-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Doctor Who 50th Anniversary |OT| Splendid Chap, All Of Them
- Thread starter infiniteloop
- Start date
- Status
Discotheque
Banned
i can see why if you're just going by the shitty abrams produced/directed films he's in.
but he was fantastic in world's end. makes me want to see so much more of him.
Out of curiosity is it possible to get series 1-4 cheap on dvd? The 2005- series. I recently got into Doctor Who over the last year and i know the stuff is on netflix but i already got seasons 5,6 and 7 on blu-ray and wouldn't mind snagging 1-4 before diving deep in the older stuff.
I would of asked in the BF threads but this thread seems like it would be better fitted to get the information.
I would of asked in the BF threads but this thread seems like it would be better fitted to get the information.
Discotheque
Banned
i dunno man. british tv looked like dogshit until 2010 or something.
sherlock, doctor who, luther etc. all just stepped the game up from what i'd seen prior to that cinematography wise.
Possibly crazy, but it just struck me and I could see it working: Ben Miller.
StalkerUKCG
Banned
Funding for who has been constantly in flux. Thankfully it seems that the BBC are starting to realise that shows like Who deserve the funding. From what I've heard the brand teams at the BBC are are more invested in who now more than any period since its return.
1-4 have been remastered to 1080p for the big 1-7 boxset. They will see singular releases soon enough no doubt. Just wait for those.
This is great news. I thought The Day of the Doctor looked lovely, some dodgy CG aside.
They got new cinematographers who actually know how to light a set.
Russell Davies' era looked more like children's TV in terms of bright colours and simple compositions, which is in tune with the tone he set for the show: enough depth for adults, but primarily aimed at engaging children (or younger members of the family). Moffat's more cinematic visuals mirror his more 'adult' show, which plays first and foremost to the older fanbase (note how it was only during his tenure that the show took off in the US, where it appears to be seen as less of a family show) with greater focus on complex plotting and visual detail than emotional depth or simple, immediately striking ideas.
(I like a lot of the visual design in the Eccleston and Tennant season though)
I've heard that this was Moffat's doing. When he took over he updated the cameras and everything they were using.
APZonerunner
Member
I'm not sure what the budget is now, but Series One (2005) and Two (2006) were made on something like £750,000 an episode (at the time - that's equal to about £950k inflation adjusted) - so below $1m. For comparison, the average episode of Star Trek: Enterprise had a budget of $5m! So, yeah. It was very cheaply made. It still is! The budget is still BBC low, but it has increased substantially. It was at about 1.2m per episode in Series 5, and is now at about 1.5m, so has doubled since the show started.
Not strictly true; the cameras they used for most of Series 5 were the ones bought for the Dubai trip for Planet of the Dead, where they transferred to HD (some new ones were purchased for where ever they filmed Vampires of Venice too - Bulgaria, I think). RTD resisted transferring to HD for a long time as HD resolution massively inflated the cost of every CGI shot, but the BBC finally stumped and gave the extra money after he turned down HD for Series 3 and 4, as they needed a tentpole family drama for their HD push in the run-up to the Olympics. When he came in Moffat definitely pushed for a more filmic style in general, though, mostly with his director picks. The direction things were shifting in was absolutely already set in stone during Series 4, really; not just by Moffat/RTD but by people above them like Jane Tranter (BBC Drama Commissioner at the time) and the like - it's less some grand vision or plan than the natural evolution of the show.
Jest Chillin
Member
Think the success of Day of the Doctor could boost that a bit more? Last I read it made about 11 million in theaters in addition to any advertising money they made over the course of the day/week of the anniversary.
I have no idea how the BBC utilizes any profits they might make. I know it's funded in by the public in some form or another though.
The Eleventh Hour kind of spoiled us really, it still has the best directing and cinematography of NuWho. They should really try and get Adam Smith to do some more.
I still get chills in my gooch when he rushes out and the TARDIS has changed into the OG bright blue with the St John's Ambulance sticker.
I still get chills in my gooch when he rushes out and the TARDIS has changed into the OG bright blue with the St John's Ambulance sticker.
infiniteloop
Member
I read somewhere he had some disagreements with Murray gold, which is probably why he never came back.
APZonerunner
Member
A bit of background, then! Well, the BBC is funded by taxpayers. If you own a TV or a device that can receive TV (such as a laptop or something) in the UK you have to pay a tax free that's called the TV license. This also includes radio, and if you own a radio and not a TV there's also a radio only variant (I wonder if this is still strictly necessary).
The TV license costs £145 a year, and is paid per household, not per person. For that you get all the BBC channels and services free of charge, and they're all of course completely advertising-free. Even product placement is banned - the amount of layers the Who production team had to go through to name Jammie Dodgers by name was probably massive, for instance. The BBC answers to the government, who always threaten to cut funding - as cutting the license would be an easy tax break to give - so they're always quite skittish. Some of the advertising-supported channels are also subsidised partially by this fee, meaning they're free for everyone over-the-air without need for cable etc.
