The Great McCoy challenge.
George Potter
team and writers for "destroying" WHO. Well, how about putting yer money
where your mouth is? Write a better script than FENRIC, GHOSTLIGHT,
DRAGONFIRE, DELTA and post it. In screenplay form, with as many
camera/shooting directions as you want.
Im willing to...anyone else?
STYRE
Ronnie Clark
>where your mouth is? Write a better script than FENRIC, GHOSTLIGHT,
>DRAGONFIRE, DELTA and post it. In screenplay form, with as many
>camera/shooting directions as you want.
> Im willing to...anyone else?
Actually, I've been working on a story called "The Time Gun" - Tis a
two-part story that follows on from Trial Of A Time Lord, while the Doctor
is returning Mel to her own time.
Ronnie
--
"What's it like being famous?" - Eric Morcambe
"Well, it's not like in your day, you know!" - John Lennon
George Potter
Ronnie Clark <R.J.Cl...@student.lboro.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8agdg1$rl8$5...@sun-cc204.lboro.ac.uk...
> >Well, how about putting yer money
> >where your mouth is? Write a better script than FENRIC, GHOSTLIGHT,
> >DRAGONFIRE, DELTA and post it. In screenplay form, with as many
> >camera/shooting directions as you want.
> > Im willing to...anyone else?
>
> Actually, I've been working on a story called "The Time Gun" - Tis a
> two-part story that follows on from Trial Of A Time Lord, while the Doctor
> is returning Mel to her own time.
Is it in screenplay/script format? Not being snotty or anything, just
curious:) That was the meaning of my post. I just wonder if a lot of the
anti-McCoy faction aprreciate the problems inherent in making a science
fiction/fantasy story in visual terms.
Anyway, do you plan on posting your story soon? Let me know if you do..id
like to read it:)
STYRE
Ronnie Clark
>curious:) That was the meaning of my post. I just wonder if a lot of the
>anti-McCoy faction aprreciate the problems inherent in making a science
>fiction/fantasy story in visual terms.
It's currently in a scene breakdown stage, from which stage I wish to turn
it into a script, which itself I want to turn into a short novel.....
I always find it easier to write that way! come up with a nutty idea, write
a storyline round it, work out the dialogue, then write the guts of the
novel!
George Potter
> >Is it in screenplay/script format? Not being snotty or anything, just
> >curious:) That was the meaning of my post. I just wonder if a lot of the
> >anti-McCoy faction aprreciate the problems inherent in making a science
> >fiction/fantasy story in visual terms.
>
> It's currently in a scene breakdown stage, from which stage I wish to turn
> it into a script, which itself I want to turn into a short novel.....
>
> I always find it easier to write that way! come up with a nutty idea,
write
> a storyline round it, work out the dialogue, then write the guts of the
> novel!
>
> Ronnie
Well, if it works, it works! :)
ThermoDynamic
already done so.
Even I could write better stories than GL, tCoF, and DatB...
Like I said, most of the problems are with the production team - Cartmel wanted
the 7th Doctor to be a certain way, and that way goes against everything the
Doctor is and has done.
George Potter wrote:
> It seems that a lot of the anti-McCoy posters blame the McCoy era production
> team and writers for "destroying" WHO. Well, how about putting yer money
> where your mouth is? Write a better script than FENRIC, GHOSTLIGHT,
> DRAGONFIRE, DELTA and post it. In screenplay form, with as many
> camera/shooting directions as you want.
> Im willing to...anyone else?
>
> STYRE
--
http://www.geocities.com/~timanov
-=- AND -=-
Oh if I could only time travel to 1981 and re-live the adventures for the very
first time...
-=- OR -=-
When I make accusations, I try to back them up with some sort of logic if not
illogic. I just don't leave things hanging open making everyone else
wonder "What sort of dope is he on?!" I make everyone else wonder "He's on
LSD!"
-=- BUT -=-
If (A != A) document.write "I make no sense."
Ed Jefferson
>I don't need to write proof when most of the 6 previous eras of the show have
>already done so.
>
>Even I could write better stories than GL, tCoF, and DatB...
>
>Like I said, most of the problems are with the production team - Cartmel
>wanted
>the 7th Doctor to be a certain way, and that way goes against everything the
>Doctor is and has done.
>
IMHO, the problem was that Cartmel, Aaronovitch, Platt etc. were lumbered with
JNT as a producer, but YMMV.
--
Or something....
Ed Jefferson, posting through time from 2004
"The BBC, it's not just shit, it's your shit."
http://members.xoom.com/upgbook/
Remove the iamhim to send me e-mail, or news about your wonderful products
Exorse
>It seems that a lot of the anti-McCoy posters blame the McCoy era production
>team and writers for "destroying" WHO. Well, how about putting yer money
>where your mouth is? Write a better script than FEN
This goes back to the irrationally STUPID idea that you can't judge what you
don't do. Which of course would mean that you, George, can't judge the
anti-McCoy posters.... hehehehe.
I mean, who are we to judge anything then except what we do, eh? There goes
the whole United States Justice System then, since none of the jury members
actually committed the crimes which they judge, eh?
I mean, the next time you go to a restaurant, don't even think about judging
the food - not until you've actually cooked it yourself, eh?
I mean, don't even think about judging the president or the prime minister -
not unless you've been a president or prime minister yourself, eh?
~~~-~~~-~~~-~~~-~~~-~~~
"And I'm stuck here on Earth - with YOU, Brigadier!"
George Potter
ThermoDynamic <dpc...@pclink.com> wrote in message
news:38CBCD12...@pclink.com...
> I don't need to write proof when most of the 6 previous eras of the show
have
> already done so.
Oh, but YOU didnt write them, did you? And theirin lies the challenge! :)
>
> Even I could write better stories than GL, tCoF, and DatB...
Then hows about a sample? :)
>
> Like I said, most of the problems are with the production team - Cartmel
wanted
> the 7th Doctor to be a certain way, and that way goes against everything
the
> Doctor is and has done.
Well, "production team" generally refers to the actual shooting
crew -director, lighting director, the cameramen, sound recordists,
electricians, grips, etc. as opposed to "pre-production" wich would be
Turner, Cartmel, the writers, and whatever other lackeys were running
around.
One thing i DONT know, actually, and would like to, is: who came up with the
actual story ideas? was it Cartmel, who then dished them out to writer's he
selected, or was it the writers themselves, working from mere suggestions?
Does anyone here know?:)
STYRE
George Potter
Exorse <exo...@aol.commerce.us> wrote in message
news:20000312131039...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
Actually, Im not trying to judge anyone: just have a little fun. Id really
be interested in seeing what anti-McCoy WHO fans would come up with if they
sat down to write a McCoy WHO script - or even a short story, or a plot
synopsis. How would you fix it? If you are too busy for this, how about
imagining that, on the day before the first McCoy season went into
pre-production, YOU personally stormed JNT's office, smacked him around, and
sent him crying to his Momma, then took over creative control of WHO.....
How would you have fixed it?
STYRE
orinoco
ThermoDynamic wrote in message <38CBCD12...@pclink.com>...
>I don't need to write proof when most of the 6 previous eras of the show
have
>already done so.
>
>
To prove that I can write better stories, I first say that other people
wrote better stories, and then say that I could also do so.
Therefore GL, tCoF and DatB were crap, QED
Orinoco, wombling free
I was brave, I was bold, I was fearless
I was famous for the things that I did
I was quick on the draw as I tidied up the floor
So they called me the Orinoco Kid
Steve Day
era and Anti-McCoy in general.
I've made it clear that I have no problems with Sylvester McCoy
himself (Fearmonger anyone?).
---
How many Doctor Who fans does it take to change a lightbulb?
None, they just sit around and wait for it to come back on.
--
Alan S. Wales
>It seems that a lot of the anti-McCoy posters blame the McCoy era production
>team and writers for "destroying" WHO. Well, how about putting yer money
>where your mouth is? Write a better script than FENRIC, GHOSTLIGHT,
>DRAGONFIRE, DELTA and post it. In screenplay form, with as many
>camera/shooting directions as you want.
> Im willing to...anyone else?
"Great" and "McCoy" in the same sentence. <shivers>
There is no need to do this exercise. As ThermoDynamic has already pointed out,
the show was able to do a pretty good job producing the show for almost 25
years. Then here comes the McCoy era and it doesn't look right. The monsters
are lame. The Doctor is way different. The Tardis is a mere transport vehicle,
etc. etc.
I submit that others have already proven that it can be done in past eras. BTW,
why does the Dr. Who story have to be written for McCoy's characterization?
Couldn't someone taking up your challenge write for any Doctor?
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Exorse
>I think you have to understand the difference between being anti McCoy
>era and Anti-McCoy in general.
>
>
I'm both anti-McCoy, for he is a horrible actor who can't deliver serious
dialog convincingly, and anti-McCoy era, for those were some of the most
horrendous stories I've ever seen.
Each on its own wouldn't have ruined Doctor Who for me - indeed, I thought the
Colin Baker stoires were mostly horrible, yet Colin himself was a great Doctor
- but put them both together, and there is no chance of redemption.
George Potter
Alan S. Wales <powr...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20000312154113...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
> >"George Potter" Sty...@email.msn.com asked:
>
>
> >It seems that a lot of the anti-McCoy posters blame the McCoy era
production
> >team and writers for "destroying" WHO. Well, how about putting yer money
> >where your mouth is? Write a better script than FENRIC, GHOSTLIGHT,
> >DRAGONFIRE, DELTA and post it. In screenplay form, with as many
> >camera/shooting directions as you want.
> > Im willing to...anyone else?
>
> "Great" and "McCoy" in the same sentence. <shivers>
Yeah...I regret calling it that. I should have known it would piss a lot of
people off. That really wasnt my intention, folks.
>
> There is no need to do this exercise. As ThermoDynamic has already pointed
out,
> the show was able to do a pretty good job producing the show for almost 25
> years. Then here comes the McCoy era and it doesn't look right. The
monsters
> are lame. The Doctor is way different. The Tardis is a mere transport
vehicle,
> etc. etc.
