Thinking back to the days of Voyager nearly every outdoor scene was a desert or forest.
seeing what a huge smash Dr who has been why in god's name dont they increase the budget so bigger sets,special effects can rival that anything the trek stable threw out.
i often wonder the amount of totally crazy money they throw at eastenders yet had dr who had a ratings dip like eastenders we all know the show would have been canned.
I still get the feeling BBC looks down it's nose at this type of show which is sad and very worrying,IMO its shows like DW and TW show you the difference between ITV and BBC.

I imagine getting a desert or forest location is slightly easier if you're filming in Los Angeles and these areas are on your doorstep, than if you're in Wales and they aren't.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that the BBC looks down it's nose at Dr Who? it is one of it's flagship shows.

For me one of Dr Who's many strengths is that is doesn't run around in the same forest/desert/backlot every week. The sets completely out do any other sci-fi show on a weekly basis. Don't forget that the only static sets in Dr Who are the Tardis and the odd home/flat, other sci-fi shows with bigger budgets use static sets, Star Trek being an example, so more money is available for effects shots, just think of how many Star Trek stories are set only within the Enterprise/Voager etc. Dr Who requires new sets, new costumes and so on for every new story, how many aliens in other shows are nearly always in human form, their budget isnt being used in that area so more mony for special effects, now compare that to Dr Who.

Just take a second and actually look at the production values on Dr Who week in week out, the sets, the direction, the editing and it more than matches anything else, running around every week in a desert or forest doesnt equal better production values.

I'd rather have the variation of Who.

And when Dr Who does use location filming that again is far superior than any other sci-fi show and not the same desert/forest/Universal backl lot. Look at The Empty Child/ Dr Dances, the location shots for TGITFP, Tooth and claw, the brilliant use of the old Dr Who favourite 'the quarry' in The Satan Pit, The Shakespeare code and the jaw dropping location work on Human nature/FOB, That is to name just a few, there are many many more.

Now compare that to the location work on Star Trek or any other sci-fi show, I know which one has the better production values there.

I'm sure the BBC knows where there is a quarry or gravel pit they could use for outdoors filming

I can understand the OPs point.

Just think how much money it'd get if the Beeb cancelled Eastenders and the overpriced soap "stars" wages.

You have got to be kidding. In New Who, the TARDIS basically just travels to either England/Wales or various space stations. The space station stuff just involves redressing a few standard sets anytime we see a "new" space station. But you are talking about the location work, so let's just deal with that. What's so bloody great about making a contemporary British city look like a contemporary British city? Or the contemporary British countryside look like the early 20th century British countryside (as in "Human Nature/Family Of Blood")? Had the various Star Trek series been SET in late 20th century Southern California, I am confident the producers could have managed to do equally impressive location work. And on Stargate SG-1, it may not have been very impressive that every alien planet they travelled to looked like a Vancouver-area forest, but at least the characters, in the stories, weren't just travelling, through the Stargate, to Vancouver! Or weren't just travelling to alien space stations, as opposed to alien planets, for that matter. RTD has only avoided using the "same old quarry over and over again" by basically limiting the stories on New Who to "Earth-based" episodes (which are basically Britain-based episodes) and "space station" episodes, and the series suffers for that. It would be preferable to pass off a quarry or a forest in Britain as an alien planet on New Who.

There is nothing wrong with the current format and they do use outdoor locations in Wales remarkably well.

Comparing this to star trek or stargate is ridiculous when Doctor Who already makes better use of it's surroundings and studios than these programs.

The production values of Doctor Who are by far one of the best things about the show

But the point is that OF COURSE a program about half of which is SET in early 21st century Britain is going to make good use of its "surroundings," the same way that any American police show set in Los Angeles makes great use of Los Angeles. But how much of the greater Los Angeles area is useful for a show set in the 24th century, and in outer space? How much of Vancouver is useful for a show about travelling through a Stargate to alien planets every week? And Stargate Atlantis is set in an entirely different galaxy than ours. Do you think the Stargate producers have the luxury of filming in downtown Vancouver and passing Vancouver off as a city in another galaxy, the way Doctor Who films in Cardiff and passes it off as...London?

As in old Who for most of the time as well, your point being MoreTears? What bearing does that have on location shots and studio sets?


Really, can you give me examples? What episodes were they?


Why it is 'so bloody great' is that it ISN'T the same forest everyweek, it isn't hard to understand really, that Who uses a wide variety of locations, just because you are happy to see every world as a forest doesn't mean I have to be. I know it is hard for you to understand but there is life out side of US sci-fi, shocking isn't it, and sometimes other shows even do some things better and in Dr Who's case, compared to Star Trek and Stragate, it is locations and sets, I cant see how you can disagree with that. Still at least you haven't gone into your usual anti American spiel when someone even remotely criticises a US show, so well done for that, makes a change.




So we are in some agreement, Stargate locations aren't as impressive as Dr Who locations.



Just as the old Who earth bound episodes were Uk based, your point being? Again sorry to shock you MoreTears but Dr Who is a BRITISH show, and that chances are the Earth bound stories will be set in the UK, bit of a no brainer that really if you think about it.

Yes, the series is really suffering isn't it?

Why would it be preferable to always pass of quarrys and forests in New Who ? because Star Trek/Stargate does it, heaven forbid a show not doing what Star Trek or Stargate does all the time.

No, in Old Who the TARDIS actually landed on alien worlds, often. Not inside space stations all the time, but outside. You can't figure out what bearing that has on location shots? Just a HUGE bearing, is all. You can't make downtown Cardiff an alien world. And if you can't build a whole new city at the studio or use CGI you have to use a forest or a quarry -- which is why RTD keeps New Who as Earth-centered as possible, in contrast to the old series, in which Earth historical stories were evened out by alien world stories practically one-for-one outside of the Pertwee years, when the Doctor at least had a REASON for not travelling the universe (the other Time Lords wouldn't let him).




You really need a list of space station episodes that were made in studio? Look it up on Wikipedia if the list isn't obvious, as it should be to everybody.



If you like that Doctor Who is set half the time in 21st century Britain, then just say that. I say there is nothing "great," as in difficult or imaginative from a TV production standpoint, in making 21st century Britain LOOK like 21st century Britain. How do you not understand such an elementary point? How is that standard TV location shooting adding "production value?" You just take a camera outside and start shooting! Very basic stuff, and Star Trek couldn't do that because none of Star Trek took place in 20th century California the way half of New Who takes place in modern Britain.

And as for the snide stuff directed at me, I don't just go around calling people anti-American when someone is just being wrongheaded. Obviously I wouldn't even have watched Doctor Who if I think there isn't "life outside US sci-fi." I LIKE Doctor Who, and it is ten times better than crap American sci-fi like the Bionic Woman remake and Journeyman. I outright LOVED the final six episodes of Doctor Who's 3rd season. But like most of the posters here who aren't diehard DW fanboys, I think RTD could be doing some things differently and for the better, and I don't make false claims about the show to "big it up."



I said Stargate locations aren't impressive. I did NOT say that Doctor Who locations are impressive, or "more impressive." They aren't, they are just more numerous and varied because the show is SET in modern Britain, while the action in Stargate takes place on alien worlds, when it isn't at the base beneath a mountain in the US.





Did I say there was anything WRONG with the earth-based Doctor Who stories taking place in Britain? No, I was just pointing out that that makes it very easy to film on location in Britain. Location shooting that had to use extensive CGI to make a desert environment or Alpine environment or whatever WOULD BE IMPRESSIVE, but really expensive on a TV budget, so Doctor Who doesn't do that and just sets everything in Britain.


I have already told you what is "preferable." Going to alien worlds. Because Star Trek and Stargate do that? Obviously not. How about because the very premise of Doctor Who, from its inception, is that an alien has a vehicle at his disposal that can travel the whole universe, so it is inherently absurd that said vehicle usually hangs around Cardiff and London council estates when it isn't travelling into Earth's past or future. I mean, really. Think about it. Star Trek's spaceships can't travel the universe. It took Voyager seven seasons of constant travel just to get from one point in our galaxy to another. The Stargate system can't take anybody anywhere in the universe, just to places within the Stargate network. Yet the characters in those shows go to other worlds all the time. Doctor Who needs to be more about going to other worlds in the universe, not to copy what American series are doing, but to follow the logic of its OWN concept. The TARDIS is not just a time machine.

im glad you made this post tonight was a prime example you had DW in between 2 episodes of Eastenders and sorry DW totally shamed eastenders for acting alone.
i think one of the points i didnt really make well shows like babylon 5 used blue/green screen graphics a lot
a lot of that stuff was pretty cheap looking but as we saw in tonights xmas special they have the ability to make it look just as good as anything the USA can.
tbh i could think of nothing better than letting us in on a few new secrets about the Tardis most scifi shows have at least one episode thats based around the shows ship/station etc.
id love to see some of the previous doctors come back and question the dr about his actions in the timewar,hehe im thinking General Zod moment...hehe

Agreed. Another difference is Trek would build everything. On 42 the DW went to a disused factory for the engine room. Trek would've built it on a sound stage. Also Trek filmed each episode in 6 and a half days. DW tapes each episode over 3 weeks. That in addition to taping similar ep's back-to-back, lets DW get more use from its sets, locations & costumes before moving on... There's another difference - make-up. Look at how many aliens Trek has compared to DW.

No Moretears, I asked for you to let me know the episodes where you say that sets had been reused from previous ones. To quote you again 'The space station stuff just involves redressing a few standard sets anytime we see a "new" space station.'

What episodes were these as I would like to know, so I can keep an eye out for it next time I watch those episodes, why make me search the web when you know the answer to a point that you raised yourself?


I'm not even going to attempt to begin to say how unbelievably wide of the mark that statement is with regards to location shooting.



Now back to the point of the thread, read the OP by Emoqueen,


My response to that was, in a nutshell, that Dr Who uses far more sets and location shoots in a series than the Trek franchise or Stargate does in a series, as those shows use static sets and at times have entire episodes for the whole based within those static sets, the same sets that are used every episode, every series. I'm not saying that they dont have new sets, different locations but nothing like New Who does.

So I cant see how EmoQueens statement of
equates to better production values. You are right that Dr Who doesn't use forests as alien planets, and rarely if at all features alien planets,but if it did and used forests everytime there would be uproar.

The production values on say, Human Nature/Family of Blood far outwiegh any production value on a location shoot on a forest shoot on Stargate.

The call for more alien planet based stories are usually made by people that have this romantic view of old Who when they were a kid. The alien planet has been done to death in old Who, just as the forest has been done to death in Stargate, maybe that is why the Who producers dont use forests at the moment because it has become a sci-fi cliche just as the 'quarry' became a cliche for old Who.

The classic Who alien planet story was usually on these lines, Tardis lands, Dr and companion caught up between two warring fractions, usually set in a quarry or a mine. That is basically the classic Who alien planet story. It just isn't going to appeal to the saturday afternoon family audience any more, times have changed and that is why the producers don't do it.

Would there really be an "uproar"? You're sure? I'm not aware of any uproar over Stargate's making every alien planet look like the same forest. I think people who watch Stargate note the fact, have a bit of a laugh, and carry on watching the show because they like the storylines and characters, forgiving the monotonous forest scenes because, as relatively sophisticated viewers, they are aware of the limits of television budgets, and know that Stargate is made in a place surrounded by forest land. Why would the British public be so less forgiving toward Doctor Who because it can't afford to travel to a wide variety of landscapes to simulate different alien planets? I could see Brits being embarrassed if the American shows were able to afford a wide variety of landscapes, either created by CGI or by travelling to those different places, but since the American shows can't afford that, how would Brits feel shamed by Doctor Who following the same cost-control regimen of using the landscape available where the series is shot?


The problem I have with that statement in particular, and your position in general, is that a lot of the "production value" in Stargate location shoots in the forest comes not from shooting outside scenery, but from what is HAPPENING in the forest shots. Unlike Doctor Who, Stargate is a military show, so you get a lot of CGI-heavy battle and action sequences in Stargate that make the occasional firing of a laser pistol by a member of the Family of Bood look tame. THAT eats up a lot of Stargate's budget, and it certainly counts as production value, although maybe that isn't what YOU want to see in a show. Me, I can appreciate both styles of sci-fi TV. I do think a lot of Doctor Who's value lies in the fact that it is a nice change of pace, a departure, from the more military-centric American sci-fi.


