CGI is a good creation, but overusing it can be damaging. I'm not saying that the old effects are bad, its just a matter of what methods are available at the time and how much the audience can suspend their disbelief.
For example, look at Blade Runner. The effects are of the 80s, but they still blend in seamlessly. What ultimately matters is the story. Now please stop this stupid argument.
There are a lot of 80's films that use real FX that are much more effective. For instance Audrey 2 in Little Shop of Horrors would look sh!t if it were cgi.
@Redhellmet I don't like Nu Hu more, I merely thought it was a decent YouTube name. I repeat, I like the Old and New Series equally.
I do understand where you're coming from, and do agree that old FX are given a bad rep in this CGI age, I'm just trying to provide a balanced opinion. And as I said, the story ultimately matters a whole lot more than the FX.
@fpiceail It is obvious to everyone that the Trial of a Timelord model looks better than ANY of the cgi in Nu-hu. Any effect in DW that doesn't look good to you can be easily excused - LACK OF BUDGET.
Anyone on their PC can do cgi effects, any real effects would require lots of money & expertise.
Links still don't work. Just say the name of the adventures that these ships are in.
Compare when they show the Dr's hearts in 'CavesoAndrozani' & in 'Dalek'. The former sh!t's all over the latter's cgi
@fpiceail The best FX in JurassicPark R the puppet bits.
Here is the YouTube-vid I was talking about:
MOTION BLUR. NOT CGI. THIS IS STOP-MOTION.FX blur by Peter Montgomery
It is by an amateur stop-animationist. His REAL animation is clearly superior to any of the CGI dinos U'll find on YT.
It's a new way of achieving special FX. It's forward thinking -not nostalgic. I don't dislike cgi cuz it's new I dislike it cuz it looks cheap&unsatisfying. I like this other NEW effect so again -not nostalgic
I really can't take you seriously. You have yet to explain HOW cgi looks unreal. CGI is computer generated, it is literally as realistic as you can get. Puppets and models, how could anyone honestly believe they look MORE real? Just look at picture comparison. You are in complete denial about this, because you are nostalgic, and you are just using that stop-motion thing as an excuse to fuel that denial.
@fpiceail I gave U video evidence that there are better FX than cgi. Cgi may look ok as a still image but when the animators start animating it it looses its effect.
Again, the effect I showed U is new, so how does that make me nostalgic for preferring it to cgi?
Also, cgi looks unsatisfying as well as fake. Whereas hands-on FX at worse only look fake. Real models look more impressive than virtual ones.
Compare the original RedDwarf&StarWars models to the newer cgi versions'.
Once again, the only reason you are using that video is as an excuse to not being nostalgic. A quick look at your channels shows that you love the old versions of franchises, and you despise the newer versions. You despise CGI, the newer, more effective film effects, while you love the models. Look at the Dr.Who confidential for 42, they show a compilation of all the dr who spaceships over time. It is clear that it consistently improves. If you can't accept that, you are nostalgic.
@fpiceail But I've told U already time & time again that over the 26 year long run there were changes & the FX got better & I liked all those changes. I just don't like Nu-hu stuff.
I need to be a total trend-whore B4 U stop dismissing my arguments for being due to nostalgia.
The New YT-design I find has limitations that the old one doesn't. I'm all for YT changing e.g. one should be able to see the rating & info BEFORE one clicks on the vid.
90% of FX R cgi due to low-cost, not believability
Yet CGI looks undeniably more realistic. Why SHOULD they spend more money and time for something that in the end is more limited on set and will never look as good? The only reason people like you cling to the model effects is due to nostalgia. There are very few people who honest to god believe that models look better, and I find it hard to believe there is anyone on this Earth who believes that they are more practical in production.
@fpiceail I'm sure U R the only one on Earth that thinks the new StarWars cgi FX more impressive than the original model ones. Wallace&Gromit would look better in cgi, right?
If U want to know the opinion of the masses just type: cgi is
into Google & C the suggestions. & also: stop motion is
Some, not every1, thinks cgi is he greatest of all FX.
Because I find FX that any1 can do on their PC unimpressive, like a million Daleks flying through space, means I'm nostalgic? U R talking out of Ur arse
Once again, you just have to compare the CGI spaceships of the revival series to the cardboard-tube-with-paint ships of 1963-1989. You are simply in denial if you think the older ships look more realistic. Once again, looking at your profile, "Things I like: Doctor Who (before 2004), Red Dward (before 1999), Spiderman/X-men (90s), Prisoner (until 2009)". Do you see the trend here? You ALWAYS like the old one better.
You can hide behind crappy reasoning such as "CGI looks worse" and "there are more consistencies", but ultimately it comes down to "because it was older". You love the old things, you hate the new things. The very definition of nostalgia.
@fpiceail The older versions of all those things just happen to be better. Like The Simpsons was a hilarious programme with ingenious jokes a lot of the newer stuff is dire. Nowadays you can find a crappy version of everything that was once great.
Anyway YOU must be the one in denial if U think that Nuhu CGI looks better than the TrialotTimelord spacestation.
My trend isn't that I like the old ones better - I like the better ones better. e.g. spiderman has plenty of older versions that I dislike
There are people who do not like CGI. The reason is not because of how it looks. They don't like it because it takes a lot of depth out of production. Of course it is less costly in all aspects to produce something with computer-animated special effects. It also looks more realistic. That is why people do it.
You have misunderstood it. You think they are thinking the same thing as you. Because you need another argument against the new dr.who. Because you are nostalgic.
@fpiceail Cgi does NOT look more realistic. I've brought up plenty of examples for my argument of REAL FX that look a lot better, whereas U have failed to mention examples while ignoring mine. To name them again: Original StarWars vs new Star Wars (people DO agree with me on this one & YOU R the one clearly in denial). RedDwarf's models R superior to their cgi. TrialoaTimelord SpaceStation vs everything in Nuhu, 2001 Space Odyssey vs Avatar.
It's an undeniable fact that REAL FX R superior to cgi
Also, CGI tends to have a pretty strong standing when juxtaposed to old episodes where you can see the wires attached to the models. That doesn't look very realistic to me, i must say, lol.
@fpiceail AGAIN, any FX you consider sub-standard in the original DW can be excused easily as they had a very a small budget. But even with that small budget they were able to at times create much more convincing FX that stand up today better than Nu-hu's FX will in 30 years time.
Rarely could you see the strings. Whereas in Nu-hu ALL the ships look unrealistic due to the fact that it's all cgi.
Red Dwarf, Star Wars, 2001 a Space Odyssey & Alien all use models. Do they look unrealistic to you?
@Redhellmet Stop arguing about this! I agree with most of your comments, but this has gone on long enough. Old FX are good, but CGI isn't totally unrealistic. Go on, look at Avatar. That is a perfect example of CGI done right. Now go and watch some Tom Baker DVDs and chill the f*** out!
@MattSmithIsCool100 HAHAHAHAHA! Avatar??? Are you kidding me? Avatar has a sh!t story AND all the visuals look sh!t AND unrealistic. Just compare that video game footage to Apocalypto. Apocalypto, like Avatar, has got a dumb, simplified story but, like a lot of Mel Gibson films, the visuals look great because they're real. But like most Mel Gibson films, Hollywood didn't make a big deal out of it.
The only thing Avatar had was loads of exposure (commercially).
@Redhellmet Okay, maybe Avatar is a bad choice in terms of story, but not for effects. Come on, that is the pinnacle of what can be achieved with CGI, which admittedly does make for a good visual experience. But it's mostly down to how the thing was constructed; Blade Runner works brilliantly because it has a great story, but also because the effects blended seamlessly in with the action. As a result, even Avatar may look dated in the future, partially because the story lets it down.
@MattSmithIsCool100 Just compare it to Apocalypto. Avatar doesn't look amazing, any1 who thinks otherwise is a victim of propaganda. Avatar would have been better if, like Toy Story, the whole film had been animated. But cgi people, animals or creatures in a live-action film or TV show just look unrealistic, virtual & cheap. It doesn't look like they put much time or effort in, it only looks a little better than a video game.
I dislike Bladerunner, but at least it looks like they made an effort.
So I see the argument boils down to "CGI looks unrealistic...because it is CGI". What a pathetic argument from frankly a pathetic individual. Then again, after seeing your channel videos, I don't expect much better. While you definitely aren't one, you act like a complete, immature child, and once again, all the crap you say can be boiled down to the fact that you are nostalgic, and you are conjuring up any bullshit you can use to bash the "nuhu" (hurr durr)
@fpiceail No, my argument boils down to - Any1 can do CGI on their PC, it is the main tool for amateurs with no expertise & no budget, therefore unless a professional production team has no expertise or budget they shouldn't be using such an effect predominantly.
You insult yourself - my videos on my LegoDaleks channel may be crap, but they are better than yours.
Again, I was looking forward to Nu-hu since 2003 & only turned my back on it after 6 years - got that? So how is that nostalgic?
Your videos are not clever, nor funny. You make childish jokes, you point out 'plot holes' which are really just your misunderstanding of events in the episodes. You spend the whole time making dull insults "STEVEN MOFFAT IS A BAD WRITER LOLLL", and you are playing with childs toys. In your comments, you get the same couple of people saying "LOLOL EPIC VID", and I have actually seen you use your 2nd account to fake another person.
Then again, I can see why you don't see a problem with your videos, since you don't seem to see a problem in yourself either. Someone calls you nostalgic? Just say that you aren't, argument settled woot! You also seem to keep reminding yourself that you are smarter than most people and think for yourself... That honestly sounds like "my mom says im special!" to me.
@fpiceail I gave evidence that shows that I'm not nostalgic so don't just claim that all I said was that I'm nostalgic.