This is exactly what I mean! Right there! You are stating the things you
found WRONG with the McCoy era! Good! Id like to know how YOU ( or any
anti-McCoy WHOfan) would fix it. I dont really care how you do this - even
your post Alan, is close to what I imagined. You are telling me the changes
you would make in the McCoy seasons, and that was basically what I imagined.
Sure, I was hoping for people to get "in depth" on the subject, but most of
what Ive recieved ( with the exception of Ronnie Clark) have been along the
lines of "you have no right to judge anti-McCoy fans". I am NOT attempting
to judge anti-McCoy fans. If you hate McCoy, for whatever reasons, fine.
That is a valid opinion. Hate him/the era all you want. That's YOUR right.
Im not asking you to like McCoy/the era, just to tell me ( and the rest of
RADW) how you would fix it. If you dont care to, fine. But please don't
misuderstand my intentions.
Id also like to say that I enjoy reading your posts, Alan, and the posts of
ThermoDynamic. You may disagree with me, but both of you are always well
spoken:)
>
> I submit that others have already proven that it can be done in past eras.
BTW,
> why does the Dr. Who story have to be written for McCoy's
characterization?
> Couldn't someone taking up your challenge write for any Doctor?
Well, that would defeat the purpose of the entire challenge! (Perhaps I
should call it a game or an exercise?) That's done pretty much everyday on
alt.drwho.creative and other fan fic outlets. If one of your requisites for
the McCoy era seasons to work was that another Doctor had to be brought
back, or an entirely different Doctor had to be introduced, that would
certainly be a valid reason.
STYRE
TobiasVaughn
>have
>> already done so.
>
>>
>
Hey, man, you don't need to be a cook to know the
food's turned.
>> Like I said, most of the problems are with the production team - Cartmel
>wanted
>> the 7th Doctor to be a certain way, and that way goes against everything
>the
>> Doctor is and has done.
>
>Well, "production team" generally refers to the actual shooting
>crew -director, lighting director, the cameramen, sound recordists,
>electricians, grips, etc.
No, that would be the "production crew." "Above the
line" positions like producer and script editor are the
production team.
>One thing i DONT know, actually, and would like to, is: who came up with
>the
>actual story ideas? was it Cartmel, who then dished them out to writer's
>he
>selected, or was it the writers themselves, working from mere suggestions?
>Does anyone here know?:)
In the Cartmel era, plots usually grew out of
discussions between Cartmel and the prospective
writer, so they were some of each.
TobiasVaughn
>out,
>the show was able to do a pretty good job producing the show for almost
>25
>years. Then here comes the McCoy era and it doesn't look right. The monsters
>are lame. The Doctor is way different. The Tardis is a mere transport vehicle,
>etc. etc.
None of these were necessarily new. I mean, there's
no doubt Doctor Who has had the occasional lame
monster all through its history (Gell-Guards, anyone?).
The most dramatic change of Doctor was probably
the first, Hartnell to Troughton. There were no
TARDIS scenes between "Death to the Daleks 1" and
"Pyramids of Mars 1" (or was it "Planet of Evil 1"?),
about the same number of episodes as the whole
McCoy era. And Season 23 had only one scene in the
(Doctor's) TARDIS.
David Brunt
>There were no
>TARDIS scenes between "Death to the Daleks 1" and
>"Pyramids of Mars 1" (or was it "Planet of Evil 1"?),
>about the same number of episodes as the whole
>McCoy era. And Season 23 had only one scene in the
>(Doctor's) TARDIS.
The console room set is used about sixty times in the Hartnell episodes,
yet only appears around 15 times in the Troughton, and the same number in
the Pertwee eras. Back to 60-odd for Tom, then Davison had 40-odd episodes
with the set. Colin had under ten appearances and McCoy was about the
same.
In other words, it's not used that often at all. Davison averages out
highest though.
David
Joxer
"Steve Day" <st...@redimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ldqncs8iplpq0hdl9...@4ax.com...
> I think you have to understand the difference between being anti McCoy
> era and Anti-McCoy in general.
>
> himself (Fearmonger anyone?).
Which to those of us who both like him personally, albeit from
limited drinking experience ;-) and quite like his acting, when he's
not encouraged to rrrrol the rrrrrs out of his script, means it's
much easier to have a reasoned discussion with you than with
certain other posters. There are few here who would disagree
strongly with much of your anti-post yesterday (today?), beyond
which it's all a matter of degrees and how much the individual
is willing to forgive if other aspects are pleasing. These things
tend to get forgotten when the discussion is on the level of
personal abuse rather than criticism.
--
Colin B, baggy... and a bit loose at the seams
The Unwilling Warriors webzine: http://x-stream.fortunecity.com/scullyst/25/
The Day of the Daleks convention: http://www.phoenix50.com/daleks/
Bob
that's when the rot really began to show. JNT was obviously bored of the
whole thing, in fact the entire production team should have been removed
there and then for that sorry shambles. Instead the producer stayed, no
lessons were learned and the script editing was given to someone who
wanted to bend the show into a shape that it didn't fit.
Sylvester could have been an excellent Doctor if there'd been a strong
team of professionals behind him who knew what they were doing. Just how
difficult is it to make watchable drama in such a broad format as this
programme offers? Obviously it was too much for Cartmel and co. All
attempts at drama went flying out of the window, pantomime silliness came
to the fore, the central character was reinvented to become a comic book
super hero who might be God in disguise, identical plots were reused in
the same season without anyone realising until it was too late, the
companion became more interesting than the Doctor, monsters didn't do
anything - they simply looked expensive and postured a bit, the Doctor was
seen to be bored far too often by the events surrounding him - if he's
bored why should the viewer bother, coherent plotting was thrown over in
favour of comic strip moments that didn't hang together to form a whole,
science was replaced by unexplained mumbo jumbo....oh I don't care enough
to write any more.
Perhaps one of the worst traits of the era was that of the awful
pretensions contained within some of the stories. Frankly I found the work
of the writers responsible to be embarassing and patronising, not one of
them was experienced or talented enough to come up with a decent script.
Bob
Hte Trasme
>TARDIS scenes between "Death to the Daleks 1" and
>"Pyramids of Mars 1" (or was it "Planet of Evil 1"?),
There was a TARDIs scene at the beggining of Planet of Evil. IIRC there'a a
TARDIS scene in Pyramids, but not at the begginning.
Hte Trasme
"Isn't better to travel hopefully than... arrive?"
DBurns6554
>>Well, how about putting yer money
>>where your mouth is? Write a better script than FENRIC, GHOSTLIGHT,
>>DRAGONFIRE, DELTA and post it.
I don't think you would want to read a nursery rhyme, Styre, but it would be
better than a couple stories you mentioned.
To all the Pro-McCoy Trolls out there, here's your sign.
DBurns6554
>> It seems that a lot of the anti-McCoy posters blame the McCoy era
>production
>> team and writers for "destroying" WHO.
Yeah, just don't take it too seriously and personally and you will be fine
DBurns6554
>Perhaps one of the worst traits of the era was that of the awful
>pretensions contained within some of the stories. Frankly I found the work
>of the writers responsible to be embarassing and patronising, not one of
>them was experienced or talented enough to come up with a decent script.
Ah, a man that speaks the truth. Not very common at RADW these days.
TobiasVaughn
>From: rberm...@aol.com (Hte Trasme)
>Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2000 7:06 PM
>Message-id: <20000312220615...@ng-dh1.aol.com>
>
>>There were no
>>TARDIS scenes between "Death to the Daleks 1" and
>>"Pyramids of Mars 1" (or was it "Planet of Evil 1"?),
>
>There was a TARDIs scene at the beggining of Planet of Evil. IIRC there'a
>a
>TARDIS scene in Pyramids, but not at the begginning.
I'm pretty sure there's one near the beginning of
"Pyramids," with the 750 years old/I walk in eternity
dialogue.
But anyway, the point is that there were 39 episodes
without scenes inside the TARDIS in between DttD 1
and PoE 1. And another 35 between "Spearhead from
Space 1" and "The Claws of Axos 4" (it was 4, wasn't
it?), where the TARDIS wasn't even a means of travel!
TobiasVaughn
>
>The main problems I have with the McCoy era began during the Trial season,
>that's when the rot really began to show. JNT was obviously bored of the
>whole thing, in fact the entire production team should have been removed
>there and then for that sorry shambles. Instead the producer stayed, no
>lessons were learned and the script editing was given to someone who
>wanted to bend the show into a shape that it didn't fit.
JNT always used to complain that the BBC essentially
said it was producing Doctor Who, or the sack. Funny
thing is, I read somewhere that he ended up as the
*last* drama producer on staff at the BBC. Meaning
it was a non-issue. He could have quit the show and
gone freelance like (literally) everyone else.
Mike C.
>>where your mouth is? Write a better script than FENRIC, GHOSTLIGHT,
>>DRAGONFIRE, DELTA and post it.
Ok, here's a better script than those:
The Doctor lands on a planet called Craptar. He finds some money.
He leaves. The End.
There. See, even THAT is better than a McCoy story. More of a plot too.
-Fett
-"And if you're not down with that, I got 2 words for ya!: SUCK IT!"
Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
> >From: Bob
I think he was afraid, not unjustifiably, that if _he_ left, they'd
simply can the show _outright_, as that was the plan in February '85,
after all.
========================================================================
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, called Snarky, The Chocolate Snark, Queen of the Snarks of Ærisia;
Queen of Spain; PMS Co-Chair; loud and flaming queer Demon of Mockery
and Silliness, Demon Lord of Confusion; Pope Snarky Goodfella of the
undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
The Principia Discordia: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html
ADRIC Awards 2000 now open! Email Sna...@yahoo.ca or
feeto...@home.com -- or even the_choco...@my-deja.com -- with
your second-round submissions. Lurkers, posters, come one, come all!
DBurns6554
On a serious note here, I would use samples of the voices of McCoy, the
companions, the rest of the cast, and use computer generated imagry to redo the
scenes, stories, the incidental music, and scripts that didn't work properly.
MAPPY
> I think he was afraid, not unjustifiably, that if _he_ left, they'd
> simply can the show _outright_, as that was the plan in February '85,
> after all.
