I think Old Who gets an unfairly good press. And doesn't really hold up all that well against Star Trek, The Outer Limits, Saphire and Steel, Blake's 7 etc.
It's good but it's also frequently, wooden slow and full of exposition and truly shamefully bad FX.
As for this episode. If it had any balls there would have been no space monster and they'd have done the whole thing on trying to save Van Gogh,
I think they should have gone for Toulouse-Lautrec.
Quote: sootyj @ June 7 2010, 10:21 AM BSTAs for this episode. If it had any balls there would have been no space monster and they'd have done the whole thing on trying to save Van Gogh,
But The Doctor wouldn't try to save him, would he, that would be making a big alteration to the future. Yes, you could argue he does that in every episode, but not to specific things like that.
Quote: sootyj @ June 7 2010, 10:21 AM BSTI think Old Who gets an unfairly good press. And doesn't really hold up all that well against Star Trek, The Outer Limits, Saphire and Steel, Blake's 7 etc.
Though to be fair, they didn't have to knock out an entire series every year for almost three decades.
That's the point. A daring change would be to show the Dr try and make a small change. To atleast let Van Gogh no he was loved and if it maybe ended on him painting one last painting. A painting he gave to Amy so it wouldn't affect the continum.
That or the reveal with Murray Gold music on fall. Is the final painting is a Dalek!
Quote: billwill @ June 6 2010, 10:55 PM BSTDo none of you watch the "Doctor Who Confidential" ?
Sometimes. It's like holding a mirror up to the incumbent government's policies. A few good people doing good. But mostly it's people producing crap either because they're thick; or because their leader is thick; or because they're trying to be popular by appealing to the dumbest common denominator.
Quote: Marc P @ June 7 2010, 10:29 AM BSTI think they should have gone for Toulouse-Lautrec.
Yes, there aren't enough shows featuring dwarves with rickets and hypetrophied genitals... On a completely different subject, anybody know how Seefacts is doing nowadays?
Was Van Gogh the greatest painter whe ever lived then. I must have missed that one. I was thinking of Toulouse-Lautec more for the rich opportunities for drama by exploring the demi-monde he inhabited. 
He was like a short Jack D for his day.
I think they just wanted to do the ginger jokes.
I don't like it when they make these sort of statements - like they did in the Shakespeare one, I kinda squirm truth be told. Historical figures in WHO should be treated like Christ was in The Life Of Brian. Background figures not engaging with the main story. This is my take anyway.
Do you watch "Doctor Who Confidential"?
Quote: Matthew Stott @ June 7 2010, 9:02 AM BSTSometimes, but it's a bit long; I rarely make it through the full fifty minutes, or however long it is.
I asked because they often have the writer giving his opinion of why he wrote the episode that way.
=============
The repeats of Doctor Who Confidential are shortened, so watch the Sunday one?
Or if Curtis had treated Van G in the same way he'd treated historical figures in Blackadder. That would have been funny.
Quote: chipolata @ June 7 2010, 12:41 PM BSTOr if Curtis had treated Van G in the same way he'd treated historical figures in Blackadder. That would have been funny.
Yes there is often a lot of chance for humour in WHO that gets missed for the sake of ersatz 'drama'.
Quote: Marc P @ June 7 2010, 12:33 PM BSTHistorical figures in WHO should be treated like Christ was in The Life Of Brian. Background figures not engaging with the main story. This is my take anyway.
Exactly like Leonardo da Vinci being only a background figure in the Tom Baker era story City of Death (in which John Cleese appears).
Quote: sootyj @ June 7 2010, 10:21 AM BSTI think Old Who gets an unfairly good press. And doesn't really hold up all that well against Star Trek, The Outer Limits, Saphire and Steel, Blake's 7 etc.
It's good but it's also frequently, wooden slow and full of exposition and truly shamefully bad FX.
I dunno. I watched all of Sapphire and Steel about six months ago, as well as some of Blake's 7 and thought neither were as good as Game On. Star Trek I have never enjoyed.
The special effects in Classic Who aren't too bad - quality varies in each episode, the lowest point presumably being the Myrka.
Quote: Marc P @ June 7 2010, 12:26 PM BSTWas Van Gogh the greatest painter whe ever lived then.
Well, I'm sure he is to some, it does come down to your own taste, after all. He's certainly one of my favourites.
Quote: Marc P @ June 7 2010, 12:43 PM BSTersatz 'drama'.
Huh?
Quote: Kenneth @ June 7 2010, 10:44 AM BSTBut mostly it's people producing crap either because they're thick; or because their leader is thick; or because they're trying to be popular by appealing to the dumbest common denominator.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ June 7 2010, 1:08 PM BSTWell, I'm sure he is to some, it does come down to your own taste, after all. He's certainly one of my favourites.
Yes he's very good. But statements saying he the best ever are are either only there to make it all the more dramatic that he is in jeopardy, or proselytising by the writer. The key mantra as ever is 'show don't tell' and we weren't shown. This is what drama is all about after all.