(no subject)

[morwen]

The new series of Doctor Who left me curious about what the old ones had been like. I was born in 1979, so I was 10 years old when the series was cancelled. I dimly remember watching it, but not any specific stories (until the dreadful Children in Need story). I definitely remember Bonnie Langford, Sylvester McCoy and Sophie Aldred, I'm not sure about the others. But I've not watched a whole serial straight through.

So. I got hold of and watched Pyramids of Mars, with Tom Baker. I would probably have got City of Death due to Douglas Adams, but that's not out yet and this was a well-recommended one. Wasn't really sure what to make of it. Frankly, I don't like the direction and acting styles - it's too like a play, with characters waiting their turn to say their lines. There was also vast over-use of the protagonists finding out useful information by overhearing it accidentally. The way the final cliffhanger was resolved was awful (ooh, the Doctor is about to be killed... so, Sutekh CHANGES HIS MIND). However, it did have its moments. Some of the scenes with the mummies were actually quite tense, and the bit when the Doctor disarms a man with his scarf was pretty good.

I (on Tuesday and today) have watched The Curse of Fenric. This is a very different beast, being the penultimate Doctor Who serial, and made in 1989. I'm surprised however, that it was so different in style from the Tom Baker serial. There are extras, it's quite a bit pacier, there are some blanks you are left to fill in, sometimes you can work things out before the characters do, sometimes they know things we don't.

Does anyone else percieve the difference in styles here? I would say it is at least if not more of a big difference than between the 1989 and 2005 series. I wonder how many pages of script a day they are shooting now, versus then?

Comments

[verlaine.livejournal.com]

And "The Daleks' Master Plan" is one of the pacier ones ;)