Had it remained canned in 85, what do you all think the current state of
play would be? We certainly wouldn't have any McCoy wars.... Probably
a whole host of CBaker wars, instead, although that would have been
harder to imagine. However, can people imagine the entire NA series
covering the continuing adventures of the 6th Doctor? It might not have
been that difficult to do, although it certainly would have been a great
deal more grotesque and unsubtle.
There is also the possibility that the show might have come back,
eventually, in a stronger and more long-lasting form than it did in
1996. What do people think?
--
MAPPY (aka DDFA)
High on Life and Caffeine, Proud Winner of No Fanfic Awards and
Advocate for Violence Against Anime Newbies since 1992 ^_^
DDFA Fanfics Mailing List - DDFA_Fanfic...@onelist.com
AJAS Anime Society Mailing List - AJAS-su...@onelist.com
--
Piro-chan's Page - http://members.tripod.com/~Utena/ - Anime
Style Art (Normal, Bishounen and Shounen-Ai) by Pirotess ^_^
--
AJAS's Web Page ^_^ - http://www.adelaide.net.au/~nene/ajas.html
HHarry's AJAS Web Page - http://www.anime.sis.net.au
Chris Sutor
: Im not asking you to like McCoy/the era, just to tell me ( and the rest of
: RADW) how you would fix it. If you dont care to, fine. But please don't
: misuderstand my intentions.
I don't particularly hate the McCoy era, but I can see how it has a few
problems. Since you've asked, here are few things I would have changed:
TITLE SEQUENCE:
The theme tune: the McCoy era version is lightweight, tinkly, and entirely
non-threatening. I'd go for something with a bit more mystery to it,
possibly somewhere between the original Granier version and the 80's
electro-techno version. Something along the lines of the "trial"
version of the theme, maybe. Give it a bit of bass, and avoid using any
intstruments that might even be acidentally mstaken for the soundbox off
an ice cream truck.
The logo: The McCoy era logo just looks wrong. Lots of flash and very
little style to it.. I'd probably harken back to something simpler that
doesn't beat you over the head that it's a logo. Something like the
pertwee/troughton logos, where a decorative font is used, but not abused.
the overall sequence: The best titles the show did were experimental
optical effects. The howl-around, the slit-scan... Instead of a 3-d demo
that looks like it was whpped out on an amiga, by hobbyists, I'd want
something optical... and I'd want to keep it vaugely psychadellic.
SHOW CONTENT:
manipulative doctor: I'd dump this concept right out. I always liked it
best when The Doctor stumbled into an adventure by mistake, and had to
work to get out of it. But with him always secretly manipulating the
situation, there's no real threat.. hence, no real tension. I'd stick to
storylines that let the Doctor play off against a situation instead of
lead it around by its nose.
recurring monsters: I'd avoid them. I'd like to see new monsters and
other charaters invented, instead of rehashing the old ones over and over
again.
dark doctor: Out the door. The Doctor works best as a heroic character - a
bit anti-establishment, but always a good-guy. If he's not likable, why
would anyone care if he wins in the end or not? I'd probably want to have
him play the character a little more like troughton's cosmic hobo.
Possibly not as goofily boggle-eyed, but with that same sort of innocent
sweetness and good humor.
ace: A great character concept, but a bit weak in the final draft. It's
probably an off-shoot of the 'dark doctor' concept, but she doesn't seem
as tough or self-willed as she's sometimes supposed to be. She reminds me
of Jo Grant sometimes in her deference to the Doctor's whims. I'd add a
bit more pluck to her character, and let her upstage the Doctor every now
and then . This would also serve to weaken the Doctor's character
strength, since it would let him be seen to be flawed, and allow the
potential thought in the viewers minds that he might not win this time.
the TARDIS: The doctor seems to have fixed the Tardis, sicne he can now
point it to wherever he wants. That sort of ruins the "where are we now"
surprise that the older stories had. I'd have the TARDIS become unreliable
again, and give the adventures a more haphazzard feel. Take a little more
of the control of the situation out of the Doctor's hands.
the soundtrack: like the opening theme, I'd want to go with something more
atmospheric. The McCoy era incidental music swung between elevator music,
and bad pantomime. I feel this was largely due to the instrument used - I
would have gone with something more organic. Possibly a mix of moog and
oboes. I always liked the oboe pieces during the tom baker years.
the doctor's costume: I'd get rid of all the question marks. Replace the
Doctor's sweater vest with a proper vest, and leave that umbrella behind.
cliffhangers: This one's important - all episodes must end with a
proper cliffhanger. One that leaves the audience wondering "How will they
get out of THAT?" The danger should be real, immediate, and not
self-inflicted.
regeneration: I would have had Colin Baker back for it. Let him have one
final story, where he dies heroically, and selflessly.
and them's my two cents.
--
COBALTatTIGERDENdotCOM I'd really like a New World Order, but
----==============---- I can only afford a slightly used one.
now with 10% real *****************************************
fruit juice! Don't blame me, I voted for Richard Dangerous
TobiasVaughn
> feeto...@home.com
>TobiasVaughn wrote:
>> >From: Bob
>> >
>> >The main problems I have with the McCoy era began during the Trial season,
>> >that's when the rot really began to show. JNT was obviously bored of
>the
>> >whole thing, in fact the entire production team should have been removed
>> >there and then for that sorry shambles. Instead the producer stayed,
>no
>> >lessons were learned and the script editing was given to someone who
>> >wanted to bend the show into a shape that it didn't fit.
>>
>> JNT always used to complain that the BBC essentially
>> said it was producing Doctor Who, or the sack. Funny
>> thing is, I read somewhere that he ended up as the
>> *last* drama producer on staff at the BBC. Meaning
>> it was a non-issue. He could have quit the show and
>> gone freelance like (literally) everyone else.
>
>simply can the show _outright_, as that was the plan in February '85,
>after all.
Has that ever been confirmed? The 18-month figure
was there from the very first press reports. (I have
a tape of the BBC news that night, and it had it.)
Tangentially, has no one ever asked Pip and Jane what
"Gallifrey," the four-parter they were commissioned
to write before JNT and Saward came up with "Trial,"
was about? Even the Howe/Stammers/Walker books
have nothing more than the same rumor that was
going around at the time, that Gallifrey was destroyed
in it.
TobiasVaughn
>I don't particularly hate the McCoy era, but I can see how it has a few
>problems. Since you've asked, here are few things I would have changed:
Just wanted to say I agree with almost all of what you
said, especially re: the dark and manipulative Doctor.
I did think Ace was a strong companion, though, in a
self-directed way I don't think we'd seen since Romana
(albeit in a totally different way, of course).
>regeneration: I would have had Colin Baker back for it. Let him have one
>final story, where he dies heroically, and selflessly.
IIRC, JNT offered this to Colin, who understandably
turned down the offer of a few weeks' work several
months hence. (Of course, that didn't stop Hartnell,
but maybe they really did convince him he needed a
rest, and wasn't really being fired.)
Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
> George Potter <Styre> spake thusly:
>
> : Im not asking you to like McCoy/the era, just to tell me ( and the rest of
> : RADW) how you would fix it. If you dont care to, fine. But please don't
> : misuderstand my intentions.
(Sorry, Chris, but this post is more convenient to use right now...)
Let me see... First, change the damn producer -- after years of dealing
with deadhead executives, he was thoroughly out of sorts, and no longer
able to adequately produce "Doctor Who," thus forcing him to keep the
job or let the show die was an invidious form of blackmail -- most vile,
because he was still a fan, just burned-out. Second, make sure the new
guy _can_ produce watchable stuff that will allow the BBC to maintain a
rep for *quality* drama _and_ ratings winners, to the extent this is
even possible. Third, bar Pip and Jane Baker from ever working on Doctor
Who again for the rest of their lives. Fourth, the script editor should
have _some_ experience writing professionally. Fifth, the writing staff
should contain a mix of newbies and old hands -- not necessarily at
writing DW, but at writing sf, anyroad. Sixth, give McCoy enough time to
study the role before handing him his first script. Seventh, bring back
Colin for a proper regeneration story. Eighth, whatever style of writing
is used, make sure it isn't _sloppy_ -- not a failure unique to the
McCoy era, BTW, so I'm not letting previous disasters off the hook --
whether it's surrealism, realism, neo-realism, abstract expressionism --
_whatever_, even if you're deliberately showing, not telling, make
_damn_ sure it isn't sloppy. Ninth, have an eye towards season structure
-- no placing wacked-out psychedelic trips right after dark and gritty
post-modern gazes into the heart of darkness (what RemotD _might_ have
been, done right), followed by darker stuff and then a rather
less-wacked-out story -- doesn't work. Tenth, be _extra_ careful when
introducing relatively revolutionary ideas like a title character with a
dark side in a series not well-known for that kind of moral complexity,
even if it was there in the beginning and was just pushed aside.
========================================================================
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, called Snarky, The Chocolate Snark, Queen of the Snarks of Ærisia;
Queen of Spain; PMS Co-Chair; loud and flaming queer Demon of Mockery
and Silliness, Demon Lord of Confusion; Pope Snarky Goodfella of the
undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
David Brunt
>>What would YOU do to fix the McCoy Seasons?
>
>On a serious note here, I would use samples of the voices of McCoy, the
>companions, the rest of the cast, and use computer generated imagry to
redo the
>scenes, stories, the incidental music, and scripts that didn't work
properly.
<falls off chair in amazement>
The problem is that CGI frequently looks a little tacky. And 'Nemesis',
for one, would need a very large overhaul to fix it.
David
Ronnie Clark
>play would be? We certainly wouldn't have any McCoy wars.... Probably
>a whole host of CBaker wars, instead, although that would have been
>harder to imagine. However, can people imagine the entire NA series
>covering the continuing adventures of the 6th Doctor? It might not have
>been that difficult to do, although it certainly would have been a great
>deal more grotesque and unsubtle.
I think given the 1985 out-cries, and indeed on here the seemingly general
consensus that Colin was a good Doctor lumbered with bad stories, we
generally would be having "Eric Saward destroyed Doctor Who" threads - and
there'd be no arguing, either, really. But I think Doctor Who would be much
more fondly remembered if it had ended with "Revelation Of The Daleks" -
"All right.... I'll take you to B-"
Ronnie
--
"What's it like being famous?" - Eric Morcambe
"Well, it's not like in your day, you know!" - John Lennon
Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
And finally, eleventh, I would have the season lengths restored to the
usual twenty-six episodes, with five four-episode stories and one
six-ep, making damned sure I had the budget to produce them properly --
i.e. at least no worse than the fx of the previous eras, and preferably
a damn sight better.
