Adventure Game Studio

Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sam. on Sat 26/03/2005 19:45:44

Title: Dr Who.
Post by: Sam. on Sat 26/03/2005 19:45:44
So.. what did all the brits think of the new Dr. Who? I thought it was awesome, but then, im not old enough to remmebr the last one.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Eggie on Sat 26/03/2005 19:54:10
I liked it. My parents liked it.
My all-round opinion of this = likable

Kind of makes me feel like I missed something...
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: PaulSC on Sat 26/03/2005 20:10:31
It was alright - I thought Eccleston was very good indeed.

But ooh, I just hate that slick, plasticy look all these modern high(er) budget BBC productions always have. At a time when US TV dramas can look every bit as great as high budget cinema productions, I find this kind of ugly, fake look very hard to swallow, to be honest.

We'll have to see how well they pull off regular storylines to really get an idea of how well it's working, of course. But I can't getting the feeling that once the novelty value wears off, it won't last too long. The whole thing kind of reminds me of that Randal and Hopkirk remake from a few years back, unfortunatly.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Privateer Puddin' on Sat 26/03/2005 20:14:21
I thought it was good, having not seen much of the past doctors.

From previews i've seen, it seems theres now bad cgi rather than bad 'blue peter' like enemies :D
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Chicky on Sat 26/03/2005 20:56:24
Ahh it was great, Chicky really liked it. And i am also to young to have watched the old ones on the box, but my parents bought me like every Dr.Who video they could find when i was a kid  ::)
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Evil on Sat 26/03/2005 21:01:41
Quote from: PaulSC on Sat 26/03/2005 20:10:31But ooh, I just hate that slick, plasticy look all these modern high(er) budget BBC productions always have. At a time when US TV dramas can look every bit as great as high budget cinema productions, I find this kind of ugly, fake look very hard to swallow, to be honest.

I know what you mean. I can't watch BBC because the image quality drives me crazy. Though I still watch Dr Who or Red Dwarf on PBS every once in a while. Usually late at night when I'm too tired to notice the quality.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Mr Flibble on Sat 26/03/2005 22:30:12
Well I watched it, and I thought it was great.

Evil, is Red Dwarf really as popular in America as the DVD commentaries would have us believe?
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Kweepa on Sat 26/03/2005 22:59:53
Quote from: Mr Flibble on Sat 26/03/2005 22:30:12
Well I watched it, and I thought it was great.

Evil, is Red Dwarf really as popular in America as the DVD commentaries would have us believe?

Red Who?
It's on BBC America occasionally, but hardly anyone watches BBC America.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: BerserkerTails on Sat 26/03/2005 23:08:56
Well, I live in Canada, and love Red Dwarf, so I dunno. And I know a lot of people who know of it too.

As for the new Doctor Who, I saw the episode a few weeks back when it was leaked to THE INTERNETS, and I thought it was really good. Eccleston seemed to make a good doctor, and the show was on the whole rather enjoyable. I do agree with the whole "BBC-Quality" issue, however.

The thing that bugs me, is that you look at shows like "Coupling" and "The Office", and they don't seem to have that low-budget image-quality look to them, yet the new Doctor Who does... Hmmm, odd.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Mr Flibble on Sat 26/03/2005 23:39:42
Well, the BBC gives shows (especially sci fi) quite low budgets, which affects the type of film they use.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but since The Office didn't need to buy aliens and planets, they could afford better film. Or perhaps even that CineMagic thing that producers love so much.

The best comparision between "filmized" cinemagic shows and regular shows is Red Dwarf, and Red Dwarf ReMastered. There is quite a difference. Besides, if you wanna talk bad images, watch channel Five. Sorry, watch "five" (thats what they like to call themselves). Sometimes I use a black and white TV, and channel five is just unwatchable.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: PaulSC on Sun 27/03/2005 02:48:38
Quote from: Mr Flibble on Sat 26/03/2005 23:39:42The best comparision between "filmized" cinemagic shows and regular shows is Red Dwarf, and Red Dwarf ReMastered. There is quite a difference.

Is that the thing where they reprocess the video footage, altering the framerate to give it that pseudo-film quality? It's usually pretty horrendous when they do that, I think.

I wish they'd just gone with film for this Dr Who, because the ugliness really bothered me - not helped by the slightly odd, slightly crap directing. I get the feeling it'll bug me through the whole thing, but I'm hoping the writing and performances will shine through in the end.

