Rewatching Genesis
Daniel O'Mahony
choice for a restart of the repeat run, and it was only while watching Part
One yesterday that cleared it up for me - it's the first Doctor Who story
in colour that really comfortably occupies its medium. The two Pertwee's we
saw are excellent productions in their own way but they failed really to
fit into the technical aesthetic of 1990s television. They look stranded,
unique and alien - consequently they're very uncomfortable to watch.
As the series' first colour productions they feel very alert and tentative,
not quite at ease with the transition or the protocols of not being in
black-and-white. I think a modern audience, if it could overcome its
reluctance to sample monochrome material, might have found the later
Troughton stories more to its taste. 'The Tomb of the Cybermen' and 'The
Mind Robber' are exemplary black-and-white television. They've transcended
the circumstances of their production in ways that the early Pertwee's
haven't.
'Genesis' is, I think, the first colour production to do the same - I'm not
claiming that it's become so memorable just for that, but I think that's an
important factor. Pertwee always struggles nowadays, because it can't quite
get to grips with the new medium. Colour videotape is very raw and there's
a pathologically lurid quality to the colour schemes, even as late as 'The
Monster of Peladon'. (Actually 'Frontios's design is probably no more
sensible than Peladon, but 'Frontios' is the product of a series which has
been playing the colour game successfully for nine years and the result is
successfully co-ordinated and unified). Someone else once pointed out that
much of the Pertwee era is pretending that it's made for the cinema, and
failing pretty miserably. Starting with 'Robot' would have been disastrous
because it's still rooted in the early-colour technical aesthetic.
Regardless of its merits as drama, most of the Pertwee era is technically
experimental and difficult to watch independent of that knowledge.
You can see the series' sudden breathless development in the production
block running up to 'Genesis' . 'The Sontaran Experiment' and 'The Ark in
Space' are both reasonably successful attempts at establishing production
parameters. 'The Sontaran Experiment' isn't much cop really, but without it
we might not have reached the high watermarks left by 'The Seeds of Doom',
'Full Circle' or Alan Wareing's direction (similarly 'Genesis' prefigures
'The Deadly Assassin', 'Warriors' Gate', Graeme Harper and other exemplars
of 'Doctor Who'). 'Revenge' is a bit of a throwback, and seems to make
sense from a technical point of view when you remember that it predated
'Genesis' in production. 'Genesis' is the first fully integrated colour
production on Doctor Who, which is not to say that everything since then
has been perfect but that - for at least the next ten years - any
deficiencies in the series' production are visible and external rather than
arising from the technical aesthetic.
It lasts almost exactly ten years. The last production I can think of that
is as completely unified and successful as 'Genesis' in its aesthetic is
'Revelation of the Daleks'. I'm not sure what happens after that. There are
still moments, particularly where Wareing is invovled, that remind me that
I'm watching the same technically proficient series that turned out 'The
Talons of Weng-Chiang' or 'Snakedance', but something goes wrong after
that; a falling away from the naturalism of earlier serials, as if the
series wants to be huger than the TV picture, but doesn't have the wit or
the energy to manage it. I'm not sure that productions of the standard of
'Battlefield' (an easy target, I know, but what the hey) would cut the
mustard in the year 2000 any more than 'Doctor Who and the Silurians'. They
haven't transcended their era, but 'Genesis', I believe has.
Mind you, I also think you could get away with doing Doctor Who using
nothing more than two actors and a chair...
Richard Molesworth
Daniel O'Mahony <dani...@lineone.net> wrote in article
<01bf6d98$2de4f720$LocalHost@LineOne>...
> Mind you, I also think you could get away with doing Doctor Who using
> nothing more than two actors and a chair...
Also known as 'the Keith Barnfather principle'....
Richard.
Aggie-Tom
Daniel O'Mahony wrote in message <01bf6d98$2de4f720$LocalHost@LineOne>...
>I know it seems to be on TV every five minutes, but Genesis is such a canny
>choice for a restart of the repeat run, and it was only while watching Part
>One yesterday that cleared it up for me - it's the first Doctor Who story
You mean so they could put in the announcement at the end about Tom Bakers
show on Radio 2. That's why they abandoned a whole 5 seasons of Pertwee, all
to plug Tom Bakers show on names. I wouldn't have believed it, but Radio 2
presentation hasn't changed one iota since the 1950's. Why dont they just
scrap Radio 2 and give the money to community radio station's like
Inspiration FM which more people listen to.
>in colour that really comfortably occupies its medium. The two Pertwee's we
I dont think so.
Look at the sets. GREY. Look and the Daleks. GREY. Look at the costumes.
BLACK. Look at the locations, BLAND.
I first watched this story in Black and White and seeing it again in colour
added nothing new. It was more scary in Black and White anyway.
>saw are excellent productions in their own way but they failed really to
>fit into the technical aesthetic of 1990s television. They look stranded,
>unique and alien - consequently they're very uncomfortable to watch.
Rubbish. "Spearhead" was on par with "The Avengers" having being made on
film. "The Silurians" suffered because it was made on Videotape and this was
what was wrong with Genesis.
Just wait till you get to the bit where the cut in some footage of a NASA
rocket launch to double up as the Thal Missile. The rocket looked NOTHING
like it. And "Revenge of the Cypbermen" does the same thing too. Both are a
complete let down.
>
>As the series' first colour productions they feel very alert and tentative,
>not quite at ease with the transition or the protocols of not being in
>black-and-white. I think a modern audience, if it could overcome its
>reluctance to sample monochrome material, might have found the later
>Troughton stories more to its taste. 'The Tomb of the Cybermen' and 'The
>Mind Robber' are exemplary black-and-white television. They've transcended
>the circumstances of their production in ways that the early Pertwee's
>haven't.
None of the Dramas the BBC recorded in Colour or more precisely on Vidoetape
have been any good.
No consideration is given to lighting, locations or making the studio
recordings fit in with the OB footage.
The BBC obviously decided with the same wisdom they employed to with the
entire Doctor Who archive, that because it was on Video it didn't require
atmospheric lighting, or real locations and they could get away with
anything and nobody would care.
Notice the polystyrene cutouts instead of real sand bags or rocks on
"Genesis".
>'Genesis' is, I think, the first colour production to do the same - I'm not
Nope... "Robots of Death" was the closest that Doctor Who got in colour to
the quality of the Hartnell stories made on film.
Ever since 625 line TV and Vidoetape came along in the 60's the production
standards for BBC Drama, have dropped and dropped and dropped until the
return to film again for wide screen TV in the 90's. The 70's was infact the
WORST period of drama production in BBC history. Every expense was spared to
make the sets look unrealistic, to (not)light the actors so they looked
flat, to use actor like static furniture. No action, no movement, overuse of
zoom lenses and most importently NO USE OF COLOUR.
Even William Hartnells Daleks had Blue Circles. You should see some of the
location photographs from Harnells time. This was the best colour stuff the
BBC ever made. Its a pity is was only recorded in Black and White.
>claiming that it's become so memorable just for that, but I think that's an
>important factor. Pertwee always struggles nowadays, because it can't quite
>get to grips with the new medium. Colour videotape is very raw and there's
Pertwees stories were directed in a manner that they should have been
recorded on film. Its a pitty that only Spearhed was.
>a pathologically lurid quality to the colour schemes, even as late as 'The
>Monster of Peladon'. (Actually 'Frontios's design is probably no more
>sensible than Peladon, but 'Frontios' is the product of a series which has
>been playing the colour game successfully for nine years and the result is
>successfully co-ordinated and unified). Someone else once pointed out that
>much of the Pertwee era is pretending that it's made for the cinema, and
>failing pretty miserably. Starting with 'Robot' would have been disastrous
And if the BBC had given it the same since of budget as the gave to the fist
Harnell stories it would have been made on film and not failed.
In 1963 the special effects on the Daleks were comparable to those on an
early 50's B-Movie. By 1970 the SFX were of a standard BELOW those of a 50's
B-Movie.
>because it's still rooted in the early-colour technical aesthetic.
As for Robot. It worked in B&W when I first saw it, but in colour the CSO is
a let down. What its is rooted in is the BBC disrespect for production
values.
While the BBC expected all foreign imports like "Columbo", "Kojak",
"Starskey and Hutch" and "Dallas" to be made on high quality Film, the BBC's
own drama productions were Fifth rate Videotape produtions which made the
BBC a laughing stock all over the United States.
>Regardless of its merits as drama, most of the Pertwee era is technically
>experimental and difficult to watch independent of that knowledge.
>You can see the series' sudden breathless development in the production
>block running up to 'Genesis' . 'The Sontaran Experiment' and 'The Ark in
"The Sontaran Experiment" was shot entirely on location and on film so
suffered from none of the detriments of Videotape. (Do the BBC still posses
the film stock and if so can it be restored.)
>Space' are both reasonably successful attempts at establishing production
>parameters. 'The Sontaran Experiment' isn't much cop really, but without it
>we might not have reached the high watermarks left by 'The Seeds of Doom',
"The Seeds of Doom" works better in B&W. In colour the rubber Kryniod is a
joke. In B&W it scared the pant of me.
>'Full Circle' or Alan Wareing's direction (similarly 'Genesis' prefigures
>'The Deadly Assassin', 'Warriors' Gate', Graeme Harper and other exemplars
>of 'Doctor Who'). 'Revenge' is a bit of a throwback, and seems to make
>sense from a technical point of view when you remember that it predated
>'Genesis' in production. 'Genesis' is the first fully integrated colour
>production on Doctor Who, which is not to say that everything since then
The filmography was terrible. Why was everybody standing still like dummies
all huddled together in the scene where the Doctor empties out his pockets.