The only evidence U have that I think a lot of myself is that 1 sentence U read on my channel. U ignore most of what's in front of U, then take 1 line & blow it out of proportion. What I was mainly saying was that I tend to analyse things more than others. "The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."
@fpiceail I neither like something nor dislike nor do I prefer it or hate it purely on the grounds of it being "popular". There are some new things I like - I was never a fan of Batman but I do like batman of the future/batman beyond, but you can always claim that I'm just lying again to hide my nostalgic nature. There seems also to be something you don't understand, you see when I used to watch the original DW on UKGold it was NEW to me especially the 6th & 7th Dr stuff, but all of it really.
Who's word are we taking on the nostalgic matter? Yours. I say you are nostalgic, you retort by saying you aren't, and saying "see, I like some new things too!". One, I don't buy it. It is so easy for someone to bullshit their way through an argument, and yours are so transparent. And two, the fact remains that the majority of the things you like are the older versions. That is still nostalgic.
@fpiceail I like certain things, no matter how long a list I give you you'll only count the "old" stuff as genuine & the "new" stuff as a lie, so let's just close that part of the argument, okay?
@fpiceail By insulting my videos U only further insult Ur own. Mine could be sh!t but they are without a doubt better than Urs.
I use figures to depict scenes, I didn't use animation cuz I've got a primitive camera & editing program. So the production values are easily excused. Even though I have fewer videos than U I have more subscribers. So if you believe Ur own argument about measuring the quality of something by it's audience then U also need to admit that my vids are better than Urs :P
You have more subscribers...but you have 30k channel views. I have 250k. So, you have 4x the amount of subscribers, but I have 8x the amount of views. That really says a lot about how many of your subscribers are "real" subscribers in that context.
Also, funny how you say the new doctor who isn't better based on viewers, but you think your channel is better because of subscribers.
Blakes 7, 90's Spiderman and X-men, Robin of Shearwood, the Prisoner (until 2009)
See the trend? You like the old version of everything. So far from you, I have heard that "CGI is crap because it is CGI". I have heard "Remakes are crap" (because they are remakes?). I think I can safely assume that
you hate new things too, "because they are new". This is what it all boils down to. If the Doctor Who revival series was THAT BAD, it wouldnt be so successful, period. So many people around the world watch and enjoy Doctor Who. It is their word against some man-child on youtube who posted a few videos before ragequitting at the "simple minded, cocksucking arseholes" who watch doctor who. Good luck finding anyone to back you up.
@fpiceail Are U merely feigning ignorance? Twilight, can't be THAT BAD otherwise it wouldn't be successful, period. See how that argument falls down like the decrepit feeble old man it is?
There are people who "back me up", but it wouldn't matter even if there weren't any. Unlike you I'm not a blind conformist.
You missed the part where I said there is a massive range of people around the world who watch doctor who. In twilight, there is a large audience, but it is predominantly one group of people. At the University here, nearly everyone watches doctor who, even the professors. These are well educated and thoughtful people, if doctor who really was as terrible as you say it was (Reminder: you think EVERYTHING is terrible about the new doctor who, lol), surely these people wouldnt watch
@fpiceail Wouldn't these same people admit to watching such dire nonsense like American Idol & its affiliates(?), which are essentially just freak-shows, the lowest form of entertainment, only topped by public executions. Twilight has a greater audience.
What do high figures mean? Coronation Street got higher viewing figures than DW in it's last season (1989), but who remembers or cares about 80's Corrie now? But people still buy 80's DW DVD's today. Nu-hu = Corrie - here today, gone tomorrow.
Well no, they wouldnt, that is a stupid assumption. You have grouped anyone who disagrees with you into one group of 'brainwashed idiots', and that is why these stupid assumptions come forth.
Look at the Toclafane pouring out of the rift in Sound of Drums. Look at Vesuvius erupting in Fires of Pompeii. Look at Satellite 5 in The Long Game, and the shots of Earth throughout the show. Look at the alien army in The Pandorica Opens.
Such events were computer animated. They look pretty damn believable. The Vesuvius scene is particularly epic. Anyone, even people like you can clearly see that these are better than models with dodgy camera angles and bad lighting.
@fpiceail Maybe it looks good to you because you play too many video games. I just can't believe you mentioned Satellite 5, that looked even worse than Babylon 5. The toclafane never for one moment looked real, until it was an actual prop. There's a bit where one of them isn't completely CGI, is it all of a sudden unrealistic & dodgy then?
Also the make-up to make Tennant look old isn't as good as the make-up to make the 4th Dr look old in Leisure Hive, Tennant can't even act even old.
@fpiceail Just because I'm not impressed with video game footage, unlike you since that is all you concern yourself with in your vids, doesn't mean I've got my head up my arse, quite the opposite in fact.
I make video game footage since no one wants to see me acting like a child in front of the camera making immature remarks about a show I have a vendetta against.
But I am not begging for subs. Begging for subs is saying "PLEASE SUBSCRIBE" in info and annotations on every video, like some people actually do. Making a sneak preview for a subscriber special is just advertising. Once again, I have a video which has almost double the views of all your uploads put together. If you are trying to make me jealous of your channel, or trying to make your channel look better, it really isn't working.
@fpiceail It's hard to believe you can't follow the plot. You started criticising my vids, but since I have more than 3x the amount of subs you have (& you think 50 is special) that means that they are better than yours, also you started making vids in 2008, whereas I started in 2010.
@fpiceail It doesn't matter the amount before or after. You started in 2008. Or do you not count to vid/vids you did before 2011 when counting the overall views as well?
And Doctor Who lost so many viewers later on because it became outdated, the audience had grown up/moved on, and they kept messing with the format a lot during the 2nd half of the 80s.
@fpiceail DW was put up against Coronation Street. It wasn't cancelled because anything was wrong with it, everyone knows that. Do you believe all the BBC's propaganda & Michael Grade's lies? I suppose you also think the late eighties were too violent & the budget was so big & such a strain on the BBC, right?
Referring to it as PROPAGANDA and LIES is complete laughable bullshit. At no point is anyone telling you CGI is better. Filmmakers use CGI, they don't spend time brainwashing people to believe that CGI is superior. The fact that CGI is popular is not due to 'propaganda and lies', (which by the way are words used to describe psychological tactics used by corrupt, authoritarian governments, NOT the use of film techniques,) but rather the fact that quality CGI is what people want now.
@fpiceail Hollywood is responsible for a lot of propaganda, didn't you know? That's including that CGI looks better than REAL FX. Show any open-minded person REAL FX & they'll realise that it's better than CGI. CGI is used because it is incredibly fast & cheap to make. That's what Hollywood likes - America in general was always good at mass-producing garbage.
I would really like to know what your definition of propaganda is, and how hollywood uses propaganda. The idea is laughable. An example of propaganda is WWII posters which say "fight for your country' etc. Prolific use of CGI in media is not propaganda.
@fpiceail You seem to be very blind when it comes to the propaganda of FX, so why not look at another aspect - like sexism or racism. See, I chose some easy ones for you to spot, then we can slowly move on to FX, okay?
@fpiceail DW was put up against Coronation Street. It wasn't cancelled because anything was wrong with it, everyone knows that. Do you believe all the BBC's propaganda & Michael Grade's lies? I suppose you also think the late eighties were too violent & the budget was so big & such a strain on the BBC, right?
@fpiceail No, I like the better parts of everything. The trend of the 21st century seems to be to instead of creating new things people just make crap versions of old ones. And again there are older versions of Spiderman that I don't like.
I dislike the new Youtube design because it makes everyone uniform & one hasn't the chance to be unique. I am strictly against uniformity, which is another reason I dislike when EVERY effect is achieved with CGI. CGI looks cheap & unrealistic - FACT.
That is not a fact, that is your misguided, ignorant opinion. Yes there are quite a few people tat hate CGI, but it is not because of how it looks. It is because the use of CGI takes depth out of production. But, if it makes production cheaper and faster, it is much more feasible (if they want to go back and change the shot, it is a million times easier), and ultimately it looks better, why the hell not? You wont get more viewers from behind the scenes complexities
I can post a million picture comparisons here between the CGI Doctor Who and the classic Doctor Who, but you are in such huge denial about the whole matter that it would be pointless. Oh, and you can't figure out how to supply the period back into a link in a youtube comment, lol
@fpiceail I can post a million picture as well as video comparisons here between Nu-hu & Doctor Who, but you are in such "huge" denial about the whole matter that it would be pointless.
The stories & dialogue are what was most important about DW anyway. But even the production values of DW are better than Nu-hu, ESPECIALLY when considering the budgets. The Nu-hu production team even manage to do a sh!t, sub-standard job on the title sequence & theme tune. There's no end to their fecklessness.
You seem to have an awful habit of posting your own thoughts as fact. You don't give any reasons as to HOW cgi is crap and unrealistic, you don't give any reasons as to why the title sequence is crap, you just state that it is so and call that an argument. It is not an argument. It is a kid sticking his fingers in his ears shouting "IM RIGHT YOURE WRONG, LALALALA NOT LISTENING".
@fpiceail HOW MANY MORE TIMES do I need to give you the evidence that cgi is a cheap crap effect??? Look back on my last replies, because I CLEARLY state "reasons". I did again & again & again. Look back in the conversation you will definitely find them.
The 2005 title sequence is crap because it's just a cheap version of it's decade old predecessor. The 2010 one is just the same thing again, except the time vortex was replaced by clouds for some odd reason.
