How obfuscated does the reply need to be to avoid getting into trouble, given my prior statement of intent? --Vitenka
Re: First episode (Rose) DR asks: So what did you think? Thumbs up or down?
Sorry, no TV - SunKitten, who's curious about it now
Um. It can be found (ILLEGALLY --BtPerson??) online fairly easily. I actually saw it live, complete with the "Some idiot sound technician left his mike on" dub :) The CGI was delightfully tacky. And everyone there agreed that it was very different, and very much a Doctor.
To discuss the legality. I actually have a TV licence right now. I can time-shift. The means I choose to do this by are an internet connection, instead of a VCR... --Vitenka
Having a TV licence is irrelevant. It's legal under the CD&P Act to make an off-air recording for the purposes of time-shifting. It's not legal to download one from the internet. Sorry. And the person who made the original recording available for download is certainly committing an offence by offering it to the public, and you wouldn't want to be encouraging the breaking of the law, would you? --BtPerson??
Technically illegal, but since nobody loses by it, I don't see any moral problem with it. --Edwin
Oh, the person uploading is probably committing a crime. At this point you hit the "I do not care" problem. I break goodness knows how many laws every day, many for reasons less important than DoctorWho. --Vitenka
I'm not asking you to care. I'm just telling you it's illegal. You want to break the law, go ahead. --BtPerson??
(Actually, the person thought to be responsible for the original leak has been tracked down and lost his job. Hooray!) --BtPerson??
Ah. No, sorry - I posted about the leak in a circuitous way a while ago. I'm now going to come out and outright say that I got a copy that someone screen captured of the release (which was in a few places slightly improved over the leak) and I fully intend to continue doing so. And 'hooraying' someone losing their job is shameful. --Vitenka (Though what they did was... risky, at the least. Stupid, probably and had it backfired and killed off interest in the show, wrong.)
Hooraying the finding of someone who broke the law and their employer's trust, and did something reprehensible and despicable, is fully called for. I would only hope something worse, like legal proceedings, would happen to him (but I don't know enough about the law in Canada to know if that's likely).
And something which is, as far as I can tell, SOP? for the media world and worked well enough as ViralAdvertising? to make a lot of people suspect that it was done so on purpose. (Which, with thew sacking, I agree that it was not.) But it worked well enough that it helped his employers. So another view would be that he was sacked for taking the initiative... --Vitenka
In a lot of ways it seemed very much a return to the earliest episodes - which is an interesting direction to take it in. The Doctor was wonderfully incomplete and lonely. --Vitenka
Tom Baker's influence can really be felt. This new chap really is a Doctor. They have kept true to the spirit of the original without throwing too much money at it (which would have killed it). And they kept the sound of a piano being attacked with a 50p piece. Four and a half thumbs up. --Requiem
How much money is too much? The console room cost £100,000. Did that kill it? Wasn't a fifty pence, either (hint: they didn't exist in 1963). --BtPerson??
That's kinda unclear. They obviously spent a lot on it, more than the originals- but they equally obviously have put in an effort to maintain the charm and look cheap and tacky. --Vitenka
What I meant was, it wasn't too high-budget. Doctor Who could be done as a massively high-budget modern sci-fi. But it would have robbed it of much of its charm. As it is, it's being done with a decent but not overly extravagant budget and a sparkling cast. And I do apologise for my egregious anachronism: 'the sound of a sound tech being happily inventive', was of course what I meant to type. --Requiem
No effort was made to make it look cheap and tacky. The effort was made to make it look slick and professional: massively high-budget modern sci-fi, if you will. The budget is several notches above 'decent': per-episode, it costs more than Casualty. If it didn't come off, that's because even the vast amounts of money that were spent on it (which was as much as the BBC could afford, trust me) are dwarfed by what's available to US productions these days. --BtPerson??
Um. If you're not going to post credentials then I'm going to strongly disagree. The dummies, the dustbin especially and the liquid face all seemed like delightful homages to TheGoodOldDays of low budget special effects. Done well, yes - but still tacky. --Vitenka
You don't have to believe, but you are wrong. The budget was as high as it could possibly be, higher than anyone dared hope, and Davies has made many public statements to the effect that he wanted to get away from the days of wobbly sets and unconvincing monsters. Take a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/03_march/22/who.shtml and see if you can find any hint that any expense was spared. You don't hire the Mill if you want to look cheap.
Maybe. Maybe not. But the obvious comparison is the BBC's last major science fiction series, Red Dwarf, and compared to that the effects look...well, cheap and tacky. --SF
It looks cheap and tacky compared to a spoof sci-fi which was deliberatly designed to look cheap and tacky? Oh dear... -- Xarak
And it was Ron Grainer's Mum's front door key. If you care. --BtPerson??