I read somewhere, can't remember where - probably GB - that they started out to do a full Hurt-Eccleston, but it wasn't fit for purpose. So we just got his eyes and chin instead.
footage reversal
2 of 3
Originally Posted by johnnysaucepn:
“Careful how you use that word!
I expect it was done for the sake of focus - the episode was being watched by people who weren't all big fans. Obviously they would know that the Doctor regenerates, but they wouldn't know the significance of the new character appearing in Hurt's place.
They perhaps felt that it was one more fan service that they didn't want to explain, particularly right at the end of the episode, when they also have the job of re-introducing a version of Tom Baker.”
“Careful how you use that word!
I expect it was done for the sake of focus - the episode was being watched by people who weren't all big fans. Obviously they would know that the Doctor regenerates, but they wouldn't know the significance of the new character appearing in Hurt's place.
They perhaps felt that it was one more fan service that they didn't want to explain, particularly right at the end of the episode, when they also have the job of re-introducing a version of Tom Baker.”
i suspect many of the people watching would be those who had watched since, or at least aware of the eccleston day's (wasn't all that long ago), and many younger people are likely to be completely unaware of classic who, so I think, to show the full eccleston face, for many, would have been a visual confirmation of exactly where the war doctor fits in. I could easily imagine if someone was confused by the war doctor, and then saw eccleston's face and went 'oh, I get it now'.
Originally Posted by doctor blue box:
“would have been a visual confirmation of exactly where the war doctor fits in. I could easily imagine if someone was confused by the war doctor, and then saw eccleston's face and went 'oh, I get it now'.”
“would have been a visual confirmation of exactly where the war doctor fits in. I could easily imagine if someone was confused by the war doctor, and then saw eccleston's face and went 'oh, I get it now'.”
Oh, certainly, if they had already been thinking about that. But those that have probably already know what's going to happen next. The more ignorant viewer probably has no idea where the Time War falls in the Doctor's personal history, and only really need to know that Hurt was before, and he was hidden, with Tennant/Smith after.
Anyway, I agree that it was probably cut short for technical reasons rather than plot.
Originally Posted by doctor blue box:
“ would have been a visual confirmation of exactly where the war doctor fits in. I could easily imagine if someone was confused by the war doctor, and then saw eccleston's face and went 'oh, I get it now'.”
“ would have been a visual confirmation of exactly where the war doctor fits in. I could easily imagine if someone was confused by the war doctor, and then saw eccleston's face and went 'oh, I get it now'.”
The end credits gave the full visual line-up just a few minutes later
Originally Posted by CD93:
“The end credits gave the full visual line-up just a few minutes later”
“The end credits gave the full visual line-up just a few minutes later
”
yeah, but that was a gang of people all together, not quite as clear as the full regeneration scene would have been. you'd have had to pause to scan that scene properly and if you didn't know that much you wouldn't necessarily know that they were standing in order
Originally Posted by cat666:
“They should have just made John Hurt wear a wig and fall off of an exercise bike.”
“They should have just made John Hurt wear a wig and fall off of an exercise bike.”
the old way's are the best
Originally Posted by doctor blue box:
“yeah, but that was a gang of people all together, not quite as clear as the full regeneration scene would have been. you'd have had to pause to scan that scene properly and if you didn't know that much you wouldn't necessarily know that they were standing in order”
“yeah, but that was a gang of people all together, not quite as clear as the full regeneration scene would have been. you'd have had to pause to scan that scene properly and if you didn't know that much you wouldn't necessarily know that they were standing in order”
Not the final scene, the Doctor's faces in the end credits.
McCoy -> McGann -> Hurt -> Eccleston.. and so on.
It was a nice final touch.
Originally Posted by CD93:
“Not the final scene, the Doctor's faces in the end credits.
McCoy -> McGann -> Hurt -> Eccleston.. and so on.
It was a nice final touch.”
“Not the final scene, the Doctor's faces in the end credits.
McCoy -> McGann -> Hurt -> Eccleston.. and so on.
It was a nice final touch.”
oh I see. yes, I suppose that helped but still think the full regeneration, as a point in the actual episode, would have also helped. What suprised me is that when moffat was doing interview's surrounding the 50th he was quoted as saying he was a completist about these sort of thing's so I was shocked that, firstly, it didn't matter to him, and secondly, that he thought it wouldn't matter to anyone else. it's like he gave us the mcgann regeneration as a faithful fan himself, but had no interest in making the whole regeneration line up fully complete in the actual 50th episode. For me, it will alway's feel like a piece of the puzzle that is missing, all for the sake of a production team not bothering to show a second or two of eccleston's full face
Originally Posted by doctor blue box:
“firstly, it didn't matter to him”
“firstly, it didn't matter to him”
Clearly it did, as he wrote the regeneration scene. We just didn't see the morph. We didn't see it for McGann or Smith, either. If Hurt had just gone off in his TARDIS, and hasn't been added to the official line-up before Eccleston - it would have been a different story.
Originally Posted by doctor blue box:
“and secondly, that he thought it wouldn't matter to anyone else.”
“and secondly, that he thought it wouldn't matter to anyone else.”
Come on - a bit of a silly claim?
Originally Posted by doctor blue box:
“for the sake of a production team not bothering to show a second or two of eccleston's full face”
“for the sake of a production team not bothering to show a second or two of eccleston's full face”
We don't know if they spent hours labouring over it, only for it not to be incuded in the final cut. So that's unfair. We'll have to wait and see if we hear anything conclusive down the line.
Personally I didn't mind. The point of that scene wasn't who he regenerated into, it was that he regenerated while he could still remember he was the Doctor. A happy ending for him. And we knew who he regenerated into, so showing Eccleston would have been superfluous and could have drawn focus from Hurt.
Which it seems it did anyway, for some...
Which it seems it did anyway, for some...
I'd also read about the morph from Hurt to Eccelston having been created by the FX team and that it was cut short in the episode. If that is the case, I'd bet that it simply came down to the effect just not looking very good.
Yes, that Youtube clip looked good, but it was clearly just a morph to a static photo of Eccelston. Fine for a quick clip on Youtube, but I bet it would look pretty pants if edited into the actual episode.
Yes, that Youtube clip looked good, but it was clearly just a morph to a static photo of Eccelston. Fine for a quick clip on Youtube, but I bet it would look pretty pants if edited into the actual episode.
Footage of Eccleston is in the 50th anyway. It bugs the hell out of me a fan on youtube pulls off something the creative team couldn't (or wouldn't?) pull off. I guess they'd have had to pay Chris again for his likeness being used twice. I wish he'd have played nice though. I like 9, but it still rankles a bit.
It's a bit rubbish really. It reflects real life though. I know a dude at work who is better at I.T. than the dudes who are paid twice as much as him. I digress.
Great unofficial regeneration though.
It's a bit rubbish really. It reflects real life though. I know a dude at work who is better at I.T. than the dudes who are paid twice as much as him. I digress.
Great unofficial regeneration though.
Originally Posted by FunkyJawa:
“Footage of Eccleston is in the 50th anyway. It bugs the hell out of me a fan on youtube pulls off something the creative team couldn't (or wouldn't?) pull off. I guess they'd have had to pay Chris again for his likeness being used twice. I wish he'd have played nice though. I like 9, but it still rankles a bit.”
“Footage of Eccleston is in the 50th anyway. It bugs the hell out of me a fan on youtube pulls off something the creative team couldn't (or wouldn't?) pull off. I guess they'd have had to pay Chris again for his likeness being used twice. I wish he'd have played nice though. I like 9, but it still rankles a bit.”
exactly
The footage of Christopher Eccleston used in the episode was lifted straight from another existing episode.
They would not have to have paid him or had his permission to use that.
Putting even a still frame of him into a new scene which had never been seen before would have involved paying him, and having his permission, which presumably he declined to give.
A great shame IMO, but that's the way it is I'm afraid.
They would not have to have paid him or had his permission to use that.
Putting even a still frame of him into a new scene which had never been seen before would have involved paying him, and having his permission, which presumably he declined to give.
A great shame IMO, but that's the way it is I'm afraid.
Originally Posted by Gordie1:
“I was sure i read an intervieew with a visual effects bloke somewhere that a longer version of that scene, where you do see the regeneration was produced, but when it aired, it was cut short.
Cant remember where i seen it.”
“I was sure i read an intervieew with a visual effects bloke somewhere that a longer version of that scene, where you do see the regeneration was produced, but when it aired, it was cut short.
Cant remember where i seen it.”
Yes - during the SFX panel on the Sunday of the Doctor Who Experience at the Excel a show director told us all that he was "surprised" Moffat chose to cut the regen scene as short as he did as they had created a far longer sequence that he thought worked well. When Moffat was asked about this as the 'Doctors' panel later he said it was a question of giving fans what they wanted and making sure the 'scene remained believable".
Either way, we saw enough to remove any doubt. This is captured (by me) direct from the episode.
Originally Posted by Banjoted:
“Either way, we saw enough to remove any doubt. This is captured (by me) direct from the episode.”
“Either way, we saw enough to remove any doubt. This is captured (by me) direct from the episode.”
seeing that kind of annoy's me a little bit more, as it show's that since eccleston's features were starting to come through then they would have only needed to let it run one or two second's more for the eccleston face to be clear and obvious (without need for pausing or screengrab's). What would have taken too much time or not worked with the scene about that, I cant imagine. It just baffle's me that moffat would make that kind of decision and the fact that a director on the show has said they didn't understand the decision either show's Im not the only one
Originally Posted by Dave-H:
“The footage of Christopher Eccleston used in the episode was lifted straight from another existing episode.
They would not have to have paid him or had his permission to use that.
Putting even a still frame of him into a new scene which had never been seen before would have involved paying him, and having his permission, which presumably he declined to give.
A great shame IMO, but that's the way it is I'm afraid.
”
“The footage of Christopher Eccleston used in the episode was lifted straight from another existing episode.
They would not have to have paid him or had his permission to use that.
Putting even a still frame of him into a new scene which had never been seen before would have involved paying him, and having his permission, which presumably he declined to give.
A great shame IMO, but that's the way it is I'm afraid.
”
But it was still used in a brand new scene and not the original scene it was taken from.
So it would be no different for the regeneration scene if a quick shot of Eccleston or even a still image was used.
There is no difference between showing the 9th Doctor saving Gallifrey and the Regeneration scene, both involved using old footage/images in a new scene.
So he either gave permission for both or it was not required for either (someone in an earlier post/thread said that a scene has to be over a certain length to require the actors permission to use it).
Originally Posted by doctor blue box:
“seeing that kind of annoy's me a little bit more, as it show's that since eccleston's features were starting to come through then they would have only needed to let it run one or two second's more for the eccleston face to be clear and obvious (without need for pausing or screengrab's). What would have taken too much time or not worked with the scene about that, I cant imagine. It just baffle's me that moffat would make that kind of decision and the fact that a director on the show has said they didn't understand the decision either show's Im not the only one”
“seeing that kind of annoy's me a little bit more, as it show's that since eccleston's features were starting to come through then they would have only needed to let it run one or two second's more for the eccleston face to be clear and obvious (without need for pausing or screengrab's). What would have taken too much time or not worked with the scene about that, I cant imagine. It just baffle's me that moffat would make that kind of decision and the fact that a director on the show has said they didn't understand the decision either show's Im not the only one”
Perhaps it looked really naff. We'll never know unless the footage ever surfaces. But what we do know is this; Moffat wrote the episode, so he obviously wrote the scene where Hurt regenerates into Eccelston. If he hadn't written it, the FX team would not have created it.
So something must have changed Moffat's mind. Based on the comment posted above in which Moffat said it was a choice between giving fans what they want and keeping it believable, I think it is most likely that the final shot just looked really bad.
Originally Posted by Helbore:
“Perhaps it looked really naff. We'll never know unless the footage ever surfaces. But what we do know is this; Moffat wrote the episode, so he obviously wrote the scene where Hurt regenerates into Eccelston. If he hadn't written it, the FX team would not have created it.
So something must have changed Moffat's mind. Based on the comment posted above in which Moffat said it was a choice between giving fans what they want and keeping it believable, I think it is most likely that the final shot just looked really bad.”
“Perhaps it looked really naff. We'll never know unless the footage ever surfaces. But what we do know is this; Moffat wrote the episode, so he obviously wrote the scene where Hurt regenerates into Eccelston. If he hadn't written it, the FX team would not have created it.
So something must have changed Moffat's mind. Based on the comment posted above in which Moffat said it was a choice between giving fans what they want and keeping it believable, I think it is most likely that the final shot just looked really bad.”
At least we know its definitely supposed to be Hurt to Eccleston so we at least know there isnt anything hidden about it!