James Bennetts
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:47:35 GMT, "Pope Snarky Goodfella of the
undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK" <feeto...@home.com> wrote:
>"Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK"
>wrote:
>> Chris Sutor wrote:
>> > George Potter <Styre> spake thusly:
>And finally, eleventh, I would have the season lengths restored to the
>usual twenty-six episodes, with five four-episode stories and one
>six-ep, making damned sure I had the budget to produce them properly --
>i.e. at least no worse than the fx of the previous eras, and preferably
>a damn sight better.
Agreed, but why five four-parters and a six-parter? Why not whatever
lengths the stories needed? What would be wrong with a season that
opened (say) with a 2-parter, followed it up with a 7-parter and a
4-parter, moved onto a 3-parter, and then ended up the season with a
four-parter and a six-parter...
I'm sure we can all think of stories that were either padded or rushed
because producers from 1970 onward felt compelled to produce for the
most part only two story-lengths per season...
James
Ed Jefferson
>I'm both anti-McCoy, for he is a horrible actor who can't deliver serious
>dialog convincingly, and anti-McCoy era, for those were some of the most
>horrendous stories I've ever seen.
>Each on its own wouldn't have ruined Doctor Who for me - indeed, I thought
>the
>Colin Baker stoires were mostly horrible, yet Colin himself was a great
>Doctor
>- but put them both together, and there is no chance of redemption.
>
I'm both anti-marmalade, for it is a horrible spread which can't deliver
serious
taste convincingly, and anti-marmalade era, for those were some of the most
horrendous spreads I've ever seen.
Each on its own wouldn't have ruined breakfast for me - indeed, I thought the
chocolate spreads were mostly horrible, yet chocolate itself is a great spread
- but put them both together, and there is no chance of redemption.
--
Or something....
Ed Jefferson, posting through time from 2004
"The BBC, it's not just jamt, it's your lovely jam."
http://members.xoom.com/upgbook/
Remove the iluvjum to send me jaml, or news about your wonderful jam
DBurns6554
>>companions, the rest of the cast, and use computer generated imagry to
>redo the
>>scenes, stories, the incidental music, and scripts that didn't work
>properly.
Brunt
><falls off chair in amazement>
>
>The problem is that CGI frequently looks a little tacky. And 'Nemesis',
>for one, would need a very large overhaul to fix it.
You are amazed, eh? At what? My ability to have a conversation without flaming
Styre this time, or the use of computer generated images?
If we have the technology to make it appear as if Christopher Reeve can walk
again (The commerical they had for the Super Bowl), then there is a chance to
fix problem scenes in the stories that have some major problems.
TobiasVaughn
>
>In article <20000312170429...@ng-dh1.aol.com>,
>TobiasVaughn <tobias...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>From: "George Potter" Sty...@email.msn.com
>>>ThermoDynamic <dpc...@pclink.com> wrote in message
>>>news:38CBCD12...@pclink.com...
>
>>>Then hows about a sample? :)
>
>>Hey, man, you don't need to be a cook to know the
>>food's turned.
>
>outright said *you* can do better...
That's true. I was answering the wrong argument
(the "you have no right to criticize if you can't do at
least as well yourself" one).
TobiasVaughn
If we have the *money* to do that, leave 'em the way
they are and produce new stories!
TobiasVaughn
>TobiasVaughn wrote:
>
>> Tangentially, has no one ever asked Pip and Jane what
>> "Gallifrey," the four-parter they were commissioned
>> to write before JNT and Saward came up with "Trial,"
>> was about? Even the Howe/Stammers/Walker books
>> have nothing more than the same rumor that was
>> going around at the time, that Gallifrey was destroyed
>> in it.
>
>about the original, if true.
I can't quite picture a Gallifrey story with any of the
elements of TatR. Also, I thought "Strange Matter"
was a rejected storyline, whereas "Gallifrey" was
(reportedly) a commissioned set of scripts.
David Brunt
>>>On a serious note here, I would use samples of the voices of McCoy, the
>>>companions, the rest of the cast, and use computer generated imagry to
>>>redo the scenes, stories, the incidental music, and scripts that didn't
>>>work properly.
>
>Brunt
>><falls off chair in amazement>
>
flaming
>Styre this time, or the use of computer generated images?
A little from column 'a', a little from column 'b''.......... :-) :-)
I should have said *amazed and delighted*.
More of the same, I say.
David
David Brunt
>David Brunt <D...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>The problem is that CGI frequently looks a little tacky. And 'Nemesis',
>>for one, would need a very large overhaul to fix it.
>
>and recutting, "Nemesis" should be a pushover!
But 'Highlander 2' was still terrible after the changes...... :-)
>They certainly had the extra footage -- it would be more than possible to
>swap the "duck!" scene and some of the extra DeFlores material in place of
>the pointless Windsor Castle chase;
Neither being any better than the Windsor scene really......
>lop out the skinhead scenes entirely
>(possibly moving the cliffie to part 2 to the point where the Nemesis
>awakes); and snip almost any mention of that godawful American tourist.
Oh, I agree. Waste of time and money on both pointless plot strands.
>Then dub a line or two where the Doctor tells Ace that Peinforte's gold
>has been charged with energy by the validium -- meaning it's not really
>gold that's killing the Cybermen, but a little blob of Gallifreyan
>ultra-technology -- and the fans can go away happy.
The Cyberman-piercing blobs of Rassiilon. Didn't that era already have too
much of that sort of stuff?
>Finally, find some
>way of getting in Peinforte's "Our magic will allow us to pass amongst the
>peasants undetected" lines, which they didn't have time to shoot on the
>day, and Bob's your uncle... Nemesis without pain. :-)
But if the skinheads are omitted, would that be needed? Or is that line
before they leave the café?
With the basic concept of the story being so seriously flawed, I don't
think much could be done short of redubbing the whole thing and filming new
material to fill the gaps. Maybe it would be a good two-parter - just the
important points without the waffle. <thinks> Or even a one-parter......
David
William December Starr
B...@ratnest.demon.co.uk (Bob) said:
[ re "Silver Nemesis" ]
> Its still a shit story with nowhere to go and pointless dialogue.
> Ought never to have been made and everyone involved should be
> thoroughly ashamed.
I rather liked some it myself. Excellent rapport between the Doctor and
Ace, and some good music too.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
R Dan Henry
Clark" <R.J.Cl...@student.lboro.ac.uk> transmitted thus:
>>Had it remained canned in 85, what do you all think the current state of
>>play would be? We certainly wouldn't have any McCoy wars.... Probably
>>a whole host of CBaker wars, instead, although that would have been
>>harder to imagine. However, can people imagine the entire NA series
>>covering the continuing adventures of the 6th Doctor? It might not have
>>been that difficult to do, although it certainly would have been a great
>>deal more grotesque and unsubtle.
>
>I think given the 1985 out-cries, and indeed on here the seemingly general
>consensus that Colin was a good Doctor lumbered with bad stories, we
>generally would be having "Eric Saward destroyed Doctor Who" threads - and
>there'd be no arguing, either, really. But I think Doctor Who would be much
>more fondly remembered if it had ended with "Revelation Of The Daleks" -
>"All right.... I'll take you to B-"
"-ed with me," finished the Doctor.
-- opening line of "Timewidget", the first in a series of New
Adventures of Doctor Who from Virgin Publishing. This series aims to
go where the TV series never could, producing richer, deeper, and more
adult stories. "Timewidget" includes a fold-out picture of the
Doctor's companion Peri, as played by Nicola Bryant.
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com
Trained Philosopher: Will Think For Food
MAPPY
> Tangentially, has no one ever asked Pip and Jane what
> "Gallifrey," the four-parter they were commissioned
> to write before JNT and Saward came up with "Trial,"
> was about? Even the Howe/Stammers/Walker books
> have nothing more than the same rumor that was
> going around at the time, that Gallifrey was destroyed
> in it.
It probably ended up as Time and the Rani, which really doesn't say much
about the original, if true.
--
Jonathan Blum
Alan S. Wales <powr...@aol.compost> wrote:
>There is no need to do this exercise. As ThermoDynamic has already pointed out,
>the show was able to do a pretty good job producing the show for almost 25
>years. Then here comes the McCoy era and it doesn't look right. The monsters
>are lame. The Doctor is way different. The Tardis is a mere transport vehicle,
>etc. etc.
>I submit that others have already proven that it can be done in past eras.
Nope -- because to simply do 1987 Doctor Who like it's 1980 Doctor Who is
as impractical and backward as doing 1970 Doctor Who like it's 1963 Doctor
Who.
By the time of the McCoy era, the audience watching Who, and the TV
landscape in general, had changed radically. Instead of writing a series
for a cushy timeslot as part of an established Saturday evening line-up,
which is guaranteed a pretty vast share of the three channels because it
doesn't even usually face networked opposition, you've got to write a
series which is going to be counterprogrammed against one of the great
mass-audience juggernauts in the nation, and which is competing against
the rest of the 57-channel universe. You've got to aim for, by
definition, a niche audience, but a large enough niche to keep you afloat.
And the audience's expectations of SF/adventure figure have also changed
radically in recent years; this is the era of the Dark Knight, of Max
Headroom, of that newfangled Star Trek TNG.
Simply "doing it the way it was before" isn't much of an option -- except
in the sense that "the way it was before" involved constantly, *radically*
changing to keep up with the times.
So what's your approach? Not Terrance Dicks' approach, *your* approach?
How would *you* make Doctor Who a mass-audience success in 1987-89, given
that you're on a rough playing field which Letts or Hinchcliffe never had
to face? And given that the mass-audience's Who habit has been gone for
years -- when McCoy starts, remember, it's been 2 1/2 years since that
extra two million viewers last watched the show -- and given that the Beeb
bosses are so hostile to your show that there's no chance of a "Changing
Face Of Doctor Who" being run in the off-season to keep the show in the
public eye during the nine months it's off the air?