I doubt this new Dr Who is low budget by modern BBC standards, though. They seem to be hoping for a saturday night ratings winner, so I imagine they invested quite a bit in it. Admittedly a high budget BBC show is probably nothing compared to a big budget US show.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Etcher Squared Games on Sun 27/03/2005 04:18:13
wow, i'm a Dr. Who fan and I didn't know of this????

I looked at IMDB.com but didn't find a reference to this new Dr. Who.

Is it only on in the UK?
Who is the new doctor?
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Ashen on Sun 27/03/2005 04:29:35
Chris Eccleston.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436992/

I think it's only in the UK for now, but since the first episode was leaked from a Canadian source, I assume it'll reach the rest of the world eventually.

I really liked it, actually. I didn't notice the quality issue people have mentioned, (although it's true, the average BBC series costs about as much as one episode of American TV) and I liked the slightly retro, man-in-a-rubber-suit effects used for most of it. Billie wasn't even as god-awful as I thought she'd be. I just hope future episodes are more serial, like the previous versions, and not just one 45 minute episode per story.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: BerserkerTails on Sun 27/03/2005 04:40:50
QuoteI just hope future episodes are more serial, like the previous versions, and not just one 45 minute episode per story.

Oh, I think once the Daleks get introduced, you'll see more continuity between episodes.

EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: AGA on Sun 27/03/2005 04:49:47
A scene from it was filmed right outside my building. I live in an old, Victorian-style building, with an old-style pub just across the road. It was snowing the day they filmed. I came home drunk one day to find they'd sealed off the road (including the front door to my building). They had to escort us across the set. I saw Billie Piper!! She was completely wrapped up in a big warm coat though, given the cold weather.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Evil on Sun 27/03/2005 06:35:47
Quote from: Mr Flibble on Sat 26/03/2005 22:30:12Evil, is Red Dwarf really as popular in America as the DVD commentaries would have us believe?

Not in Iowa, nor anywhere else as far as I am aware of. Don't get me wrong, it's great comedy, but America loves their "reality shows".
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: MrColossal on Sun 27/03/2005 07:04:45
Evil.. Are you telling me Red Dwarf isn't a reality show?
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Privateer Puddin' on Sun 27/03/2005 09:38:35
Quote from: Mr Flibble on Sat 26/03/2005 23:39:42Sometimes I use a black and white TV, and channel five is just unwatchable.

I think that's just the reception your getting, watch it on sky and it's clear as anything else
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Sam. on Sun 27/03/2005 11:00:33
I don't think the quality of BBC drama is bad, i think its in a style that is not pleasing. Everything is given this, greasy, "lloking through glass" kind of look. It looks cheap. but if the content is good, why worry about the film quality? Maybe if we get some more series' it'll get better, is the orignal who did.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Phoenix on Sun 27/03/2005 13:45:14
I like the new look for Dr who and the few jokes were ok but the bucket burping that was a bit too far and I thought they spent money on the special effects but the still use the crap looking fade away with the police box! Billie was ok and the new Dr gives alot more depth to his character. Oh red dwarf is the best! Can't wait till the film comes out, but Craig Charles would rather go on the games than work on the film >:(
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Mr Flibble on Sun 27/03/2005 14:28:33
Well Craig Charles is on The Games but don't think he was ditching the movie to do it. Doug Naylor hasn't even found founding for it yet.
The BBC refuse to pay for it, which is a surprise.
Even that company that financed "thunderpants" wouldn't give them money.

For those who are interested, there is a Red Dwarf fangame is production. Here. (http://www.fangames.co.uk/V6/forum/viewtopic.php?t=490)
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Ali on Sun 27/03/2005 14:30:11
Quote from: PaulSC on Sun 27/03/2005 02:48:38
I doubt this new Dr Who is low budget by modern BBC standards, though. They seem to be hoping for a saturday night ratings winner, so I imagine they invested quite a bit in it.

It cost around £10m, which is twice what you'd expect a regular British Rom-Com film to cost.

The CGI was done by the fellas that did Gladiator, which looked pretty convincing if memory served. I think one of the problems with the Dr Who special effects is that there are too many effects sequences. They can't all be convincing.

Look out for Cassandra the skin lady though, she's entirely CG and looks pretty good.

Quote from: Phoenix on Sun 27/03/2005 13:45:14
Ithe still use the crap looking fade away with the police box!

Watch out for a later snowy episode. Apparently the Tardis disappears and the settled snow flutters down to the ground.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Eggie on Sun 27/03/2005 15:17:12
Actually. With the fading Tardis. I noticed they threw some some smoke in there, just to make it harder for themselves.

I think The Guide described the special effects best:
"The SFX are alright, but pre-programmed to look naff in 10 years time"

And if you're annoyed by the quality of the cameras they used...well...well...it's a CAMERA for God's sake!
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Creed Malay on Sun 27/03/2005 15:24:47
I was kinda put off the new Dr. Who when I found out Richard E. Grant wasn't going to be playing him,  and the teasers and trailers I've seen didn't fill me with hope. I really enjoyed the pilot though, nice intro to the series and some very nice humour. The special effects were a shade poo, but they're much better than the Doctor Who effects we had when I were a lad. We had Sylvester Mc. Coy fighting a giant version of the sweetie man from the licorique allsorts adverts.  Also- Northern Doctor = happy Creed.

"If you're from another planet, how come you talk like you're from the North?"
"Lots of planets have a North."

Quality.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: MillsJROSS on Sun 27/03/2005 21:32:13
I love the old Doctor Who's for their campiness. I hope I'll get a chance to see the new episodes.

As far as Red Dwarf is concenred in America. You probably won't find that the majority of people here will even know anything about the show, as for the most part it's played on either bbc america or pbs. Neither of which get too much of an audience. The problem with BBC America is they have comercials, so a half hour episode takes fourty-five minutes. PBS shows all british show's fully, but they mostly show british shows on saturday, which isn't a day that yields a lot of tv watching, that is, if the local pbs shows it at all. However, Red Dwarf, apparently, has enough fan base for them to sell the DVD's here. And it's gaining more and more popularity, as I've seen it in several DVD stores. I also make it a point to show almost everyone I know Red Dwarf. And I find, that while some people can't get into it, the people who do enjoy it, mostly, are big scifi fans. And there are a lot of those.

-MillsJROSS
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens on Mon 28/03/2005 07:18:17
Actually, I know ALOT of people that are fans of Red Dwarf here in America, including myself.  The only problem (as with most BBC stuff) is that by the time we got to see it, it was already cancelled.  Hopefully Craig and Chris will get together and turn out a moderate budget movie, so we can get some resolution to the final season and it's multitude of cliffhangers ;>

As for Dr. Who, I haven't seen the new show, but I was a big fan of the Tom Baker years, and he was always dressed like some rogue scholar with a huge striped scarf, making him easily the coolest and most laid back of the Doctors.  "Jelly baby?"

Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Pumaman on Tue 29/03/2005 22:28:39
I thought it was actually pretty good, considering. I didn't notice any problems with the film quality -- looked just like anything else on TV. The special effects were a bit poor though, especially when the guy got stuck to the wheelie bin; but then, Dr Who has always had a low-budget feel to it, so can't complain I guess :P
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: PaulSC on Thu 31/03/2005 02:22:06
Whoops, apparently Eccleston has quit as the Doctor.

I can see why an actor might think spending months and months working on the same role would be harmful for their career, but still it's disappointing news. And you'd think everyone involved would at least wait till the end of the series before announcing it.

Anyway, I think it'd be fun if they 'degenerated' the character back into Paul McGann, who never really got a proper shot at it.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Privateer Puddin' on Thu 31/03/2005 09:10:07
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4395849.stm

indeed, shame, i liked the first ep, dunno how much i'll enjoy the rest of the series knowing he has already quit.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Phemar on Fri 01/04/2005 11:33:26

You know Douglas Adams was the script editor for the older Dr. Who series.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: SSH on Fri 01/04/2005 11:37:37
Yup, and the Doctor begins one Dalek episode reading a book by Oolon Caluphid
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Privateer Puddin' on Sat 18/06/2005 19:53:25
Digging up an old topic, but no point in starting another doctor who thread eh?

Just saw the last episode of the current series with the doctors latest regeneration

I didn't think the new guy (whose name i can't remember right now, but he was recently in BBC 1s casanova) was going to be as good, but in that 5 sec or so bit you saw of him, i'm rather looking forward to the christmas special now..
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: FrogMarch on Sat 18/06/2005 20:12:38
I saw the last episode, and I agree that the new guy looks like he could be pretty good. He looked a tad funny in Chris E's clothes though. They seemed a bit too big.

One question, what's going to happen to Jack? They just left him there to rot.

Poor lad.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Mr Flibble on Sat 18/06/2005 22:02:44
The new Doctor is David Tennant.
He looks a little bit like the short one off Top Gear.

I still don't quite understand the whole Bad Wolf thing though.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Privateer Puddin' on Sat 18/06/2005 22:08:52
Loads of theories re Bad Wolf

the short one off top gear is richard hammond
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: magintz on Sat 18/06/2005 22:14:05
Most enjoyable, I missed the sequal to the episode with the creepy gas masks... anyone care to fill me in on the next episode? What happened?
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: FrogMarch on Sat 18/06/2005 22:21:30
magintz - basically the Doctor used the nano gene thingies to fix everyone's DNA. He was really pleased 'cause everyone survived, for once.