Why wanst any movement introduced.
In the BBC schoool of drama the rules for directors are stick the actors
infront of the camera, press record and let them say their lines.
The BBC in the 70's and 80's had no idea how to make drama. It had more idea
in the 50's and 60's so maybe is was a deliberate attempt to make thins look
fifth rate.
>has been perfect but that - for at least the next ten years - any
>deficiencies in the series' production are visible and external rather than
>arising from the technical aesthetic.
Ah, and we musyt congratulate the BBC for the excellent production of
"Underworld". The CSO caves in "Revenge" were bad, so we have to ask what
led the BBC to make this story entirely using CSO.
>It lasts almost exactly ten years. The last production I can think of that
>is as completely unified and successful as 'Genesis' in its aesthetic is
>'Revelation of the Daleks'. I'm not sure what happens after that. There are
Are you joking.
A polystyrene statue falling ontop of the Doctor was suppose to have you
fooled.
Ah wait a moment, it *WAS* a polystyrene statue.
>still moments, particularly where Wareing is invovled, that remind me that
>I'm watching the same technically proficient series that turned out 'The
>Talons of Weng-Chiang' or 'Snakedance', but something goes wrong after
Oh "Tallons". Why on earth did they have to white out Li H'sen Chang's eyes
durin the hypnotiseation scenes. The over;ays DIDNT even fit his face, and
even if they did they still would have looked cheep. Daramtical it would
have been better if they showed his real eyes or used coloured contact
lenses.
>that; a falling away from the naturalism of earlier serials, as if the
>series wants to be huger than the TV picture, but doesn't have the wit or
>the energy to manage it. I'm not sure that productions of the standard of
>'Battlefield' (an easy target, I know, but what the hey) would cut the
Battlefield was nothing more than a cheep soap opra, with soap opra cameos.
>mustard in the year 2000 any more than 'Doctor Who and the Silurians'. They
>haven't transcended their era, but 'Genesis', I believe has.
Oh wait for the out of place NASA footage. And thank the restoration teem
for removing the colour bars that shot up the screen every time a gun was
fired. The BBC knew the blanks used produce radio waves that put the cameras
out of sync but still they shot the scenes on Video tape instead of film.
Oh and look back at the all to obvious camera burn when the Daleks fire at
the end of episode 1, the same sort of thing that you get if you look at a
light bulb and the close you eyes.
>Mind you, I also think you could get away with doing Doctor Who using
>nothing more than two actors and a chair...
BTW were Spearhead or any of the remaining Hartnell and Troughton film
stories shot in 16:9 ratio.
--
DJ Agamemnon
INSPIRATION FM - Northamptonshire's Multi-Cultural Community Radio Station -
Live and Direct on 105.8
David Embery
for the last year but I had to reply...
Aggie-Tom wrote in message ...
Personally I feel some of the best BBC dramas have been VT dominated e.g.
Elizabeth R...
>No consideration is given to lighting, locations or making the studio
>recordings fit in with the OB footage.
>
>The BBC obviously decided with the same wisdom they employed to with the
>entire Doctor Who archive, that because it was on Video it didn't require
>atmospheric lighting, or real locations and they could get away with
>anything and nobody would care.
>
>Notice the polystyrene cutouts instead of real sand bags or rocks on
>"Genesis".
I agree Doctor Who was underfunded but I thought more in its nature of being
a 'non-prestigious' series than because it was on VT.
>>'Genesis' is, I think, the first colour production to do the same - I'm
not
>
>Nope... "Robots of Death" was the closest that Doctor Who got in colour to
>the quality of the Hartnell stories made on film.
But Hartnell was always recorded on VT cameras and transmitted on 405 tape
bar the odd 35mm print telecined from VT images.
I read somewhere that Barry Letts lobbied for higher budgets and Philip
Hinchcliffe went way over budget by season 14 so in real terms it did have
more money in the 70s, hence more location filming, stunts et al.
>In 1963 the special effects on the Daleks were comparable to those on an
>early 50's B-Movie. By 1970 the SFX were of a standard BELOW those of a
50's
>B-Movie.
>
>>because it's still rooted in the early-colour technical aesthetic.
>
>As for Robot. It worked in B&W when I first saw it, but in colour the CSO
is
>a let down. What its is rooted in is the BBC disrespect for production
>values.
>
>While the BBC expected all foreign imports like "Columbo", "Kojak",
>"Starskey and Hutch" and "Dallas" to be made on high quality Film, the
BBC's
>own drama productions were Fifth rate Videotape produtions which made the
>BBC a laughing stock all over the United States.
A lot of American series were made by film companies like Universal so were
more likely to be on film. These days, the US seem to be using tape more if
only for editing and picture quality is lower. The US did make VT dramas
once, I saw an excellent colour studio drama on Roosevelt on morning telly
a while back.
>>Regardless of its merits as drama, most of the Pertwee era is technically
>>experimental and difficult to watch independent of that knowledge.
>
>>You can see the series' sudden breathless development in the production
>>block running up to 'Genesis' . 'The Sontaran Experiment' and 'The Ark in
>
>"The Sontaran Experiment" was shot entirely on location and on film so
>suffered from none of the detriments of Videotape. (Do the BBC still posses
>the film stock and if so can it be restored.)
Sorry, you are wrong there, 'Experiment' was the second story to use VT on
location and of course had no indoor scenes. If you say this story looks so
good because its on film but is actually on VT, well...
>>Space' are both reasonably successful attempts at establishing production
>>parameters. 'The Sontaran Experiment' isn't much cop really, but without
it
>>we might not have reached the high watermarks left by 'The Seeds of Doom',
>
>"The Seeds of Doom" works better in B&W. In colour the rubber Kryniod is a
>joke. In B&W it scared the pant of me.
>
>>'Full Circle' or Alan Wareing's direction (similarly 'Genesis' prefigures
>>'The Deadly Assassin', 'Warriors' Gate', Graeme Harper and other exemplars
>>of 'Doctor Who'). 'Revenge' is a bit of a throwback, and seems to make
>>sense from a technical point of view when you remember that it predated
>>'Genesis' in production. 'Genesis' is the first fully integrated colour
>>production on Doctor Who, which is not to say that everything since then
>
>The filmography was terrible. Why was everybody standing still like dummies
>all huddled together in the scene where the Doctor empties out his pockets.
>Why wanst any movement introduced.
That is just a directorial decision for either film or VT.
>In the BBC schoool of drama the rules for directors are stick the actors
>infront of the camera, press record and let them say their lines.
Morris Barry on an offday but what of Graeme Harper and many others?
>The BBC in the 70's and 80's had no idea how to make drama. It had more
idea
>in the 50's and 60's so maybe is was a deliberate attempt to make thins
look
>fifth rate.
The great god Sydney Newman was brought from ABC because of the BBC's poor
drama output but some 50s dramas had an idea, Cartier springs to mind on
'1984' and 'Quartermass'.
>>has been perfect but that - for at least the next ten years - any
>>deficiencies in the series' production are visible and external rather
than
>>arising from the technical aesthetic.
>
>Ah, and we musyt congratulate the BBC for the excellent production of
>"Underworld". The CSO caves in "Revenge" were bad, so we have to ask what
>led the BBC to make this story entirely using CSO.
It wasn't exactly a considered decision but desperation according to my copy
of In-Vision.
Unless the someone surprises me, they are all 4:3 - I doubt the Beeb would
have streteched to that sort of film when then transmitting for a mainly
black and white Tv audience with small screens and 405 lines. Widescreen TV
shows seemed to start mid90s so perhaps the TV movie would have 16:9 if made
by the BBC...
tho...@my-deja.com
"Daniel O'Mahony" <dani...@lineone.net> wrote:
> I know it seems to be on TV every five minutes, but Genesis is such a
canny choice for a restart of the repeat run, and it was only while
watching Part One yesterday that cleared it up for me - it's the first
Doctor Who story in colour that really comfortably occupies its medium.
The two Pertwee's we saw are excellent productions in their own way but
they failed really to fit into the technical aesthetic of 1990s
television. They look stranded, unique and alien - consequently they're
very uncomfortable to watch.
Very much enjoyed this post, and broadly agree with it - but there are a
few points I'd like to add...
Personally, I thought Spearhead from Space looked great on TV last
month, in its cleaned up version - I wish all the Pertwees could have
been made on film. The gaudy, tacky look of some stories (like The Three
Doctors and parts of Carnival of Monsters and Claws of Axos) would have
been far more authentically bizarre on 16mm film.
I don't know if it's really totally essential for programmes to look as
if they match the visual aesthetic of 90s TV - I hope not anyway, as
that's a recipe for a delusional faux-progressive worship of 'the
present', without history. (A Buddhist would say we stand in the stream
of time with our backs to the flow of water, seeing it course away from
us into the past, rather than the Western 'progressive' image of mankind
plowing onwards into the direction of the current.)
Silurians did look strange on TV, but of course there's the problem of
colourisation and transfers from soft NTSC versions to bear in mind.
It's also funny how generally undemanding viewers become aesthetes where
fantasy programmes are concerned, yet accept without question the 1970s
videotape of The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin or Steptoe. I think it
must be because of the way people treat comedy - as something without
need of a visual aesthetic. Exceptions like Jacques Tati and Woody Allen
pretty much prove the rule. Also, I guess fantasy has the task of
establishing a whole world where strange, wonderful or terrifying things
can happen - perhaps that makes us all more critical of the 'ambience'.
