Going back to the Zygons - I hope they're still brutal killers and not now tooled up with laser guns instead.
Doctor Who... Page 947
Zygons are one of my strongest childhood memories of Doctor Who. They were terrifying. For the sake of being contrary, I'd like to say the muscle-bound, sharp-teethed new versions look just as scary, but they don't. They look crap because the emphasis is on the big scowling face and bulk, rather than the terrifying weirdness of them.
I wonder if Christopher Eccleston bailed on the 50th after talks because he realized it would be the usual fare of emotional schmaltz (inner motivational explanations and love and "woe is me, last of my kind, saviour of the universe") crap? Rather than just a gripping story.
I think he bailed because the design of the new Zygons wasn't as good as the original. 
Quote: Kenneth @ April 7 2013, 8:23 AM BSTZygons are one of my strongest childhood memories of Doctor Who. They were terrifying. For the sake of being contrary, I'd like to say the muscle-bound, sharp-teethed new versions look just as scary, but they don't. They look crap because the emphasis is on the big scowling face and bulk, rather than the terrifying weirdness of them.
I wonder if Christopher Eccleston bailed on the 50th after talks because he realized it would be the usual fare of emotional schmaltz (inner motivational explanations and love and "woe is me, last of my kind, saviour of the universe") crap? Rather than just a gripping story.
He doesn't ruin his serious reputation nplayinfg destro in the rise of cobra
Quote: dannyjb1 @ April 7 2013, 9:01 AM BSTI think he bailed because the design of the new Zygons wasn't as good as the original.
I think he bailed for reasons of how people were being treated on the show, Doctor Who is supposed to stand up to bullies after all 
Recreating something that was impressive in the 1970s 40 years later is nice
But the new design is no development the show really hasn't grown designs in the way say star trek did over a similar time perood
I mean it should be just better no one even thinks that old Klingons look better than new klingons
I don't think the shows problems will be solved until they go back to two-parters.
The aspirations of the storytelling are way too lofty to fit into the 'non-arc' segment of a 40 minute show.
Even without the assistant storyline, 40 minutes is tight.
If they stick with the format (which they will) the stories need to be far less grandiose.
Running round a submarine being chased by a monster is about right.
As to last night's, once the shouts of "Star Wars Cantina" had subsided the thing never really got going.
And another 'Doctor on a Motorbike' scene?
Get a grip.
Eccleston recently hinted that his parting from Who may not of been as amicable as first thought, he said he loved the role but had some problems with the top brass, so I doubt he will ever reprise his role.
Quote: Raymond Terrific @ April 6 2013, 4:28 PM BSTWell, to me, that really seems to be the most important goal for the design team. You obviously value other criteria more though. But your argument has already dropped to "you'll never understand, you're not a designer", so, whatever.
In the timeless manner of the bureaucrat you reduce every sentence I write to the sort of loose, cartoon banalities YOU would say. I didn't say 'you'll never understand' or anything so childish and moronic, I said:
'The reason you don't see this is because you don't know how design choices are made or evaluated.'
I know this is the internet where everyone thinks they know as much as everyone else but design is a profession with all the concomitant skills and competences that apply to a profession. In the realm of opinion your views count equally as mine, but when it gets down to a detailed discussion on design terms you are unable to input anything.
I don't mean you are 'unworthy' or 'haven't earned the right' or any such bollocks, I mean you literally cannot input anything. The option does exist for you to do so. And you don't have to be a designer like me, but you have to know what good design is, how it works and how it is implemented.
That you can't discuss things at a design level is not surprising because you stated very early on that you had a low-level of visual awareness. What IS surprising is that you then went on to argue with me from this position.
Quote: Kenneth @ April 7 2013, 8:23 AM BSTZygons are one of my strongest childhood memories of Doctor Who. They were terrifying. For the sake of being contrary, I'd like to say the muscle-bound, sharp-teethed new versions look just as scary, but they don't. They look crap because the emphasis is on the big scowling face and bulk, rather than the terrifying weirdness of them.