You don't. You give examples, to which I can easily say "Yes, the new ones look better". That is just about the same quality as your arguments here. I could post REAL evidence, you know, picture comparisons, but a) you cant figure out how to work a link in a youtube comment and b) it is such a subjective matter that it would be impossible to convince anyone either way.
A cheap version? It has higher quality music (seriously, many fans hated the 1996 theme, because it wasn't electronic like all the others. You aren't mad about that???), higher quality animations (look at the TARDIS flying, and the time vortex, compare them to the 1996. You get more complex and clearer animations in 2005). The textures are higher quality, and the logo actually has design, and is not just blue text with high depth.
I could say all the old themes are low quality music, crappy windows-media-player-grade effects with the unnecessary faces, as if to remind you who the doctor is in case you haven't noticed.
Also, the 1987-1989 theme is utter shit. That is something most people agree on.
In the 2010 theme, you have better animations, modified theme and a new logo. There is the added clouds and lightning, and the texture quality is again higher. People complained about the new theme, because a) people dont like change, and b) it is the first time they changed the melody of the theme (they added the initial electronic trumpet sounds), which relates back to A.
@fpiceail There's no baseline. It's the sh!ttiest sounding theme ever. The clouds & lightning make zero sense. What does lightning zapping the TARDIS whilst surrounded by clouds have to do with the show? It's just a nonsensical version of the previous one. The new logo says Doctor Doctor Who Who (it's still better than the previous logo).
I prefer Matt to Tennant, so that's not nostalgic is it? According to U I should start loving Eccleston soon, cuz series 1 is getting old.
Uh. what? There is a very clear baseline. Obviously the lightning/clouds is just a new design of the time vortex which is easier on the eyes than the last one, with a lot cleaner textures. May I ask what the trippy 1970s effects had to do with the show?
You prefer Matt to Tennant because saying so gives you an excuse to say you aren't nostalgic, as seen in your comment.
@fpiceail Matt is a superior actor, anyone who prefers Tennant is just some stupid fangirl. Tennant couldn't act. Matt Smith is a breath of fresh air after Tennant. Especially in Beast Below, he gets all the same sh!tty lines as Tennant but he doesn't over-act. He does a proper performance, until that unfortunate shouting bit. Beats Below is one of the few were Muppet isn't trying to be constantly funny. I'd say it was the best of Nu-hu, but according to you I should think Rose is the best.
ONCE AGAIN, "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot". I think this whole comment can be disregarded because once again, it is all opinion presented as fact. My brother prefers David Tennant. He is one of the top students of his age group and is doing advanced medicinal chemistry on early entry in university. Apparently, according to some random on youtube, he is retarded because he watches the new doctor who and likes Tennant. Right.
@fpiceail I never said: "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot". Do try not to misquote me. Since when do good grades equal good taste? Maybe he's never seen the original series so he doesn't know what good acting looks like. Look at Muppet's background, if you watch his shows it's as if he's never read a book in his life. Academic education doesn't prove anything.
Academic education proves that the person is knowledgable. I have met several people who like the new doctor who, UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS included. My mother, who watched doctor who very regularly during the 70s, admits that the new effects are better. And she is someone who doesnt like prolific CGI usage. People dont like CGI because of the production depth. They don't hate it because of the way it looks.
@fpiceail I'm sure a lot of these "UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS" also watch garbage like those reality programmes or Coronation Street. So, that doesn't prove anything.
I really don't care what you say what your mum thinks.
See, here you are again lumping a large group of people under one generalisation. How about the fact that the show is very well received by critics; people who's job it is to nitpick anything wrong with a film? Does it ever occur to you that a) no one, or at least very few people hate the revival series as much as you do, and b) the only people who do hate it are those who prowl youtube comments?
@fpiceail There are lots of people who are impressed with Coronation Street as well. The critics don't bash that & it gets some of the highest viewing history & appreciation figures than any other shows, does that mean that it's a great show? No. Does it have longevity? No. The same goes for Nu-hu, except it isn't even viewed by as many people.
I posted a CGI video that had nothing but complements, for one.
I said it was 'laughable' by today's standards. I didn't literally mean people laughed at it, I meant that people often don't take it seriously, and it really isn't competitive. If they made a completely independent film, not part of any previous IP franchise, both film and books, and they used classic doctor who grade effects, it would very likely not be successful.
@fpiceail If they made a completely independent film, not part of any previous IP franchise, both film and books, and they used Nu-hu grade effects, it would very likely not be successful either.
Where's the proof that people don't take models seriously even when they are done well?
@fpiceail The 60's & 70's titles were wonderfully weird like the music & show overall. Nu-hu isn't wonderfully weird & neither is the title sequence. Seeing a bunch of shapes move around is not as descriptive & it's open to interpretation. But the TARDIS bouncing about in a twister of clouds while random struck by lightning which makes it look unintentionally funny, is very specific & you can't interpret it any other way. It's just utterly nonsensical - just like the stupid unoriginal show.
It is all what is expected in this day and age. If they used 70s-esque theme and music, it would very well be 'unintentionally funny' to EVERYONE. If they used models and puppets, like they did in the old doctor who, people would treat it like an utter joke. BBC cannot afford to use outdated methods. The show wouldnt have lasted past series 2. Instead, it is going strong approaching Series 7.
@fpiceail You're right, that vid of the space station called: 'best effect?' everyone was laughing at it. As if, eh? What an utter joke, EVERYONE is SOOO unimpressed with that, right?
The people commenting there are the only ones who care. People aren't looking up 'old effects' to laugh at them, they just don't give a shit. 100% models and props limits creativity in what actually happens in the film. If you make a film using puppets and models in an age where CGI is the norm, people will not like it, and the film would not be competitive at all.
@fpiceail It's called: best effects' not "old effects". That's just a pitiful excuse as to why people aren't laughing their heads off at it. I'm sure your stomach still hurts from all the laughing that you did.
I know people who have seen it & don't believe it was made in the 80's. Avatar looks like it was made now though, not ahead of it's time at all. But guess what is a head of it's time? Star Wars, Space Odyssey, Alien - you know the laughable stuff like the puppets & models.
The poor lighting and crappy music really give it away. It is a classic, and people will always cling to them and say they are the 'best'. There are people who say Avatar's effects are the 'best' too, and frankly there are a lot more of those sort.
You are not understanding, these days people do not respect those effects because they are used to the advanced CGI effects of modern times. If CGI was truly worse, you'd see a lot more people wanting the old effects back.
@fpiceail Um, FYI there was no such thing as windows media player at the time. Only professionals could make that, unlike nowadays, nowadays anyone can re-do the 2005-2009 title sequence on their PC.
Showing the faces are as "irrelevant" as showing the title - Doctor Who.
Um, actually most people do not agree with that (where do you get this stuff from?) comparing Keff Mcculloch to Murray Gold is like comparing The Beatles to Lady Gaga.
I wasn't implying that windows media player existed back then, derp. I was saying that the effects are bad by today's standards. Good for the time, but if you want to realistically compare the old to the new, the old is outdated obviously. Look at the 1970-1973 theme, enough said. The theme sounds a lot weaker than the current, and the 7th Doctor theme is not to be mentioned at all.
@fpiceail The "New" is already outdated, cuz CGI programs DO exist today & they can do the same stuff & anyone can get hold of them. The theme's of the past are superior & timeless, you are one of the few (assuming you're telling the truth) who thinks otherwise. Nobody & I mean NOBODY agrees with you on that one. The baseline in the Nu Matt stuff is weaker than ever, so you're talking out of your arse.
People these days expect CGI in film. Avatar was hugely popular because of the groundbreaking special effects. It would most certainly NOT have the same success if it was all crappy models. Remember, Models are more limited, even you agree with that. What is the point of using models, the aesthetics of which are hugely debatable at best, when in the end they likely wont look as good AND they are more limited.
As for the theme, the reason why people like the old themes is because they were classic and iconic. But from an actual design and technical standpoint, the new themes are better.
@fpiceail The original themes are better because they are actually impressive. Orchestras have existed since...I don't know when, they are more limited which is why even Murray can't only rely on an orchestra. Murray's version isn't any better than the movie one.
They were impressive...at the time. People these days look back at it and laugh. That is how technology works. Some time in the future, it could all be holograms in the cinemas, and there would be people talking about how they want the good old days of CGI back, just like people are doing now with the models.
People don't laugh at it, but they aren't necessarily impressed either. People don't say 'wow, that looks good', they say 'wow, that must have been hard to make'. People who DO say 'wow, that looks good' are people who have not watched that much modern media, or people who are using it to disguise the fact that they like models because of the production, not because of the looks.
@fpiceail Avatar was hugely popular because of the groundbreaking technology - the technology of the 3D glasses. Apocalypto looks better than Avatar. The Planet of Evil jungle looks better than Avatar, especially when considering the time & budget. Professionals are supposed to use professional FX, not the kind you & I would use.
@fpiceail Avatar got a lot of exposure commercially than other movies. If it weren't for the 3D glasses we wouldn't even be discussing avatar right now.
It is about competitiveness. The best you can get right now is industrial standard CGI. Puppets and models are not competitive, only in certain circumstances are alternate film methods the better option ie. Wallace and Gromit.
@fpiceail The logo of the movie (even though it's just the 3rd Dr logo) is superior to the American-Godzilla-like logo of 2005, I'm glad we're rid of it. This "higher resolution" doesn't seem to make a difference for the better. The way the TARDIS is animated (the movements) make it look cheap - the movie version does not look cheap. I've already told you that I dislike the movie, but the theme song is at least more original than the 2005 version which copies it & re-uses the 60's bits.
