Doctor Who TV Movie now starting on Watch

Comments

• mojo5000 Posts: 54,086

  Forum Member

  ✭

  02/04/10 - 13:54 #2

  I've seen it a fair few times and it is naff but I enjoy it!

  0
• soran Posts: 1,646

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  02/04/10 - 14:02 #3

  Shame about the huge DOG on screen :mad:

  0
• Alpha-Sun2 Posts: 2,386

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  02/04/10 - 14:09 #4

  So Watch is showing the Paul McGann Doctor Who movie and Sci Fi are showing three of the old episodes.
  
  Awesome Easter weekend.

  0
• omipalone Posts: 11,735

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  02/04/10 - 14:11 #5

  Am on Sci-fi channel watching Tom Baker

  0
• Aesa Posts: 3,614

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  02/04/10 - 15:13 #6

  omipalone wrote: »

  Am on Sci-fi channel watching Tom Baker

  
  Same here, its quite a treat for me as I wasn't alive for Classic Who. I'm actually really enjoying it, especially all the special effects! I love seeing how they worked around things that would just be CGI today.

  0
• omipalone Posts: 11,735

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  02/04/10 - 15:29 #7

  Aesa wrote: »

  Same here, its quite a treat for me as I wasn't alive for Classic Who. I'm actually really enjoying it, especially all the special effects! I love seeing how they worked around things that would just be CGI today.

  
  Yep & the stories are more fleshed out.

  0
• [Deleted User] Posts: 2,588

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  02/04/10 - 18:25 #8

  I think i may have to check Sci Fi out tomorrow.

  0
• [Deleted User] Posts: 31

  Forum Member

  ✭

  02/04/10 - 18:26 #9

  I'm recording them all on my Sky box. Next week will be one big marathon for me!
  Thanks Sci-fi!

  0
• chuffnobbler Posts: 10,771

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  02/04/10 - 18:38 #10

  Aesa wrote: »

  I wasn't alive for Classic Who. I'm actually really enjoying it, especially all the special effects! I love seeing how they worked around things that would just be CGI today.

  
  I love reading stuff like that! It's great to read younger fans appreciating the limitations on the old show rather than just saying it looks cheap. The bubblewrap/hand scene in The Ark in Space is a classic moment of horror, all carried by a strong performance.

  0
• meglosmurmurs Posts: 35,109

  Forum Member

  ✭

  02/04/10 - 18:44 #11

  I love the fact that the stories have to be referred to as movies because of their length.
  
  Also, at the beginning of them the voiceover woman warns that they contain scenes of peril.
  Well duh! :rolleyes:

  0
• [Deleted User] Posts: 140

  Forum Member

  ✭

  02/04/10 - 18:47 #12

  kembel-91 wrote: »

  I'm recording them all on my Sky box. Next week will be one big marathon for me!
  Thanks Sci-fi!

  
  Same here, I have seen them all before but you can never have too much of a good thing

  0
• JAS84 Posts: 7,430

  Forum Member

  ✭

  02/04/10 - 19:11 #13

  Alpha-Sun2 wrote: »

  So Watch is showing the Paul McGann Doctor Who movie and Sci Fi are showing three of the old episodes.
  
  Awesome Easter weekend.

  More than three episodes, they're showing a three day marathon.

  0
• OhWhenTheSaints Posts: 12,531

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  02/04/10 - 19:12 #14

  Thought they could have done better with this episode. Eric Roberts wasn't a convincing Master. Thought Paul did very well though

  0
• tingramretro Posts: 10,974

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  02/04/10 - 19:13 #15

  JAS84 wrote: »

  More than three episodes, they're showing a three day marathon.

  
  Three episodes wouldn't make a lot of sense when the ones they're showing today are four part stories.

  0
• Jaymitch1 Posts: 6,426

  Forum Member

  ✭

  02/04/10 - 22:36 #16

  i love the doctor who movie! i dont understand why not many people like it. i think its far better than RTDs era of who, sorry.

  0
• tingramretro Posts: 10,974

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  02/04/10 - 22:42 #17

  Jaymitch1 wrote: »

  i love the doctor who movie! i dont understand why not many people like it. i think its far better than RTDs era of who, sorry.

  I like it a lot, too. McGann is an excellent Doctor, and I love that TARDIS interior set! The movie has its faults, but it's nowhere near as bad as people say, and a lot more like Doctor Who than RTD's version.

  0
• chuffnobbler Posts: 10,771

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  06/04/10 - 15:42 #18

  I haven't seen the movie for years, but remember there being lots of chasing around about nothing. Awful performance from Eric Roberts. Cop out ending with people brought back to life by fairydust. Not enough for Daphne Ashbrook or Yee Jee Tso to do.
  
