Doctor Who

doodah said:
£11m a season? That's an episode cost with a decent amount of big production American TV shows.
Click to expand...

i don't think it a matter of money, it more the fact that the Bosses at the BBC don't take sci-fi serious, i would go as far as that they look down on it as something only a 10 year old would read/watch and that as adults they far above such things, hence they don't put the same effort into it that other "grown up" shows get
 
Btone said:
i don't think it a matter of money, it more the fact that the Bosses at the BBC don't take sci-fi serious, i would go as far as that they look down on it as something only a 10 year old would read/watch and that as adults they far above such things, hence they don't put the same effort into it that other "grown up" shows get
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I have watched the odd episode with my mum and often thought it was really cheesy and budget looking. Funnily enough, my 10 year old niece thinks I am some sort of super fan and has challenged me to a Dr Who quiz at Christmas :p. A Dr Who with Line of Duty suspense, drama and writing (for the most part) is something I could get on board with :D.
 
doodah said:
£11m a season? That's an episode cost with a decent amount of big production American TV shows.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting 'Who needed a Game of Thrones sized budget, i'm suggesting they could well have afforded to spend more if they wanted to. 'Who might still be one of their biggest exports if they did. If this doesnt make sense, don't take it from me; This is what Moffat himself said shortly after departing:

"There’s a cultural sense sometimes that Doctor Who is the little engine that could, it’s this plucky little British show. But it’s actually one of the giants. It’s one of the least well-funded of the giants but it’s operating at that level. Why? It’s a massive show. We have a pretty good budget. But we have a smaller budget than other shows that look cheaper. We don’t have the top budget, not by the standards of a colossus of the TV world. I don’t think it’s as good as it could be. I want more than three monsters on screen at a time."
Click to expand...
 
ZombieFan said:
I'm highlighting that it isn't always as dramatic as you are making out. Actors play characters of a different background all the time. I'm not hearing outrage whenever a non-scot is given the role of Macbeth, for example.

Maybe John Barrowman is a more suitable Doctor Who reference? He's a gay actor who played a bisexual/pansexual character. Didn't he also play a straight character in Desperate Housewives?

Sure, there are situations where it has flared up but that's what happens when an historically underrepresented group of people decide it's time that they were heard.

[edit] Just been prompted of a more recent example by the radio - No fuss when Benedict Cumberbatch played Alan Turing as far as I remember? Also, Eddie Redmayne was up for an award for his acting in 'The Danish Girl'.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point. Your examples are either white playing white or they are gay playing straight. That isn't seen as an issue by the groups complaining about these things. The examples at the end were also pre-woke taking over the media. You know when actors were judged on their acting ability and films and tv were rated on their merit as art and entertainment.

The irony is that the same groups complaining about "whitewashing" are the groups that hail something like making a british period drama with a large proportion of black actors in prominent roles. You can't have it both ways. People also need to remember that the US and especially the UK are predominantly white countries. Minorities are already overrepresented on TV in the UK vs the actual population makeup and yet we are still hearing that we need to make acting more diverse. Its all got a little silly.

Its all very blunt and isn't helping the industry. I don't know about most Doctor Who fans but I don't think Jodie has been a good doctor but I don't think thats massively her fault and its not because shes a woman, its because the writing has turned to **** and has clearly priorities politics and Chibnals agenda over entertainment. For some people that is more important than making good TV but personally I don't watch Doctor Who to have the worlds least subtle social messages preached at me.
 
Malevolence said:
It's not just the overt wokeness and **** writing either, it's the production and quality of effects too. Just compare it to other sci-fi shows on lesser networks with much less funding available like, for example, The Expanse before it got taken by Amazon or the BSG remake. The BBC's production values are ******* laughable in comparison. You just have to look at their pathetic attempt at The War of the Worlds a few years back for further proof.
Click to expand...