The all-too-definable, day-to-day 'real life' feel of videotape is not a
good conduit for the fantastic. The TV play of Nigel Kneale's The Stone
Tape (directed by a Dr Who director I seem to recall) is an exception,
but even that's an uneasy one technically speaking (it's the sound
that's problematic for The Stone Tape; a story depending on careful use
of sound forced to rely on stark, over-bright studio sound recording...
> As the series' first colour productions they feel very alert and
>tentative, not quite at ease with the transition or the protocols of
>not being in black-and-white. I think a modern audience, if it could
>overcome its reluctance to sample monochrome material, might have found
>the later Troughton stories more to its taste.
That's a hell of an 'if', though!
> 'Genesis' is, I think, the first colour production to do the same -
>I'm not claiming that it's become so memorable just for that, but I
>think that's an important factor. Pertwee always struggles nowadays,
>because it can't quite get to grips with the new medium. Colour
>videotape is very raw and there's a pathologically lurid quality to the
>colour schemes, even as late as 'The Monster of Peladon'. (Actually
>'Frontios's design is probably no more sensible than Peladon, but
>'Frontios' is the product of a series which has been playing the colour
>game successfully for nine years and the result is successfully
>co-ordinated and unified).
Frontios is positively sepulchral in visual style compared to others of
the era (Mawdryn, Warriors, Arc)
>Someone else once pointed out that much of the Pertwee era is
>pretending that it's made for the cinema, and failing pretty miserably.
>Starting with 'Robot' would have been disastrous because it's still
>rooted in the early-colour technical aesthetic. Regardless of its
>merits as drama, most of the Pertwee era is technically experimental
>and difficult to watch independent of that knowledge.
As a big fan of the Pertwee era it pains me to say it, but I think
you're probably right. I personally love all the CSO stuff, for
instance, even the unnecessary bits in Terror of the Autons, but I can
also imagine how it looks to a casual viewer. As for Robot, it looks
charmless thanks to the videotape used, and it's a pretty dull story
too, only saved by the shock of Baker's eccentric portrayal - I'm glad
they missed it out, although I do think Ark and Sontaran work very well
(perhaps more because of their dramatic qualities than their lighting
and photography though).
> You can see the series' sudden breathless development in the
>production block running up to 'Genesis' . 'The Sontaran Experiment'
>and 'The Ark in Space' are both reasonably successful attempts at
>establishing production parameters.
(snip)
>'Genesis' is the first fully integrated colour
> production on Doctor Who, which is not to say that everything since
>then has been perfect but that - for at least the next ten years - any
>deficiencies in the series' production are visible and external rather
>than arising from the technical aesthetic. It lasts almost exactly ten
>years. The last production I can think of that is as completely unified
>and successful as 'Genesis' in its aesthetic
>is 'Revelation of the Daleks'. I'm not sure what happens after that.
>There are still moments, particularly where Wareing is invovled, that
>remind me that I'm watching the same technically proficient series that
>turned out 'The Talons of Weng-Chiang' or 'Snakedance', but something
>goes wrong after that; a falling away from the naturalism of earlier
>serials, as if the series wants to be huger than the TV picture, but
>doesn't have the wit or the energy to manage it.
Absolutely right - that plus a tendency on the part of the writers to
place 'subtext' and vague metaphor or allegory to the fore, without a
coherent narrative for them to be 'sub' to...
>I'm not sure that productions of the standard of 'Battlefield' (an easy
>target, I know, but what the hey) would cut the mustard in the year
>2000 any more than 'Doctor Who and the Silurians'. They haven't
>transcended their era, but 'Genesis', I believe has.
Genesis uses a muted, darkened pallette, colour-wise, and there are
plenty of shadows to give menace to what on the whole is just the usual
succession of corridors and minimally decorated sets. The dark grey
Daleks looks great in this story as well, compared to the Chad Valley
tin of the Death to the Daleks versions, and the 1980s 'rich lady' dildo
look of the Remembrance models (just imagine a female hand with very
long bright red fingernails inserting a Remembrance Dalek...)
As for the 1980s... The odd thing about videotape is the way it carries
a feeling of mundanity, probably due to its use as a news report medium,
and the soap opera connotations of its 1980s use are inescapable, with
the McCoy era looking as if it'd been shot on the same gear as
Brookside. What makes those later stories uncomfortable to watch, I
think, is that their ambition to be 'surreal' or hyper-stylized is at
odds with the mundane feel offered by the videotape. Maybe that's why I
find Survival one of the few really enjoyable McCoy stories - the
location is just right for the technology used to render it (the less
said about the cheetah people the better...)
> Mind you, I also think you could get away with doing Doctor Who using
> nothing more than two actors and a chair...
A *chair*? And *two* actors? I was thinking maybe a sort of Dr Who
'homage' using Krapp's Last Tape by Beckett as a model - just the
Doctor and his tape recorded 500 year diary, mercilessly interroga
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jonathan Evans
David Embery wrote:
> >
> >None of the Dramas the BBC recorded in Colour or more precisely on
> Vidoetape
> >have been any good.
>
> Personally I feel some of the best BBC dramas have been VT dominated e.g.
> Elizabeth R...
I'll second that, and still believe that 'I Claudius' is the best thing of its
type that the BBC or anyone else has ever done. However, I will accept that the
visual dynamic of this is theatrical rather than cinematic and therefore not
"convincing" in the way that Aggie-Tom would seem to use the term. The
conviction comes from the quality of the dialogue and performances - the same
conviction that will allow you to believe quite happily that five men in dodgy
plastic armour can fight the battle of Agincourt when you go and see a
performance of 'Henry V'. This isn't to deny, though, that the camera-work is
good and at times inventive (eg. the rapid zoom from long-shot to close-up of a
grinning and beckoning Macro when Sejanus realises he has been supplanted).
BBC drama lost its way when it tried too hard to ape cinema with all-film
programmes. The result was that less cost more and fewer risks were taken. I'm
not saying we should go back to seventies-style productions - that would be
ludicrous now - but I do think it a pity that so much range and vitality has
been lost.
> >
> >Oh "Tallons". Why on earth did they have to white out Li H'sen Chang's eyes
> >durin the hypnotiseation scenes. The over;ays DIDNT even fit his face, and
> >even if they did they still would have looked cheep. Daramtical it would
> >have been better if they showed his real eyes or used coloured contact
> >lenses.
The whitening out of Chang's eyes has no bearing on the drama whatsoever. The
drama is a basic situation, words on paper, and two actors speaking them.
Costume and make-up decisions etc. may, however, affect your suspension of
disbelief. But I'm afraid if that sort of thing bothers you, there's not much
point in even attempting to watch 99.9% of transmitted 'Doctor Who'!
JONATHAN
--
JONATHAN EVANS
Development Officer, King's College London
e-mail: Jonathan...@kcl.ac.uk
Nicholas Stanton
Aggie-Tom <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote in message
news:x91m4.10889$M47.114378@news1-hme0...
>
>
> "The Sontaran Experiment" was shot entirely on location and on film so
> suffered from none of the detriments of Videotape. (Do the BBC still
posses
> the film stock and if so can it be restored.)
>
Steve Roberts
<anne...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> "The Sontaran Experiment" was shot entirely on location and on film so
>> suffered from none of the detriments of Videotape. (Do the BBC still
>posses
>> the film stock and if so can it be restored.)
>>
>Not on video?
Yes, on video - Aggie has it the wrong way round. It was shot entirely
on videotape and not film.
Steve
*** Views expressed are my own and do not represent BBC policy
*** Visit the Doctor Who Restoration Team Website
*** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/steveroberts/restorat.htm
Aggie-Tom
Steve Roberts wrote in message <38997894...@news.reith.bbc.co.uk>...
>>> suffered from none of the detriments of Videotape. (Do the BBC still
>>posses
>>> the film stock and if so can it be restored.)
>>>
>
>Yes, on video - Aggie has it the wrong way round. It was shot entirely
>on videotape and not film.
>
So it must come down to lighting then.
Inside the studio the lighting looked unnatural and flat because the BBC
couldn't give a stuff about realism. But outdoors there wasn't so much to
worry about so the BBC could use its point camera at actors and press
record, method of direction and get good results.
Also if I recall correctly "The Good Life" was mostly made on Videotape but
didn't suffer from the usual detriments. It is possibly the best thing the
BBC ever made on Videotape during the 70's and 80's.
Maybe they were using better quality camers.
Even today, some of the stuf the BBC makes looks like its been recorded with
a cheep VHS camera. Take for instance the rubbish we had to endure before
yesterdays X-Files.
The best contrast of Tape quality is between Coronation Steet and
EastEnders.
Coronation Street is the prime example of the disrespect for production
standards and amateurism in British Television. The progamme is recoded on a
REAL street, with real houses and yet the buildings and roads but looks like
a painted set. The indoor scenes are plain Cardboard. And the lighting is
ABYSMAL. There is no depth, no colour, no character NOTHING. It just looks
dead.
Campare that to EastEndes also made on Tape but on an actual set with no
real buildings, but it looks convincing, like a real square, and even the
indoor scenes look good. OK the odd bits filmed in real London pubs look
more realistic than the Queen Vic but the, colour and atmosphere looks three
dimensional unlike Coronation Street.
The Worst examples of Videotaped trash though are the BBC's so called
prestige Drams. "Elizabeth R", with Gelnda Jackson performing as if she was
in a theatrical prodoction, all expense was spared for realism.
All of the BBC's Dickens and Shakespeare productions showed no realism
whatsoever. Every effort was spared to make the sets not look like Victorian
or Elizabethan England. Then we had "I Claudius" made 20 years after Ben Hur
but looking like nothing like Rome. Why did the BBC make these drams when
they knew they couldn't match the quality of even the B&W movies form the
1930's
If that wasnt bad enough we had to be insulted with "The Borgias" and the
"Churchill Chronicles" or whatever it was called, which looked like "Play
School".