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
TobiasVaughn <tobias...@aol.com> wrote:
>>From: "George Potter" Sty...@email.msn.com
>>ThermoDynamic <dpc...@pclink.com> wrote in message
>>news:38CBCD12...@pclink.com...
>>> Even I could write better stories than GL, tCoF, and DatB...
>>Then hows about a sample? :)
>Hey, man, you don't need to be a cook to know the
>food's turned.
Y'know, I don't think that argument actually works any more if you've just
outright said *you* can do better...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
David Brunt <D...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>The problem is that CGI frequently looks a little tacky. And 'Nemesis',
>for one, would need a very large overhaul to fix it.
Hey, if "Highlander 2" can be largely salvaged with a bit of overdubbing
and recutting, "Nemesis" should be a pushover!
They certainly had the extra footage -- it would be more than possible to
swap the "duck!" scene and some of the extra DeFlores material in place of
the pointless Windsor Castle chase; lop out the skinhead scenes entirely
(possibly moving the cliffie to part 2 to the point where the Nemesis
awakes); and snip almost any mention of that godawful American tourist.
Then dub a line or two where the Doctor tells Ace that Peinforte's gold
has been charged with energy by the validium -- meaning it's not really
gold that's killing the Cybermen, but a little blob of Gallifreyan
ultra-technology -- and the fans can go away happy. Finally, find some
way of getting in Peinforte's "Our magic will allow us to pass amongst the
peasants undetected" lines, which they didn't have time to shoot on the
day, and Bob's your uncle... Nemesis without pain. :-)
Regards,
Jon Blum
Bob
(Jonathan Blum) wrote:
Its still a shit story with nowhere to go and pointless dialogue. Ought
never to have been made and everyone involved should be thoroughly
ashamed.
Bob
Steven Kitson
> TobiasVaughn <tobias...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>From: "George Potter" Sty...@email.msn.com
> >>ThermoDynamic <dpc...@pclink.com> wrote in message
> >>news:38CBCD12...@pclink.com...
> >>> Even I could write better stories than GL, tCoF, and DatB...
> >>Then hows about a sample? :)
> >Hey, man, you don't need to be a cook to know the
> >food's turned.
>
> Y'know, I don't think that argument actually works any more if you've just
> outright said *you* can do better...
So, are you entering 'Fearmonger' for the Challenge?
--
And the operator says 'forty cents more for the next three minutes'...
Daniel Gooley
>David Brunt wrote:
>>The problem is that CGI frequently looks a little tacky. And 'Nemesis',
>>for one, would need a very large overhaul to fix it.
>
>They certainly had the extra footage -- it would be more than possible to
>swap the "duck!" scene and some of the extra DeFlores material in place of
>the pointless Windsor Castle chase; lop out the skinhead scenes entirely
>(possibly moving the cliffie to part 2 to the point where the Nemesis
>awakes); and snip almost any mention of that godawful American tourist.
>Then dub a line or two where the Doctor tells Ace that Peinforte's gold
>has been charged with energy by the validium -- meaning it's not really
>gold that's killing the Cybermen, but a little blob of Gallifreyan
>ultra-technology -- and the fans can go away happy. Finally, find some
>way of getting in Peinforte's "Our magic will allow us to pass amongst the
>peasants undetected" lines, which they didn't have time to shoot on the
>day, and Bob's your uncle... Nemesis without pain. :-)
But..... But..... That *works*! What a sad little fanboy I am. Cut
that bloody ridiculous Windsor sequence and a few of the more kitchy
moments, and the sheer fun of what's left is suddenly visible. What a
fine line between pleasure and pain.
Danny
(although the other thought which occurs is that, if it really is this
easy to turn the thing into a worthwhile story, why didn't the damn
director do it?)
MAPPY
> I can't quite picture a Gallifrey story with any of the
> elements of TatR. Also, I thought "Strange Matter"
> was a rejected storyline, whereas "Gallifrey" was
> (reportedly) a commissioned set of scripts.
"Strange Matter" should have remained rejected, quite frankly.
Paul Andinach
> (although the other thought which occurs is that, if it really is
> this easy to turn the thing into a worthwhile story, why didn't
> the damn director do it?)
A question you could ask about quite a few of the McCoy stories
really.
Has anybody's Big Plan For Improving The McCoy Era included hiring
better directors?
Paul
(My Big Plan? I'd give the whole thing up as a lost cause and
concentrate on getting Crusade the airing it deserved...)
Chris Sutor
: IIRC, JNT offered this to Colin, who understandably
: turned down the offer of a few weeks' work several
: months hence. (Of course, that didn't stop Hartnell,
: but maybe they really did convince him he needed a
: rest, and wasn't really being fired.)
Okay... but in the "Colin baker Years." Video - Colin says that they never
asked him back to do a regenration. He makes that point quite clear.
--
COBALTatTIGERDENdotCOM I'd really like a New World Order, but
----==============---- I can only afford a slightly used one.
now with 10% real *****************************************
fruit juice! Don't blame me, I voted for Richard Dangerous
orinoco
William December Starr wrote in message <8ak2m1$m...@crl.crl.com>... about
Silver Nemesis
>
>I rather liked some it myself. Excellent rapport between the Doctor and
>Ace, and some good music too.
>
William - I will forgive you your arguments with steve Day, and with Adam,
but now you have gone too far. Welcome to my killfile you pro-Silver Nemesis
troll *8-)
Orinoco, wombling free
I was brave, I was bold, I was fearless
I was famous for the things that I did
I was quick on the draw as I tidied up the floor
So they called me the Orinoco Kid
TobiasVaughn
>TobiasVaughn <tobias...@aol.com> spake thusly:
>
>: IIRC, JNT offered this to Colin, who understandably
>: turned down the offer of a few weeks' work several
>: months hence. (Of course, that didn't stop Hartnell,
>: but maybe they really did convince him he needed a
>: rest, and wasn't really being fired.)
>
>Okay... but in the "Colin baker Years." Video - Colin says that they never
>asked him back to do a regenration. He makes that point quite clear.
I thought he said quite the opposite, complete with
his often-used girlfriend metaphor: "I don't want you
anymore, but you can come 'round for a night in a few
months."
John Carlson
Jonathan Blum <jb...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:8ajhct$ca8$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
> By the time of the McCoy era, the audience watching Who, and the TV
> landscape in general, had changed radically. Instead of writing a series
> for a cushy timeslot as part of an established Saturday evening line-up,
> which is guaranteed a pretty vast share of the three channels because it
> doesn't even usually face networked opposition, you've got to write a
> series which is going to be counterprogrammed against one of the great
> mass-audience juggernauts in the nation, and which is competing against
> the rest of the 57-channel universe.
Sorry, but most of this is rubbish. Do you want to be more specifict about
how the UK TV landscape had changed so much by 1987? There were VCR's and
one extra channel, which during Who's timeslot showed a finance based news
programe, but less than 10,000 homes had cable and practicaly no DBS at all.
I dont know where you get a 57 channel universe from, but it wasnt in the
UK. And the 1990 Broadcasting Act which IIRC ended the cosey world of ITV
was still three years in the future.
>You've got to aim for, by
> definition, a niche audience, but a large enough niche to keep you afloat.
Well so says you, but IIRC niche audiences don't realy exist and even if
they did, I dont see any evidence of how JNT was aiming for one and say the
producers of Corrination Street wernt. I could argue they cater for a whole
group of whatever the collective noun for a niche is so why couldnt JNT???
> And the audience's expectations of SF/adventure figure have also changed
> radically in recent years; this is the era of the Dark Knight, of Max
> Headroom, of that newfangled Star Trek TNG.
IIRC Max Headroom flopped in the UK and I suspect ST:TNG didnt begin in the
UK till some time after 1990.
> So what's your approach? Not Terrance Dicks' approach, *your* approach?
> How would *you* make Doctor Who a mass-audience success in 1987-89, given
> that you're on a rough playing field which Letts or Hinchcliffe never had
> to face?
OOOOOHHHHH, I think they may argue about that.
Best
John Carlson
William December Starr
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) said:
>> But 'Highlander 2' was still terrible after the changes...... :-)
>
> It still wasn't a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but
> the "Renegade Edition" never left me gaping slack-jawed at the screen
> the way the original did. :-)
Er, Renegade Edition? This is a fan production, I take it... done for
laughs, or as a genuine attempt to build a passable movie out of the
available video?
William December Starr
jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) said:
> Part of it's probably that Chris Clough was just poor on story sense,
> but there were also the practical limitations -- they couldn't
> completely cut the Queen, or the heinous Mrs. Remington, because
> they'd already promoted those elements as being in the show.
> (Publicity photos on location with Dolores Grey & the Queen lookalike,
> for example.)
Was this the same "they" that was producing the story, or some other fun
folks at the BBC?
Exorse
"Watch all McCoy stories nonstop in one session. Anyone who doesn't commit
suicide wins a million dollars!"
~~~-~~~-~~~-~~~-~~~-~~~
"And I'm stuck here on Earth - with YOU, Brigadier!"
Dave Roy
exo...@aol.commerce.us (Exorse) wrote:
> The Great McCoy challenge:
>
> "Watch all McCoy stories nonstop in one session. Anyone who
> doesn't commit suicide wins a million dollars!"
If only it were that easy.
Dave Roy
George Potter
Dave Roy <davi...@ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:david.roy-6F7ED...@news.interchange.ubc.ca...
Yeah. Ill take some of that easy money....
William December Starr
fett...@aol.com (Mike C.) said:
>> The Great McCoy challenge:
>>
>> "Watch all McCoy stories nonstop in one session. Anyone who doesn't
>> commit suicide wins a million dollars!" [Exorse]
>
> Gonna be a damn big funeral. Good thing they'll have the un-won
> million dollars to pay for it.
Or, alternatively, the funeral would be for the guy who sponsored the
event, when all the people who watched the whole McCoy canon with no
trouble learn that there aren't really any million dollar prozes set
aside for them.