The logo in the movie was DOCTOR WHO in word-art style 3d text. You must be batshit insane if you thought that logo was better than any of the doctor who logos besides the 60s ones. This comment of yours especially makes no sense whatsoever. In the movie theme, the time vortex has barely any depth to it whatsoever, the text is some generic 2d font, and the tardis is just casually floating. The 2005 animations are obviously more complex.
Once again, you give no reasoning to this. It is just 'it looks cheap'. HOW does it look cheap? The textures are obviously improved. The animations are obviously improved. The music...I don't think you will find very many fans who like the orchestral version over the classic electronic version. For someone who keeps saying that they should have stuck to the old ways, it seems like quite a 180 on your part to imply that it was bad that they based it on the original music.
@fpiceail I didn't say it was "bad" that they "based" it on the original music. I said it was unoriginal by just taking actual bits out of the 60's version & putting them together with an orchestra.
The way the TARDIS moves around makes it look cheap. You could have the best CGI program with the highest resolution & best textures, but the animators always seem to find a way to make it look cheap & unrealistic. Like in Chronicles of Narnia, Aslan would almost look real if he stood still.
Once again, opinion presented as fact. Slow floating isn't impressive. The tardis flinging around in the time vortex says a lot more than it just floating along.
@fpiceail "The tardis bouncing about in an unintentionally funny way in the time vortex says a lot more." What is it saying to you? Go play some video games?
It shows the 'wild adventure' side of the show. The old titles show the 'wierd' side of the show, but today, using effects like that wouldn't go down well with the audience.
@fpiceail The titles show nonsensical part of the show you mean. Btw the Matt Smith titles & theme music did NOT in fact go down well, because it was even too sh!t for Nuvians who usually lap the stuff up.
At worst the Matt smith title is a 'divided opinion' issue. I have seen people who love the matt smith thing, I have heard people hate it. But the same thing happened in the classic series: How did people feel after the classic Tom Baker theme was suddenly changed? Did ANYONE like the Sylvester McCoy theme?
@fpiceail Loads of people like the 7th Dr theme. Many people have said it's their favourite & that is more valid then when people say something about Nu-hu is their favourite because 99% of the time they've only seen Nu-hu.
In the olden days it was cool to criticise DW, didn't you know? Nowadays it is totally out of fashion to criticise Nu-hu, but when it came to the titles & theme the complaint even made it to Points of View - that's how bad it was.
Viewership and rating of things such as Jurassic park, Avatar and Doctor who are quite valid samples of evidence. If CGI was bad, more people would hate it, plain and simple.
No matter what something is or how good it is, there will always be people who hate it. So finding an obscure youtube video which supports the minority side of the argument isnt a good argument foundation in comparison to the viewing figures of just about any modern film.
@fpiceail If Twilight were crap more people would hate it plain & simple. It just so happens it's genius. Coronation Street has higher viewing figures than 99% of all British TV, does that mean it's the best? Well? Does it? Well?
And voila, a lot of people do hate Twilight. The hunger games movie, based on a truly good book series, is more anticipated. See how it works?
I've never watched Coronation Street. But shows like Dexter and Game of Thrones are popular, and they are really good shows. Popularity can be misleading some of the time, but usually it is a good indicator.
@fpiceail A lot of people hate Nu-hu as well. Btw Twilight makes more money & has more viewers than DW.
Dexter is about a guy who cuts people up - a truly despicable show. Next you'll start talking about the success of Saw. American Idol & other unscripted reality shows are popular as well.
Talking crap about Dexter, now? Dexter is a very widely-liked show. It actually has a very complex plot and there is much more depth to the character than just 'a guy who cuts people up'.
The ratio of Doctor Who lovers to haters is much larger than the ratio of Twilight lovers to haters.
@fpiceail The Coronation Street lovers are the largest of all. Does that prove anything? Well? Does it?
Dexter's premise is despicable, I couldn't care how damn deep he is. What does deep even mean nowadays? If he slept with his mother people would say it's deep. Widely liked doesn't mean anything. It doesn't guaranty quality.
Here is a quick rundown of the show for you. He witnessed his mother's brutal murder when he was 5 years old, which became a repressed memory (he later uncovers it). He gets the urge to kill things, as some severely disturbed people do. He is taught to focus that urge on killing murderers.
So, in a way, it is about a vigilante. It is not just someone who goes around killing innocent people. It is not like the senseless gore that is Saw, and that is why it is so successful.
@fpiceail I know the dumb premise of the show, why on Earth are we discussing it?
"It is not like the senseless gore that is Saw, and that is why it is so successful." So why in all of f*ck is Saw so successful? Isn't just senseless gore? So Dexter could be senseless gore & be just as popular as Saw.
@fpiceail It's a soap, it's like any other soap. Have you seen Neighbours? It's like that except they have northern accents sort of. Even East Enders is better than it - East Enders isn't very good btw.
@fpiceail The movie TARDIS is moving in a realistic way & not like a cartoon. Nu-hu has a 2d logo as well, except the logo isn't as good. Anyway, the movie logo is just the 3rd Dr logo again. The vortex obviously looks better in the movie. The 2005 version looks on par with a cartoon.
Ok. The TARDIS, a time machine that is bigger on the inside, moving through 'time vortex' more....realistically....in the movie. Got it. :D
So it is similar in that it is just bland text. What you said doesn't make it any better than the revival logo. The revival logo at least has design to it, the movie logo....I wonder how long THAT took to think up.
That 'obviously looks better' comment is complete bullshit, and is another one of your unsupported, hugely biased opinions being stated as fact.
I give reasons as to why the 2005 version is better - the more complex animations for both the tardis and the time vortex, the superior logo design, the better textures.
@fpiceail I told you more than that in my response, can't you read? The 2005 logo is just the American Godzilla logo but with nonsensical fire. The TARDIS in the 2005 title sequence bobs about in a cartoony way. The whole design & directing of the 2005 title sequence is too much like the movie one - thus unoriginal. See, I've written all this before, so why would you say that all I said was: "no, it's not"?
@fpiceail What a lot of people don't seem to realise is that something simple is better than something crap. The simple 60's logo is better than the 2005 copy of the American Godzilla logo. Less is more as the saying goes.
It is also quite remarkable, how you complain about bad plots and "americanisation" in the new doctor who...yet you like the doctor who movie. Most fans agree that the doctor who movie was horribly americanized. Ultimately, the answer to the question as to why you like the movie, is "because it is old". I guarantee that in 1996, you hated the movie. I also think it is a safe guess that your thoughts on the new Doctor Who were set in stone well before March 2005.
@fpiceail You are mistaken, I hate the American DW movie, but it's gold compared to Nu-hu.
YOU GO TOO FAR! My thoughts were NOT set in stone well before 2005. I was so excited about seeing new DW I used to visit the BBC website everyday to see if they would post new pictures. I used to read all the interviews with ReTarD. People were saying that Eccleston was perhaps a bad choice, but I didn't care as long as the stories were good.
Comment removed
84Summers 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
4:35 The 2nd Doctor: "Oh, my giddy aunt! Oh, crumbs!" ("The Two Doctors")
84Summers 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
4:35 sorry
thepoopyplanet 1 week ago
what does the second doctor say at 4:45
thepoopyplanet 1 week ago
2:36 to 2:40 all of the doctors best enemies one after the other sontarans, Daleks then the cybermen
glinos123 1 week ago
@glinos123 sorry 2:34 to 2:38
glinos123 1 week ago
Fascinating. About a page of comments has gone by and Doctor Who isnt even being mentioned anymore, LOL
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
WOAH DUDE!!!!
tardisandfredfan001 1 month ago
It's nice to see this updated!
MasterKasterborous 1 month ago
@MasterKasterborous Do u want me to do it? I could :D
XxLi3rose123xX 1 month ago
@XxLi3rose123xX It's already been updated. What do you mean???
MasterKasterborous 1 month ago
@MasterKasterborous From 2008- to 2011 that's what I mean :)
XxLi3rose123xX 1 month ago
@XxLi3rose123xX Well BabelColour has already done an update. See his latest video...
MasterKasterborous 1 month ago
And now for something non-argumentative!
CGI is a good creation, but overusing it can be damaging. I'm not saying that the old effects are bad, its just a matter of what methods are available at the time and how much the audience can suspend their disbelief.
For example, look at Blade Runner. The effects are of the 80s, but they still blend in seamlessly. What ultimately matters is the story. Now please stop this stupid argument.
BTW, I like both Old and Nu Who.
MattSmithIsCool100 1 month ago
@MattSmithIsCool100 You obviously like Nu-hu more, look at your name.
There are a lot of 80's films that use real FX that are much more effective. For instance Audrey 2 in Little Shop of Horrors would look sh!t if it were cgi.
Redhellmet 1 month ago
@Redhellmet I don't like Nu Hu more, I merely thought it was a decent YouTube name. I repeat, I like the Old and New Series equally.
I do understand where you're coming from, and do agree that old FX are given a bad rep in this CGI age, I'm just trying to provide a balanced opinion. And as I said, the story ultimately matters a whole lot more than the FX.
MattSmithIsCool100 1 month ago
@fpiceail It is obvious to everyone that the Trial of a Timelord model looks better than ANY of the cgi in Nu-hu. Any effect in DW that doesn't look good to you can be easily excused - LACK OF BUDGET.
Anyone on their PC can do cgi effects, any real effects would require lots of money & expertise.
Links still don't work. Just say the name of the adventures that these ships are in.
Compare when they show the Dr's hearts in 'CavesoAndrozani' & in 'Dalek'. The former sh!t's all over the latter's cgi
Redhellmet 1 month ago
@Redhellmet
Just curious, how did you feel about Jurassic Park, in comparison to older dinosaur films?
fpiceail 1 month ago
@fpiceail The best FX in JurassicPark R the puppet bits.