The advantage of all this is obvious - they don't really have ulterior motives and make decisions based upon what they think is truly best. Ad revenue doesn't factor into it; the BBC has a remit to Entertain, Educate and Inform in equal measure. That's part of why and how Who was conceived - to be a tea-time kids show as educational as it was exciting. Doctor Who couldn't have happened anywhere else. The BBC has a structure like any other TV org, but then there's a board - the BBC Trust - who are appointed by the government to oversee it and rap knuckles when necessary.
The situation for shows like Who is incredibly complicated because of how the BBC is funded; they're not allowed to give an unfair amount of money to any particular program, because everything they make has to run the tastes of the entire country and equally. The end of this is essentially that shows like Top Gear & Doctor Who suffer as a result; their phenomenal international sales can NOT be used to buff up the budget for the show (at least not significantly) as the BBC has to divvy up all its money in a fair and balanced fashion. It doesn't matter what percentage of revenue those two shows bring in to the BBC, once it hits the BBC that money is divided between EVERYTHING they make in a fair fashion.
This has advantages - it means the BBC can pump money into loss-leaders of world-class programming that otherwise would struggle to turn a profit, and thus things that other broadcasters might not greenlight - things like Planet Earth. The downside is it can stifle shows like Who and Top Gear because they can be bringing in ten or twenty times its cost in international revenue alone per episode and still not see any more of that money. The same's true of stuff like I Am the Stig t-shirts, Sonic Screwdriver toys or money from Microsoft to tie Top Gear to Forza - it goes back into the BBC, but that money can and will end up anywhere.
They're getting better at this. Part of what Who alumni Jane Tranter, Julie Gardner & RTD were sent to BBC America/Worldwide to do once they moved on from Who was build BBC Worldwide up. Worldwide is technically a separate company, and are a profit-making based entity. They deal with anything profit-based, from toys to DVDs. For something like Who, at a very basic level they're actually buying the Doctor Who rights - from merch to international broadcast - from the British BBC at a base cost and then selling it on for profit. Worldwide is a subsidiary, so ultimately returns its money to the BBC, but the BBC recieves that in lump - they don't really consider how much of that came from Doctor Who or Top Gear, for instance. More than anything else they're simply not allowed - BBC budget decisions must be made based only on the UK, as it's taxpayers that are funding it all at the most basic level. Doctor Who is probably currently getting around the right amount of money for its UK audience - but the BBC can't (at least openly) factor in its international audience in order to give them more money.
On occasion Who has been helped elsewhere. The CBC - the Canadians - co-funded Series 2-4. A Japanese broadcaster provided additional funding to Series 2-5. BBC Worldwide gave additional money to BBC Wales for Series 7, a first. So there's bits here and there. So even though Day of the Doctor did well, it probably won't change things in a big way. It'll raise the show's profile within the BBC - a huge help - and it'll undoubtedly make bean counters at Worldwide more eager for a film - but even that is a minefield, as the BBC aren't allowed to put continuity-vital stuff behind any sort of paywall (such as cinema ticket stubs). So it's difficult.
Things are changing, anyway. Top Gear & Clarkson blazed something of a trail, as Clarkson owns part of the Top Gear format & name along with the BBC, and founded his own production company with the show's Exec Producer. The BBC ended up buying a stake in that company, but because they're a profit-making entity Top Gear has been able to loop its way around some of the rules; every time they sell a DVD or T-Shirt, a chunk goes to the BBC and a chunk goes to Clarkson's company, who then funnels some of that money back to the show in budget aid, for instance. There's been rumours that there's been talk of shifting 'control' of Doctor Who to BBC Worldwide for that purpose, but that is in a sense as scary as it is exciting...
The BBC's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness, basically.
Lame
This shot
With the music
And then 'Okay, what have you got for me this time?'
It was my desktop for a long time
God what an absolutely perfect episode.
APZonerunner
Member
Do you remember where that was? I'm genuinely curious, just because Gold has since 2008 done all his music from New York - he's sent scripts or rough edits, scores to those, and then digitally sends the music to Ben Foster who does the arrangement and stuff Cardiff-side. He's bitched before (he hated how certain music cues were used in Voyage of the Damned and in Time of Angels, for instance), but since he's not in the edit I wonder how he had at it with Smith... Unless they had crossed words at a launch or something. Or maybe it was Foster...
Jest Chillin
Member
@APZonerunner
Awesome and informative post! Appreciate it. It's an interesting, if convoluted, system. But it also helps me understand why some shows, like S4 of Torchwood, end up partnering with outside sources for funding.