Puddin' - Rose did the whole Bad Wolf thing herself, once she got the time field thingame in her head. She spread those words throughout time, as a message to herself, so that she'd know she could save the Doc. Bit of a paradox, that.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Privateer Puddin' on Sat 18/06/2005 22:32:32
How about the theory that Rose didn't just bring Jack back to life.. what if she got some of the timelords? a bit far fetched i know but thats just one of the things i've read :)
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: FrogMarch on Sat 18/06/2005 22:56:51
Where are you reading this stuff?
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Las Naranjas on Sat 18/06/2005 23:30:41
From what I've seen of the new series [and yes, it is shown outside the UK] they've gone back to the same vein of balanced camp and seriousness that existed before that crappy 90's movie that tried to be completely serious.

That crappy movie that was crap. For christ's sake, he travels through time and space in a Police Box, don't descend into self parody, but you're allowed a snigger here and there.


And I hope to god that the Red Dwarf film doesn't get funding. The last few series were eye ball tearing outly horrible, and more so if compared to the earlier seasons. Rob Grant is evidently far funnier than Doug Naylor, especially when you compare the independent sequels to Better Than Life they each wrote. Grants was nasty with limited numbers of characters [hence more character humour] and hilarious, like the earlier seasons. Naylor's was "hAHaHAH PENIS!!!!!! GIMP!!!! LOTS OF THEM, KOCHANSKI PENIS SEX OMG!"

and that is a COMPLETELY accurate recreation.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Ali on Sun 19/06/2005 00:18:26
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Sat 18/06/2005 23:30:41
Grants was nasty with limited numbers of characters [hence more character humour] and hilarious, like the earlier seasons. Naylor's was "hAHaHAH PENIS!!!!!! GIMP!!!! LOTS OF THEM, KOCHANSKI PENIS SEX OMG!"

and that is a COMPLETELY accurate recreation.
Oh how I wish you were wrong.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Pumaman on Sun 19/06/2005 00:32:32
The new Doctor looks like he belongs in a boy band, not saving the universe from Daleks. The Christmas special will probably see him putting on a gig in the tardis with Rose screaming excitedly and throwing underwear his way.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Las Naranjas on Sun 19/06/2005 02:52:13
I'll also mention that I don't like the fact that the BBC now covers it's sets with crappy neon CGI rather than the fog from dry ice.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Privateer Puddin' on Sun 19/06/2005 08:52:59
Quote from: Pumaman on Sun 19/06/2005 00:32:32
The new Doctor looks like he belongs in a boy band, not saving the universe from Daleks. The Christmas special will probably see him putting on a gig in the tardis with Rose screaming excitedly and throwing underwear his way.


Not the youngest doctor though... :P
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Mr Flibble on Sun 19/06/2005 12:37:40
I still don't get how the words Bad Wolf would act as a message.
I mean she could've used any words. Or none at all. Its not like the words Bad Wolf told her how to get the TARDIS working. All they seemed to do was remind her that she had a time machine and roughly 200,000 years (something like that)  to get it working.

Its a shame that Rob Grant left Red Dwarf, without him it became very formulaic, with a lot of jokes over used and over explained. Doug Naylor's series (6,7 and 8) were driven by creating new scenarios and throw away characters, although Red Dwarf was popular for its character based storylines and the feeling of isolation.
I mean they're harly isolated 3 million years into deep space if they come into contact with people who originally came from Earth every episode.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Reko on Sun 19/06/2005 13:08:53
I really don't like the newest series. It just seems..cheesy. If I wanted to watch the old, real Doctor Who and such. And as for who plays the Doctor.. I don't think they've chosen very well. The doctor needs to have 'gravity' so to speak, but I haven't seen any of it so far.

Well.. I'd just say my preference reflects my preference of adventure games (i.e. old-school style) than CGI-stuffed imagery and overused, modernised plots.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Cluey on Sun 19/06/2005 17:13:02
I thought the new series was thouroughly enjoyable.  I loved the last two episodes although I still didn't quite see the significance of Bad Wolf. 

I think Bad Wolf is words the TARDIS put across time, and when Rose becomes "possessed", its the TARDIS acting through her.  The Doctor said it was alive and it thought for itself.

Daleks are cool.