(Not wishing anyone dead here; just suggesting an alternate scenario
that _isn't_ based in the premise that the McCoy era sucked bowling
balls through a straw... :-)
Jonathan Blum
Daniel Gooley <daniel...@detya.gov.au> wrote:
>Jonathan Blum wrote:
>>Bob's your uncle... Nemesis without pain. :-)
>But..... But..... That *works*! What a sad little fanboy I am. Cut
>that bloody ridiculous Windsor sequence and a few of the more kitchy
>moments, and the sheer fun of what's left is suddenly visible. What a
>fine line between pleasure and pain.
>Danny
>(although the other thought which occurs is that, if it really is this
>easy to turn the thing into a worthwhile story, why didn't the damn
>director do it?)
Part of it's probably that Chris Clough was just poor on story sense, but
there were also the practical limitations -- they couldn't completely cut
the Queen, or the heinous Mrs. Remington, because they'd already promoted
those elements as being in the show. (Publicity photos on location with
Dolores Grey & the Queen lookalike, for example.)
Keeping the skinhead scenes just baffles me, though -- I wonder if those
scenes were mainly kept in to keep other scenes apart?!
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
David Brunt <D...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Jonathan Blum wrote in message <8ajibt$cgi$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>...
>>and recutting, "Nemesis" should be a pushover!
>But 'Highlander 2' was still terrible after the changes...... :-)
It still wasn't a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but the
"Renegade Edition" never left me gaping slack-jawed at the screen the way
the original did. :-)
>>They certainly had the extra footage -- it would be more than possible to
>>swap the "duck!" scene and some of the extra DeFlores material in place of
>>the pointless Windsor Castle chase;
>Neither being any better than the Windsor scene really......
I disagree there -- I'd much prefer a ten-second throwaway gag like the
"duck!" scene over a three-minute throwaway gag like the Queen sequence.
And between the DeFlores material, the extra scenes with the cops, and the
new Walkmen scene, there's enough material there that at least has
*something* to do with the plot -- I'd take those any day...
>>Then dub a line or two where the Doctor tells Ace that Peinforte's gold
>>has been charged with energy by the validium -- meaning it's not really
>>gold that's killing the Cybermen, but a little blob of Gallifreyan
>>ultra-technology -- and the fans can go away happy.
>The Cyberman-piercing blobs of Rassiilon. Didn't that era already have too
>much of that sort of stuff?
Well, considering that you've already got a Cybermen-destroying ultimate
weapon in the story (the Nemesis), you might as well put it to a bit more
use! :-)
>>Finally, find some
>>way of getting in Peinforte's "Our magic will allow us to pass amongst the
>>peasants undetected" lines, which they didn't have time to shoot on the
>>day, and Bob's your uncle... Nemesis without pain. :-)
>But if the skinheads are omitted, would that be needed? Or is that line
>before they leave the café?
IIRC from the DWM archive, it was a lost scene from the day when they shot
the cafe / Peinforte's house scenes, so it was either in the cafe or
before they travelled in time. Which would serve to explain the relative
lack of reaction from the extras in the cafe...
>With the basic concept of the story being so seriously flawed, I don't
>think much could be done short of redubbing the whole thing and filming new
>material to fill the gaps.
Now you're giving me visions of a "What's Up, Tiger Lily?" version of
Silver Nemesis -- now *that* could be fun! >:-)
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
William December Starr <wds...@crl.com> wrote:
>In article <8amb7k$ggh$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au>,
>jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) said:
>> but there were also the practical limitations -- they couldn't
>> completely cut the Queen, or the heinous Mrs. Remington, because
>> they'd already promoted those elements as being in the show.
>> (Publicity photos on location with Dolores Grey & the Queen lookalike,
>> for example.)
>Was this the same "they" that was producing the story, or some other fun
>folks at the BBC?
The "they" who'd produced it, AFAIK -- I can't see the Beeb higher-ups
taking any special interest in scheduling photocalls...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
John Carlson <Jo...@ingrams9.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Jonathan Blum <jb...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
>news:8ajhct$ca8$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
>> landscape in general, had changed radically. Instead of writing a series
>> for a cushy timeslot as part of an established Saturday evening line-up,
>> which is guaranteed a pretty vast share of the three channels because it
>> doesn't even usually face networked opposition, you've got to write a
>> series which is going to be counterprogrammed against one of the great
>> mass-audience juggernauts in the nation, and which is competing against
>> the rest of the 57-channel universe.
>Sorry, but most of this is rubbish. Do you want to be more specifict about
>how the UK TV landscape had changed so much by 1987? There were VCR's and
>one extra channel, which during Who's timeslot showed a finance based news
>programe, but less than 10,000 homes had cable and practicaly no DBS at all.
>I dont know where you get a 57 channel universe from,
From the title of that Bruce Springsteen song -- a convenient shorthand.
VCR's made a substantial impact on the nets' audience share in the late
'80s. Also, as you may recall, video recordings weren't included in the
ratings at the time, which put VCR-friendly shows like Who at a
disadvantage compared to immediate watch-it-now-or-it'll-be-superseded-
by-the-next-episode-in-two-days soaps. Plus, while I can't remember any
actual figures from the broadcasting seminar I did in the UK in '92, I do
recall them saying that BSB and so forth had already risen to prominence
before '90.
It all adds up to a substantial difference from the glory days of Who --
in the days of Tom Baker, you didn't even really have to deal with
remote-control channel surfing!
>>You've got to aim for, by
>> definition, a niche audience, but a large enough niche to keep you afloat.
>Well so says you, but IIRC niche audiences don't realy exist and even if
>they did, I dont see any evidence of how JNT was aiming for one and say the
>producers of Corrination Street wernt.
"Niche audiences don't really exist"? Even my limited media-studies
experiences goes as far as recognizing the basics of counterprogramming
and how to target preferred demographic groups...
To put it simply, if you're up against a successful show with strong
appeal to one type of viewers, you schedule against it a show which will
have strong appeal to the types of people who *won't* be likely to watch
the successful show. There was no point in scheduling a prestigious,
old-skewing family drama against "The Cosby Show", because Coz already had
an established, old-skewing audience committed to it in that timeslot.
Instead, Fox scheduled "The Simpsons" against it -- a show which they
calculated would appeal to young, hip viewers who wouldn't be caught dead
watching an edgeless comedy like Cosby's. Now "The Simpsons" never won
its timeslot against Cosby, not by a long shot -- but it was still
considered a hit, because it rated better than anything else Fox could
throw at it.
Which brings us to "Doctor Who" circa 1987. This show is being scheduled
against a top-rated series with a broad, committed appeal among
"mainstream" viewers -- the Georges and Marthas of the world. There's no
point in trying to tool the show to appeal to the sort of people who are
"Coronation Street" fans; they're already set in their habits.
So basically, you need to craft the show to appeal to the sort of people
who would jump at the chance to watch something other than Corrie:
young, hip, interested in unconventional storytelling, fantastical
storylines, bits of anarchic comedy and subversiveness.
Hence, "oddball" stories. Hence, Cartmel's insistence on zippy pace,
preferring too much content to too little. Hence, questioning the Doctor's
background and motives. Hence, the first attempt at a street-level
teenage Earth companion in about 15 years. Hence, drawing on J.G. Ballard
and Alan Moore.
And it worked -- IIRC, Who was the most successful program pitted against
Corrie for years. It focused on drawing the kind of audience that it
would have a chance at, rather than wasting its time trying to appeal to
the same kind of people which Corrie already had a lock on.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
>jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum) said:
>>> But 'Highlander 2' was still terrible after the changes...... :-)
>> It still wasn't a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but
>> the "Renegade Edition" never left me gaping slack-jawed at the screen
>> the way the original did. :-)
>Er, Renegade Edition? This is a fan production, I take it... done for
>laughs, or as a genuine attempt to build a passable movie out of the
>available video?
Nope -- despite the name, the "Renegade Edition" of HL2 was a legitimate
video release, recut by Davis/Panzer many years later. The copy I saw --
loaned to me by a friend -- included a documentary on the sorry story of
what happened behind the scenes on HL2: due to runaway inflation in
Argentina, where the film was being shot, they found themselves going
massively over budget, and the insurance company which was backing the
film pulled the plug before they finished shooting! The film as released
was a cobbled-together mess based on what they had -- neither the director
nor the producers had a say in the final cut, and whoever did it lopped
out large chunks of story, moved scenes around, and generally made a hash
of it.
For the rerelease, the producers actually got a couple of the cast members
together to shoot a missing scene, restored 20-odd minutes worth of story,
and generally made it feel much more Highlander-ish -- the film actually
has *flashbacks* now! Most notably, they recut and redubbed scenes so
that there is now _no_ mention of the planet Zeist -- the scenes showing
the origins of the immortals now take place in a distant mythical past on
Earth.
It's still not a good film, but neither is it jaw-droppingly bad like the
original -- I can actually see some merit in the thing now. My favorite
version of HL2, though, still has to be Ryan Johnson's MST3K-ing of it...
(and by mentioning Ryan Johnson, granddaddy of all Who fan video makers, I
drag this desperately back in the direction of on-topic-ness.)
Regards,
Jon Blum
Daniel Gooley
>William December Starr wrote:
>>Jonathan Blum said:
>>> Part of it's probably that Chris Clough was just poor on story sense,
>>> but there were also the practical limitations -- they couldn't
>>> completely cut the Queen, or the heinous Mrs. Remington, because
>>> they'd already promoted those elements as being in the show.
>>> (Publicity photos on location with Dolores Grey & the Queen lookalike,
>>> for example.)
>
>>Was this the same "they" that was producing the story, or some other fun
>>folks at the BBC?
>
>The "they" who'd produced it, AFAIK -- I can't see the Beeb higher-ups
>taking any special interest in scheduling photocalls...
And therefore yes, they did make their own bed. I don't think there's
any doubt that Nemesis would have been a better story were it not
carrying the weight of being the Anniversay Special.
Danny
Rufus T. Firefly
news:20000314155913...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
That's the version I remember, from the years tape. He explains his whole
position on the deal quite thoroughly, and if I weren't such a lazy ass I'd
cue it up and transcribe it.
-- RTF
http://bounce.to/rtf - personal page
http://connect.to/cwp - Celebrities with Phones archive
Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
> John Carlson wrote:
> >Jonathan Blum wrote...