I am certainly not one of the people who romanticizes Old Who. Old Who had a lot of shortcomings that do not apply to New Who, and New Who is clearly superior. But I will reiterate a point I made in a post above, and say that visiting alien worlds is part of the internal logic of a show that has a space ship that can travel anywhere in the universe. I cannot force you to address that point, but please, I would like to hear your thoughts about that. The TARDIS is a hybrid space ship/time machine. That is a fact that RTD cannot change, because he inherited Doctor Who's premise rather than inventing it himself. RTD clearly prefers to focus on the time machine part of the equation and the space ship aspect is minimized. (It is significant that in "Rose" Rose does not accept the Doctor's offer to take her with him when he says the TARDIS is a space ship, but Rose changes her mind when the Doctor says it also travels in time. RTD was making his intentions clear with that scene.) Now you say that the Saturday tea time audience in Britain doesn't want the "alien planet" stories, and I don't know if that is true, but if it is true, for the sake of argument, then that sounds to me like the modern British audience rejects HALF of what classic Doctor Who was all about.

I agree with MoreTears, as an avid SG-1 watcher for 10 years, I never thought at any time - oh same old set again. The only time I had any criticism was the Abydos scenes in the series not being as good as the movie ones (which is pretty darn obvious).

Last nights Dr Who however, I thought 'Cardiff again'.

The booyah Britishness really isn't much of argument. US TV shows have bigger budgets, therefore better production and better on-location filming.

I think that might be too much of a generalization. Did the average Stargate episode have a bigger budget than the average episode of Doctor Who? I think it might be a bit less, or close to the same. The BBC is Britain's biggest broadcaster. Shows on the big American networks have bigger budgets than what the BBC can afford, but it is easy to forget that very little American science fiction TV is made by the US networks. Stargate was made by the cable Sci-Fi Channel, a "niche" broadcaster whose annual budget is no doubt dwarfed by BBC's budget.

And as far as Stargate having better on location filming, well, my argument has involved admitting that Doctor Who has more varied location shooting than Stargate, in large part because Stargate couldn't pass off Vancouver as an alien city while in Doctor Who Cardiff is pausibly passed off as London (at least to somebody like me far from London, I suppose). But I do think that with its action sequences and CGI Stargate made good use of its location shoots.

Moretears
This is where we tend to differ on what falls into the terms production values, your point about effects/cgi used in location shoots is of course part of production values just as in Who's case on episodes like Human Nature/The empty Child are the costumes, the dressing of the sets (even location sets have to be dressed, and sometimes physicaly altered) the direction/photography, the lighting of the location and the actual location itself. Would you say that period dramas like Pride and Prejudice, Brideshead Revisited, Bleak House or Merchant Ivory films have no production values because there are no cgi spaceships zipping about in them and that it is just a case of, to use your term 'You just take a camera outside and start shooting! Very basic stuff,'

It's is these kind of production values on new Who that other sci-fi shows just do not deliver time after time. A lot of sci-fi fans only seem to think that production values means more special effects and dimly lit static sets when there is far far more that constitutes production values in sci-fi.

See, this is where a prolonged discussion pays off. I think we are at a point where we have cleared up some misunderstanding and really understand where we both stand. I AGREE with you that Doctor Who has a lot of production value, but that the specific NATURE of that production value lies in some different areas than where you would see it in American sci-fi shows. Because the TARDIS interior is really the only "static set" you CAN have in Doctor Who, a larger proportion of DW's budget HAS to go to varying the "look" of each new episode than would be the case with American sci-fi series (Heroes might be an exception, but that show almost certainly has a much bigger budget than DW, because it is a big network show, unlike Stargate, Battlestar Galactica, etc.). So we are in agreement there. My objection to what New Who does to contain costs, however, is that they have limited the visits to alien worlds in order to avoid spending even more money on creating new and different "looks" for episodes, and my position is that I would prefer that New Who sacrificed some variety of locations to accommodate stories set on alien worlds, IF that is what they have to do to contain costs. Basically, what I'm saying is that if Doctor Who can't afford to make an alien world look better than a forest or a quarry, fine, I personally, and I think most DW viewers, would forgive that, just as Stargate's monotonous forest shots are forgiven by viewers because we are not naive enough to be unaware of the limits of TV series' budgets.