It even carried on into the 80's with Oedipus looking like it was made in
someones living room on Mars.
BBC dramas were a joke compare to the ITV counterparts made on film.
Aggie-Tom
Jonathan Evans wrote in message <389969D8...@kcl.ac.uk>...
>
>
>David Embery wrote:
>
>> >
>> >None of the Dramas the BBC recorded in Colour or more precisely on
>> Vidoetape
>> >have been any good.
>>
>> Personally I feel some of the best BBC dramas have been VT dominated e.g.
>> Elizabeth R...
>
its
>type that the BBC or anyone else has ever done. However, I will accept
that the
Yes.... It may have been well acted as far as theatre acting gos, but the
sets looked like they were recycled from "UP Pompeii".
>visual dynamic of this is theatrical rather than cinematic and therefore
not
>"convincing" in the way that Aggie-Tom would seem to use the term. The
>conviction comes from the quality of the dialogue and performances - the
same
>conviction that will allow you to believe quite happily that five men in
dodgy
>plastic armour can fight the battle of Agincourt when you go and see a
>performance of 'Henry V'. This isn't to deny, though, that the camera-work
is
Then why not go and see "Henry V" in the theatre. Why did the BBC bother to
make such dramas when there were already perfectly good Film versions
starring actors such as Lawrence Oliver. Couldnt they have shown the film
instead and spent the money the saved on making something else that was
comparable in quality.
>good and at times inventive (eg. the rapid zoom from long-shot to close-up
of a
>grinning and beckoning Macro when Sejanus realises he has been supplanted).
>
Oh yes. Rapid zoom using a Zoom-Lens, which offers no sense of perspective
or paralax, being the Cheep option to setting up a moving camera on rails
and pulling the focus as it moves in for a close up.
Zoom-lenses should only used for going from long distance to middle
distance,, and preferably only in Binoculars.
>BBC drama lost its way when it tried too hard to ape cinema with all-film
You mean it found its way and what the medium was supposed to be about, fina
lly coming out of the theatre.
>programmes. The result was that less cost more and fewer risks were taken.
I'm
>not saying we should go back to seventies-style productions - that would be
>ludicrous now - but I do think it a pity that so much range and vitality
has
>been lost.
70's productions amounted to nothing more than pointing the camera at a
theatrical stage and recording the actors lines and possibly some movement
if the director was having a good day.
>
>> >
>> >Oh "Tallons". Why on earth did they have to white out Li H'sen Chang's
eyes
>> >durin the hypnotiseation scenes. The over;ays DIDNT even fit his face,
and
>> >even if they did they still would have looked cheep. Daramtical it would
>> >have been better if they showed his real eyes or used coloured contact
>> >lenses.
>
>The whitening out of Chang's eyes has no bearing on the drama whatsoever.
The
So why include them. They completely ruined the atmosphere.
>drama is a basic situation, words on paper, and two actors speaking them.
>Costume and make-up decisions etc. may, however, affect your suspension of
>disbelief. But I'm afraid if that sort of thing bothers you, there's not
much
>point in even attempting to watch 99.9% of transmitted 'Doctor Who'!
What I am trying to illustrate is that in the early 60's the BBC tried to do
its best to keep up with the technology and film, but in the 70's and 80's
it decided to throw away all adherence to preserving reality in the false
belief that Television was an extension of repertory theatre and all you had
to do was point a camera and the programme would make itself.
This is the reason why the Pertwees failed to get an audience and why we are
now subjected to "Genesis" 2 years early. Knowing the BBC, they'll probably
be on the Davisons in 4 weeks time.
David Brunt
I can't decide if you are an elaborate troll or just someone seriously
misinformed....
>Inside the studio the lighting looked unnatural and flat because the BBC
>couldn't give a stuff about realism. But outdoors there wasn't so much to
>worry about so the BBC could use its point camera at actors and press
>record, method of direction and get good results.
>
>Also if I recall correctly "The Good Life" was mostly made on Videotape
>but didn't suffer from the usual detriments. It is possibly the best thing
>the BBC ever made on Videotape during the 70's and 80's.
How many programmes have you seen from that era? Because you seem to be
throwing in titles at random. As with all programmes at that time it was a
location film/studio VT mix. Which bit are you referring to, and why
single out that one show when there are many similar examples you could
choose - 'All Creatures Great and Small', 'The Onedin Line', 'The
Pallisers'. Etc. How was it better than those?
>Even today, some of the stuf the BBC makes looks like its been recorded
>with a cheep VHS camera. Take for instance the rubbish we had to
>endure before yesterdays X-Files.
Was was it treated to look like film, an abomination that the Beeb seem
convinced that people want to see....
>The best contrast of Tape quality is between Coronation Steet and
>EastEnders.
>
>Coronation Street is the prime example of the disrespect for production
>standards and amateurism in British Television. The progamme is recoded on
>a REAL street, with real houses and yet the buildings and roads but looks
>like a painted set. The indoor scenes are plain Cardboard. And the
lighting
>is ABYSMAL. There is no depth, no colour, no character NOTHING. It just
looks
>dead.
Ae you not aware of the Granada studio backlot with the Street? It's as
phony as the EastEnders location. It just looks very gaudy.
>Campare that to EastEndes also made on Tape but on an actual set with no
>real buildings, but it looks convincing, like a real square, and even the
>indoor scenes look good. OK the odd bits filmed in real London pubs look
>more realistic than the Queen Vic but the, colour and atmosphere looks
three
>dimensional unlike Coronation Street.
Muted tones you mean?
>The Worst examples of Videotaped trash though are the BBC's so called
>prestige Drams. "Elizabeth R", with Gelnda Jackson performing as if she
>was in a theatrical prodoction, all expense was spared for realism.
This is assuming you were born in the 16th centuy and can say with
certainty what the manners were then?
It's true that styles change, but there's nothing wrong with Auntie
Glenda's performance. Her BAFTA and EMMY for that production would prove
more than your belief ever will. It's called acting, you may have heard of
it.
>All of the BBC's Dickens and Shakespeare productions showed no realism
>whatsoever. Every effort was spared to make the sets not look like
>Victorian or Elizabethan England. Then we had "I Claudius" made
>20 years after Ben Hur but looking like nothing like Rome. Why did
>the BBC make these drams when they knew they couldn't match
>the quality of even the B&W movies form the 1930's
There's no pleasing some people. The difference with "I Clavdivs" is that
the main focus was on the actors, not what they were acting in. They could
have been on a completely blank studio and the same power would have come
across. Besides, if Martin Lisemore and Herbert Wise had had the budget of
'Ben Hur' then I'm sure it could have ended up looking a whole lot better.
But the acting would have remained the same.
If you've got some axe to grind with the Beeb, just admit it. But just
wingeing about it isn't doing any good.
>BBC dramas were a joke compare to the ITV counterparts made on film.
OK. Then was about the BBC dramas made on film? Start with 'Edge of
Darkness', take in most of Dennis Potter's work, then realise that what
you're saying is rather naive.
David
Si Jerram
>
> Steve Roberts wrote in message <38997894...@news.reith.bbc.co.uk>...
> >On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:42:52 -0000, "Nicholas Stanton"
> ><anne...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> suffered from none of the detriments of Videotape. (Do the BBC still
> >>posses
> >>> the film stock and if so can it be restored.)
> >>>
> >
> >Yes, on video - Aggie has it the wrong way round. It was shot entirely
> >on videotape and not film.
> >
>
> So it must come down to lighting then.
>
> couldn't give a stuff about realism. But outdoors there wasn't so much to
> worry about so the BBC could use its point camera at actors and press
> record, method of direction and get good results.
No.
It's not a question of "Realism" but a question of what you're used
to.
Video repoduces what it records *better* than film. Anything you see
on TV that was made on film is probably being broadcast of Video
tape.
Video has a higher definition than film. Video has more frames
per second than film. The grain of film introduces noise to the
picture. Film mutes colours.
Regarding lighting, yes natural light is different to the light
produced by filament bulbs. It's bluer, whereas artifical light
is a warmer colour. Yes if the BBC were faking an outdoor
scene (eg planet of the Daleks) they should light it differently,
but probably wouldn't have had the budget to bother.
But for an indoor scene the well-lit studio look is as valid as
any.
The only reason you think film looks better is because its what
you're used to things looking like. Nothing to do with realsim.
--
Simon Jerram Email:si...@telos.clara.co.uk
Days are usually 86400 seconds long, Years are usually 365 Days long,
Centuries are usually 100 years, and Millennia usually 1000 years.
Usually. Sometimes time needs fine tuning...
Jonathan Evans
Aggie-Tom wrote:
> Jonathan Evans wrote in message <389969D8...@kcl.ac.uk>...
> >
> >
> >David Embery wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >None of the Dramas the BBC recorded in Colour or more precisely on
> >> Vidoetape
> >> >have been any good.
> >>
> >> Personally I feel some of the best BBC dramas have been VT dominated e.g.
> >> Elizabeth R...
> >
> >> >Oh "Tallons". Why on earth did they have to white out Li H'sen Chang's
> eyes
> >> >durin the hypnotiseation scenes. The over;ays DIDNT even fit his face,
> and
> >> >even if they did they still would have looked cheep. Daramtical it would
> >> >have been better if they showed his real eyes or used coloured contact
> >> >lenses.
> >
> >The whitening out of Chang's eyes has no bearing on the drama whatsoever.