Here is the YouTube-vid I was talking about:
MOTION BLUR. NOT CGI. THIS IS STOP-MOTION.FX blur by Peter Montgomery
It is by an amateur stop-animationist. His REAL animation is clearly superior to any of the CGI dinos U'll find on YT.
It's a new way of achieving special FX. It's forward thinking -not nostalgic. I don't dislike cgi cuz it's new I dislike it cuz it looks cheap&unsatisfying. I like this other NEW effect so again -not nostalgic
Redhellmet 1 month ago
@Redhellmet
I really can't take you seriously. You have yet to explain HOW cgi looks unreal. CGI is computer generated, it is literally as realistic as you can get. Puppets and models, how could anyone honestly believe they look MORE real? Just look at picture comparison. You are in complete denial about this, because you are nostalgic, and you are just using that stop-motion thing as an excuse to fuel that denial.
fpiceail 1 month ago
@fpiceail I gave U video evidence that there are better FX than cgi. Cgi may look ok as a still image but when the animators start animating it it looses its effect.
Again, the effect I showed U is new, so how does that make me nostalgic for preferring it to cgi?
Also, cgi looks unsatisfying as well as fake. Whereas hands-on FX at worse only look fake. Real models look more impressive than virtual ones.
Compare the original RedDwarf&StarWars models to the newer cgi versions'.
Redhellmet 1 month ago
@Redhellmet
Once again, the only reason you are using that video is as an excuse to not being nostalgic. A quick look at your channels shows that you love the old versions of franchises, and you despise the newer versions. You despise CGI, the newer, more effective film effects, while you love the models. Look at the Dr.Who confidential for 42, they show a compilation of all the dr who spaceships over time. It is clear that it consistently improves. If you can't accept that, you are nostalgic.
fpiceail 1 month ago
@fpiceail But I've told U already time & time again that over the 26 year long run there were changes & the FX got better & I liked all those changes. I just don't like Nu-hu stuff.
I need to be a total trend-whore B4 U stop dismissing my arguments for being due to nostalgia.
The New YT-design I find has limitations that the old one doesn't. I'm all for YT changing e.g. one should be able to see the rating & info BEFORE one clicks on the vid.
90% of FX R cgi due to low-cost, not believability
Redhellmet 1 month ago
Comment removed
fpiceail 1 month ago
@Redhellmet
Yet CGI looks undeniably more realistic. Why SHOULD they spend more money and time for something that in the end is more limited on set and will never look as good? The only reason people like you cling to the model effects is due to nostalgia. There are very few people who honest to god believe that models look better, and I find it hard to believe there is anyone on this Earth who believes that they are more practical in production.
fpiceail 1 month ago
@fpiceail I'm sure U R the only one on Earth that thinks the new StarWars cgi FX more impressive than the original model ones. Wallace&Gromit would look better in cgi, right?
If U want to know the opinion of the masses just type: cgi is
into Google & C the suggestions. & also: stop motion is
Some, not every1, thinks cgi is he greatest of all FX.
Because I find FX that any1 can do on their PC unimpressive, like a million Daleks flying through space, means I'm nostalgic? U R talking out of Ur arse
Redhellmet 1 month ago
@Redhellmet
Once again, you just have to compare the CGI spaceships of the revival series to the cardboard-tube-with-paint ships of 1963-1989. You are simply in denial if you think the older ships look more realistic. Once again, looking at your profile, "Things I like: Doctor Who (before 2004), Red Dward (before 1999), Spiderman/X-men (90s), Prisoner (until 2009)". Do you see the trend here? You ALWAYS like the old one better.
fpiceail 1 month ago
@fpiceail
You can hide behind crappy reasoning such as "CGI looks worse" and "there are more consistencies", but ultimately it comes down to "because it was older". You love the old things, you hate the new things. The very definition of nostalgia.
fpiceail 1 month ago
@fpiceail The older versions of all those things just happen to be better. Like The Simpsons was a hilarious programme with ingenious jokes a lot of the newer stuff is dire. Nowadays you can find a crappy version of everything that was once great.
Anyway YOU must be the one in denial if U think that Nuhu CGI looks better than the TrialotTimelord spacestation.
My trend isn't that I like the old ones better - I like the better ones better. e.g. spiderman has plenty of older versions that I dislike
Redhellmet 1 month ago
@Redhellmet
There are people who do not like CGI. The reason is not because of how it looks. They don't like it because it takes a lot of depth out of production. Of course it is less costly in all aspects to produce something with computer-animated special effects. It also looks more realistic. That is why people do it.
You have misunderstood it. You think they are thinking the same thing as you. Because you need another argument against the new dr.who. Because you are nostalgic.
fpiceail 1 month ago
@fpiceail Cgi does NOT look more realistic. I've brought up plenty of examples for my argument of REAL FX that look a lot better, whereas U have failed to mention examples while ignoring mine. To name them again: Original StarWars vs new Star Wars (people DO agree with me on this one & YOU R the one clearly in denial). RedDwarf's models R superior to their cgi. TrialoaTimelord SpaceStation vs everything in Nuhu, 2001 Space Odyssey vs Avatar.
It's an undeniable fact that REAL FX R superior to cgi
Redhellmet 1 month ago
@Redhellmet
Have you seen the Dr.Who ship video sequence from the doctor who confidential for S03E07?
fpiceail 1 month ago
@fpiceail
Also, CGI tends to have a pretty strong standing when juxtaposed to old episodes where you can see the wires attached to the models. That doesn't look very realistic to me, i must say, lol.
fpiceail 1 month ago
@fpiceail AGAIN, any FX you consider sub-standard in the original DW can be excused easily as they had a very a small budget. But even with that small budget they were able to at times create much more convincing FX that stand up today better than Nu-hu's FX will in 30 years time.
Rarely could you see the strings. Whereas in Nu-hu ALL the ships look unrealistic due to the fact that it's all cgi.
Red Dwarf, Star Wars, 2001 a Space Odyssey & Alien all use models. Do they look unrealistic to you?
Redhellmet 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Redhellmet Red Dwarf, Star Wars, 2001 a Space Odyssey & Alien all use models. Do they look unrealistic to you?
Frankly yes, nobody will ever convince me that the Death Star is at all practical.
ACtheLegend 1 month ago
@Redhellmet Stop arguing about this! I agree with most of your comments, but this has gone on long enough. Old FX are good, but CGI isn't totally unrealistic. Go on, look at Avatar. That is a perfect example of CGI done right. Now go and watch some Tom Baker DVDs and chill the f*** out!
MattSmithIsCool100 1 month ago
@MattSmithIsCool100 HAHAHAHAHA! Avatar??? Are you kidding me? Avatar has a sh!t story AND all the visuals look sh!t AND unrealistic. Just compare that video game footage to Apocalypto. Apocalypto, like Avatar, has got a dumb, simplified story but, like a lot of Mel Gibson films, the visuals look great because they're real. But like most Mel Gibson films, Hollywood didn't make a big deal out of it.
The only thing Avatar had was loads of exposure (commercially).
Btw, the argument ended long ago.
Redhellmet 1 month ago
@Redhellmet Okay, maybe Avatar is a bad choice in terms of story, but not for effects. Come on, that is the pinnacle of what can be achieved with CGI, which admittedly does make for a good visual experience. But it's mostly down to how the thing was constructed; Blade Runner works brilliantly because it has a great story, but also because the effects blended seamlessly in with the action. As a result, even Avatar may look dated in the future, partially because the story lets it down.
MattSmithIsCool100 1 month ago
@MattSmithIsCool100 Just compare it to Apocalypto. Avatar doesn't look amazing, any1 who thinks otherwise is a victim of propaganda. Avatar would have been better if, like Toy Story, the whole film had been animated. But cgi people, animals or creatures in a live-action film or TV show just look unrealistic, virtual & cheap. It doesn't look like they put much time or effort in, it only looks a little better than a video game.
I dislike Bladerunner, but at least it looks like they made an effort.
Redhellmet 1 month ago
@Redhellmet Can I just concede now? Please?
PS: How can you dislike Blade Runner? Wait, don't answer that. I can guess.
MattSmithIsCool100 1 month ago
@Redhellmet
So I see the argument boils down to "CGI looks unrealistic...because it is CGI". What a pathetic argument from frankly a pathetic individual. Then again, after seeing your channel videos, I don't expect much better. While you definitely aren't one, you act like a complete, immature child, and once again, all the crap you say can be boiled down to the fact that you are nostalgic, and you are conjuring up any bullshit you can use to bash the "nuhu" (hurr durr)
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail No, my argument boils down to - Any1 can do CGI on their PC, it is the main tool for amateurs with no expertise & no budget, therefore unless a professional production team has no expertise or budget they shouldn't be using such an effect predominantly.
You insult yourself - my videos on my LegoDaleks channel may be crap, but they are better than yours.
Again, I was looking forward to Nu-hu since 2003 & only turned my back on it after 6 years - got that? So how is that nostalgic?
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Lol. Complementing your own videos...
Your videos are not clever, nor funny. You make childish jokes, you point out 'plot holes' which are really just your misunderstanding of events in the episodes. You spend the whole time making dull insults "STEVEN MOFFAT IS A BAD WRITER LOLLL", and you are playing with childs toys. In your comments, you get the same couple of people saying "LOLOL EPIC VID", and I have actually seen you use your 2nd account to fake another person.
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail
Then again, I can see why you don't see a problem with your videos, since you don't seem to see a problem in yourself either. Someone calls you nostalgic? Just say that you aren't, argument settled woot! You also seem to keep reminding yourself that you are smarter than most people and think for yourself... That honestly sounds like "my mom says im special!" to me.