It does make me wonder though, for shows like Orphan Black (BBCA Original), would the advertising profits internationally be able to be funneled back into the show itself in a greater percentage before BBC Worldwide funnels the money back to the BBC (proper). And if that's the case would more shows that have a potential to be big internationally be shifted to BBC Worldwide? And would such a pattern start to evolve.. would that be a cause for concern for the UK gov't? Or would they not really care so long as BBC aired version met the requirements (no adverts, no product placement, etc..)?
Awesome and informative post! Appreciate it. It's an interesting, if convoluted, system. But it also helps me understand why some shows, like S4 of Torchwood, end up partnering with outside sources for funding.
It does make me wonder though, for shows like Orphan Black (BBCA Original), would the advertising profits internationally be able to be funneled back into the show itself in a greater percentage before BBC Worldwide funnels the money back to the BBC (proper). And if that's the case would more shows that have a potential to be big internationally be shifted to BBC Worldwide? And would such a pattern start to evolve.. would that be a cause for concern for the UK gov't? Or would they not really care so long as BBC aired version met the requirements (no adverts, no product placement, etc..)?
APZonerunner
Member
If the current (right-leaning) British Government had their way they'd likely privatize and sell off the BBC entirely!
I'm not sure how things work with Orphan Black, to be honest. It's a BBCA show, but it still aired on BBC Two here. I'm guessing it's the reverse; the regular BBC purchased the rights off Worldwide. Worldwide do a lot of work outside the BBC, like bringing non-BBC British shows like The Inbetweeners and Peep Show to other countries, too. Worldwide's official remit is to maximize profit for the BBC and spread British culture abroad.
As far as Worldwide's money goes, the way it works is that they return their profits to the BBC and then in their yearly budget the BBC allocates money back to Worldwide again based on their past performance - Worldwide use that to grow, turn a profit, and return that profit to their masters at the regular BBC. In the case of that specific show, if it helps Worldwide return a greater profit to the BBC and get greater funding for the next year, you can bet they'd pour some of that budget back into that show at a higher level. That's why Worldwide has given Doctor Who money. I doubt the government would care; the important thing is that Worldwide's processes never (or should never) impact upon decision-making regarding UK broadcasting. That's the key.
I'm not sure how things work with Orphan Black, to be honest. It's a BBCA show, but it still aired on BBC Two here. I'm guessing it's the reverse; the regular BBC purchased the rights off Worldwide. Worldwide do a lot of work outside the BBC, like bringing non-BBC British shows like The Inbetweeners and Peep Show to other countries, too. Worldwide's official remit is to maximize profit for the BBC and spread British culture abroad.
As far as Worldwide's money goes, the way it works is that they return their profits to the BBC and then in their yearly budget the BBC allocates money back to Worldwide again based on their past performance - Worldwide use that to grow, turn a profit, and return that profit to their masters at the regular BBC. In the case of that specific show, if it helps Worldwide return a greater profit to the BBC and get greater funding for the next year, you can bet they'd pour some of that budget back into that show at a higher level. That's why Worldwide has given Doctor Who money. I doubt the government would care; the important thing is that Worldwide's processes never (or should never) impact upon decision-making regarding UK broadcasting. That's the key.
I think he might be referring to this. Seems like it is slightly over-interpreting some disagreement that seems like a regular part of the creative process to say that's probably why the director never did Who again. Looking at his IMDB, it seems like he really just hasn't done a lot of television in general since doing three episodes of Doctor Who for series 5.
infiniteloop
Member
Yeah, that was it.
Jest Chillin
Member
Ah ok. I've got a much clearer picture now. So.. now I'm hoping that Doctor Who does somehow get shifted over to BBC Worldwide. I don't think it suffers from low budgets currently, but I'd be completely ok with the possibility of larger scale specials and movies.
Future Foundation
Member
Or that night shot when Amy looks out of her window and sees the new TARDIS. There's this glow about it that's just wonderful.
Isn't Orphan Black a UK/Canada coproduction?
Jest Chillin
Member
BBCA production filmed in Canada (cheaper than filming in the US).
Just finished watching the thick of it series 4 again. Genuinely one of the most incredible tv shows ever. Astonishing joke ratio, phenomenal acting and writing, eerily relevant. Capaldi's just a magnificent actor.
Man, bring on next year. He better be getting some decent scripts.
Man, bring on next year. He better be getting some decent scripts.
Now imagine if Armando Iannucci replaced Moffat as the next showrunner.
Not to get too off topic, but from its wiki:
Orphan Black was initially developed at the Canadian Film Centre by Graeme Manson.[5] Bell Media announced on June 12, 2012 that they had commissioned a 10 episode season of Orphan Black that would be produced by Temple Street Productions and distributed internationally by BBC Worldwide.[10]
Doctor Who as Cameron satire?