There's just a lack of respect for the original design. The same thing happens with Agatha Christie because of the widespread notion that she isn't a great novelist. Well no, she's not Philip Roth but her plots are brilliant and un-improvable though jobbing TV screenwriters never cease trying.
The team that redesigned the zygon costume won't know who John Friedlander is - they'll be working from the presumption that it's a 1970s in-house design and obviously pathetic by modern standards.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 7 2013, 1:46 PM BSTThe same thing happens with Agatha Christie because of the widespread notion that she isn't a great novelist. Well no, she's not Philip Roth but her plots are brilliant and un-improvable though jobbing TV screenwriters never cease trying.
Indeed. Irks me no end, watching a new (recent-ish) Miss Marple that turns out to be twee because of major rewriting. Margaret Rutherford was fine though, as there was humour and superb acting. P.G. Wodehouse and Agatha Christie followed each other's progress - both were hugely prolific and knew their craft perfectly. After WWII, Wodehouse worried that his books might become socially irrelevant because his plots were still stuck in the past, what with country houses full of servants, but then he noticed that Christie was still doing the same thing and the public was lapping it up. Would that Doctor Who's 50th anniversary special be entrusted to someone who knows the craft perfectly, rather than being chucked into the ersatz emotion machine accompanied by ethereal ululating.
This weeks started nicely, and I liked the Doctor's little speech to the planet parasite thing, but it was severely lacking in adventure and threat. Those 'Vigil' things, that stalked about, they could have been a pretty good creepy baddie. Stranded on a wrecked planet, with those things stalking you through the ruins; nice idea. It gets a 5/10 from me; apparently next weeks is a bit of a belter. Stranded on a sunken Russian nuclear submarine during the Cold War with a classic monster on the loose; THAT sounds like a recipe for a good episode.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 7 2013, 2:20 PM BSTStranded on a sunken Russian nuclear submarine during the Cold War with a classic monster on the loose; THAT sounds like a recipe for a good episode.
There's a reason for that. See
The Moonbase
Wheel in Space
The Ice Warriors
etc.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 7 2013, 2:20 PM BSTThis weeks started nicely,
No, it was utter shit - and you know it. You just don't want to say because you post under your own name and you entertain the idea that you will write for the show.
Quote: sootyj @ April 7 2013, 10:07 AM BSTRecreating something that was impressive in the 1970s 40 years later is nice
But the new design is no development the show really hasn't grown designs in the way say star trek did over a similar time perood
I mean it should be just better no one even thinks that old Klingons look better than new klingons
There are no classic monster designs from the modern era. Ood anyone? The Silence in their mod suits? The best 'monsters' are probably the weeping angels and that's the design work of victorian stonemasons.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 7 2013, 2:30 PM BSTNo, it was utter shit - and you know it. You just don't want to say because you post under your own name and you entertain the idea that you will write for the show.
Nope. I would of course like to, as a fan, but there's no way that's ever going to happen. Sorry.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ April 7 2013, 1:15 PM BSTIn the timeless manner of the bureaucrat you reduce every sentence I write to the sort of loose, cartoon banalities YOU would say. I didn't say 'you'll never understand' or anything so childish and moronic, I said:
'The reason you don't see this is because you don't know how design choices are made or evaluated.'
I know this is the internet where everyone thinks they know as much as everyone else but design is a profession with all the concomitant skills and competences that apply to a profession. In the realm of opinion your views count equally as mine, but when it gets down to a detailed discussion on design terms you are unable to input anything.
I don't mean you are 'unworthy' or 'haven't earned the right' or any such bollocks, I mean you literally cannot input anything. The option does exist for you to do so. And you don't have to be a designer like me, but you have to know what good design is, how it works and how it is implemented.
That you can't discuss things at a design level is not surprising because you stated very early on that you had a low-level of visual awareness. What IS surprising is that you then went on to argue with me from this position.
I apologise for paraphrasing 
But it's you who has misunderstood my point. If someone hires a designer for a TV show, they want them to produce a design people will like. You said yourself that most people would probably prefer the newer version.
I'm not claiming to have an eye for design, but surely the whole point of "good" design is that it will appeal to people? Obviously this isn't how you define it, so how would you?