I find this argument quite funny becasue Dr Who wasn't ever known for its high budget production costs one of the most memorable things about classic Who is the wonky sets and rubber trees even back in the 70's it was rubbish and everyone knew it, its just that it doesn't have budget priority and considering the nonsense its peddled recently it doesn't deserve it frankly.
 
fez said:
The irony is that the same groups complaining about "whitewashing" are the groups that hail something like making a british period drama with a large proportion of black actors in prominent roles. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
not sure I get you, the discerning anti-woke people who are not watching bridgerton , don't watch doctor who either (... or the crown, line of duty, downton abbey);
so, I don't think they are hypocritical.
the common factor seems to be programmes with an eye on the American market have a primary woke remit, and, that can be a failing at inception.

The asexual writing of Jodies Who character, consistant with Enid Blyton/targetting children, has been a big negative, contrary to previous Who's,
I suppose that is the #metoo knee jerk.

fez said:
but I don't think thats massively her fault
Click to expand...
yes the writings a problem, but she's been complicit, prostituted herself to this role, maybe contractually,
perhaps she has an NDA too, not to defame it, and tell us what she really thinks;
I can't see it has been a positive for her long term career, unlike capaldi etc. etc.


Blackjack Davy said:
its just that it doesn't have budget priority
Click to expand...
I think the budget has been adequate for the special effects - it was for Capaldi ... or, did they cut it significantly since that time.
 
jpaul said:
not sure I get you, the discerning anti-woke people who are not watching bridgerton , don't watch doctor who either (... or the crown, line of duty, downton abbey);
so, I don't think they are hypocritical.
Click to expand...

I meant the people that are all for dramas that are based in England in the 19th century or earlier having a large number of prominent black leads in positions that wouldn't have happened at the time. They are the same people who then lose their **** at someone who isn't gay playing a gay character or someone white playing someone who they think should be latino or someone on the spectrum being played by a neurotypical actor.

They are the hypocrites who are happy for the "wrong" casting as long as its minorities that are getting cast.
 
screen-shot-2021-06-02-at-64002-pm.png
 
Ann Bolyn - channel5 aren't exactly renown for drama - just reality tv shows ?, and , had to google Jodie(spooky!) Turner Smith ;
Wolf Hall is first on my backlog of historical dramas, but, have to admit to a weakness to (au naturel?) Versailles.
Boris needs to protect our culture, like fortress europe is doing
 
jpaul said:
Ann Bolyn - channel5 aren't exactly renown for drama - just reality tv shows ?, and , had to google Jodie(spooky!) Turner Smith ;
Wolf Hall is first on my backlog of historical dramas, but, have to admit to a weakness to (au naturel?) Versailles.
Boris needs to protect our culture, like fortress europe is doing
Click to expand...


Yes Boris Johnson is just the man, he's both entirely trustworthy and extremely competent.
 
To be fair, people don't really care who is cast in roles. If you make good TV or films then people will watch them. The trouble is that there are a lot of things being made with a primary focus on political topics instead of good story telling, plot, characterisation, acting etc. People are being given huge IPs to control who haven't a clue what those mean to their fans or what they expect from the series and when anyone dares to question their credentials or choices they are just dismissed as neckbeards or toxic fans. They are largely just people who have enjoyed a particular series for large parts of their life and don't want it ruined by someone with no skin in the game and who are more concerned with "representation" and "subverting expectations" than they are with creating a good entry in the series.

The woke know that all you have to do is dismiss any opinion or view you don't like as bigotry and thats the end of the discussion.
 
Malevolence said:
You think the SyFy channel had a bigger budget than the BBC when it funded S1-S3 of The Expanse? Hell, if The Expanse is too large a show, then take Dark Matter or Killjoys as prime examples of how to do sci-fi productions on a limited budget, and even they make the BBC's attempts at sci-fi laughable.
Click to expand...
any canadian scifi is how you do scifi on a budget :D
you see the same actors popping up all over the canadian scifi series lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom