Wednesday, January 21, 2004
The Story of Doctor Who, 30 December 2003 (BBC One)
A rather disappointing BBC One documentary to end the 40th anniversary year.
Before I get onto the qualities of the actual programme, I must have a bitch about the cropping of archive clips. It took years for broadcasters to realise that films were better in their original aspect ratios, or at least something approaching their original aspect ratios. So why does the switch to digital mean we have to put up with 4:3 clips cropped into 14:9 or 16:9.
Of course, the main problem is the 14:9 analogue "compromise". This might still be worthwhile for drama or comedy, but for clip shows it's utterly pointless, as the programme has to be made 4:3 safe (since 14:9 isn't available on digital).
Pillarboxing the clips would be possible if it wasn't for the 14:9 ratio, which would see these clips "floating" in the middle of the screen, with a thin border all the way around it.
The solution is simple - scrap the 14:9 ratio, at least for clip shows.
But enough of that, onto the programme itself.
The main complaint must be the omission of the 1996 TV movie. The BBC's bollocks reason doesn't excuse this AFAIC, especially as the TVM is the show's most recent high profile outing. Nearly ten million viewers is twice what season 26 got at it's peak, and it was an insult to those viewers and, especially, Paul McGann that it wasn't even mentioned. You might have expected the BBC to slip in a couple of plugs for the new series, but instead we had to pick up on a comment that Colin Baker made in order to learn about that one.
It was nice to see some recently rediscovered Troughton clips, which was great for the fans. However, no doubt the more casual viewer would have liked to have seen some decently restored clips, rather than the poor quality unrestored ones we actually had.
Fortunately this wasn't "I Love 'Doctor Who'", where Jamie Theakston gets to ask, "'The Happiness Patrol...they must have all been on drugs". Instead we got relevant talking heads, including all the surviving Doctors (except McGann obviously), Verity Lambert, Barry Letts, Terrance Dicks, and a smattering of companions (most of who said about about one thing) - Peter Purves, Carol Ann Ford, Anneke Wills, Fraser Hines, Nick Courtney, Lis Sladen, Louise Jameson, Sophie Aldred and Nicola Bryant.
Nothing much new for the fans, of course (apart from the Troughton clips), and to be honest, it could have done with being better done for non-fans. Some dodgy music choices, and Jon Culshaw opening the show (which might have lead some viewers to think it was all going to be a piss-take), were rather poor decisions, but nothing compared to the omission of McGann.
If we hadn't've had the news that the show is returning to TV, this might have been better regarded by fans. After all, it was a fairly high profile slot, but when we've got a new series to look forward to, a collection of manky looking clips and the same old comments obviously pales by comparison.
A rather disappointing BBC One documentary to end the 40th anniversary year.
Before I get onto the qualities of the actual programme, I must have a bitch about the cropping of archive clips. It took years for broadcasters to realise that films were better in their original aspect ratios, or at least something approaching their original aspect ratios. So why does the switch to digital mean we have to put up with 4:3 clips cropped into 14:9 or 16:9.
Of course, the main problem is the 14:9 analogue "compromise". This might still be worthwhile for drama or comedy, but for clip shows it's utterly pointless, as the programme has to be made 4:3 safe (since 14:9 isn't available on digital).
Pillarboxing the clips would be possible if it wasn't for the 14:9 ratio, which would see these clips "floating" in the middle of the screen, with a thin border all the way around it.
The solution is simple - scrap the 14:9 ratio, at least for clip shows.
But enough of that, onto the programme itself.
The main complaint must be the omission of the 1996 TV movie. The BBC's bollocks reason doesn't excuse this AFAIC, especially as the TVM is the show's most recent high profile outing. Nearly ten million viewers is twice what season 26 got at it's peak, and it was an insult to those viewers and, especially, Paul McGann that it wasn't even mentioned. You might have expected the BBC to slip in a couple of plugs for the new series, but instead we had to pick up on a comment that Colin Baker made in order to learn about that one.
It was nice to see some recently rediscovered Troughton clips, which was great for the fans. However, no doubt the more casual viewer would have liked to have seen some decently restored clips, rather than the poor quality unrestored ones we actually had.
Fortunately this wasn't "I Love 'Doctor Who'", where Jamie Theakston gets to ask, "'The Happiness Patrol...they must have all been on drugs". Instead we got relevant talking heads, including all the surviving Doctors (except McGann obviously), Verity Lambert, Barry Letts, Terrance Dicks, and a smattering of companions (most of who said about about one thing) - Peter Purves, Carol Ann Ford, Anneke Wills, Fraser Hines, Nick Courtney, Lis Sladen, Louise Jameson, Sophie Aldred and Nicola Bryant.
Nothing much new for the fans, of course (apart from the Troughton clips), and to be honest, it could have done with being better done for non-fans. Some dodgy music choices, and Jon Culshaw opening the show (which might have lead some viewers to think it was all going to be a piss-take), were rather poor decisions, but nothing compared to the omission of McGann.
If we hadn't've had the news that the show is returning to TV, this might have been better regarded by fans. After all, it was a fairly high profile slot, but when we've got a new series to look forward to, a collection of manky looking clips and the same old comments obviously pales by comparison.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
I'm really pissed off that Sky One haven't bought season 3 of Alias.
Of course, they're a commercial company and if something isn't doing the business ratings-wise then it's always in danger of being pulled. But their treatment of season 2 was hardly great - bunging it on Sky One Mix 2/3rds of the way through the season with only a Saturday/Sunday midnight repeat on Sky One.
It's also a short-sighted move. Alias is ABC's only real drama success these days, and unless the ratings collapse it's always got a good chance of renewal. Compare that with some of Sky One's other acquistions this year. Tarzan lasted about four episodes, so that's likely to just get burned off in a graveyard slot, Jake 2.0 is apparently either out of production and/or about to be cancelled, but that might just make a primetime slot later in the year.
Sky might lot to list the likes of Fear Factor, Kirsty's Home Videos and the increasing number of films on Sky One when publicising the channel, but we all know that it's the big US imports that get people subscribing. But what's left? The Simpsons is looking increasingly unfunny these days, and personally I haven't watched Star Trek since about 1984 so I'm unlikely to bother watching Enterprise, despite all the "T'pol gets 'em out" (which since it's US TV she clearly doesn't) publicity.
So what does that leave as far as I'm concerned? Angel, possibly Nip/Tuck and maybe 24 if I've managed to avoid the trailers between now and March. Great.
It's not as though lesser channels like LivingTV, Sci-Fi or UK Gold are worth watching these days either. All three suffer badly from the "7 days..." syndrome (putting a DOG highlighting a future event that I don't give a toss about and which only gets in the way) which is so bloody off-putting I simply can't be bothered. UK Gold barely shows any sci-fi apart from Doctor Who these days, so much for the channel that once brought up Survivors, The Changes and Day of the Triffids.
Throw in the DOGs, credit squeezing, muppet continuity announcing and cuts and you wonder if you'd be better off not bothering to subscribe and simply waiting for the DVD. You could always find, ahem, other methods of watching new series in the meantime, and the number of classic series being released these days is almost unbelieveable, especially when you consider that if they ever appeared on video it was usually as butchered "feature-length" stories.
Of course, they're a commercial company and if something isn't doing the business ratings-wise then it's always in danger of being pulled. But their treatment of season 2 was hardly great - bunging it on Sky One Mix 2/3rds of the way through the season with only a Saturday/Sunday midnight repeat on Sky One.
It's also a short-sighted move. Alias is ABC's only real drama success these days, and unless the ratings collapse it's always got a good chance of renewal. Compare that with some of Sky One's other acquistions this year. Tarzan lasted about four episodes, so that's likely to just get burned off in a graveyard slot, Jake 2.0 is apparently either out of production and/or about to be cancelled, but that might just make a primetime slot later in the year.
Sky might lot to list the likes of Fear Factor, Kirsty's Home Videos and the increasing number of films on Sky One when publicising the channel, but we all know that it's the big US imports that get people subscribing. But what's left? The Simpsons is looking increasingly unfunny these days, and personally I haven't watched Star Trek since about 1984 so I'm unlikely to bother watching Enterprise, despite all the "T'pol gets 'em out" (which since it's US TV she clearly doesn't) publicity.
So what does that leave as far as I'm concerned? Angel, possibly Nip/Tuck and maybe 24 if I've managed to avoid the trailers between now and March. Great.
It's not as though lesser channels like LivingTV, Sci-Fi or UK Gold are worth watching these days either. All three suffer badly from the "7 days..." syndrome (putting a DOG highlighting a future event that I don't give a toss about and which only gets in the way) which is so bloody off-putting I simply can't be bothered. UK Gold barely shows any sci-fi apart from Doctor Who these days, so much for the channel that once brought up Survivors, The Changes and Day of the Triffids.
Throw in the DOGs, credit squeezing, muppet continuity announcing and cuts and you wonder if you'd be better off not bothering to subscribe and simply waiting for the DVD. You could always find, ahem, other methods of watching new series in the meantime, and the number of classic series being released these days is almost unbelieveable, especially when you consider that if they ever appeared on video it was usually as butchered "feature-length" stories.
Monday, January 19, 2004
Doctor Who - Scream of the Shalka: parts 5 & 6
It might only be 6 x 10 minute episodes long, and only available on the Internet (well, and on BBCi if you've got DSAT), but that doesn't excuse Scream of the Shalka for being a bit crap. After all, if it hadn't've been for the announcement of the new TV series then this could have been the future of Doctor Who. God help us if it had been...
There's more fanwank to cringe at during the final two episodes, with the Doctor's Andy Warhol reference. Grant might have been just reading the script in the early episodes, but he's gone hyper by the time we get to part 6.
However, it's not just Grant's performance that needs criticising. The Doctor's character seems paper thin - the singing, the Eurovision ong Contest reference, the bit about England conquering the Earth are a poor subject for actual characterisation, while asking whether he's "irritating...yet" can only produce one answer as far as I'm concerned.
Allison is pretty annoying by the end of the story. She started off promising, but the character and Sophie Okonedo's performance have both declined over the duration of the story (although to be fair, giving her lines like the "emotional island" one hardly helped her).
The Shalka aren't any better. The Doctor says they're the worst thing he's ever faced, which is clearly just bollocks, and all that ecology stuff is laid on with a trowel.
Derek Jacobi's Master has been largely underused in the earlier episodes, and there's not much difference here either. At least he gets to provide the more interesting moments of the story, with some questions left unanswered, although if they're going to be revealed in further stories then I only hoped the quality of those stories is higher than this one.
It might only be 6 x 10 minute episodes long, and only available on the Internet (well, and on BBCi if you've got DSAT), but that doesn't excuse Scream of the Shalka for being a bit crap. After all, if it hadn't've been for the announcement of the new TV series then this could have been the future of Doctor Who. God help us if it had been...
There's more fanwank to cringe at during the final two episodes, with the Doctor's Andy Warhol reference. Grant might have been just reading the script in the early episodes, but he's gone hyper by the time we get to part 6.
However, it's not just Grant's performance that needs criticising. The Doctor's character seems paper thin - the singing, the Eurovision ong Contest reference, the bit about England conquering the Earth are a poor subject for actual characterisation, while asking whether he's "irritating...yet" can only produce one answer as far as I'm concerned.
Allison is pretty annoying by the end of the story. She started off promising, but the character and Sophie Okonedo's performance have both declined over the duration of the story (although to be fair, giving her lines like the "emotional island" one hardly helped her).
The Shalka aren't any better. The Doctor says they're the worst thing he's ever faced, which is clearly just bollocks, and all that ecology stuff is laid on with a trowel.
Derek Jacobi's Master has been largely underused in the earlier episodes, and there's not much difference here either. At least he gets to provide the more interesting moments of the story, with some questions left unanswered, although if they're going to be revealed in further stories then I only hoped the quality of those stories is higher than this one.
