-up non-conformist, trying to fit in.

Rassilons Rod

Just to play Devil's Advocate a bit....

Presumably they would have to follow plans anyway...

But the cost of cutting the wood to a different lengths surely would be nothing... And 12 small pieces (8 sills and 4 frame pieces).... That must be negligible too....

I dunno though. I'm no expert when it comes to money.....
In the cities in the streets there's a tension you can feel,
The breaking strain is fast approaching, guns and riots.
Politicians gamble and lie to save their skins,
And the press get fed the scapegoats,
Public Enema Number One.

Angelus Lupus

Besides, as I (and fivefingeredstyre) wondered: What was wrong with using (buying or renting) a TPE box? It's clearly good enough to stand front and centre at the DWE entrance, in broad daylight, serving as a ringing endorsement of the accuracy, while the Bradley box with it's oddly flat, cereal-box look, sits in the shadows turning black for some reason.
A mixed-up non-conformist, trying to fit in.

tony farrell

Aug 22, 2016, 10:25 pm #37 Last Edit: Aug 22, 2016, 10:44 pm by Tony Farrell
Quote from: Angelus Lupus on Aug 22, 2016, 04:55 pm
Why spend time/money/effort to make it accurate? Well... for one because the fans deserve it, but more importantly because it was pretty obvious that their big set-piece recreations were going to end up on display at the DWE, where many, many eagle-eyed fans would be taking hundreds of photos.
Plus, you make it well enough, like, say, the console, then you could, oh I dunno.. use it in an actual episode?


Sorry Angelus, the BBC makes programmes for a general audience not a narrow fan-base. The DWE is made for a general audience too - a place for a family day out not just for eagle-eyed fans.

As for the AAIS&T console, with the best will in the world, it's hardly an accurate replica either. Like the Bradley Tardis prop, it was made to evoke the spirit of the original. And, Marc, that's the point - to evoke not to copy!

The reason the AAIS&T console was re-used in Dr Who was most probably due to nothing more than reasons of economy - just as the "Heaven Sent" Tardis' slotted walls appeared elsewhere in the same episode and had previously been used as part of the "Inside the Dalek" (and just like "Heaven Sent" Tardis' scanner had appeared in the castle prison of the previous episode, or just like the Dalek 'neck rings' appearing in both Tardis sets).

Quote from: Angelus Lupus on Aug 22, 2016, 04:55 pm
As for Gatiss caring... well his insistence on casting friends with no regard to their suitability (and then doing it again and giving in to their absurd costume choice of huge glasses) proves that he's more interested in playing with the toys than creating good stories. I'd rather re-watch Keys Of Marinus than Sleep No More.


Mark Gatiss might well have suggested Reece Shearsmith but Andy Prior is the casting director on Dr Who and Mark Gatiss isn't the costume designer either! I don't like much of the new series' designs (I think the telly-tubby New Paradigm Daleks were a disaster and the Cybermen aren't supposed to be robots but decayed men inside bionic suits), but we can't single out the authors of those stories as being somehow to blame for decisions which weren't theirs to make.

Ultimately, those decisions rest with the producer of a programme and, like or loathe Steven Moffat, Dr Who is still getting a UK consolidated audience of approximately eight million viewers per episode. So, in the eyes of the general public, he must be doing something right!  :)

T

galacticprobe

Aug 23, 2016, 06:17 am #38 Last Edit: Aug 23, 2016, 07:06 am by galacticprobe
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 22, 2016, 03:00 pm
I really don't know how you can say that Dino - Mark Gatiss is a long-standing fan of Dr Who and cared passionately about AAIS&T (it took him many years to persuade the BBC to produce it and - in the end - his repeated approaches to the Beeb were only met with success because of the 50th Anniversary when the corporation took the decision to promote Dr Who across all its output).

Well, I only said it because beyond "The Unquiet Dead", Gatiss' scripts for actual episodes left much to be desired. "Sleep No More" was a disaster: epic fail. And if he pushed that hard and for that long to get AAiSaT off the ground, then you'd think that he would have researched both the console and TARDIS props to death by then, and had them built with the accuracy they deserved for such a well-written documentary. (And it was well-written, which only makes the lack of accuracy of the props that much more depressing.)

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 22, 2016, 03:00 pm
I refer the honourable gentleman to our very own reference section and the many photos which prove that the Brachacki prop was a complete prop... There's not much point in having an accurate reference section if you're not going to make use of it Dino. Please refer to http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=4489.0 for more information.

I do try, Tony, and occasionally I also slip up. (I'm only humanoid, and while I do live in the Reference Section most times, I can't remember every thread that's in there, in spite of what some may think.)

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 22, 2016, 03:00 pm
Whilst I readily admit that I'm not a great fan of some - make that a lot - of his work, as regards the comments about Steven Moffat not listening to the show's more vociferous fans - why should he?