> The
>
> So why include them. They completely ruined the atmosphere.
>
> >drama is a basic situation, words on paper, and two actors speaking them.
> >Costume and make-up decisions etc. may, however, affect your suspension of
> >disbelief. But I'm afraid if that sort of thing bothers you, there's not
> much
> >point in even attempting to watch 99.9% of transmitted 'Doctor Who'!
>
> What I am trying to illustrate is that in the early 60's the BBC tried to do
> its best to keep up with the technology and film, but in the 70's and 80's
> it decided to throw away all adherence to preserving reality in the false
> belief that Television was an extension of repertory theatre and all you had
> to do was point a camera and the programme would make itself.
>
> This is the reason why the Pertwees failed to get an audience and why we are
> now subjected to "Genesis" 2 years early. Knowing the BBC, they'll probably
> be on the Davisons in 4 weeks time.
I guess in the end we're arguing from slightly different standpoints. I don't
dispute anything you're saying about the look of seventies/early eighties TV,
but I think that the quality of acting and writing, plus the variety of subjects
covered, made up for what was lacking visually. I don't actually believe that
anyone could afford to make 'I Claudius' these days - certainly not as a 12 hour
character-based epic - because expectations are such that they would assume
they HAD to spend six months on location in Italy and Germany with support from
a couple of thousand extras for the crowd scenes. And even if the money
existed, a production company would consider the risk too high (a long-dead
Roman with a stammer is not a guaranteed audience puller) to sanction the
investment. TV moves on, but it's a shame that that variety is no longer
possible. OK, there was an awful lot of dross too, but the good stuff was born
out of that climate and, indeed, only happened because failure wasn't financial
life and death.
With regard specifically to 'Doctor Who', Lance Parkin's recent posts have been
interesting when he argues that the show has often quite consciously used its
artificiality.
You're right about 'The Borgias', though. Bloody awful and proves that it's
very hard to make the same formula (ie the Claudius one) work twice!
Si Jerram
> Age-Tom wrote in message ...
> I can't decide if you are an elaborate troll or just someone seriously
> misinformed....
> >The best contrast of Tape quality is between Coronation Steet and
> >EastEnders.
> >Coronation Street is the prime example of the disrespect for production
> >standards and amateurism in British Television. The progamme is recoded on
> >a REAL street, with real houses and yet the buildings and roads but looks
> >like a painted set.
Originally the street has just a set of fronts, with a load of
portacabins. Only the railway arch at the end was real.
Then they took over the derelict streets behind the studios,
which became part of their back lot. The Row of houses starting
with the Rovers and ending in the Shop was originally a real row
of houses, although nat actually as many houses as it is now.
Everything else was built specially.
> >The indoor scenes are plain Cardboard. And the
> >lighting is ABYSMAL. There is no depth, no colour, no character NOTHING.
> >It just looks dead.
So does Salford.
> Ae you not aware of the Granada studio backlot with the Street? It's as
> phony as the EastEnders location. It just looks very gaudy.
It looks different. Not unrealistic.
Ed Stradling
>
>I can't decide if you are an elaborate troll or just someone seriously
>misinformed....
Either way, he's talking shit and I stopped reading when he made that
comment about all video stuff being shit, and then how wonderful Sontaran
experiment looked because it was on film!
--------------------------
Ed Stradling
Views expressed in these messages should not in any
way be taken to represent the firm or its partners.
-------------------------
Steve Roberts
<si...@telos.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>Video repoduces what it records *better* than film.
That's a matter of opinion!
>Video has a higher definition than film.
Cobblers! Even 16mm film has better resolution than standard
definition video, by a factor of around two. It's more a question of
how capable the telecine is at resolving the detail in the film - and
they are very good these days!
> Film mutes colours.
You didn't see 'Spearhead' then? : )
Seriously, a sweeping statement like 'film mutes colours' is rubbish.
I've seen some incredibly colourful films - just look at something
like 'Batman Forever' or 'Dick Tracey' for instance.
Si Jerram
> Either way, he's [Aggie-Tom] talking shit and I stopped reading when he made that
> comment about all video stuff being shit, and then how wonderful Sontaran
> experiment looked because it was on film!
He as also talking crap about Genesis being put on
to coincide with Tom Baker on Radio 2, which in the Manchester area
at least tops the listening figures consistently.
(My brother in law used to be a DJ on the Radio Station that
consistantly came
second. Radio 1 was nowhere to be seen)...
Si Jerram
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 14:48:07 +0000, Si Jerram
> <si...@telos.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> >Video repoduces what it records *better* than film.
> That's a matter of opinion!
Well that was partially my point.
> >Video has a higher definition than film.
> Cobblers! Even 16mm film has better resolution than standard
> definition video, by a factor of around two. It's more a question of
> how capable the telecine is at resolving the detail in the film - and
> they are very good these days!
OK I'm talking crap, I'll stick to me software and opitical
fibres...
What I was going off was the fact that film effects work by muting the
colour balance, repeating frames, adding noise etc.
And how bad film insersts used to look.
> You didn't see 'Spearhead' then? : )
Though a set top aereal, so it looked much worse than it did on
VHS.
My mum thought it looked very nice though...
Ed Stradling
>> You didn't see 'Spearhead' then? : )
>
>Though a set top aereal, so it looked much worse than it did on
>VHS.
However good the restored Spearhead looked, the picture was noticeably less
sharp, in my opinion, than that of, say, the bowls which preceded it.
Video, to me, looks sharper than film when reproduced on a TV set.
Presumably this is because of the limitations of the TV system because
obviously if you magnified a TV picture to a cinema size screen it would
look awful, whereas film still looks great at that size, so obviously it has
a higher resolution.
I also prefer the look of film, but that's an aesthetic argument and not a
technical one.
Aggie-Tom
Si Jerram wrote in message <38999527...@telos.clara.co.uk>...
>Aggie-Tom wrote:
>>
>> Steve Roberts wrote in message
<38997894...@news.reith.bbc.co.uk>...
>> >On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:42:52 -0000, "Nicholas Stanton"
>> ><anne...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
so
>> >>> suffered from none of the detriments of Videotape. (Do the BBC still
>> >>posses
>> >>> the film stock and if so can it be restored.)
>> >>>
>> >
>> >Yes, on video - Aggie has it the wrong way round. It was shot entirely
>> >on videotape and not film.
>> >
>>
>> So it must come down to lighting then.
>>
>> Inside the studio the lighting looked unnatural and flat because the BBC
>> couldn't give a stuff about realism. But outdoors there wasn't so much to
>> worry about so the BBC could use its point camera at actors and press
>> record, method of direction and get good results.
>
>No.
>
>It's not a question of "Realism" but a question of what you're used
>to.
>
>Video repoduces what it records *better* than film. Anything you see
>on TV that was made on film is probably being broadcast of Video
>tape.
>
NOT TRUE.
>per second than film. The grain of film introduces noise to the
24fps compared to 25.
>picture. Film mutes colours.
Rubbish.
If you're prepared to pay the money 35mm film can give you 16 times
resolution of PAL. And you can get better than that still with larger
formats.
The response of D3 and Digibeta is only 48dB which is WORSE than the noise
figure for film grain, and film has a greater than 16bit dynamic range -
90dB.
Since Film has a greater dynamic range than Video you can point a film
camera at bright white snow and still see facial details of an actor
standing in the foreground. If you did that on video in the 70's the Vidcon
tubes would have been seriously damaged and would be streaking for hours aft
er the event.
With a CCD camera or a Telecine transfer you'd only get a dynamic range of
48dB which would mean that either the background would be overexposed or the
foreground underexposed.
The only way you could possibly convey the whole dynamic range of the human
eye on a TV screen would be to continually adjust the Gamma Correction for
every frame (and sample at 16 bit), but that would mean that areas that
should look almost jet black, like the fur of a panther, would become silver
grey, and snow that should look bright white would look dull grey. On a film
screen you'd get the equivalent of 16 bit's (per colour filed) instead of
the 8 bits of D3 and Digibeta.
With a 16 bit dynamic range film allows you to do signal processing, to add
effects that are impossible to achieve on 8 bit Video because the
information you want to bring out isn't there.
>
>Regarding lighting, yes natural light is different to the light
>produced by filament bulbs. It's bluer, whereas artifical light
>is a warmer colour. Yes if the BBC were faking an outdoor
>scene (eg planet of the Daleks) they should light it differently,
>but probably wouldn't have had the budget to bother.
>
>But for an indoor scene the well-lit studio look is as valid as
>any.
Except indoor scenes are NOT supposed to be well lit. There is more than a
48dB change in brightens from standing outside to walking into a room inside
a house.
By lighting the room with bright lights to satisfy the Video cameras
response, you'd loose the realism.
If you are using film you can choose the exact composition and response to
NATURAL light of the film to suit the environment you're filming in. In any
case since film has a greater dynamic range you could go straight from
filming in candle light to filming outdoors without over saturation. And if
you use a film that automatically adjusts to colour temperature you could
film an indoor scene looking across a room and out of a window with all the
colours both inside and out looking natural.
The video cameras of the 70's couldn't do that and I dont think there are
many CCD cameras that can do that now and even if they can you are still
restricted to recording an 8 bit image.
>The only reason you think film looks better is because its what
>you're used to things looking like. Nothing to do with realsim.
It because film come closer to the response of the human eye than Video.
Where is all the High Definition TV we were promised. Dont think that the
so-called wide screen TV is Hi-Def because it ISN'T. It's 8 bit PAL 625
stretched to 16:9 ratio with no increase in resolution whatsoever. And these
wide screen TV's are ALL of an inferior definition to my current computer
monitor even when set to 800x600 which I deem unacceptable.
