|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 25, 2024 8:50:15 GMT
I need Missy to do a cover of Avril Lavigne's "Girlfriend" next To be fair is that any worse than her singing Hey Mickey? New Who has been hard to parody since 2014 LOL. Funny factoid about Girlfriend is that it was a clever satire that went over people's heads. At least the video was. Avril plays the three girls. The blonde bimbo who is the most popular girl, the horrible bullying brunette, and the nerdy red headed nice girl. However she ended up being so convincing that lots of people thought it was three different people playing those roles and complained that the video promoted bullying, by having a gorgeous blonde girl pick on some poor plain girl. The whole point was meant to be how shallow the awful guy is that he doesn't notice all three of them look exactly the same, but because one has glasses, she's a repulsive plain jane. Sadly that's what a lot of the critics ended up saying as well unknowingly. (The joke is also on the girls all chasing this awful guy just because he's popular, and clearly doesn't like them for who they are,) I quite like Avril Lavigne. She was one of my favourites before Amy came along. I think her first album is her best. It's very Buffy's 00s angsty pop which is great nostalgia for me at least. I hear though she's supposed to be very difficult in real life or at least was back then. I hope she's mellowed out over time. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 26, 2024 14:16:37 GMT
I need Missy to do a cover of Avril Lavigne's "Girlfriend" next I quite like Avril Lavigne. She was one of my favourites before Amy came along. I think her first album is her best. It's very Buffy's 00s angsty pop which is great nostalgia for me at least. I hear though she's supposed to be very difficult in real life or at least was back then. I hope she's mellowed out over time. Come on Iank, Mott1 is that song not EXACTLY the type of emo music you'd expect to hear in Buffy LOL. I can just imagine that song playing after Buffy has killed Angel, or been betrayed by another of her friends going evil, or is sobbing uncontrollably over something awful. I'm amazed they never played this in Buffy. I guess Avril was too expensive or too difficult. God can you imagine how bad it would be having Joss and Avril in the one room if the rumours of her being difficult are to be believed LOL. I'd feel sorry for whoever else was in that meeting. |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Mar 27, 2024 21:26:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by iank on Mar 27, 2024 21:42:17 GMT
Love Rusty admitting the show might have had to have good stories without Disney money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2024 22:07:44 GMT
I don't understand the obsession with turning Doctor Who into a multimedia mega-franchise. It's a family science fiction programme that runs on a Saturday teatime, and as we've seen before, you don't need a massive budget to make it good. Doctor Who was at its peak in the Baker years and Tennant years respectively, and a lot of the special effects from those times are incredibly iffy, the former with the farcical practical effects, the latter with the sloppy CGI. The same can be said of the original two Star Trek shows, the 60s one and the 80s one, when the franchise peaked. People grew disinterested with both Doctor Who and Star Trek when the writing got sloppy, which coincidentally was when HDTV came along, we got fantastic CGI, state-of-the-art digital cameras and whatnot. It's a meaningless preoccupation to have, that interest in a show or film is determined by how expensive it looks. In fact, I'd say current Who has been damaged by this mindset, as they're trying to be at a Star Wars level, but they simply don't have the resources, or perhaps the technical competence, to compete with Star Wars and a lot of the CGI sequences and digital cinematography end up looking pathetically amateur. The latter was especially clear in the Jodie era with the inappropriate use of anamorphic lenses and close-ups so ridiculously tight I could practically feel the characters' breath in my face. And then you look up the directors and you see they have about 2 credits for a video short and a dopey web series made decades before starting on Doctor Who. Where are these people coming from? British filmmaking used to be a behemoth; the BBC was a venerated institution around the world. Even the old British Transport railway films, which I've been a bit obsessed with recently (BFI have a bunch of box sets if you're curious), have some stunning cinematography; simple, effective, down-to-earth shots with colours that pop, great symmetry, angles, motion, etc. And now we've got a bunch of kids playing with expensive toys they don't understand; smudged, stupidy shallow DOF fuzzy-looking crap. Even the simple street scenes in Church on Ruby Road looked like they'd been smeared with some weird digital filtering, strange colour-correction. And that's not even mentioning the absurd direction. Rachel Talalay is hardly above this lunacy either; I thought the night scenes in The Doctor Falls looked utterly atrocious, absolutely seventh-rate amateur hour film school colour grading. And of course the new special she did had all the same problems as those around it. When will these morons just rent out a 35mm camera with a normal f*cking lens and shoot sensibly? What the f*ck. God I'm getting pissed now, this turned into a right little rant.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 27, 2024 22:07:54 GMT