Also after the events in Time of the Doctor I think it would be impossible to re-write another incarnation into that space anyway!
Maybe one day there will be a special release of the 50th with it going slightly further into Eccelston!
Originally Posted by doctor blue box:
“seeing that kind of annoy's me a little bit more, as it show's that since eccleston's features were starting to come through then they would have only needed to let it run one or two second's more for the eccleston face to be clear and obvious (without need for pausing or screengrab's). What would have taken too much time or not worked with the scene about that, I cant imagine. It just baffle's me that moffat would make that kind of decision and the fact that a director on the show has said they didn't understand the decision either show's Im not the only one”
“seeing that kind of annoy's me a little bit more, as it show's that since eccleston's features were starting to come through then they would have only needed to let it run one or two second's more for the eccleston face to be clear and obvious (without need for pausing or screengrab's). What would have taken too much time or not worked with the scene about that, I cant imagine. It just baffle's me that moffat would make that kind of decision and the fact that a director on the show has said they didn't understand the decision either show's Im not the only one”
Oh I absolutely agree. Really just a second's more worth of transformation would have probably been enough. I think we can infer from Moffat's statement that he didn't feel the CGI was up to scratch - which is OK, I suppose, although the fan-made scene does make it debatable! It's clearly possible.
Originally Posted by Corwin:
“But it was still used in a brand new scene and not the original scene it was taken from.
So it would be no different for the regeneration scene if a quick shot of Eccleston or even a still image was used.
There is no difference between showing the 9th Doctor saving Gallifrey and the Regeneration scene, both involved using old footage/images in a new scene.
So he either gave permission for both or it was not required for either (someone in an earlier post/thread said that a scene has to be over a certain length to require the actors permission to use it).”
“But it was still used in a brand new scene and not the original scene it was taken from.
So it would be no different for the regeneration scene if a quick shot of Eccleston or even a still image was used.
There is no difference between showing the 9th Doctor saving Gallifrey and the Regeneration scene, both involved using old footage/images in a new scene.
So he either gave permission for both or it was not required for either (someone in an earlier post/thread said that a scene has to be over a certain length to require the actors permission to use it).”
Well this is only hearsay, told to me by someone I know who is close to the production, but my understanding was that the shot which was used, because it wasn't altered in any way (being on a background screen as an element in another scene doesn't count apparently!) there were no clearance problems.
Using Eccleston's image as a integral element in a completely new shot, none of which had existed before, would have needed his clearance even if not his actual presence.
It probably does depend on the specific terms of the actor's contract.
Take that as you will, but that's what I was told.
Originally Posted by Dave-H:
“Well this is only hearsay, told to me by someone I know who is close to the production, but my understanding was that the shot which was used, because it wasn't altered in any way (being on a background screen as an element in another scene doesn't count apparently!) there were no clearance problems.
Using Eccleston's image as a integral element in a completely new shot, none of which had existed before, would have needed his clearance even if not his actual presence.
It probably does depend on the specific terms of the actor's contract.
Take that as you will, but that's what I was told.
”
“Well this is only hearsay, told to me by someone I know who is close to the production, but my understanding was that the shot which was used, because it wasn't altered in any way (being on a background screen as an element in another scene doesn't count apparently!) there were no clearance problems.
Using Eccleston's image as a integral element in a completely new shot, none of which had existed before, would have needed his clearance even if not his actual presence.
It probably does depend on the specific terms of the actor's contract.
Take that as you will, but that's what I was told.
”
Surely the ending of Eccleston's shot of his to Tennant's regen scene, the part that wasnt actually used for the Eccleston to Tennant regen scene, that couldve been superimposed, just his face that is, as it was from a regeneration scene, its the same difference!
Originally Posted by lotrjw:
“Surely the ending of Eccleston's shot of his to Tennant's regen scene, the part that wasnt actually used for the Eccleston to Tennant regen scene, that couldve been superimposed, just his face that is, as it was from a regeneration scene, its the same difference!”
“Surely the ending of Eccleston's shot of his to Tennant's regen scene, the part that wasnt actually used for the Eccleston to Tennant regen scene, that couldve been superimposed, just his face that is, as it was from a regeneration scene, its the same difference!”
think this thread is going around in circles now, as using footage from the regeneration he was actually involved in, was what I suggested in the first post of this thread
2 of 3