Jest Chillin
Member
Check the short hand on the right side of the wiki. Bell, Temple, BBCA (which is under BBC Worldwide). I was just shorthanding to BBCA since it's credited as a "BBC America Original"
He could make politically relevant statements using all of time and space to provide analogies. It would be incredible. If I could get one TV wish granted, that would be it.
Exterminieren
Banned
Adam Smith might not have been invited back because all three of his episodes went horribly over budget. Like... Horribly.
Whose responsibility is it to promote Who within the UK, anyway? Something I've never really thought about, but the occasional billboard ads don't come cheap. It wouldn't surprise me if Worldwide eases that burden without treading on the Beeb's toes.
On Amazon Black Friday here in the UK there's the Series 7 DVDs, along with "The 4th Doctor Time Capsule" and the Regeneration box set.
I'd rather not.Ah ok. I've got a much clearer picture now. So.. now I'm hoping that Doctor Who does somehow get shifted over to BBC Worldwide. I don't think it suffers from low budgets currently, but I'd be completely ok with the possibility of larger scale specials and movies.
The idea of some executive deciding that the next companion has to be a skateboarding pooch with attitude to appeal to a core demographic on another continent scares me.
The BBC not having to worry about that shit is what makes it good.
Plus I agree with the whole thing about the movie, everything should be available to licence fee payers free of charge. Stick it in cinemas if you want, but put it on TV as well, just like with DotD.
Jest Chillin
Member
Being under BBC Worldwide should be fine considering Orphan Black. I'm not talking about liscensing for a "Hollywood" style movie or special. Just proper funding and the ability to make a larger scale product.
He still has The Doctors Wife, and no one can take that away from him.
Nightmare in Silver was held together by Matts fantastic acting of 'Mr Clever'.
APZonerunner
Member
Armando's amazing, The Thick of It is amazing, but, really? Him running a sci-fi show primarily aimed at 8 to 14 year olds and families? Not so sure about that...
Exterminieren
Banned
Ah ok. I've got a much clearer picture now. So.. now I'm hoping that Doctor Who does somehow get shifted over to BBC Worldwide. I don't think it suffers from low budgets currently, but I'd be completely ok with the possibility of larger scale specials and movies.
Eww, no. Keep it on the license fee, please. Don't throw the rest of the BBC under the bus.
This is the Doctor Who equivalent of saying that Retro Studios should develop every Nintendo franchise going. Iannucci's a great writer, but he has never once shown off attributes that would make him suitable for the job.
I'd actually be interested to see what he could do, because one thing he *is* good at doing is following through on a fantastic or absurd notion, and that *is* a skill that could be applied to Who.
I mean, there's a bazillion better picks, but I'm kinda curious how it'd turn out.
(Also, Hugh for companion)
acheron_xl
Member
I never really felt Matt's performance in Nightmare in Silver. When you're talking multiple Matts, I'm personally going to choose the Almost People every time.
I imagine so. Turning I Am The Doctor into the matrix that all Doctor themes are build on would be the dumbest thing ever, even though I feel that Gold is massively in love with it, and proud of it.
paradox121
Member
I definitely think it'll be a lot slower. But equally it has to be used during action scenes so...
I actually think this piano cover of The Mad Man With a Box is kinda perfect for him. It's got that mystery while being a lot slower than I Am The Doctor.
You can tell he was really pushed by that role. He pretty much carried the episode which is enough to ware out any actor.
I hope they go in the other direction (more stripped back), closer to the older/original theme. Smith's 7.5 theme, centered around the bass was a step in the right direction
peanutbutterlatte
Member
I'm expecting Capaldi to be The First Doctor Mark II in every sense.
Lol this should be fantastic. Can't believe after the Christmas special we'll probably have to wait another half year.
APZonerunner
Member
If you mean the actual theme-theme, I have a sneaking suspicion they may keep the 7b sound for a while yet. If you mean in-show, Murray Gold has already spoken about dreading having to throw I Am The Doctor in the bin (thank god - it's wonderful but is wearing bloody thin now - I never understood why he didn't follow the path of Series 1-4, where the 'action theme' changed every year) in order to create something new.
If it's anything like the past, I Am The Doctor will probably rear its head a touch in Capaldi's first few episodes subtly as a reminder and then fade into another theme. I do miss the old mysterious Eccleston/Tennant Doctor theme, but it's better to miss it now than to have it feel overused! Weirdly that theme has been used once in Smith's run, in A Good Man Goes to War. Very strange it cropped up there..
What, do you think he'd be unable to resist throwing a ton of cursing in there? I give him more credit than that.
Right now he's writing a satirical novel about a privatized language. That's exactly the sort of concept that would fit right in with Doctor Who--silly, fantastical, easy to understand, but also layered with moral and political commentary. His sense of humor is pitch perfect for the show. There is no better fit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked