Doctor Who (1963) Forums

BBC (ended 1989)

A 100 times more $$$?

  • Avatar of archangelwho

    archangelwho

    [1]Dec 27, 2012
    • member since: 07/13/05
    • level: 18
    • rank: Land Shark
    • posts: 2,176

    I was watching Colony in Space with the audio commentary on and if I understood them they said that the budget for the new Doctor per show is a 100 times more than a whole season for Doctor Who 1963. And peolpe complain about how poorly they were made then?

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of pferreira86

    pferreira86

    [2]Dec 30, 2012
    • member since: 03/17/06
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 1,427

    Yes, jokes were often made that the budget for a Doctor Who story would buy the catering on an episode of 60s Star Trek.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of wildhoney66

    wildhoney66

    [3]Dec 30, 2012
    • member since: 05/17/08
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 841

    that's cause people are idiots. and i don't have that one on dvd yet. it doesn't bother me if the sets were cheap to make. that's all they could afford back than. as you know. and no i'm not telling you guys off. but it's true they i think did some great sets with the budget they had.



    and some of the costumes were fantastic looking, yes some looked bad but it really doesn't matter to me cause it still is fun as hell to watch.



    also let me add that people are spoiled by today's technology and money, if you ask most people today that don't watch 60's shows they won't believe you when i say that my favorite show of all time is "Lost in Space' and if you look at that show though it's well made and well cast and everything. let me further add that if you watch the show the special FX, costumes etc.. looks by today's standards cheap as hell.



    they do i'm not going to deny it but funny enough that i believe was the most expensive show on tv at the time. it wouldn't surprise me if it cost more than say "Doctor who' back in the 60's. and yes even some of the FX for "Dark Shadows' were top notch back than as well. though if you look at it now like i do. the FX are VERY Poorly done. but there are some FX that look pretty cool even to me. and i wasn't around for any of these shows back when they 1st aired. people also complain about how much CGI is used on the current version of Doctor who.



    honestly it doesn't bother me. it fits well with the show. if the original show had the FX back than i think they would have Used CGI as well.


    and it wouldn't surprise me if they did to a degree well early CGI anyways. that's why it doesn't bother me when they put it on the dvd releases, it fixes the FX that they wanted to make the show look like back than, but they had no budget nor the technology either.



    but they also put the episode on like it aired. yes i've said this many times but my point is this stuff doesn't bother me. no i don't think CGI has to be in everything. when standard FX could be used they should, but if it's a show like Doctor Who' than yes i can say if it's written into the story it should be used. kinda like horror movies today, having CGI blood is just plain stupid i'd rather see them create that effect than have a computer do it. but if it fits for the movie and the story like say 'the lord of the rings' films than it's done right and used right.



    that's what i think anyways sorry about my ramblings here he he

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of wildhoney66

    wildhoney66

    [4]Dec 30, 2012
    • member since: 05/17/08
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 841

    that's cause people are idiots. and i don't have that one on dvd yet. it doesn't bother me if the sets were cheap to make. that's all they could afford back than. as you know. and no i'm not telling you guys off. but it's true they i think did some great sets with the budget they had.



    and some of the costumes were fantastic looking, yes some looked bad but it really doesn't matter to me cause it still is fun as hell to watch.



    also let me add that people are spoiled by today's technology and money, if you ask most people today that don't watch 60's shows they won't believe you when i say that my favorite show of all time is "Lost in Space' and if you look at that show though it's well made and well cast and everything. let me further add that if you watch the show the special FX, costumes etc.. looks by today's standards cheap as hell.



    they do i'm not going to deny it but funny enough that i believe was the most expensive show on tv at the time. it wouldn't surprise me if it cost more than say "Doctor who' back in the 60's. and yes even some of the FX for "Dark Shadows' were top notch back than as well. though if you look at it now like i do. the FX are VERY Poorly done. but there are some FX that look pretty cool even to me. and i wasn't around for any of these shows back when they 1st aired. people also complain about how much CGI is used on the current version of Doctor who.



    honestly it doesn't bother me. it fits well with the show. if the original show had the FX back than i think they would have Used CGI as well.


    and it wouldn't surprise me if they did to a degree well early CGI anyways. that's why it doesn't bother me when they put it on the dvd releases, it fixes the FX that they wanted to make the show look like back than, but they had no budget nor the technology either.



    but they also put the episode on like it aired. yes i've said this many times but my point is this stuff doesn't bother me. no i don't think CGI has to be in everything. when standard FX could be used they should, but if it's a show like Doctor Who' than yes i can say if it's written into the story it should be used. kinda like horror movies today, having CGI blood is just plain stupid i'd rather see them create that effect than have a computer do it. but if it fits for the movie and the story like say 'the lord of the rings' films than it's done right and used right.



    that's what i think anyways sorry about my ramblings here he he

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of wildhoney66

    wildhoney66

    [5]Dec 30, 2012
    • member since: 05/17/08
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 841

    that's cause people are idiots. and i don't have that one on dvd yet. it doesn't bother me if the sets were cheap to make. that's all they could afford back than. as you know. and no i'm not telling you guys off. but it's true they i think did some great sets with the budget they had.



    and some of the costumes were fantastic looking, yes some looked bad but it really doesn't matter to me cause it still is fun as hell to watch.



    also let me add that people are spoiled by today's technology and money, if you ask most people today that don't watch 60's shows they won't believe you when i say that my favorite show of all time is "Lost in Space' and if you look at that show though it's well made and well cast and everything. let me further add that if you watch the show the special FX, costumes etc.. looks by today's standards cheap as hell.



    they do i'm not going to deny it but funny enough that i believe was the most expensive show on tv at the time. it wouldn't surprise me if it cost more than say "Doctor who' back in the 60's. and yes even some of the FX for "Dark Shadows' were top notch back than as well. though if you look at it now like i do. the FX are VERY Poorly done. but there are some FX that look pretty cool even to me. and i wasn't around for any of these shows back when they 1st aired. people also complain about how much CGI is used on the current version of Doctor who.



    honestly it doesn't bother me. it fits well with the show. if the original show had the FX back than i think they would have Used CGI as well.


    and it wouldn't surprise me if they did to a degree well early CGI anyways. that's why it doesn't bother me when they put it on the dvd releases, it fixes the FX that they wanted to make the show look like back than, but they had no budget nor the technology either.



    but they also put the episode on like it aired. yes i've said this many times but my point is this stuff doesn't bother me. no i don't think CGI has to be in everything. when standard FX could be used they should, but if it's a show like Doctor Who' than yes i can say if it's written into the story it should be used. kinda like horror movies today, having CGI blood is just plain stupid i'd rather see them create that effect than have a computer do it. but if it fits for the movie and the story like say 'the lord of the rings' films than it's done right and used right.



    that's what i think anyways sorry about my ramblings here he he

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of archangelwho

    archangelwho

    [6]Dec 30, 2012
    • member since: 07/13/05
    • level: 18
    • rank: Land Shark
    • posts: 2,176

    Agreed the crews back then had skills, today they have money and computers.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of wildhoney66

    wildhoney66

    [7]Dec 30, 2012
    • member since: 05/17/08
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 841

    hmmm i had no idea this did a double post either. i don't blame the site i blame my puter! it was acting funny, to slow cause i got to much stuff on it. and plus my connection was acting funny at the time

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of pferreira86

    pferreira86

    [8]Jan 6, 2013
    • member since: 03/17/06
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 1,427

    archangelwho wrote:


    Agreed the crews back then had skills, today they have money and computers.


    Yes I miss craft man ship as well. I read a review of The Man With the Golden Gun where the reviewer said watching pre-Daniel Craig James Bond films is painful. He says something like who wants to see styrofoam sets, silly gadgets and stupid plots, thank goodness for Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. What... better than Goldfinger and From Russia With Love? Better than The Spy Who Loved Me? Yeah, right because QOS was the pinnacle of James Bond excellence! Ladies and gents I do believe this man is talking rubbish...Yell

    Edited on 01/06/2013 2:32pm
    Edited 3 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of archangelwho

    archangelwho

    [9]Jan 6, 2013
    • member since: 07/13/05
    • level: 18
    • rank: Land Shark
    • posts: 2,176

    pferreira86 wrote:


    archangelwho wrote:


    Agreed the crews back then had skills, today they have money and computers.


    Yes I miss craft man ship as well. I read a review of The Man With the Golden Gun where the reviewer said watching pre-Daniel Craig James Bond films is painful. He says something like who wants to see styrofoam sets, silly gadgets and stupid plots, thank goodness for Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. What... better than Goldfinger and From Russia With Love? Better than The Spy Who Loved Me? Yeah, right because QOS was the pinnacle of James Bond excellence! Ladies and gents I do believe this man is talking rubbish...Yell


    Agree.People like him don't see the story or the actingall they see are the special effects.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of wildhoney66

    wildhoney66

    [10]Jan 6, 2013
    • member since: 05/17/08
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 841

    i agree as well. he's talking out of something but it ain't his mouth. he he. the thing about watching those old movies is seeing what they could create back than. my favorite bond is Goldfinger. i even have that on blu-ray! and as much as i love and i truly do love seeing Special FX. either by CGI if it's done right and it's important to the story it can work. like in the new hobbit film. i saw that last night with the folks and the CGI in the film



    helps the story. i have no problem with that. it's good film making. but if they want to do a special FX by Puter just to save money that's just bad film making. not every movie has to have special FX. but when i see REAL people create models and so forth for movies i love watching that stuff.



    i remember when "The Abyss' came out HBO had the making of it on tv. and it showed how they did the underwater stuff. and i loved seeing that stuff. or the Alien films for example or anything else really. having characters using CGI from either Harry Potter or doctor who i love that stuff.



    cause those things work with CGI. and honestly even doctor who at it's worst and the crappiest budget has sets that look pretty damn good.


    some are better than others. for example if you look at some of the creatures in the orginal show the monsters well some of them look terrible but some of them are cool looking. the dinosaurs in 'invasion of the dinosaurs' are poorly made and that was only cause that's what budget they had.



    if they had a bigger budget they would have worked better. the models looked to fake. but if you look at some of the other serials from the original show the FX looked better. in short sometimes they looked good and sometimes they didn't. that's not going to stop me from watching the serial though. the creature from the film "Forbidden planet' i don't think looked very good and that was hand-drawn i think.



    i forget how they did it. and though they go the fx they wanted it looked to me to fake. where if you look at other films around that time they had FX that were far better and they looked to me ahead of their time. for example my favorite "Poe' picture was 'the Pit and the pendulam.


    and in it they used matte paintings i love those. and in certain scenes you know they are being used but it's done so well that it blends in so well that i have a hard time telling what's real and what's fake. and this film came out in (1961) and that's a low budget film, yet in the film The wizard of Oz' you pretty much can tell what is matte painting and what isn't. yet it's funny that it worked better in a film that had a far lower budget a little over 20 years later. yet like you said this moron doesn't care about this stuff like we do.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of pferreira86

    pferreira86

    [11]Jan 20, 2013
    • member since: 03/17/06
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 1,427

    archangelwho wrote:


    pferreira86 wrote:


    archangelwho wrote:


    Agreed the crews back then had skills, today they have money and computers.


    Yes I miss craft man ship as well. I read a review of The Man With the Golden Gun where the reviewer said watching pre-Daniel Craig James Bond films is painful. He says something like who wants to see styrofoam sets, silly gadgets and stupid plots, thank goodness for Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. What... better than Goldfinger and From Russia With Love? Better than The Spy Who Loved Me? Yeah, right because QOS was the pinnacle of James Bond excellence! Ladies and gents I do believe this man is talking rubbish...Yell


    Agree.People like him don't see the story or the actingall they see are the special effects.


    I think the reviewer was also trying to say that the films are dated in terms of what they mean today. He's saying that gritty realism in the spy genre is less laughable and can be taken seriously in Casino Royale than in the pre-Daniel Craig. Action scenes are more 'real'. Well, I'm proud to say I appreciate those laughable films more than the charmless Bond of today.

    Edited on 01/20/2013 12:20pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of archangelwho

    archangelwho

    [12]Jan 21, 2013
    • member since: 07/13/05
    • level: 18
    • rank: Land Shark
    • posts: 2,176

    pferreira86 wrote:


    archangelwho wrote:


    pferreira86 wrote:


    archangelwho wrote:


    Agreed the crews back then had skills, today they have money and computers.


    Yes I miss craft man ship as well. I read a review of The Man With the Golden Gun where the reviewer said watching pre-Daniel Craig James Bond films is painful. He says something like who wants to see styrofoam sets, silly gadgets and stupid plots, thank goodness for Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. What... better than Goldfinger and From Russia With Love? Better than The Spy Who Loved Me? Yeah, right because QOS was the pinnacle of James Bond excellence! Ladies and gents I do believe this man is talking rubbish...Yell


    Agree.People like him don't see the story or the actingall they see are the special effects.


    I think the reviewer was also trying to say that the films are dated in terms of what they mean today. He's saying that gritty realism in the spy genre is less laughable and can be taken seriously in Casino Royale than in the pre-Daniel Craig. Action scenes are more 'real'. Well, I'm proud to say I appreciate those laughable films more than the charmless Bond of today.


    Agreed

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of wildhoney66

    wildhoney66

    [13]Jan 29, 2013
    • member since: 05/17/08
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 841

    this guy does sound like a dumbass. i love watching those old movies, tv shows etc. from say back in the 60's and yes it's cheesy as hell but the idea's for the time were good. even the bad films and bad tv shows can have nice ideas and it's for me believable. take the cheesy gadgets that is on "Get Smart' are they now outdated? hell yeah but i still love watching Don Adam's use those devices. even if the budget for that show wasn't that high. than you look at a show like "Alias' that i love and yes that's been off the air for a few years but my this idiot that's out of date as well.



    and check out those gadgets on the show as well they are great. i dunno if any of those are used in real life but it wouldn't surprise me if they were. as far as i know i don't know anyone who does that kind of work. but than that is the point isn't it? my point is this guy is an idiot who cares more about special FX than story. FX can also ruin a film as well. batman and Robin which is a fun movie but a bad fun movie. people hate it to death and it's what it is a bad film that can kill an afternoone. that film pays more attention to the special FX, the surroundings the sets rather and the terrible costumes than the actual script which is terrible. batman forever is loved more because the story was paid more attention to.



    and in short my point is that prolly is one of his favorite films.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of pferreira86

    pferreira86

    [14]Feb 3, 2013
    • member since: 03/17/06
    • level: 17
    • rank: The Crazy Neighbor
    • posts: 1,427

    Yes, it's a very snobbish view to have of movies.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.