[snip]
So if the suits hadn't been (apparently) set on getting _high_ ratings
for DW against Corrie, we may yet have had a show. Whoever decided that
*ratings* have any meaning or significance should be caught and shot....
========================================================================
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, called Snarky, The Chocolate Snark, Queen of the Snarks of Ærisia;
Queen of Spain; PMS Co-Chair; loud and flaming queer Demon of Mockery
and Silliness, Demon Lord of Confusion; Pope Snarky Goodfella of the
undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
The Principia Discordia: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html
ADRIC Awards 2000 now open! Email Sna...@yahoo.ca or
feeto...@home.com -- or even the_choco...@my-deja.com -- with
your second-round submissions. Lurkers, posters, come one, come all!
Jonathan Blum
Daniel Gooley <daniel...@detya.gov.au> wrote:
>Jonathan Blum
>>William December Starr wrote:
>>>Jonathan Blum said:
>>>> Part of it's probably that Chris Clough was just poor on story sense,
>>>> but there were also the practical limitations -- they couldn't
>>>> completely cut the Queen, or the heinous Mrs. Remington, because
>>>> they'd already promoted those elements as being in the show.
>>>> (Publicity photos on location with Dolores Grey & the Queen lookalike,
>>>> for example.)
>>>Was this the same "they" that was producing the story, or some other fun
>>>folks at the BBC?
>>The "they" who'd produced it, AFAIK -- I can't see the Beeb higher-ups
>>taking any special interest in scheduling photocalls...
>And therefore yes, they did make their own bed.
True, but just to complicate matters, the parts of the Queen and Mrs.
Remington were cast based on the synopsis / draft scripts -- and those
scripts arrived on Andrew Cartmel's desk late, and long enough for a
five-parter. The final, Cartmel-edited, heavily-cut draft wasn't finished
till a week before rehearsals started... who knows, maybe the Windsor
Castle / tourist malarkey was *relevant* when they started planning the
story, and the bit that made it to the final draft is just the vestigial
remains of something bigger, which was only included because they'd
committed to doing *something* with that character.
Or it could have been cocked up even in the first draft, I really don't
know...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Jonathan Blum
Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK <Sna...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>So if the suits hadn't been (apparently) set on getting _high_ ratings
>for DW against Corrie, we may yet have had a show. Whoever decided that
>*ratings* have any meaning or significance should be caught and shot....
They *weren't* set on getting _high_ ratings against Corrie. They were
set on getting ratings of about 5 million against Corrie. When the show
got ratings on those levels, they renewed it and kept it against Corrie.
Twice.
If they weren't happy with ratings of 5 million against Corrie, they
wouldn't have kept Who around in that slot for three years -- when it was
getting ratings of 4.8 million against somewhat softer competition for
season 23, they intervened to sack the star and move it to a new timeslot.
They could have done something similar after season 24, but they didn't.
For that matter, if 5 million was unacceptable, they could have just
cancelled the show after season 24. If they'd felt like cashing in on the
25th anniversary without committing to a season that would probably only
rate in the 5 million range, they could have just commissioned a one-off
90-minute special instead, for less than a third of what they'd spend on
renewing for a full season. But they didn't.
So it seems logical that the Beeb was happy with ratings of about 5
million against Corrie. It's only when the first three stories of season
26 rated in the high 3's (Battlefile) and low 4's (Ghost Light, Fenric)
that they gave up on it.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Mike C.
-Fett
-"And if you're not down with that, I got 2 words for ya!: SUCK IT!"
Mike C.
>The Great McCoy challenge:
>"Watch all McCoy stories nonstop in one >session. Anyone who doesn't commit
>suicide wins a million dollars!"
Gonna be a damn big funeral. Good thing they'll have the un-won million dollars
to pay for it.
Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
> Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK > wrote:
[snip snarky ignorance]
>
> They *weren't* set on getting _high_ ratings against Corrie. They were
> set on getting ratings of about 5 million against Corrie. When the show
> got ratings on those levels, they renewed it and kept it against Corrie.
> Twice.
>
> If they weren't happy with ratings of 5 million against Corrie, they
> wouldn't have kept Who around in that slot for three years -- when it was
> getting ratings of 4.8 million against somewhat softer competition for
> season 23, they intervened to sack the star and move it to a new timeslot.
> They could have done something similar after season 24, but they didn't.
>
> For that matter, if 5 million was unacceptable, they could have just
> cancelled the show after season 24. If they'd felt like cashing in on the
> 25th anniversary without committing to a season that would probably only
> rate in the 5 million range, they could have just commissioned a one-off
> 90-minute special instead, for less than a third of what they'd spend on
> renewing for a full season. But they didn't.
>
> So it seems logical that the Beeb was happy with ratings of about 5
> million against Corrie. It's only when the first three stories of season
> 26 rated in the high 3's (Battlefile) and low 4's (Ghost Light, Fenric)
> that they gave up on it.
Pretty ironic, then, that _Survival_ averaged just under five million
viewers...or just bloody annoying....;-)
========================================================================
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, called Snarky, The Chocolate Snark, Queen of the Snarks of Ærisia;
Queen of Spain; PMS Co-Chair; loud and flaming queer Demon of Mockery
and Silliness, Demon Lord of Confusion; Pope Snarky Goodfella of the
undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
Timelord
news:prCz4.1764$na4....@news.optonline.net...
If I recall, and my memory is pretty good with this sort of thing, he said
after they's asked him to come back and do a last story, he said:
"Oh, well, I'll come back and do the whole season, but [something, not sure]
in the public eye I'd still be the Doctor, without having any of the
benefits, thereof"
What I think he meant was that he wasn't going to do the Regeneration
because they wouldn't let him keep doing it for the whole year, not just one
story.
Of course, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...
Timelord
timel...@hotmail.com
http://zap.to/timelord/
(Timelord's Website)
http://zap.to/crossovers/
(The Dr Who Crossover Adventures)
------------------
- Could you go - please?
- No, Doctor, you're being to reasonable!
- Alright. Then I shall be unreasonable. GET OUT!!!
(Peri and the Doctor - Timelash)
Adam Richards
wrote:
<on "fixing" Silver Nemesis>
>They certainly had the extra footage -- it would be more than possible to
>swap the "duck!" scene and some of the extra DeFlores material in place of
>the pointless Windsor Castle chase; lop out the skinhead scenes entirely
>(possibly moving the cliffie to part 2 to the point where the Nemesis
>awakes); and snip almost any mention of that godawful American tourist.
>Then dub a line or two where the Doctor tells Ace that Peinforte's gold
>has been charged with energy by the validium -- meaning it's not really
>gold that's killing the Cybermen, but a little blob of Gallifreyan
>ultra-technology -- and the fans can go away happy. Finally, find some
>way of getting in Peinforte's "Our magic will allow us to pass amongst the
>peasants undetected" lines, which they didn't have time to shoot on the
>day, and Bob's your uncle... Nemesis without pain. :-)
I'm astounded, Jon - that almost might work!
Some more ideas for this:
1. change the Doctor's line when he says, "President Kennedy-
assassinated!" to "Daleks turn London into a battleground for The Hand
of Omega!" I personally think this would let the whole "plot
similarity" thing off the hook by drawing attention to it, thus giving
the impression it's a little more deliberate than it might actually
have been...
2. Have a good look at all of that battle-sequence master footage from
the beginning of part two - surely it could be edited a little better?
3. Using CGI, dub some new people into the background of the
restaurant scenes where Lady Peinforte and Richard appear out of thin
air - people who react a bit better this time. Then, at the end of the
scene, insert a shot from Lady Peinforte's POV of one of the new
people saying something like, "Excuse me, where did you two just come
from???" and over-dub the end of this shot with Fiona Walker's voice
saying something like, "It is imperative that you all leave here at
once - there is great danger if you remain." Then cut to a shot of all
the people sitting at the table, forks and knives in hands, looking at
each other with a "Shit!!!" expression - they immedaitely drop their
forks and knives and begin to get up and leave.... This would explain
the very implausible lack of other people in the later scenes at the
restaurant, when Peinforte and Richard are seen smashing windows,
etc...
4. Have a go at re-filming the end of part one, with the Cybermen
coming out of their spaceship all higgledy-piggledy. Make it have more
impact...
5. Put something in the story to comment, however subtly, on the fact
that the Nazis are nasty people because they're Nazis, and not just
because they're stupid and Deflores has a Wagner fixation - remove
that scene where they're shown cleverly escaping from the cybernizing
devices and it looks a bit like we're supposed to be rooting for them
too. Never did like that scene, methinks they were right to cut it out
when it was first transmitted...
6. edit out as much of McCoy's silliness as possible, and...
6. Get Dominic Glynn, or that sweetie Mark Ayres to replace Keff
McCulloch's incidental music - with no handclaps or "orchestral synth
stabs" allowed this time, pleeeaase!!
======================================================
Adam Richards Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk
James Bennetts
>And therefore yes, they did make their own bed. I don't think there's
>any doubt that Nemesis would have been a better story were it not
>carrying the weight of being the Anniversay Special.
Of course in Australia, "Remembrance of the Daleks" was billed as the
Anniversary Special and shown a year before the rest of S25.
Quite rightly, too.
James
The Doctor
Try Scorched Planet Policy.
> -Fett
>-"And if you're not down with that, I got 2 words for ya!: SUCK IT!"
--
God Queen and Country Member - Liberal International
Never Satan President and Republic This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
Society MUST be saved! Republics must dissolve.
End Satan's Reign - Hang a Republic Lover today
Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
> Mike C. wrote:
> >
> >3 words: Scortched Earth Policy
>
> Try Scorched Planet Policy.
YAAAAAYYYYYYY!!! NO PGP!!!!!
Brad Filippone
Brad
Alan S. Wales
>>Jonathan Blum wrote:
>> So it seems logical that the Beeb was happy with ratings of about 5
>> million against Corrie. It's only when the first three stories of season
>> 26 rated in the high 3's (Battlefile) and low 4's (Ghost Light, Fenric)
>> that they gave up on it.
