If the "Dallas" treatment is good enough for Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica, why not Doctor Who -- a show that's become more and more soapy as the years go by!
@therealKINDLE Inception's decaying Limbo and folding Paris, the vast array of visual touches in Scott Pilgrim, the dog-fight in Serenity, every shot of Asgard in Thor, the Prawns of District 9, the battle over Vulcan in Star Trek IX, Steve Rodgers before he became Captain America, Watchmen's Dr. Manhattan, SGU's establishing long-shot, and everything Pixar. It can do great things, and all the movies you listed had bigger problems then effects. I'm not alone in saying that either
@Entanglment Unless the Tool does more harm than good. I'm not alone in saying this, In fact, I quoted James Rolfe in a comment below, Red Letter's Plinkett claims it looks "Cartoonish", & there's even several directors that REFUSE to use it. Take a good look at "Dog Soldiers". No CGI, & it looks fantastic.
If that isn't enough for you to wise up, then take a GOOD look at the remakes: Star Wars, Superman, Terminator/Alien franchise, A-Team, Indiana Jones, Italian Job, Bonds, etc.
@therealKINDLE I don't know why I'm bothering to say this since no one is ever convinced by youtube comments, but any critic who dismisses an entire tool for film-making with no consideration for the ways it has improved things simply can't be taken seriously. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it isn't, but it can never take a dump on everything all the time. Tools just don't work that way.
And frankly if Old Who is something different from New, I don't care if I'm destroying it.
@jadewarlock I Don't see how fighting Dr Who's corner is childish? Maybe you don't value it much, but it's very important to me. How can you claim the Nu stuff is Creative when they just throw money at it? It was the opposite for the classics. I know people that do more impressive work & they're not even getting paid! Ask any veteran film critic; CGI takes a DUMP on everything. You're just fooling yourself, & destroying DW in the process. It's just a tacky embarrassing Soap now. RIP
@jadewarlock Conclusion this, conclusion that, you need a thesaurus mate! Is that the best you can do? Mathew Waterhouse & the Bakers? At least Adric stayed dead. Unlike how everything comes back for a twist in the new series. And the Bakers did Mark of the Rani & the Ultimate Foe in near to no time. Moffat makes Pip n Jane look like Richard Adams by comparison. Smith has already kissed 2 girls. Same shit, different.. er.. Well, nothings different. It's David Tennant all over.
@therealKINDLE So, in conclusion - I embrace BOTH the original and current runs simply because they do tell good stories and have good actors. Even Freema Agyeman, considered the weakest of the companions in the current tenure - is far superior than Matthew Waterhouse. The CGI and such for me is icing on the cake - it along with makeup just shows how far it's come.
Look until we start getting stories of the quality of Pip and Jane Baker, it's not as horrid as you say.
@therealKINDLE Whoa Dude - grow up and wait a second before you jump to conclusions again. I am someone who watched the show back in its heyday (was born during T. Baker's era). BOTH eras are creative and both tell stories. I don't care about the kissing - though I DID get irritated with the 10th and Rose nonsense.
And Moffat has had to work AROUND CGI and has a Doctor who HATES being kissed in Smith.
@jadewarlock I don't care WHY. I Do not associate Dr Who with Kissing at ALL. Do you know why? Because there isn't any kissing in Dr Who. The writers were more creative & Innovative than that. They also didn't throw money at every problem. They thought outside the box, & managed to pioneer a whole new world. Everything was unique in Dr Who. The FX, the Music, the Stories, the Story Lengths, everything. You can have your Ja Ja Binks soap trite. But we shall always have Dr WHO. 63-89.
Here's a joke:
How many DW fans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Just one.
But it's never as good as the old one.
ReSpekt156 3 weeks ago
@therealKINDLE Inception's decaying Limbo and folding Paris, the vast array of visual touches in Scott Pilgrim, the dog-fight in Serenity, every shot of Asgard in Thor, the Prawns of District 9, the battle over Vulcan in Star Trek IX, Steve Rodgers before he became Captain America, Watchmen's Dr. Manhattan, SGU's establishing long-shot, and everything Pixar. It can do great things, and all the movies you listed had bigger problems then effects. I'm not alone in saying that either
Entanglment 3 weeks ago
@Entanglment Unless the Tool does more harm than good. I'm not alone in saying this, In fact, I quoted James Rolfe in a comment below, Red Letter's Plinkett claims it looks "Cartoonish", & there's even several directors that REFUSE to use it. Take a good look at "Dog Soldiers". No CGI, & it looks fantastic.
If that isn't enough for you to wise up, then take a GOOD look at the remakes: Star Wars, Superman, Terminator/Alien franchise, A-Team, Indiana Jones, Italian Job, Bonds, etc.
therealKINDLE 3 weeks ago
@therealKINDLE I don't know why I'm bothering to say this since no one is ever convinced by youtube comments, but any critic who dismisses an entire tool for film-making with no consideration for the ways it has improved things simply can't be taken seriously. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it isn't, but it can never take a dump on everything all the time. Tools just don't work that way.
And frankly if Old Who is something different from New, I don't care if I'm destroying it.
Entanglment 3 weeks ago
That was great!
TheLastRegeneration 1 month ago
@jadewarlock I Don't see how fighting Dr Who's corner is childish? Maybe you don't value it much, but it's very important to me. How can you claim the Nu stuff is Creative when they just throw money at it? It was the opposite for the classics. I know people that do more impressive work & they're not even getting paid! Ask any veteran film critic; CGI takes a DUMP on everything. You're just fooling yourself, & destroying DW in the process. It's just a tacky embarrassing Soap now. RIP
therealKINDLE 2 months ago
@jadewarlock Conclusion this, conclusion that, you need a thesaurus mate! Is that the best you can do? Mathew Waterhouse & the Bakers? At least Adric stayed dead. Unlike how everything comes back for a twist in the new series. And the Bakers did Mark of the Rani & the Ultimate Foe in near to no time. Moffat makes Pip n Jane look like Richard Adams by comparison. Smith has already kissed 2 girls. Same shit, different.. er.. Well, nothings different. It's David Tennant all over.
therealKINDLE 2 months ago
@therealKINDLE So, in conclusion - I embrace BOTH the original and current runs simply because they do tell good stories and have good actors. Even Freema Agyeman, considered the weakest of the companions in the current tenure - is far superior than Matthew Waterhouse. The CGI and such for me is icing on the cake - it along with makeup just shows how far it's come.
Look until we start getting stories of the quality of Pip and Jane Baker, it's not as horrid as you say.
jadewarlock 2 months ago
@therealKINDLE Whoa Dude - grow up and wait a second before you jump to conclusions again. I am someone who watched the show back in its heyday (was born during T. Baker's era). BOTH eras are creative and both tell stories. I don't care about the kissing - though I DID get irritated with the 10th and Rose nonsense.
And Moffat has had to work AROUND CGI and has a Doctor who HATES being kissed in Smith.
jadewarlock 2 months ago
@jadewarlock I don't care WHY. I Do not associate Dr Who with Kissing at ALL. Do you know why? Because there isn't any kissing in Dr Who. The writers were more creative & Innovative than that. They also didn't throw money at every problem. They thought outside the box, & managed to pioneer a whole new world. Everything was unique in Dr Who. The FX, the Music, the Stories, the Story Lengths, everything. You can have your Ja Ja Binks soap trite. But we shall always have Dr WHO. 63-89.
therealKINDLE 2 months ago