Oh, seems like you are a hipster, too now. Lol.
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail I gave evidence that shows that I'm not nostalgic so don't just claim that all I said was that I'm nostalgic.
The only evidence U have that I think a lot of myself is that 1 sentence U read on my channel. U ignore most of what's in front of U, then take 1 line & blow it out of proportion. What I was mainly saying was that I tend to analyse things more than others. "The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."
Hipster? Try backing up your statements.
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
The same can be said about your nitpicking of 'plot holes' in your videos.
Hipster: A person that avoids uniformity/things that are popular. Yeah, I would say it is pretty accurate.
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail I neither like something nor dislike nor do I prefer it or hate it purely on the grounds of it being "popular". There are some new things I like - I was never a fan of Batman but I do like batman of the future/batman beyond, but you can always claim that I'm just lying again to hide my nostalgic nature. There seems also to be something you don't understand, you see when I used to watch the original DW on UKGold it was NEW to me especially the 6th & 7th Dr stuff, but all of it really.
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Who's word are we taking on the nostalgic matter? Yours. I say you are nostalgic, you retort by saying you aren't, and saying "see, I like some new things too!". One, I don't buy it. It is so easy for someone to bullshit their way through an argument, and yours are so transparent. And two, the fact remains that the majority of the things you like are the older versions. That is still nostalgic.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail I like certain things, no matter how long a list I give you you'll only count the "old" stuff as genuine & the "new" stuff as a lie, so let's just close that part of the argument, okay?
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
But you prefer old things the majority of the time, that still makes you nostalgic
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail By insulting my videos U only further insult Ur own. Mine could be sh!t but they are without a doubt better than Urs.
I use figures to depict scenes, I didn't use animation cuz I've got a primitive camera & editing program. So the production values are easily excused. Even though I have fewer videos than U I have more subscribers. So if you believe Ur own argument about measuring the quality of something by it's audience then U also need to admit that my vids are better than Urs :P
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
You have more subscribers...but you have 30k channel views. I have 250k. So, you have 4x the amount of subscribers, but I have 8x the amount of views. That really says a lot about how many of your subscribers are "real" subscribers in that context.
Also, funny how you say the new doctor who isn't better based on viewers, but you think your channel is better because of subscribers.
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
A quick look at your channel shows that you like:
The Japanese Godzilla movies (until 1999)
Doctor Who!!! (until 2004)
Red Dwarf! (until 1999)
Futurama (until 2003)
Blakes 7, 90's Spiderman and X-men, Robin of Shearwood, the Prisoner (until 2009)
See the trend? You like the old version of everything. So far from you, I have heard that "CGI is crap because it is CGI". I have heard "Remakes are crap" (because they are remakes?). I think I can safely assume that
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail
you hate new things too, "because they are new". This is what it all boils down to. If the Doctor Who revival series was THAT BAD, it wouldnt be so successful, period. So many people around the world watch and enjoy Doctor Who. It is their word against some man-child on youtube who posted a few videos before ragequitting at the "simple minded, cocksucking arseholes" who watch doctor who. Good luck finding anyone to back you up.
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail Are U merely feigning ignorance? Twilight, can't be THAT BAD otherwise it wouldn't be successful, period. See how that argument falls down like the decrepit feeble old man it is?
There are people who "back me up", but it wouldn't matter even if there weren't any. Unlike you I'm not a blind conformist.
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
You missed the part where I said there is a massive range of people around the world who watch doctor who. In twilight, there is a large audience, but it is predominantly one group of people. At the University here, nearly everyone watches doctor who, even the professors. These are well educated and thoughtful people, if doctor who really was as terrible as you say it was (Reminder: you think EVERYTHING is terrible about the new doctor who, lol), surely these people wouldnt watch
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail Wouldn't these same people admit to watching such dire nonsense like American Idol & its affiliates(?), which are essentially just freak-shows, the lowest form of entertainment, only topped by public executions. Twilight has a greater audience.
What do high figures mean? Coronation Street got higher viewing figures than DW in it's last season (1989), but who remembers or cares about 80's Corrie now? But people still buy 80's DW DVD's today. Nu-hu = Corrie - here today, gone tomorrow.
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Well no, they wouldnt, that is a stupid assumption. You have grouped anyone who disagrees with you into one group of 'brainwashed idiots', and that is why these stupid assumptions come forth.
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail Anyone, even people like you can clearly see that Red Dwarf's models were better than Babylon 5's cgi, don't even try to pretend otherwise.
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Look at the Toclafane pouring out of the rift in Sound of Drums. Look at Vesuvius erupting in Fires of Pompeii. Look at Satellite 5 in The Long Game, and the shots of Earth throughout the show. Look at the alien army in The Pandorica Opens.
Such events were computer animated. They look pretty damn believable. The Vesuvius scene is particularly epic. Anyone, even people like you can clearly see that these are better than models with dodgy camera angles and bad lighting.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail
Don't even try to pretend otherwise.
Amidoingitrightlol
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail Maybe it looks good to you because you play too many video games. I just can't believe you mentioned Satellite 5, that looked even worse than Babylon 5. The toclafane never for one moment looked real, until it was an actual prop. There's a bit where one of them isn't completely CGI, is it all of a sudden unrealistic & dodgy then?
Also the make-up to make Tennant look old isn't as good as the make-up to make the 4th Dr look old in Leisure Hive, Tennant can't even act even old.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Opinion. Presented. As. Fact. Maybe it doesn't look good to you because you have your head up your ass about the whole subject?
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail Just because I'm not impressed with video game footage, unlike you since that is all you concern yourself with in your vids, doesn't mean I've got my head up my arse, quite the opposite in fact.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
I make video game footage since no one wants to see me acting like a child in front of the camera making immature remarks about a show I have a vendetta against.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail Make fun of my vids all you want, they are still infinitely better than yours. And keep on begging for those subscribers as well.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Lol, point out the video where I was 'begging for subscribers'.
I have one video on my channel which has more views than all your uploads combined. I think I am quite happy with my channel, thanks.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail So why beg for subs if you're so happy? You clearly think they are valuable, so my greater number of subs means something.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
But I am not begging for subs. Begging for subs is saying "PLEASE SUBSCRIBE" in info and annotations on every video, like some people actually do. Making a sneak preview for a subscriber special is just advertising. Once again, I have a video which has almost double the views of all your uploads put together. If you are trying to make me jealous of your channel, or trying to make your channel look better, it really isn't working.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail It's hard to believe you can't follow the plot. You started criticising my vids, but since I have more than 3x the amount of subs you have (& you think 50 is special) that means that they are better than yours, also you started making vids in 2008, whereas I started in 2010.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
I started in 2011. Count the amount of videos I released before August 2011.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail It doesn't matter the amount before or after. You started in 2008. Or do you not count to vid/vids you did before 2011 when counting the overall views as well?
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Ok, lets not count the amount of views I got for vids before 2011. Still over 200k, try again.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
And Doctor Who lost so many viewers later on because it became outdated, the audience had grown up/moved on, and they kept messing with the format a lot during the 2nd half of the 80s.
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail DW was put up against Coronation Street. It wasn't cancelled because anything was wrong with it, everyone knows that. Do you believe all the BBC's propaganda & Michael Grade's lies? I suppose you also think the late eighties were too violent & the budget was so big & such a strain on the BBC, right?
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Referring to it as PROPAGANDA and LIES is complete laughable bullshit. At no point is anyone telling you CGI is better. Filmmakers use CGI, they don't spend time brainwashing people to believe that CGI is superior. The fact that CGI is popular is not due to 'propaganda and lies', (which by the way are words used to describe psychological tactics used by corrupt, authoritarian governments, NOT the use of film techniques,) but rather the fact that quality CGI is what people want now.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail Hollywood is responsible for a lot of propaganda, didn't you know? That's including that CGI looks better than REAL FX. Show any open-minded person REAL FX & they'll realise that it's better than CGI. CGI is used because it is incredibly fast & cheap to make. That's what Hollywood likes - America in general was always good at mass-producing garbage.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
I would really like to know what your definition of propaganda is, and how hollywood uses propaganda. The idea is laughable. An example of propaganda is WWII posters which say "fight for your country' etc. Prolific use of CGI in media is not propaganda.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail You seem to be very blind when it comes to the propaganda of FX, so why not look at another aspect - like sexism or racism. See, I chose some easy ones for you to spot, then we can slowly move on to FX, okay?
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fpiceail DW was put up against Coronation Street. It wasn't cancelled because anything was wrong with it, everyone knows that. Do you believe all the BBC's propaganda & Michael Grade's lies? I suppose you also think the late eighties were too violent & the budget was so big & such a strain on the BBC, right?
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail No, I like the better parts of everything. The trend of the 21st century seems to be to instead of creating new things people just make crap versions of old ones. And again there are older versions of Spiderman that I don't like.
I dislike the new Youtube design because it makes everyone uniform & one hasn't the chance to be unique. I am strictly against uniformity, which is another reason I dislike when EVERY effect is achieved with CGI. CGI looks cheap & unrealistic - FACT.
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
That is not a fact, that is your misguided, ignorant opinion. Yes there are quite a few people tat hate CGI, but it is not because of how it looks. It is because the use of CGI takes depth out of production. But, if it makes production cheaper and faster, it is much more feasible (if they want to go back and change the shot, it is a million times easier), and ultimately it looks better, why the hell not? You wont get more viewers from behind the scenes complexities
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
I can post a million picture comparisons here between the CGI Doctor Who and the classic Doctor Who, but you are in such huge denial about the whole matter that it would be pointless. Oh, and you can't figure out how to supply the period back into a link in a youtube comment, lol
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail I can post a million picture as well as video comparisons here between Nu-hu & Doctor Who, but you are in such "huge" denial about the whole matter that it would be pointless.