Let me also say that although I think New Who is too Earth-centric, and have no expectation that that will change, I do really like the show as it is. The revival of New Who has been a great success, and I think that has happened because RTD has "Americanized" Doctor Who -- 45 minute episodes, quick story pace that basically follows the standard four-act structure of American dramas, less ponderous dialogue than you see in a lot of British dramas -- without making the show "American." As it should be, Doctor Who is still distinctly British, is quite different than American sci fi shows in many ways, and is impossible to imagine being duplicated in America. Yes, I have crossed swords with Who fans who insist DW is the GREATEST THING EVER, and I probably will again, but I'm a fan too. No question.

I seem to recall that Sci-Fi channel provide very little of the budget for the Stargate series. MGM make the show it's their 2nd biggest franchise behind the Bond series, so they put up the big budget money for the episodes. Sci-Fi channel just paid for the rights to air the show after Showtime decided not to renew the 4th series.

Being a fan of both shows, I can appreciate both sides of the argument. Stargate got away with the same forrest week in week out because the writers took advantage of the situation by saying the Stargate only travelled to other Earth like planets very early on in the series.

I read about someone saying that they just re-dress the space station sets in Dr Who, I have news for you so did SG-1. The space ship sets were always redressed to make another space ship or space station scenes, just a touch up here, different lighting or colour you had yourself another space ship.

As for Dr Who only being UK based, they are starting to address that a bit. Don't forget in the last series they did have principal location shoots for New York to make the 2 part Dalek episode. Also in the upcoming series they have actually filmed oversees in the Ancient Rome sets used for the series Rome.

The thing with the BBC budget is aren't they tied down by guidelines from the government or the BBC Trust on how they have to split the TV license fee as that is the main source of income for the BBC, so they can't just throw a large sum of money at Dr Who and provide very little for documentaries. Unlike the American broadcasters who will just butcher shows full of adverts to get more money. That's the one thing that annoys me about US shows, you get the episode intro, title credits run and then adverts straight away.

I'd rather have a low budget with high imagination any day, rather than the dull, unimaginative, plodding tripe the Trek franchise threw at its audience week in week out.

I don't care if the special effects rival Trek - the fact is that the important bit, the story telling, is, was and always will be light years ahead.

I'm glad Doctor Who isn't doing quite so many quarries these days. And I like the locations - I connect much more to stories taking place in modern day London (for instance) than on an alien wasteland.

And I think we don't even notice some of the locations and how well they are used - WWII London in Empty Child, for instance, or the rural locations in Family of Blood and Tooth and Claw.

I think there was something a little but samey about the alien worlds we saw in the likes of Voyager or Stargate. The alien cultures in particular always seemed very much based on our own. I think Doctor Who is far more imaginative - look at The Ood or the weird society we see in Gridlock/New Earth. And, ofcourse, the amazing sets and effects in Satan Pit/Impossible Planet.

All in all, I think Who does very well.

Relatively speaking Eastenders costs the BBC very little. Soaps are extremely cheap to make.

Paramount is a global, commercial media company, who make billions every year worldwide. They can afford to spend more money on their programming, although for the record I much prefer Doctor Who. All those planets in ST look strangely like Earth.

And this is, of course, nonsense. This is the kind of silliness that some Doctor Who fans come up with that just keeps them from being taken seriously. Both Trek and Who produce(d) great stories as well as their share of dud episodes, and none of the Star Trek series ever sank quite as low as "Fear Her," which I judge to be one of the worst episodes of a science fiction TV series I have ever seen, and believe me, I have seen a huge amount of science fiction in my life.

And I have said it before at DS and I will keep saying it: though Doctor Who fans keep citing "The Girl In The Fireplace" as a master work, it is a variation on DS9's "The Visitor," and frankly, isn't nearly as good. And the storyline in"Human Nature/Family Of Blood," which I am a big fan of, borrows a lot from Next Generation's "The Inner Light," a Star Trek episode which Human Nature's writer, Paul Cornell, very likely adores, if you read the commentary on "The Inner Light" that is is in the book The New Trek Program Guide, which Cornell co-authored: "Truly beautiful and life-affirming...Difficult to watch without a lump in the throat and a prickly sensation behind the eyes. A masterpiece."