The whole thing did have a very distinct Britishness about it.  The "plastic wrap" feel only adds to the cheesiness.  I think it's supposed to be deliberate.  The writers wouldnt want an all out Hollywood style action.  They kept the cheesiness, and it has a certain charm I think.

The original series' never used top of the range effects of the time.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: BerserkerTails on Sun 19/06/2005 18:18:19
Well, I just watched the final episode (Despite it not airing in Canada for two more weeks), and I positively loved it. I had seen a few random episodes of the series before so I can't comment on how great it was compared to the rest fo the series, but I know what I like.

That being said, I've started watching tons of old episodes since I got hooked on the new series, and I love them as well. I do think the new series captured the style of the old one quite well.

That being said, I'm definitely looking forward to seeing the Tenth Doctor in action. Though I'm glad they did it, it's still a pretty dirty trick to have the Doctor regenerate, then have the show disappear for 6 months.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Mr Flibble on Sun 19/06/2005 19:12:57
What grabbed me about the new series was that suddenly the Doctor's actions had consequences.
Before there were seperate serials that made up the series, but each one was seemingly unrelated, apart from the link-to.
The new, more freeform, formula works much better, and allows for hidden story arcs which become apparent only at the end. Who'd a thunk the Doctor would have to go back to Satelite 5?

I think its better that they kept the cheese and the old fashioned tardis whoosh. I mean the tardis woundn't make a different noise just because it suddenly had a larger budget.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: BerserkerTails on Sun 19/06/2005 19:18:35
If you noticed near the start of the last episode, when the Tardis was flying towards the Dalek mothership, it still twirled in that "Model on a string" sorta way. I thought that was awesome.

The show has done a good job in staying consistant with the old stuff, while being new enough not to shun new viewers. A show that did a very POOR job of this would be Star Trek Enterprise. I mean, why did that Enterprise look more high tech than the one from the Original Seires?
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Mr Flibble on Sun 19/06/2005 19:26:14
I could see my way past the fact that the Enterprise was more high tech-ish than even the Next Generation, but what made the series fail was the 2D characters (Captain Airlock, as he is know known to 'fans'), predictable plots and the typical Star Trek Vulcan/Robot/Borg/ (in this case Vulcan) who comes to terms with their fellow crew/ own 'Humanity' and learns to laugh, and to love.

Oh, and couple that up with the fact that the producers removed ALL social commentary and morals, leaving behind a clear cut all-american crew (the black guy seems to get hurt a lot, and no-one seems to mind. Pesky Americans) facing 'The Bad Guys'.

They don't even try to put in a moral conflict, like the aliens doing what they need to survive, or the right to live. Archer=Good. Andorians/Xindi= Bad. Good shoots bad. T'Pol gets 'nekkid.

Although rumour has it that the last (ever) two episodes are actually extremely good, even reverting to the use of the old "These are the voyages" speach in the intro.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Hakujin on Mon 20/06/2005 02:10:05
I think some good things have been done with the new Dr. Who series (just bringing it back in itself...) but over all, I'd like to take it away from Russel T Davies. He's like a little boy who cheeses it up WAY too much. What made Dr. Who work was it's grit and the episodic nature meant the writers could explore whatever issue they wanted in whatever world they wanted. I think developing the Dr & assistant over time was a good idea, but they did that before as well, without such a by-episode-13-we're-going-to-have-a-revelation agenda. It's too much like space comic adventures now (captain Jack - who I liked - everybody smooching every body - apparently in some orgiastic three way - which I'm cool with, but was better when you left it up to your imagination what their personal lives were like on the TARDIS.) I never used to roll my eyes when watching Dr. Who but I did in about half the episodes in this season.

Overall: it's good to have it back, the season had some strong points, but overall, I'm missing a lot of the Dr. Who style. And please, please, please, kill the cheese.
Title: Re: Dr Who.
Post by: Captain Mostly on Mon 20/06/2005 15:17:21
I loved the new seriese! I cannot imagine how anyone could have ever made a more faithful, yet up-to-date return of the program. It was utterly brilliant and spot on.

Although to be be honest I didn't like Eccleston at first (for the first couple of episodes) but when I got used to him he just seemed totally natural in the role. Fantastic.

BUT

I predict David Tennant will be... AMAZING as the new Dr. I loved him in Cassanova and it seems to me he'll take to the role like a duck to water. I just hope he'll want to stick with the character for longer... one seriese just doesn't seem like enough...

(As for Paul McGann, he DOES get the chance to be the doctor over and over again in the audio adventures... sure he's not on telle, but check them out for more of that Who fix we've all be craving round here since the end of the latest batch)...