The stories & dialogue are what was most important about DW anyway. But even the production values of DW are better than Nu-hu, ESPECIALLY when considering the budgets. The Nu-hu production team even manage to do a sh!t, sub-standard job on the title sequence & theme tune. There's no end to their fecklessness.
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
You seem to have an awful habit of posting your own thoughts as fact. You don't give any reasons as to HOW cgi is crap and unrealistic, you don't give any reasons as to why the title sequence is crap, you just state that it is so and call that an argument. It is not an argument. It is a kid sticking his fingers in his ears shouting "IM RIGHT YOURE WRONG, LALALALA NOT LISTENING".
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail HOW MANY MORE TIMES do I need to give you the evidence that cgi is a cheap crap effect??? Look back on my last replies, because I CLEARLY state "reasons". I did again & again & again. Look back in the conversation you will definitely find them.
The 2005 title sequence is crap because it's just a cheap version of it's decade old predecessor. The 2010 one is just the same thing again, except the time vortex was replaced by clouds for some odd reason.
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
You don't. You give examples, to which I can easily say "Yes, the new ones look better". That is just about the same quality as your arguments here. I could post REAL evidence, you know, picture comparisons, but a) you cant figure out how to work a link in a youtube comment and b) it is such a subjective matter that it would be impossible to convince anyone either way.
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
A cheap version? It has higher quality music (seriously, many fans hated the 1996 theme, because it wasn't electronic like all the others. You aren't mad about that???), higher quality animations (look at the TARDIS flying, and the time vortex, compare them to the 1996. You get more complex and clearer animations in 2005). The textures are higher quality, and the logo actually has design, and is not just blue text with high depth.
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail
I could say all the old themes are low quality music, crappy windows-media-player-grade effects with the unnecessary faces, as if to remind you who the doctor is in case you haven't noticed.
Also, the 1987-1989 theme is utter shit. That is something most people agree on.
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail
In the 2010 theme, you have better animations, modified theme and a new logo. There is the added clouds and lightning, and the texture quality is again higher. People complained about the new theme, because a) people dont like change, and b) it is the first time they changed the melody of the theme (they added the initial electronic trumpet sounds), which relates back to A.
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail There's no baseline. It's the sh!ttiest sounding theme ever. The clouds & lightning make zero sense. What does lightning zapping the TARDIS whilst surrounded by clouds have to do with the show? It's just a nonsensical version of the previous one. The new logo says Doctor Doctor Who Who (it's still better than the previous logo).
I prefer Matt to Tennant, so that's not nostalgic is it? According to U I should start loving Eccleston soon, cuz series 1 is getting old.
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Uh. what? There is a very clear baseline. Obviously the lightning/clouds is just a new design of the time vortex which is easier on the eyes than the last one, with a lot cleaner textures. May I ask what the trippy 1970s effects had to do with the show?
You prefer Matt to Tennant because saying so gives you an excuse to say you aren't nostalgic, as seen in your comment.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail Matt is a superior actor, anyone who prefers Tennant is just some stupid fangirl. Tennant couldn't act. Matt Smith is a breath of fresh air after Tennant. Especially in Beast Below, he gets all the same sh!tty lines as Tennant but he doesn't over-act. He does a proper performance, until that unfortunate shouting bit. Beats Below is one of the few were Muppet isn't trying to be constantly funny. I'd say it was the best of Nu-hu, but according to you I should think Rose is the best.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
ONCE AGAIN, "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot". I think this whole comment can be disregarded because once again, it is all opinion presented as fact. My brother prefers David Tennant. He is one of the top students of his age group and is doing advanced medicinal chemistry on early entry in university. Apparently, according to some random on youtube, he is retarded because he watches the new doctor who and likes Tennant. Right.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fpiceail I never said: "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot". Do try not to misquote me. Since when do good grades equal good taste? Maybe he's never seen the original series so he doesn't know what good acting looks like. Look at Muppet's background, if you watch his shows it's as if he's never read a book in his life. Academic education doesn't prove anything.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Academic education proves that the person is knowledgable. I have met several people who like the new doctor who, UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS included. My mother, who watched doctor who very regularly during the 70s, admits that the new effects are better. And she is someone who doesnt like prolific CGI usage. People dont like CGI because of the production depth. They don't hate it because of the way it looks.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail I'm sure a lot of these "UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS" also watch garbage like those reality programmes or Coronation Street. So, that doesn't prove anything.
I really don't care what you say what your mum thinks.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
See, here you are again lumping a large group of people under one generalisation. How about the fact that the show is very well received by critics; people who's job it is to nitpick anything wrong with a film? Does it ever occur to you that a) no one, or at least very few people hate the revival series as much as you do, and b) the only people who do hate it are those who prowl youtube comments?
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail There are lots of people who are impressed with Coronation Street as well. The critics don't bash that & it gets some of the highest viewing history & appreciation figures than any other shows, does that mean that it's a great show? No. Does it have longevity? No. The same goes for Nu-hu, except it isn't even viewed by as many people.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
And there are lots of people on that video who like the Trial of the Time Lord station. Does that make it great?
See how it goes?
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail You said people laugh at it, I said people are impressed by it. The vid is evidence of my claim, where's your evidence?
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
I posted a CGI video that had nothing but complements, for one.
I said it was 'laughable' by today's standards. I didn't literally mean people laughed at it, I meant that people often don't take it seriously, and it really isn't competitive. If they made a completely independent film, not part of any previous IP franchise, both film and books, and they used classic doctor who grade effects, it would very likely not be successful.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail If they made a completely independent film, not part of any previous IP franchise, both film and books, and they used Nu-hu grade effects, it would very likely not be successful either.
Where's the proof that people don't take models seriously even when they are done well?
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Um, there have been quite a few independent films which used CGI which have been quite successful, ie. Sorcerer's apprentice
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail More proof that it's the amateur with the small budget's effect.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail The 60's & 70's titles were wonderfully weird like the music & show overall. Nu-hu isn't wonderfully weird & neither is the title sequence. Seeing a bunch of shapes move around is not as descriptive & it's open to interpretation. But the TARDIS bouncing about in a twister of clouds while random struck by lightning which makes it look unintentionally funny, is very specific & you can't interpret it any other way. It's just utterly nonsensical - just like the stupid unoriginal show.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
It is all what is expected in this day and age. If they used 70s-esque theme and music, it would very well be 'unintentionally funny' to EVERYONE. If they used models and puppets, like they did in the old doctor who, people would treat it like an utter joke. BBC cannot afford to use outdated methods. The show wouldnt have lasted past series 2. Instead, it is going strong approaching Series 7.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail You're right, that vid of the space station called: 'best effect?' everyone was laughing at it. As if, eh? What an utter joke, EVERYONE is SOOO unimpressed with that, right?
You're getting lazy now.
Btw, Twilight is also "going strong"
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
The people commenting there are the only ones who care. People aren't looking up 'old effects' to laugh at them, they just don't give a shit. 100% models and props limits creativity in what actually happens in the film. If you make a film using puppets and models in an age where CGI is the norm, people will not like it, and the film would not be competitive at all.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail It's called: best effects' not "old effects". That's just a pitiful excuse as to why people aren't laughing their heads off at it. I'm sure your stomach still hurts from all the laughing that you did.
I know people who have seen it & don't believe it was made in the 80's. Avatar looks like it was made now though, not ahead of it's time at all. But guess what is a head of it's time? Star Wars, Space Odyssey, Alien - you know the laughable stuff like the puppets & models.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
The poor lighting and crappy music really give it away. It is a classic, and people will always cling to them and say they are the 'best'. There are people who say Avatar's effects are the 'best' too, and frankly there are a lot more of those sort.
You are not understanding, these days people do not respect those effects because they are used to the advanced CGI effects of modern times. If CGI was truly worse, you'd see a lot more people wanting the old effects back.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail People have always been impressed by FX, but past & present the StarWars/spaceOdissey/Alien FX fans are greater than any cgi movie fans.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail Um, FYI there was no such thing as windows media player at the time. Only professionals could make that, unlike nowadays, nowadays anyone can re-do the 2005-2009 title sequence on their PC.
Showing the faces are as "irrelevant" as showing the title - Doctor Who.
Um, actually most people do not agree with that (where do you get this stuff from?) comparing Keff Mcculloch to Murray Gold is like comparing The Beatles to Lady Gaga.
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
I wasn't implying that windows media player existed back then, derp. I was saying that the effects are bad by today's standards. Good for the time, but if you want to realistically compare the old to the new, the old is outdated obviously. Look at the 1970-1973 theme, enough said. The theme sounds a lot weaker than the current, and the 7th Doctor theme is not to be mentioned at all.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail
Biased, crappy similes do not help your argument at all, by the way.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail Which biased crappy similes are these?
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
The Lady Gaga comment
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail The "New" is already outdated, cuz CGI programs DO exist today & they can do the same stuff & anyone can get hold of them. The theme's of the past are superior & timeless, you are one of the few (assuming you're telling the truth) who thinks otherwise. Nobody & I mean NOBODY agrees with you on that one. The baseline in the Nu Matt stuff is weaker than ever, so you're talking out of your arse.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
That is a pretty bold statement there.