If he hadn't swooped in would DW go public domain? I'm not sure how that works, but isn't it if the company that owns the rights goes bankrupt then its free? How annoying to think RTD sold it to Disney, ensuring that it's NEVER going public domain even in 100 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 27, 2024 22:47:02 GMT
I don't understand the obsession with turning Doctor Who into a multimedia mega-franchise. It's a family science fiction programme that runs on a Saturday teatime, and as we've seen before, you don't need a massive budget to make it good. Doctor Who was at its peak in the Baker years and Tennant years respectively, and a lot of the special effects from those times are incredibly iffy, the former with the farcical practical effects, the latter with the sloppy CGI. The same can be said of the original two Star Trek shows, the 60s one and the 80s one, when the franchise peaked. People grew disinterested with both Doctor Who and Star Trek when the writing got sloppy, which coincidentally was when HDTV came along, we got fantastic CGI, state-of-the-art digital cameras and whatnot. It's a meaningless preoccupation to have, that interest in a show or film is determined by how expensive it looks. In fact, I'd say current Who has been damaged by this mindset, as they're trying to be at a Star Wars level, but they simply don't have the resources, or perhaps the technical competence, to compete with Star Wars and a lot of the CGI sequences and digital cinematography end up looking pathetically amateur. The latter was especially clear in the Jodie era with the inappropriate use of anamorphic lenses and close-ups so ridiculously tight I could practically feel the characters' breath in my face. And then you look up the directors and you see they have about 2 credits for a video short and a dopey web series made decades before starting on Doctor Who. Where are these people coming from? British filmmaking used to be a behemoth; the BBC was a venerated institution around the world. Even the old British Transport railway films, which I've been a bit obsessed with recently (BFI have a bunch of box sets if you're curious), have some stunning cinematography; simple, effective, down-to-earth shots with colours that pop, great symmetry, angles, motion, etc. And now we've got a bunch of kids playing with expensive toys they don't understand; smudged, stupidy shallow DOF fuzzy-looking crap. Even the simple street scenes in Church on Ruby Road looked like they'd been smeared with some weird digital filtering, strange colour-correction. And that's not even mentioning the absurd direction. Rachel Talalay is hardly above this lunacy either; I thought the night scenes in The Doctor Falls looked utterly atrocious, absolutely seventh-rate amateur hour film school colour grading. And of course the new special she did had all the same problems as those around it. When will these morons just rent out a 35mm camera with a normal f*cking lens and shoot sensibly? What the f*ck. God I'm getting pissed now, this turned into a right little rant. You know speaking as someone who has in the past been open to DW spin offs, honestly I don't think they are such a good idea now. I'm not completely against them. I still think Romana the series would have been better than what they did with Jodie, but yeah I don't think it should ever be a priority. Maybe it's because of Big Finish ramming the concept into the ground, but honestly I think a spin off in something like DW is very difficult for many reasons. A big reason you do spin offs, or build up a shared universe is if you want to do something you can't do with the original show. Arrow and its spin off The Flash and its spin off Legends of Tomorrow for instance which did all work at first were a prime example of this. Arrow fights ordinary crooks, the Flash is a superhero, the Legends travel in time. All things you couldn't do in the previous show, all exciting contrasts for that reason. (They only collapsed because of the poor writing in later series.) DW however can't really do this to the same extent because its lead character can go anywhere in time and space. If you want to do say a UNIT spin off series about them fighting aliens week in, week out, how is that any different to the Pertwee era or any random invasion earth story in DW? Others like Buffy and Angel, Xena and Hercules meanwhile did explore similar villains, ideas, and settings etc, but stood out from their parent show because the lead characters were different. There's justification in showing us how Angel can cope on his own. Indeed one could say that they had to dump him from Buffy because he was too big a character and would have undermined her if he'd stayed. Also Xena and Angel were established in the parent show linking them with their audiences. With DW however, again I don't see any established character in DW being capable of carrying a show and it not f*cking up the dynamic of the original show. The Daleks, Cybermen, Sontarans are all great characters who could carry a show technically, but again having the Daleks appear every week in a different series, would make their