Well, if he can go on one of those 'Doctor Who Insider' interviews on BBC America and admit that for the Series 8 opening credits, he'd taken ideas - specifically that spiraling clock face - from some fan-made YouTube videos, and saying "The fans have such great ideas, how could you not use some of them?" and then not listen to the fans when they say would like to see Classic companions return because he was before he became showrunner... sorry, but that's just arrogance showing.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 22, 2016, 03:00 pm
It was JN-T's listening to a group of hard-core fans (and one in particular) which brought Dr Who to its knees in the first place...

Which one in particular? Michael Grade? Mary Whitehouse?

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 22, 2016, 03:00 pm- the show forgot what is was about (to entertain a wide-based family audience) and instead it became a narrow-based, self-referential 'fan fest' whose audience share had collapsed.

It was the team at Paramount (who eventually were fired) that put an end to the 'Trek' presence on TV with 'ST: Enterprise'. When the fans were clamoring for a series with Captain Sulu and the USS Excelsior, the producers told Starlog Magazine "We're not doing anything with Sulu or the Excelsior. That's not what the fans want. We know what the fans want." They knew what the fans wanted more than the fans knew what they wanted? (Again this is arrogance showing.) And they gave us 'Enterprise', which was all wrong from the word go.

Obviously there is a fine line, but producers/showrunners do need to listen to the fans. They don't need to pander to the small "vociferous" band of fans as JN-T did, but it is the fans, after all, that make a show popular, or a flop.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 22, 2016, 10:25 pm
I don't like much of the new series' designs (I think the telly-tubby New Paradigm Daleks were a disaster...

I don't think you're alone there, Tony. Most of the fans I've come across - and there have been many - detested that design (and apparently I wasn't the only one calling them "KitchenAide" Daleks). You'll also notice how quickly they faded into the background, with the original New Series design Daleks taking center stage most of the time now.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 22, 2016, 10:25 pm
...and the Cybermen aren't supposed to be robots but decayed men inside bionic suits), but we can't single out the authors of those stories as being somehow to blame for decisions which weren't theirs to make.

To be fair, no one knows what happened to the original Cybermen during or after the Last Great Time War. And these new Cybermen come from an alternate (parallel) universe where only the head is "harvested" for the "upgrade". So until a storyline comes along that explains what happened to the original Cybermen, something was needed to find a way of bringing them back. I will agree those new "ultra" Cybermen from "Nightmare In Silver" is taking it too far, and we're overdue for something to tell us what happened to the Classic Cybermen. We've seen Ice Warriors now, Macra, Daleks, Autons... oh, we are certainly overdue for at least an explanation for the missing "Classic" Cybermen.

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 22, 2016, 10:25 pm
Ultimately, those decisions rest with the producer of a programme and, like or loathe Steven Moffat, Dr Who is still getting a UK consolidated audience of approximately eight million viewers per episode. So, in the eyes of the general public, he must be doing something right!  :)

Just imagine how much better the audience rating would be if he listened to the fans and brought back some Classic Series companions for an episode. Only Russell T. Davies did that, and those were some of the best fan favorites (which episode depends on which poll you read, of course, but the ones with past companions appearing were liked the most); which is why I can't understand Moffat's resistance to bringing back Classic Series companions for an episode once in a while - in the six years he's been showrunner he's never brought any previous companion back, and Capaldi has been very vocal for bringing Susan, the Doctor's granddaughter back.

You need to listen to your fans: ignore the vociferous minority because nothing will please them anyway, but listen to the majority. They're what makes your show popular: not the showrunner, but the people watching the show. You can be the best showrunner in the world, but if you don't give the fans what they want, then no one will watch, your show won't be popular, and you won't be a great showrunner.

Again, look at the former 'Trek' showrunners who are now looking for jobs. They were great and produced great shows, but when they stopped listening to the fans and started doing what they wanted rather than what the fans were asking for, their show flopped, got the axe, and now those showrunners are looking for new jobs. (Yes, they were fired. I had friends in the inside for that one. My friends just moved on to other shows, but the showrunners were fired.)

Dino.
"What's wrong with being childish?! I like being childish." -3rd Doctor, "Terror of the Autons"

tony farrell

Quote from: galacticprobe on Aug 23, 2016, 06:17 am
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 22, 2016, 03:00 pm
I really don't know how you can say that Dino - Mark Gatiss is a long-standing fan of Dr Who and cared passionately about AAIS&T (it took him many years to persuade the BBC to produce it and - in the end - his repeated approaches to the Beeb were only met with success because of the 50th Anniversary when the corporation took the decision to promote Dr Who across all its output).

If he pushed that hard and for that long to get AAiSaT off the ground, then you'd think that he would have researched both the console and TARDIS props to death by then, and had them built with the accuracy they deserved for such a well-written documentary. (And it was well-written, which only makes the lack of accuracy of the props that much more depressing.)


You've completely missed my point Dino - the Bradley Tardis and Console didn't need to be faithful replicas precisely because and AAIS&T wasn't a documentary. It was a dramatisation and therefore the props simply had to evoke, not copy, the originals!