People these days expect CGI in film. Avatar was hugely popular because of the groundbreaking special effects. It would most certainly NOT have the same success if it was all crappy models. Remember, Models are more limited, even you agree with that. What is the point of using models, the aesthetics of which are hugely debatable at best, when in the end they likely wont look as good AND they are more limited.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail
As for the theme, the reason why people like the old themes is because they were classic and iconic. But from an actual design and technical standpoint, the new themes are better.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail The original themes are better because they are actually impressive. Orchestras have existed since...I don't know when, they are more limited which is why even Murray can't only rely on an orchestra. Murray's version isn't any better than the movie one.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
They were impressive...at the time. People these days look back at it and laugh. That is how technology works. Some time in the future, it could all be holograms in the cinemas, and there would be people talking about how they want the good old days of CGI back, just like people are doing now with the models.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail Believe me, no one is going to miss the age of the Jarjarbinx. I've yet to hear anyone laugh at the space station in Trial of a Timelord.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
People don't laugh at it, but they aren't necessarily impressed either. People don't say 'wow, that looks good', they say 'wow, that must have been hard to make'. People who DO say 'wow, that looks good' are people who have not watched that much modern media, or people who are using it to disguise the fact that they like models because of the production, not because of the looks.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail Again, footage of satellite 5 doesn't make anyone go "wow", but that station does.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail Avatar was hugely popular because of the groundbreaking technology - the technology of the 3D glasses. Apocalypto looks better than Avatar. The Planet of Evil jungle looks better than Avatar, especially when considering the time & budget. Professionals are supposed to use professional FX, not the kind you & I would use.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
3D wasn't exactly groundbreaking, several films used 3D before Avatar.
Blizzard Entertainment cinematics are always very well received. They are 100% CGI, but they look pretty damn amazing.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail Avatar got a lot of exposure commercially than other movies. If it weren't for the 3D glasses we wouldn't even be discussing avatar right now.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
It is about competitiveness. The best you can get right now is industrial standard CGI. Puppets and models are not competitive, only in certain circumstances are alternate film methods the better option ie. Wallace and Gromit.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail The logo of the movie (even though it's just the 3rd Dr logo) is superior to the American-Godzilla-like logo of 2005, I'm glad we're rid of it. This "higher resolution" doesn't seem to make a difference for the better. The way the TARDIS is animated (the movements) make it look cheap - the movie version does not look cheap. I've already told you that I dislike the movie, but the theme song is at least more original than the 2005 version which copies it & re-uses the 60's bits.
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
The logo in the movie was DOCTOR WHO in word-art style 3d text. You must be batshit insane if you thought that logo was better than any of the doctor who logos besides the 60s ones. This comment of yours especially makes no sense whatsoever. In the movie theme, the time vortex has barely any depth to it whatsoever, the text is some generic 2d font, and the tardis is just casually floating. The 2005 animations are obviously more complex.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail
Once again, you give no reasoning to this. It is just 'it looks cheap'. HOW does it look cheap? The textures are obviously improved. The animations are obviously improved. The music...I don't think you will find very many fans who like the orchestral version over the classic electronic version. For someone who keeps saying that they should have stuck to the old ways, it seems like quite a 180 on your part to imply that it was bad that they based it on the original music.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail I didn't say it was "bad" that they "based" it on the original music. I said it was unoriginal by just taking actual bits out of the 60's version & putting them together with an orchestra.
The way the TARDIS moves around makes it look cheap. You could have the best CGI program with the highest resolution & best textures, but the animators always seem to find a way to make it look cheap & unrealistic. Like in Chronicles of Narnia, Aslan would almost look real if he stood still.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Once again, opinion presented as fact. Slow floating isn't impressive. The tardis flinging around in the time vortex says a lot more than it just floating along.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail "The tardis bouncing about in an unintentionally funny way in the time vortex says a lot more." What is it saying to you? Go play some video games?
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
It shows the 'wild adventure' side of the show. The old titles show the 'wierd' side of the show, but today, using effects like that wouldn't go down well with the audience.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail The titles show nonsensical part of the show you mean. Btw the Matt Smith titles & theme music did NOT in fact go down well, because it was even too sh!t for Nuvians who usually lap the stuff up.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
At worst the Matt smith title is a 'divided opinion' issue. I have seen people who love the matt smith thing, I have heard people hate it. But the same thing happened in the classic series: How did people feel after the classic Tom Baker theme was suddenly changed? Did ANYONE like the Sylvester McCoy theme?
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail Loads of people like the 7th Dr theme. Many people have said it's their favourite & that is more valid then when people say something about Nu-hu is their favourite because 99% of the time they've only seen Nu-hu.
In the olden days it was cool to criticise DW, didn't you know? Nowadays it is totally out of fashion to criticise Nu-hu, but when it came to the titles & theme the complaint even made it to Points of View - that's how bad it was.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
"Opinions that support mine are more valid". That's a new one for the books.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail Evidence that support my arguments are more valid than your ravings.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Viewership and rating of things such as Jurassic park, Avatar and Doctor who are quite valid samples of evidence. If CGI was bad, more people would hate it, plain and simple.
No matter what something is or how good it is, there will always be people who hate it. So finding an obscure youtube video which supports the minority side of the argument isnt a good argument foundation in comparison to the viewing figures of just about any modern film.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail If Twilight were crap more people would hate it plain & simple. It just so happens it's genius. Coronation Street has higher viewing figures than 99% of all British TV, does that mean it's the best? Well? Does it? Well?
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
And voila, a lot of people do hate Twilight. The hunger games movie, based on a truly good book series, is more anticipated. See how it works?
I've never watched Coronation Street. But shows like Dexter and Game of Thrones are popular, and they are really good shows. Popularity can be misleading some of the time, but usually it is a good indicator.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail
More anticipated than Breaking Dawn 2 **
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail A lot of people hate Nu-hu as well. Btw Twilight makes more money & has more viewers than DW.
Dexter is about a guy who cuts people up - a truly despicable show. Next you'll start talking about the success of Saw. American Idol & other unscripted reality shows are popular as well.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Talking crap about Dexter, now? Dexter is a very widely-liked show. It actually has a very complex plot and there is much more depth to the character than just 'a guy who cuts people up'.
The ratio of Doctor Who lovers to haters is much larger than the ratio of Twilight lovers to haters.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail The Coronation Street lovers are the largest of all. Does that prove anything? Well? Does it?
Dexter's premise is despicable, I couldn't care how damn deep he is. What does deep even mean nowadays? If he slept with his mother people would say it's deep. Widely liked doesn't mean anything. It doesn't guaranty quality.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Here is a quick rundown of the show for you. He witnessed his mother's brutal murder when he was 5 years old, which became a repressed memory (he later uncovers it). He gets the urge to kill things, as some severely disturbed people do. He is taught to focus that urge on killing murderers.
So, in a way, it is about a vigilante. It is not just someone who goes around killing innocent people. It is not like the senseless gore that is Saw, and that is why it is so successful.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail I know the dumb premise of the show, why on Earth are we discussing it?
"It is not like the senseless gore that is Saw, and that is why it is so successful." So why in all of f*ck is Saw so successful? Isn't just senseless gore? So Dexter could be senseless gore & be just as popular as Saw.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Successful as in reception, not viewers.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
And once again, I wouldn't know. I have never watched Coronation street.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail It's a soap, it's like any other soap. Have you seen Neighbours? It's like that except they have northern accents sort of. Even East Enders is better than it - East Enders isn't very good btw.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail The movie TARDIS is moving in a realistic way & not like a cartoon. Nu-hu has a 2d logo as well, except the logo isn't as good. Anyway, the movie logo is just the 3rd Dr logo again. The vortex obviously looks better in the movie. The 2005 version looks on par with a cartoon.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
Ok. The TARDIS, a time machine that is bigger on the inside, moving through 'time vortex' more....realistically....in the movie. Got it. :D
So it is similar in that it is just bland text. What you said doesn't make it any better than the revival logo. The revival logo at least has design to it, the movie logo....I wonder how long THAT took to think up.
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail
That 'obviously looks better' comment is complete bullshit, and is another one of your unsupported, hugely biased opinions being stated as fact.
I give reasons as to why the 2005 version is better - the more complex animations for both the tardis and the time vortex, the superior logo design, the better textures.
In response, you tell me "No, it's not". Really?
fpiceail 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail I told you more than that in my response, can't you read? The 2005 logo is just the American Godzilla logo but with nonsensical fire. The TARDIS in the 2005 title sequence bobs about in a cartoony way. The whole design & directing of the 2005 title sequence is too much like the movie one - thus unoriginal. See, I've written all this before, so why would you say that all I said was: "no, it's not"?
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@fpiceail What a lot of people don't seem to realise is that something simple is better than something crap. The simple 60's logo is better than the 2005 copy of the American Godzilla logo. Less is more as the saying goes.
Redhellmet 3 weeks ago
@Redhellmet
It is also quite remarkable, how you complain about bad plots and "americanisation" in the new doctor who...yet you like the doctor who movie. Most fans agree that the doctor who movie was horribly americanized. Ultimately, the answer to the question as to why you like the movie, is "because it is old". I guarantee that in 1996, you hated the movie. I also think it is a safe guess that your thoughts on the new Doctor Who were set in stone well before March 2005.
fpiceail 4 weeks ago
@fpiceail You are mistaken, I hate the American DW movie, but it's gold compared to Nu-hu.
YOU GO TOO FAR! My thoughts were NOT set in stone well before 2005. I was so excited about seeing new DW I used to visit the BBC website everyday to see if they would post new pictures. I used to read all the interviews with ReTarD. People were saying that Eccleston was perhaps a bad choice, but I didn't care as long as the stories were good.
Redhellmet 4 weeks ago