Aggie-Tom
Ed Stradling wrote in message <3899...@news.itconsult.net>...
>Si Jerram wrote
>
>>> You didn't see 'Spearhead' then? : )
>>
>>Though a set top aereal, so it looked much worse than it did on
>>VHS.
>
>However good the restored Spearhead looked, the picture was noticeably less
>sharp, in my opinion, than that of, say, the bowls which preceded it.
>
>Video, to me, looks sharper than film when reproduced on a TV set.
>
It may "look" sharp but if you inspect it closely you will see that the
reason is "looks" sharp is because the analogue tape and transmission cause
the edges and borders of objects to "ring" (I think thats the correct
technical term to describe the deterioration of a square wave into its
harmonics. You also get the same effect with MPEG, because thats how it
works.) Thus the edges are emphasised looking "Sharper" when infact they are
NOT.
The reason you dont get this on film transfers, and why they look softer is
because the edges of objects are continuous being recorded at a higher
definition, so no sharp cut offs are present to cause the "ringing" you
would get with MPEG compression or Analogue transmission.
Steve Roberts
> However good the restored Spearhead looked, the picture was noticeably
less
> sharp, in my opinion, than that of, say, the bowls which preceded it.
Agreed - but that's a limitation of a particular 1969 film stock, not of
film per se! It's unfortunate that the introduction of better film stocks
didn't really happen until 1971... The stocks available today have
astonishing resolution in comparison.
Steve
Aggie-Tom
David Brunt wrote in message <87c5bc$bv3$2...@neptunium.btinternet.com>...
>Age-Tom wrote in message ...
>>Also if I recall correctly "The Good Life" was mostly made on Videotape
>>but didn't suffer from the usual detriments. It is possibly the best thing
>>the BBC ever made on Videotape during the 70's and 80's.
>
>How many programmes have you seen from that era? Because you seem to be
Almost all. I lived though them.
>throwing in titles at random. As with all programmes at that time it was a
>location film/studio VT mix. Which bit are you referring to, and why
Firstly "The Good Life" was a comedy so no need for realism. Belief is
already suspended.
Secondly It was one of the few programmes to successfully marry outdoor
location footage with studio recordings without annoying transition in
picture quality which you always got with Doctor Who and most other
programmes, usually with the location stuff coming of worst. Look at the
scratches on the outdoor Genesis footage. It may have been made all on Video
for all I know even the outdoor stuff. If "The Sontaran Experiment" which
was of the same era was made all on tape why not "The Good Life". I dont
know.
Thirdly "The Good Life" fully exploited the use of colour. The sets weren't
drab and grey like most other BBC productions were, so as to satisfy the B&W
viewers.
Fourthly it doing try to do things beyond its means. No trying to con us it
was set in the Algarve, no explosions that saturated the camera, no guns
going of to produce annoying colour bars, and not bad CSO effects that I can
remember.
The producer know what the limitations of the medium were and didn't go
beyond them unless they knew they were not limitations.
>single out that one show when there are many similar examples you could
>choose - 'All Creatures Great and Small', 'The Onedin Line', 'The
>Pallisers'. Etc. How was it better than those?
"All Creatures Great and Small" wasn't bad. I never said anything to the
contrary about it, but that was light comedy Drama. The James Herriot books
were certainly funny.
The "Onedin Line" was defiantly unrealistic, so was "Poldark". On the noise
B&W TV that I originally watched them on the looked OK like most things in
B&W, but the re-runs make them look DATED.
"The Good Life" OTOH doesnt look dated, even the clothes are back in
fashion, but thats not what I mean by dated. What I means is that the
direction and production can easily fit in with todays standards but
programmes like Onedin Line" and "Poldark" dont.
Other example of 70's/80's rubbish include "Triangle", and "Angles" which
shared the slot just before the Doctor Who repeats or Blakes 7. Long time no
see.
Maybe it wasn't Vidoetape that made them look bad, but its was the Vidoetape
mentality at the BBC. We'll eventually tape over it so why bother to make it
look good.
>>Even today, some of the stuf the BBC makes looks like its been recorded
>>with a cheep VHS camera. Take for instance the rubbish we had to
>>endure before yesterdays X-Files.
>
>Was was it treated to look like film, an abomination that the Beeb seem
>convinced that people want to see....
Probably. I totally agree with you. Most annoying is their tampering with
the shutter speed which make and movement look like its occurring in a night
club with the strobe light switched on. I just causget the end of Grange him
today and it was ABYSMAL. Not only was there stobeing but people walking
past in the background suddenly disappered so you could see what was behind
them, and then they reappeared out of nowhere several paces away.
>Ae you not aware of the Granada studio backlot with the Street? It's as
>phony as the EastEnders location. It just looks very gaudy.
But the Rover Return interior still looks like painted cardboard (as it has
done since the 70's) nothing like a real pub whereas the Queen Vic looks
more authentic.
>>The Worst examples of Videotaped trash though are the BBC's so called
>>prestige Drams. "Elizabeth R", with Gelnda Jackson performing as if she
>>was in a theatrical prodoction, all expense was spared for realism.
>
>This is assuming you were born in the 16th centuy and can say with
>certainty what the manners were then?
>
>It's true that styles change, but there's nothing wrong with Auntie
>Glenda's performance. Her BAFTA and EMMY for that production would prove
>more than your belief ever will. It's called acting, you may have heard of
>it
Oh Acting. BAFTA and EMMY aside, would "Elizabeth R" get any ratings if it
was shown again today. Would its stan up aginst "Shakespeare in Love" or
"Elizabeth"
I know that "Ben Hur" would stand up well against "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
or even "The Phantom Menace", so its nothing to do with changing tastes but
more about Production Quality.
Hollywood got the formula RIGHT. British Cinema and TV got it WRONG !
>There's no pleasing some people. The difference with "I Clavdivs" is that
>the main focus was on the actors, not what they were acting in. They could
>have been on a completely blank studio and the same power would have come
Then why didnt they make if for Radio then.
What was the point of putting it on a Visual Medium when the BBC had no idea
of how to exploit that medium to its full potential.
Not just the BBC but the whole British film industry. Nobody has the
slightest notion what film and TV was all about and that resulted in the
complete collapse of the British film industry.
Where was the action, the creation of new believable realities, the
composite shots, the big stunts, taking the viewer to exotic locations
theyed never been too, where was it.
>across. Besides, if Martin Lisemore and Herbert Wise had had the budget of
>'Ben Hur' then I'm sure it could have ended up looking a whole lot better.
>But the acting would have remained the same.
OK it might have look a loot better tha nBen Hur if they had the budget and
it therefore shouldn't have been made for TV until they had they budget.
They should have either made it for the Cinema or Radio.
>
>If you've got some axe to grind with the Beeb, just admit it. But just
>wingeing about it isn't doing any good.
Oh you mean apart from the BBC mentality that resulted in them wiping half
of Doctor Who from the archive by 1978.
The mentality that expects us to pay for the BBC weather we watch it or not,
so that the BBC's producers can take one bid ego trip up their jacksies,
producing programmes people dont want to watch and foreign companies dont
want to buy. But where the ONLY programme that people do want to watch and
foreign TV companies DO want to buy, which has been the BBC's BIGGEST
foreign export by far is no longer made because the BBC wont invest the
money that you and me give to them, to bring it up to modern standards.
If only the BBC make programmes that sold it could be entirely funded form
programme sales alone like most of the big US studios.
>
>>BBC dramas were a joke compare to the ITV counterparts made on film.
>
>OK. Then was about the BBC dramas made on film? Start with 'Edge of
>Darkness', take in most of Dennis Potter's work, then realise that what
>you're saying is rather naive.
But did they sell like "Birdeshead Revisited".
Daniel O'Mahony
> >'Genesis' is, I think, the first colour production to do the same -
>
> Don't agree at all. What about "Curse of Peladon", "The Green Death",
> "The Time Warrior" and "The Ark in Space"?
Well, I talked about 'Ark' as a transitional story a little later on the
original post. The other stories I agree are more comfortable as colour
productions than the stories around them (particularly 'Time Warrior') but
I think they reflect developments towards the technical excellence of
'Genesis' rather than landmarks in their own right. 'The Green Death' in
particular has some whopping howlers - not necessarily stuff like the giant
fly which we tend to think of affectionately as a bit crap, but instead the
moments when the confidence of the production fades through and shows you
how easily it could all slip away. CSO backdrops standing in for Wales,
most of the BOSS scenes, the hypnotised Mike Yates popping up incongruously
behind the Doctor's workbench. It's as if the production has broken sweat.
'The Curse of Peladon' and 'The Time Warrior' are getting close but I think
their advantage is that they're quite relaxed, quite simple and watchable
stories. The problems with the production don't show up so much because
we're actually following the story as much as the production design. If you
compare the quite elegant 'Curse' with the cluttered 'Monster of Peladon' -
where almost every aspect of the production is repeated - you can see how
easily it could have given way if the production team had lost their nerve.
Daniel O'Mahony
> I don't know if it's really totally essential for programmes to look as
> if they match the visual aesthetic of 90s TV - I hope not anyway
Oh, I agree. I wasn't really arguing that 'Genesis' matches our
contemporary aesthetic, but that it's more acceptable to modern viewers
because, own its own terms of production, it's a success.
> It's also funny how generally undemanding viewers become aesthetes where
> fantasy programmes are concerned, yet accept without question the 1970s
> videotape of The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin or Steptoe.
Possibly that's because their technical expectations of fantasy series are
higher, and are constantly being heightened, whereas a sitcom is just a
sitcom. You could remake Perrin or Steptoe today (leaving aside the usual
arguments about whether it would be any good or not) and it wouldn't look
much different from the originals. There wouldn't be the mix of VT and
film, and I think that's what looks jarring now - not because it's poor
technique but because it's done so rarely.
(There's an hilarious review of the BBC's 1977 production of 'Count
Dracula' in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, which praises it for its daring
and innovative juxtaposition of film and videotape sequences...!)
> The all-too-definable, day-to-day 'real life' feel of videotape is not a
> good conduit for the fantastic.
I don't think the medium is that important, except in so far as it becomes
identified with certain types of programme (sitcoms and soaps in VT's
case). It looks like audiences are having as much trouble with Gormenghast
as they did with Neverwhere. I think it boils down more to what viewers are
accustomed to as television in general, unfortunately.
Daniel O'Mahony
> Absolutely right - that plus a tendency on the part of the writers to
> place 'subtext' and vague metaphor or allegory to the fore, without a
> coherent narrative for them to be 'sub' to...
I think that's a misunderstanding of what subtext is - and I think I'd
place the blame for this (albeit with affection) on Paul Cornell. At the
end of 1989 Celestial Toyroom published his review of Season 26 which
claimed that the writers of Doctor Who had finally brought 'subtext' to the
series... and promptly introduced the idea to a Doctor Who fandom who's
been mislead about what it actually is for over a decade.
The point of subtext is that it's not something that writers (or any of the
creators of a TV programme) do. Writers can do metaphor, connotation,
allegory, irony, ambiguity... all that stuff - but the one thing we have no
control over is the subtext, which literally means "below that which is
actually written". Subtext is something that gets detected after the fact
and isn't necessarily what the author intends.
An example. Paul argued that there was an anti-nuclear subtext to
'Battlefield'. The Destroyer, he argued, subtextually, represents the bomb
- as per Oppenheimer's "devourer of worlds", Ben Aaronovitch's monster
wants to "devour" the Earth. The problem is that this isn't subtext - this
is *text* - this is explicitly placed their by the writer. When the Doctor
says that the stranded convoy "has a graveyard stench", he's expressing a
point of view that Aaronvitch wants expressed.
The real nuclear subtext of 'Battlefield' actually lies elsewhere. If the
Destroyer and nuclear weapons are being linked by the author, then
subtextually we can make certain associations: the Destroyer is a kind of
maelstrom personified, a natural force; it doesn't have any political or
international context and certainly isn't something we might feel
personally responsible for; it's actions are wrapped up in a fairly slim
reading of the arbritrary rules of magic and daemonology; the visual
effects mob have made it look impressive; and in the end its a bit of a red
herring. All of these factors have a subtextual effect which are a lot more
ambiguous than Aaronovitch's explicit text. The text of 'Battlefield'
expresses the point of view that nuclear weapons are bad things, but the
subtext works to undermine it - specifically because it's not part of
Aaronovitch's message.
Basically, writers can't put subtext to the fore because it stops being
subtext. Subtext is what *we* do to them. It's a fan thing.
Adam Richards
wrote:
>'The Curse of Peladon' and 'The Time Warrior' are getting close but I think
>their advantage is that they're quite relaxed, quite simple and watchable
>stories. The problems with the production don't show up so much because
>we're actually following the story as much as the production design. If you
>compare the quite elegant 'Curse' with the cluttered 'Monster of Peladon' -
>where almost every aspect of the production is repeated - you can see how
>easily it could have given way if the production team had lost their nerve.
Actually, another one I was thinking of the other day was "Invasion of
the Dinosaurs" - damn pity about the appallingly crappy dinosaurs,
because the rest of it is very nicely lit and shot, IMHO. Love the
stuff in the underground station especially.
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
Lance Parkin
There's this strange idea around that authors, particularly
'literary' authors like Paul Magrs put 'subtext' or
'meaning' into their books, like cooks put raisins into cakes. A lot
of people get scared of this, for some reason - they seem to think
that authors are trying to freak them out, like heavy
metal bands putting subliminal messages in their songs.
As I've said before, one of the things that distinguishes
the rads from the trads is that trad books, on the whole,
tend to use language functionally 'to describe stuff that
happened', whereas rad authors tend to use it
poetically, 'to allude to what happened'.
Kate and Paul Cornell, for example, use recurrent
images, they have characters that 'stand for' something.
There is nothing particularly big or clever about this
per se, but some people get frightened by 'hidden
meanings' if there's anything remotely allegorical
in there. One of the standard objections is that
'people who say that are reading too much into
it', or that 'a cigar is sometimes just a cigar'. This
is true *sometimes*. But don't be afraid of 'meanings'.
The Daleks clearly 'represent' a fear of war. All
sorts of manifestations of war - most obviously
fascism and nuclear holocaust. No-one ever
says in a Terry Nation story 'ah, it's like
some crazy metaphor'. But that's exact what it
is - the Daleks are a metaphor for warfare and
hatred.
Lance
Paul Rhodes
> writers (or any of the> creators of a TV programme) do.
Not true - at least (and this is a pedantic point, so it demands a
pedantic response) according to the dictionaries I have to hand,
subtext may be intentional on the part of the writer.
Paul
John Pettigrew
"Daniel O'Mahony" <dani...@lineone.net> massaged the keyboard in a
sexy way and came up with this...:
<snip interesting but bizarre theory>
>'Genesis' is, I think, the first colour production to do the same - I'm not
>claiming that it's become so memorable just for that, but I think that's an
>important factor. Pertwee always struggles nowadays, because it can't quite
>get to grips with the new medium. Colour videotape is very raw and there's
>a pathologically lurid quality to the colour schemes, even as late as 'The
>Monster of Peladon'. (Actually 'Frontios's design is probably no more
>sensible than Peladon, but 'Frontios' is the product of a series which has
>been playing the colour game successfully for nine years and the result is
>successfully co-ordinated and unified). Someone else once pointed out that
>much of the Pertwee era is pretending that it's made for the cinema, and
>failing pretty miserably. Starting with 'Robot' would have been disastrous
>because it's still rooted in the early-colour technical aesthetic.
>Regardless of its merits as drama, most of the Pertwee era is technically
>experimental and difficult to watch independent of that knowledge.
I disagree.
I think the first true example of "Hey, we're in colour" is 'The Claws
of Axos'. The technical direction, trippy camera work and visual
images scream successful colour.
Best Wishes
John Pettigrew
"When it's spring again, I'll sing again - 'Talons of Weng-Chiang'..."
The RADWA Rogues Gallery is part of Club Tropicana -
http://freespace.virgin.net/our.hero/index.html
William December Starr
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) said:
> There's this strange idea around that authors, particularly 'literary'
> authors like Paul Magrs put 'subtext' or 'meaning' into their books,
> like cooks put raisins into cakes. A lot of people get scared of this,
> for some reason - they seem to think that authors are trying to freak
> them out, like heavy metal bands putting subliminal messages in their
> songs.
Speaking for myself, it isn't the "meaning" in there that bothers me --
it's what can get left _out_ because the literary author is so enamored
of his precious meaning, like a good story.
[ *snip* ]
> The Daleks clearly 'represent' a fear of war. All sorts of
> manifestations of war - most obviously fascism and nuclear holocaust.
> No-one ever says in a Terry Nation story 'ah, it's like some crazy
> metaphor'. But that's exact what it is - the Daleks are a metaphor for
> warfare and hatred.
Not to me they aren't. If they're metaphors for anything, it's hatred
and bullying/domination/evil. Their war aspect is just a side-effect --
they're really just a cross between schoolyard bullies and a lynch mob,
only with ray guns.
Maybe the difference is that you live and (I presume) grew up in a
nation that's had a major war fought on its soil -- at least, that's
where the bombs came down, anyway -- within its recent cultural memory
and I haven't.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Steven Kitson
> "Daniel O'Mahony" <dani...@lineone.net> wrote:
> > The point of subtext is that it's not something that
> > writers (or any of the> creators of a TV programme) do.
> > Writers [have no control over] subtext
>
> Not true - at least (and this is a pedantic point, so it demands a
> pedantic response) according to the dictionaries I have to hand,
> subtext may be intentional on the part of the writer.
Yes -- as far as I always understood it, subtext was simply anything
that wasn't explicitly stated. Reading between the lines, if you will.
--
Somewhere between the soul and soft machine
Is where I find myself again
Daniel O'Mahony
> I disagree.
> I think the first true example of "Hey, we're in colour" is 'The Claws
> of Axos'. The technical direction, trippy camera work and visual
> images scream successful colour.
They might have done in 1971, I'm not so sure about now...
tho...@my-deja.com
>
> > Absolutely right - that plus a tendency on the part of the writers
to
> > place 'subtext' and vague metaphor or allegory to the fore, without
a
> > coherent narrative for them to be 'sub' to...
>
> I think that's a misunderstanding of what subtext is
of the
> allegory, irony, ambiguity... all that stuff - but the one thing we
have no
> control over is the subtext, which literally means "below that which
is
> actually written". Subtext is something that gets detected after the
fact
> and isn't necessarily what the author intends.
> Basically, writers can't put subtext to the fore because it stops
being
> subtext. Subtext is what *we* do to them. It's a fan thing.
Point taken. I did branch out from that word into the more correct
terminology, i.e. metaphor etc. What I was saying is basically
unchanged... later Who writing has preoccupations regarding
'significance' which are insufficiently blended into the narrative form
they are adopting. Of course we all come along later and read our own
interpretations into the text, and if the proper way of referring to
these readings is as 'subtext' I stand corrected - my impression was
that implication on the part of a writer could be considered subtextual
to their more clearly stated concerns - however, this distinction
between implication and staement is doomed to subjective definition, so
we can by all means make the distinction you suggest..!
I think..
tho...@my-deja.com
la...@lanceparkin.freeserve.co.uk (Lance Parkin) wrote:
> There's this strange idea around that authors, particularly
> 'literary' authors like Paul Magrs put 'subtext' or
> 'meaning' into their books, like cooks put raisins into cakes. A lot
> of people get scared of this, for some reason - they seem to think
> that authors are trying to freak them out, like heavy
> metal bands putting subliminal messages in their songs.
I dare say there are readers who feel this way. However, the more alert
and imaginative reader has another concern, one than falls somewhere
between the categories you are about to insist upon in your next
paragraph...
> As I've said before, one of the things that distinguishes
> the rads from the trads is that trad books, on the whole,
> tend to use language functionally 'to describe stuff that
> happened', whereas rad authors tend to use it
> poetically, 'to allude to what happened'.
I think what we're talking about is narrative versus poetic use of
language. In the broad play of literature I have a definite preference
for writers who challenge the conventions of the form they work within
(otherwise art becomes genre, becomes sport). Having said that, I do not
mechanically endorse any writer who thinks that because they prefer to
dump great swathes of personal/ ideological matter into their writing,
they can ignore the expectations generated by the narrative form.
Early in a writer's development, the temptation to prioritize
'allegory/symbolism' over 'character' or 'drama' may exert itself.
Writers can convince themselves that they are working at a symbolic
level, yet they may merely be acquiescing to the demands of their own
barely appreciated ideological imperatives. I don't think the readers of
Doctor Who fiction are applying the most austere of standards when they
read the books written under the Who banner. Nonetheless, there is a
discomfiting sensation - rather like embarrassment - to be felt where
writers have failed to provide seductive narrative alibis for their
ideological fixations. Foundations are important, and no less so to
avant-garde writers like Celine or William Burroughs who may decide, on
reflection, to tear them asunder. Building earnestly on the shaky
edifice of TV Dr Who can lead to strenuous, distorted text, where a
frankly ridiculous degree of effort has to be exerted to satisfy the
reader (or more likely the writer) that something wider and more
'worthwhile' is occuring.
> Kate and Paul Cornell, for example, use recurrent
> images, they have characters that 'stand for' something.
> There is nothing particularly big or clever about this
> per se, but some people get frightened by 'hidden
> meanings' if there's anything remotely allegorical
> in there. One of the standard objections is that
> 'people who say that are reading too much into
> it', or that 'a cigar is sometimes just a cigar'. This
> is true *sometimes*. But don't be afraid of 'meanings'.
When a mind genuinely opens onto new vistas a certain amount of panic is
to be expected, and it flatters no-one to be 'cooler-than-thou' about
that sensation. After all, perhaps what felt easy to you was just a
shadow of the subjective experience of the person you mock? Different
sensitivities...
A personal map reference for you: whenever a film is reviewed as
'pretentious', it immediately gets my hopes up - to me, the word
pretentious merely suggests that an artist's reach exceeds their
grasp... no crime as far as I'm concerned, especially in this day and
age, where Tim Burton is considered to be the epitome of 'dark vision'!
Sadly, to most people, 'pretentious' means 'watch out for this
pseudo-intellectual - they'll have you questioning the air you
breathe...'
Those who wish to challenge this assumption have, in their turn, to
beware - there's no fool like an old fool etc... He who talks of truth
is usually on very shaky ground etc.
I find stories like Happiness Patrol and Paradise Towers very
frustrating... their sources are impeccable (Ballard). I find their
ambitions laudable (anti-Thatcher critique of capitalism). Yet they make
me cringe at the self-congratulatory transparency of their narrative
strategies. Implication has been lost in much late Dr Who (including
many of the EDAs and PDAs I've read) - and anyay, the debate which
polarises 'rad' and 'trad' is itself very 'trad' indeed; Hegelian
synthesis and progression has been thoroughly routed by post-modernism,
to the point where 'rad' sounds like the last forlorn trumpet voluntary
of modernism...
Hre's tooting at you, kid..
Daniel O'Mahony
> Maybe the difference is that you live and (I presume) grew up in a
> nation that's had a major war fought on its soil -- at least, that's
> where the bombs came down, anyway -- within its recent cultural memory
> and I haven't.
I think it's more that Terry Nation, and the other early writers, directors
and producers on Doctor Who, had first hand experience of living through a
major war. What's more, it was a war that for the better part of 1940
seemed to have been lost. 'The Dalek Invasion of Earth', which is where the
Daleks of the popular imagination make their debut, is almost explicitly
about that war and the fear of defeat.
Marcus Durham
<cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> shared the following with us in
rec.arts.drwho:
[snip]
>
>You mean so they could put in the announcement at the end about Tom Bakers
>show on Radio 2. That's why they abandoned a whole 5 seasons of Pertwee, all
>to plug Tom Bakers show on names. I wouldn't have believed it, but Radio 2
>presentation hasn't changed one iota since the 1950's. Why dont they just
>scrap Radio 2 and give the money to community radio station's like
>Inspiration FM which more people listen to.
[snip]
I'm afraid the above paragraph is slightly less truthful than a Jeffrey
Archer liable case. More people *do not* listen to "community" radio
stations than R2. And anyone who thinks Steve Wright somehow originates
from the 50's, is quite frankly having a laugh. 80's yes, 50's no.
Please feel free to post some more wildly inaccurate statements any
time.
--
Marcus Durham
The UMTSDW Homepage. News, Reviews, Features and Locations.
http://www.zenn.demon.co.uk/drwho/drwho.htm
Marcus Durham
<cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> shared the following with us in
rec.arts.drwho:
[snip]
>shared the slot just before the Doctor Who repeats or Blakes 7. Long time no
>see.
Triangle was bad TV. But I'm not going to slate it for it's poor picture
quality, because of how technically ambitious it was in the first place.
Although staying with soaps, the film stock used on the location stuff
for Howards' Way always looked superb. None of that dull washed out
colour and dirty picture that Who often suffered just a couple of years
before.
John Pettigrew
"Daniel O'Mahony" <dani...@lineone.net> massaged the keyboard in a
sexy way and came up with this...:
>John Pettigrew wrote:
Oh, it may all seem a bit dated by 2000 standards but it's still quite
psychadelic and colourful.. Definitely a product of the 70s, but the
colourful, fuzzy 70s.
Ronnie Clark
>time.
Doctor Who gets all his incarnations together every Thursday afternoon and
gang-bangs himself.
Ronnie
Michael Lee
>I disagree.
>I think the first true example of "Hey, we're in colour" is 'The Claws
>of Axos'. The technical direction, trippy camera work and visual
>images scream successful colour.
Hardly!
Claws of Axos screams "hey look, we're in colour!", but I don't think
that is particularly effective -- it's not at all subtle. I think the
thing that starts with Genesis is that it's not that sort of bright
use of color -- the Hichcliffe era is grey, green, brown -- and uses
rich dark colors, where Pertwee's (espcially Claws of Axos) use more
bright oranges.
--
Michael Lee
http://www.execpc.com/~michaell
http://www.misfit.org
Jon Andersen
>"Daniel O'Mahony" <dani...@lineone.net> wrote:
>> The point of subtext is that it's not something that
>> writers (or any of the> creators of a TV programme) do.
>Not true - at least (and this is a pedantic point, so it demands a
>pedantic response) according to the dictionaries I have to hand,
>subtext may be intentional on the part of the writer.
Subtext is text that isn't obviously text, which is why it tends to get used
to describe all the "hidden" sexual stuff in, say, Xena and Star Trek.
Take Garak and Bashire from DS9 - it'll never be text that there's any
sort of sexual relationship between the two. On a textual level, they are
friends, and will "obviousdly" remain that way
But both actors play their characters on the assumption that there is
a relationship between them, even if it's only just a casual bonk from time
to time. Their body language, their inflections, are all used to convey the
existance of their mutual attraction. But it's not "obvious", not on a
textual level. It's something you have to pick up on careful observation.
Xena's subtext started off the same way, only people were looking a lot
more closely - it was two scantily clad woman doing non-female stuff after
all. For a while, it was low key, easily ignorable/missable if you weren't
interested in finding it. Now however, it's reached a point where you'd have
to be blind to miss it, but as it's not acknowledge openly, the relationship
is still technically on a subtextual level. Subtext is just stuff written
into the narrative thatis not an obvious part of it.
Jon
-----
We are the people our parents warned us about.
John Pettigrew
mich...@earth.execpc.com (Michael Lee) massaged the keyboard in a
sexy way and came up with this...:
>our....@SQUIDvirgin.net (John Pettigrew) writes:
>
>>I disagree.
>>I think the first true example of "Hey, we're in colour" is 'The Claws
>>of Axos'. The technical direction, trippy camera work and visual
>>images scream successful colour.
>
>Hardly!
>
>Claws of Axos screams "hey look, we're in colour!", but I don't think
>that is particularly effective -- it's not at all subtle. I think the
>thing that starts with Genesis is that it's not that sort of bright
>use of color -- the Hichcliffe era is grey, green, brown -- and uses
>rich dark colors, where Pertwee's (espcially Claws of Axos) use more
>bright oranges.
So you don't think it's subtle or effective, but you agree that it
says "Hey, we're in colour!"?
I still say Successful Colour for this one. I wouldn't say that
Geensis is particularly colourful, agreeing with you over the use of
muddy colours.