appearances in DW considerably less interesting and noteworthy. Unlike Angel who on Buffy had run his course, you'd never want to get rid of the Daleks or the Cybermen or the Master permanently. That's why spin offs about these characters have always worked in spin off material more than on tv. Meanwhile sympathetic major characters like companions, well the reason they leave is often because the actor wants to do something else, also as many of them are ordinary people from modern day earth (especially in new who.) What is there to explore? Furthermore having the old companion appear as a big deal in another show might undermine the current companion too. As seen with Sarah it's easier to pull it off with a companion from years ago, but even then not all of them are as famous as Sarah, or as capable a character of leading a show. Another option, of not making them spin offs, but series about different heroes set in the same continuity like DC and Marvel doesn't really work either because the Doctor will obviously overshadow them as he has been the main hero of that continuity for 60 years now. To set up a big continuity like that, I think you need to establish the heroes as living together fairly early in their history, which both Marvel and DC did. Furthermore these characters won't have a proper connection with the Doctor for fans to get invested in again like Angel and Xena did for Buffy/Herc fans. We've seen two DW spin offs burn out for this reason. Class which had no characters from DW in it, and Torchwood which had Jack who'd been in about 5 episodes. (To be fair they also flopped because they were crap LOL, but even then I don't think they pulled in audiences the way that say Xena and Angel did from Buffy.) Again I'm not saying a really good, creative team couldn't maybe do something interesting with a Romana spin off, or maybe even a Dalek one and find a way for it not to undermine them in DW. Still it's a very uphill task and honestly when your main show is struggling as badly as DW has been, it should NOT be your priority. |
|
|
|
Post by zarius on Mar 28, 2024 6:56:24 GMT
Pretty weird for Russell to say "They don't have me by the balls, I can f*ck off any time, then see where you'll be"
|
|
|
|
Post by iank on Mar 28, 2024 7:31:05 GMT
Less embarrassed, for one thing...
|
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Mar 28, 2024 8:40:47 GMT
Another option, of not making them spin offs, but series about different heroes set in the same continuity like DC and Marvel doesn't really work either because the Doctor will obviously overshadow them as he has been the main hero of that continuity for 60 years now. Ah, but this is why genius RTD decided to splinter each Doctor off into his own universe, so any one of them could have their own spinoff. The David Tennant Show is, as Thanos might say, inevitable. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 28, 2024 9:05:18 GMT
Pretty weird for Russell to say "They don't have me by the balls, I can f*ck off any time, then see where you'll be" Oh no, no, no, no. You mean if he left we wouldn't have a sex obsessed, narcissistic, self indulgent, painfully out of touch, hypocritical hack running the show, who shows open contempt for the original series in pretty much every interview from Davros gate, to the colourised Daleks, to that recent clip, who goes out of his way to vandalise its icons and outright abuses the fans when they dare question him on social media? How would the series ever cope? Oh my god, we might get someone who actually respects the original and science fiction writing it. The horror! If that happened we might not be keeeewwwwwwwlllll among Gen Z. You have to appeal to things they are into, like the X-Factor, Myspace, and McFly in order to be relevant. BTW anybody else think it's pretty f*cking hilarious that RTD just insulted his employers. Remember Russell the Beeb DO still own the f*cking thing. What happens if Disney pull the plug on this deal? You'll then be stuck with the BBC saying "yeah we're really going to work with the prick that made out we can't do the thing on our own and that told everyone that we are going under." I mean Jesus Christ, a part of me thinks the man's had some kind of mental breakdown only because his behavior is reaching self destructive levels of narcissism. |
|
|
|
Post by ClockworkOcean on Mar 28, 2024 10:12:54 GMT
Surely you're not suggesting there was anything wrong with where they were before you returned, are you Russell? Wasn't the show flourishing under the "joyous", "brilliant" stewardship of your "good friend" Chris Chibnall?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Mar 28, 2024 10:20:12 GMT
He's ruled out a 20th anniversary special of NuWho.
To be fair, he already did three of them last year anyway...
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Mar 28, 2024 10:37:38 GMT
He's ruled out a 20th anniversary special of NuWho. To be fair, he already did three of them last year anyway... Actually he didn't. I'd expect a 20th celebration of even New Who to reference Moffat's Doctors, but nope. |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Mar 28, 2024 10:50:36 GMT
He's ruled out a 20th anniversary special of NuWho. To be fair, he already did three of them last year anyway... Actually he didn't. Are you implying I'm wrong and therefore criticising me?  |
|