  It's wonderfully well made, and looks glorious. The Tardis set is lovely. Sylvester McCoy is superb. The regeneration is well done. Grace running along hospital corridor in slow motion was nice. The comedy nurse was very welcome. It didn't all add together, though. There was too much farting about and not enough DW.
  
  Jamming the thing full of continuity was a very bad start, and getting that continuity wrong was inexcusable. We don't need Daleks in that story, but they are there and they are wrong. Half human? Eye of Harmony? Eh? Yer wot?
  
  Might dust off the DVD for another airing, just to refresh the memory ...

  0
• [Deleted User] Posts: 405

  Forum Member

  ✭

  06/04/10 - 15:47 #19

  OhWhenTheSaints wrote: »

  Thought they could have done better with this episode. Eric Roberts wasn't a convincing Master. Thought Paul did very well though

  
  If you like Paul, you should check out his Big Finish audios. He's fantastic and is able to show a lot more than his 50 mins on TV ever did.

  0
• Dai13371 Posts: 8,071

  Forum Member

  ✭

  06/04/10 - 15:51 #20

  chuffnobbler wrote: »

  I love reading stuff like that! It's great to read younger fans appreciating the limitations on the old show rather than just saying it looks cheap. The bubblewrap/hand scene in The Ark in Space is a classic moment of horror, all carried by a strong performance.

  
  To be fair, even 1970's primary school kids (of which I was one) could have cooked up something better than the bubblewrap arm and later giant bubblewrap maggot thing. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that shortcomings in the special effects can be ignored purely because of the script and performance but sometimes it does sound like people are putting a spin on it. The bubblewrap, although identifiable as being part of the mutation, was still blindingly obvious as a piece of bubblewrap.

  0
• tingramretro Posts: 10,974

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  06/04/10 - 16:01 #21

  Dai13371 wrote: »

  To be fair, even 1970's primary school kids (of which I was one) could have cooked up something better than the bubblewrap arm and later giant bubblewrap maggot thing. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that shortcomings in the special effects can be ignored purely because of the script and performance, but sometimes it sounds like people are putting a spin on it. The bubblewrap, although identifiable as being part of the mutation, was still blindingly obvious as a piece of bubblewrap.

  
  I think you're underestimating the difficulties of producing effects with such a limited budget and resources. Either that, or you were in a very advanced primary school class.

  0
• RandomPeter94 Posts: 4,935

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  06/04/10 - 16:02 #22

  I seen a bit of classic DW on Sci-Fi. I seen Tom Baker's last episode were he falls off the building and re-generates. It is so shocking because it the effects are so dodgy and it is so far comparing to how good the effects etc are now!

  0
• tingramretro Posts: 10,974

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  06/04/10 - 16:05 #23

  RandomPeter94 wrote: »

  I seen a bit of classic DW on Sci-Fi. I seen Tom Baker's last episode were he falls off the building and re-generates. It is so shocking because it the effects are so dodgy and it is so far comparing to how good the effects etc are now!

  
  I'd reply to that if I could understand it.

  0
• Dai13371 Posts: 8,071

  Forum Member

  ✭

  06/04/10 - 16:06 #24

  tingramretro wrote: »

  I think you're underestimating the difficulties of producing effects with such a limited budget and resources. Either that, or you were in a very advanced primary school class.

  
  Am I? I am not totally sure that excuse washes with me. By the way, there was nothing advanced about my class, just creative kids, but then again there is nothing advanced about painting bubblewrap. As for underestimating the difficulties, limitations are bound purely by the human imagination. The transformation could have been done better and cheaply too.

  0
• RubusRoo Posts: 10,262

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  06/04/10 - 16:14 #25

  Dai13371 wrote: »

  To be fair, even 1970's primary school kids (of which I was one) could have cooked up something better than the bubblewrap arm and later giant bubblewrap maggot thing. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that shortcomings in the special effects can be ignored purely because of the script and performance but sometimes it does sound like people are putting a spin on it. The bubblewrap, although identifiable as being part of the mutation, was still blindingly obvious as a piece of bubblewrap.

  
  It still terrified millions of children & made them hide behind the sofa, me included.
  
  People didn't care much back then about special effects, they were more interested in the story, plot & characters.

  0
• Dai13371 Posts: 8,071

  Forum Member

  ✭

  06/04/10 - 16:16 #26

  I was far too young (and scared) to offer any opinion on the state of the special effects back then, but being 39, I feel I can comment on them now.

  0