>Pretty ironic, then, that _Survival_ averaged just under five million
>viewers...or just bloody annoying....;-)
I'm curious. Seeing that Survival reached the 5 million mark after low 4's for
GL and CoF, I'm wondering--did the BBC advertise that Survival would be the
last story? Or did they say nothing about it and there is some other
explanation for the spike in ratings? Can't be the Master's appearance, can it?
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Daniel Frankham
wrote:
>I'm curious. Seeing that Survival reached the 5 million mark after low 4's for
>GL and CoF, I'm wondering--did the BBC advertise that Survival would be the
>last story?
ISTR that's when they started advertising. Full stop.
--
Daniel Frankham
Mike C.
THe Doctor:
>Try Scorched Planet Policy.
Well, I'm assuming you're not from The Unuted States. Over here, we call it
Scortched Earth Policy. Thought it was the same everywhere but I guess not.
Steve Day
wrote:
>And it worked -- IIRC, Who was the most successful program pitted against
>Corrie for years.
Blake's 7, IIRC.
---
How many Doctor Who fans does it take to change a lightbulb?
None, they just sit around and wait for it to come back on.
--
John Carlson
> In article <8amhcp$ig$2...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> John Carlson <Jo...@ingrams9.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >Jonathan Blum <jb...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:8ajhct$ca8$1...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
> >> By the time of the McCoy era, the audience watching Who, and the TV
> >> landscape in general, had changed radically. Instead of writing a
series
> >> for a cushy timeslot as part of an established Saturday evening
line-up,
> >> which is guaranteed a pretty vast share of the three channels because
it
> >> doesn't even usually face networked opposition, you've got to write a
> >> series which is going to be counterprogrammed against one of the great
> >> mass-audience juggernauts in the nation, and which is competing against
> >> the rest of the 57-channel universe.
>
> >Sorry, but most of this is rubbish. Do you want to be more specifict
about
> >how the UK TV landscape had changed so much by 1987? There were VCR's and
> >one extra channel, which during Who's timeslot showed a finance based
news
> >programe, but less than 10,000 homes had cable and practicaly no DBS at
all.
>
> From the title of that Bruce Springsteen song -- a convenient shorthand.
Convenient it may be, but its also completely inaccurate.
>
> VCR's made a substantial impact on the nets' audience share in the late
> '80s. Also, as you may recall, video recordings weren't included in the
> ratings at the time, which put VCR-friendly shows like Who at a
> disadvantage compared to immediate watch-it-now-or-it'll-be-superseded-
> by-the-next-episode-in-two-days soaps.
Sure VCR's were around and some people would, I assume, tape Who and watch
it later. But the same would be true of CS. I know LOADS of people who tape
CS so I don't think its at all VCR unfriendly. And for sure Who may have
lost out on points, but I suspect the overall total would not be too high.
>Plus, while I can't remember any
> actual figures from the broadcasting seminar I did in the UK in '92, I do
> recall them saying that BSB and so forth had already risen to prominence
> before '90.
Now that is completely incorrect. BSB didn't start broadcasting until around
April 1990. Sky began around April 1989 but even by the end of season 26 the
total od dishes on wallls was only around 200 000. Even then most of them
has simply been given away because sales were next to non existant.
> It all adds up to a substantial difference from the glory days of Who --
> in the days of Tom Baker, you didn't even really have to deal with
> remote-control channel surfing!
Sorry, but to me it all adds up to someone trying to roll a lot of nothings
together and come up with something. Even allowing for VCR's, the threat
from channels and programmes that didn't exist during McCoys years also
didn't exist just as much for Tom Baker.
>
> >>You've got to aim for, by
> >> definition, a niche audience, but a large enough niche to keep you
afloat.
>
> >Well so says you, but IIRC niche audiences don't really exist and even if
> >they did, I don't see any evidence of how JNT was aiming for one and say
the
> >producers of Coronation Street weren't.
>
> "Niche audiences don't really exist"? Even my limited media-studies
> experiences goes as far as recognising the basics of counterprogramming
> and how to target preferred demographic groups...
>
> To put it simply, if you're up against a successful show with strong
> appeal to one type of viewers, you schedule against it a show which will
> have strong appeal to the types of people who *won't* be likely to watch
> the successful show
Snip
Yes that's counterprogramming, not niche programming. By your definition of
niche anyone who doesn't vote for the winning candidate could be considered
a niche voter.
> Which brings us to "Doctor Who" circa 1987. This show is being scheduled
> against a top-rated series with a broad, committed appeal among
> "mainstream" viewers -- the Georges and Marthas of the world. There's no
> point in trying to tool the show to appeal to the sort of people who are
> "Coronation Street" fans; they're already set in their habits.
>
> So basically, you need to craft the show to appeal to the sort of people
> who would jump at the chance to watch something other than Corrie:
> young, hip, interested in unconventional storytelling, fantastical
> storylines, bits of anarchic comedy and subversiveness.
I think your indulging in a little to much wishful thinking and rosey
wording here. I thought Rememberence HP, Ghostlight and Fenric were great,
although not above criticism and have defended them here several times. But
sorry, I know to many of your kind of target audience who thought the whole
McCoy thing was just utter crap to be convinced yours is an accurate
sumation of the programme. I dont want to do a show by show comparison but
the recycling of Rememberence as Nemesis and then Battlefield with
increasing shoddyness each time doesn't strike me as crafting a show.
>
> Hence, "oddball" stories. Hence, Cartmel's insistence on zippy pace,
> preferring too much content to too little. Hence, questioning the Doctor's
> background and motives. Hence, the first attempt at a street-level
> teenage Earth companion in about 15 years. Hence, drawing on J.G. Ballard
> and Alan Moore.
>
> And it worked -- IIRC, Who was the most successful program pitted against
> Corrie for years. It focused on drawing the kind of audience that it
> would have a chance at, rather than wasting its time trying to appeal to
> the same kind of people which Corrie already had a lock on.
Do you want to give some figures. Ive never been much on collecting that
kind of data, but I think I do remember Star Cops pulling in 3.5 -4 million
or so in a much worse slot on BBC2. And of course the last Si fi show
against CS was B7, and the McCoy era struggled even to reach that series
lowest viewing figure. And yes I'm sure things changed between 197whatever
and 1987, but the difference in figures is QUITE a difference.
Best
John Carlson
Best
John Carlson
David Brunt
>I'm curious. Seeing that Survival reached the 5 million mark after low 4's
for
>GL and CoF, I'm wondering--did the BBC advertise that Survival would be
the
>explanation for the spike in ratings? Can't be the Master's appearance,
can it?
It was the only story that season that was *very* heavily advertised and
had a very frequently seen trailer.......
David
Joxer
"Steve Day" <st...@redimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i8ivcs07i04esqo7t...@4ax.com...
> >Corrie for years.
>
B7 finished a good 6 years before Who moved to that slot (it was also
50 minutes long, so if it was pitted against Corrie, there would still
have been a significant overlap period one side or the other)
--
Colin B, baggy... and a bit loose at the seams
The Unwilling Warriors webzine: http://x-stream.fortunecity.com/scullyst/25/
The Day of the Daleks convention: http://www.phoenix50.com/daleks/
Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
>
> >>3 words: Scortched Earth Policy
>
> THe Doctor:
> >Try Scorched Planet Policy.
>
> Well, I'm assuming you're not from The Unuted States. Over here, we call it
> Scortched Earth Policy. Thought it was the same everywhere but I guess not.
Try *Scorched* Earth Policy....;-)
========================================================================
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, called Snarky, The Chocolate Snark, Queen of the Snarks of Ærisia;
Queen of Spain; PMS Co-Chair; loud and flaming queer Demon of Mockery
and Silliness, Demon Lord of Confusion; Pope Snarky Goodfella of the
undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
>
> Once you get rid of The Happiness Patrol, the rest doesn't look so bad.
No, once you get rid of TatR, PT, D&tB, RemotD, SN, and Bf it doesn't
look so bad....;-)
Pope Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK
> Alan S. Wales wrote:
>
> >I'm curious. Seeing that Survival reached the 5 million mark after low 4's for
> >GL and CoF, I'm wondering--did the BBC advertise that Survival would be the
> >last story?
>
Following which they had the _nerve_ to complain about *ratings* not
being good enough to support it -- somebody at the Boob was in
_desperate_ need of being smacked....
R Dan Henry
Snarky Goodfella of the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK"
>And finally, eleventh, I would have the season lengths restored to the
>usual twenty-six episodes, with five four-episode stories and one
>six-ep, making damned sure I had the budget to produce them properly --
>i.e. at least no worse than the fx of the previous eras, and preferably
>a damn sight better.
But that's not something *you* could have done. It's something the
higher ups would have had to have done for you. And they weren't in
the mood.
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com
Trained Philosopher: Will Think For Food
Jonathan Blum
Steve Day <st...@redimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On 15 Mar 2000 11:13:51 +1100, jb...@zipworld.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
>wrote:
>>And it worked -- IIRC, Who was the most successful program pitted against
>>Corrie for years.
>Blake's 7, IIRC.
...went off the air 6-7 years before Who.
Regards,
Jon Blum
Mike C.
>> Once you get rid of The Happiness >>Patrol, the rest doesn't look so bad.
Snarky:
>No, once you get rid of TatR, PT, D&tB, RemotD, SN, and Bf it doesn't
look so bad....;-)
Snarky! I'm real proud of ya for this comment. You're an honorary Anti-McCoy
Soldier for a day!
Mike C.
> Scortched Earth Policy. Thought it was >the same everywhere but I guess not.
Snarky:
>Try *Scorched* Earth Policy....;-)
Ding ding! We have a winner! Thanks for the spelling correction, Snarky. I
thought it looked wrong but just didnt realize it.
Steve Day
wrote:
>And it worked -- IIRC, Who was the most successful program pitted against
>Corrie for years. It focused on drawing the kind of audience that it
>would have a chance at, rather than wasting its time trying to appeal to
>the same kind of people which Corrie already had a lock on.
>
Bit more research today. Selina Scott's Entertainment Express
programme got comparable ratings in the same slot as Who.... and was
axed after a series. I think there are excuses going on as to the
real success of the Sylvester McCoy era - because, like Colin's final
season, they wern't successful. People were not watching the
programme, because it was poor - at least until season 26, when only
half of it was.