As for listening to the fans - again, you've missed my point. It was JN-T who listened to the fans and made Dr Who too much of a 'continuity obsessed' show which therefore became inaccessible to the wider 'family audience' it should have been aimed at.

For the programme to remain fresh, it cannot dwell in its own past. That is why (in my view) 'over-using' monsters such as the Daleks is a mistake - they lose their 'magic'. Similarly, re-using past Doctors or companions should only be done very-sparingly - as an occasional 'treat' or 'nod' to the past. (Don't forget, most of Dr Who's audience isn't made up of 'fans' at all - it is made up of people who simply want to enjoy and be entertained for 45 minutes by a well-made programme.)  :)

T


ionsith

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 23, 2016, 01:32 pm

As for listening to the fans - again, you've missed my point. It was JN-T who listened to the fans and made Dr Who too much of a 'continuity obsessed' show which therefore became inaccessible to the wider 'family audience' it should have been aimed at.

For the programme to remain fresh, it cannot dwell in its own past. That is why (in my view) 'over-using' monsters such as the Daleks is a mistake - they lose their 'magic'. Similarly, re-using past Doctors or companions should only be done very-sparingly - as an occasional 'treat' or 'nod' to the past. (Don't forget, most of Dr Who's audience isn't made up of 'fans' at all - it is made up of people who simply want to enjoy and be entertained for 45 minutes by a well-made programme.)  :)

T


   I get what you're saying, Tony, although I think it was more the likes of Ian Levine who were pushing for more continuity references (and he had considerable sway at the time). I di take the point though that they must have known that the props would be likely to end up on display somewhere and that in itself would have been a good reason to push for more accuracy. I realise that it wasn't the point of AAiSaT, but for me getting the TARDIS wrong is as heinous as concrete bollards in The Tudors! Obviously the entire enterprise should have been done to satisfy me and my nitpicking. They just weren't thinking! ;)

   

 

tony farrell

What? We didn't have concrete bollards in Tudor England? My degree in History is worthless!!  ;D

T

galacticprobe

Aug 24, 2016, 07:42 am #42 Last Edit: Aug 24, 2016, 07:52 am by galacticprobe
Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 23, 2016, 01:32 pm
For the programme to remain fresh, it cannot dwell in its own past.

Well, when you're dealing with a TV show that's centered around the concept of time travel (as well as space and time travel), then you're going to have to keep its own past in mind. To not at least look back at it is ignoring its history: its roots and how it came to be the great thing it is today. (It's like ignoring your family's history; you've got your own kids now, so to hell with all of the ancestors that came before us.) The past can lead to the future, and in cases of time travel, vice-versa.)

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 23, 2016, 01:32 pm
That is why (in my view) 'over-using' monsters such as the Daleks is a mistake - they lose their 'magic'.

I agree. With the plethora of monsters and baddies and strange planets the Doctor has visited in the last 53 or so years, I'm sure they can dig up some of the Classics for a modern return without overusing most of them. (That Ice Warrior was a great treat.)

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 23, 2016, 01:32 pm
Similarly, re-using past Doctors or companions should only be done very-sparingly - as an occasional 'treat' or 'nod' to the past.

The first time that was done with the New Series was "School Reunion" early on in Series 2. It didn't happen again until the Series 4 finale, and that was a 3-way cross-over (and I believe at the top of the list of fan favorite episodes). Not counting the cameos at "The End Of Time Part 2", or 'The Sarah Jane Adventures', a Classic companion has not appeared in the series since. The only multi-Doctor episode we've seen was the 50th; the last time that was done was in the 1984 story "The Two Doctors"... unless you count the 1993 special "Dimensions In Time", in which no two Doctors ever met. (Nine years from 1985 to 1993, and then 20 years from 1993 to 2013: is that too "occasional"?)

This Classic companion return in the New Series isn't something that was being asked for to have in every other episode, only once in a while, and with the amount of time the Doctor has been spending on present day Earth (in London, mostly when it happens, if not Cardiff), what's the harm in having him run into someone like Tegan? Not every episode, but why not at least consider once per series? (Why not let the viewers have their treat every now and then before more of the Classic companions pass on? How many have we lost already? Too many, and at too young an age.)

Quote from: Tony Farrell on Aug 23, 2016, 01:32 pm
(Don't forget, most of Dr Who's audience isn't made up of 'fans' at all - it is made up of people who simply want to enjoy and be entertained for 45 minutes by a well-made programme.)  :)

Er... if they keep coming back to be entertained by the same show again and again, then those viewers are known as fans. Line up every 'Doctor Who' viewer in the UK - forget the rest of the world for the moment - and then have only the fans step forward. I'd put money on that back line being exceedingly small and that group that stepped forward to be about 90 percent of the viewership.

Dino.
"What's wrong with being childish?! I like being childish." -3rd Doctor, "Terror of the Autons"

willgillies

Any idea if this prop is still about? It's an ugly duckling but I like it for some reason.