Liked my ranking of the Masters? Check out my new video for even more Doctor Who villains as I countdown some of the Gods and Monsters that I think could return in the new era... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yPifIwiIjJA.htmlsi=qHe3TaAaawjrN1nq
I loved Roger Delgado and remember how gutted I was when he was killed in that car crash. After him, it's a toss up between John Sim and Michelle Gomez.
Although I disagree with Eric Roberts and Anthony Ainley being above Sacha Dawan (I wanted him as the Doctor too), I cannot disagree with your top choices! Great video!!
For me, Jacobi is tied for no.1 with Delgado. I currently just have 'only the good' when it comes to the big finish audio stories, but i do plan on getting more.
What an intelligent, articulated, and well-argued position regarding DW and the plus/minuses of an increased budget. This really could be argued for a lot of other tv franchises and movies such as Marvel and so on. As it happens, I fully agree with the host’s viewpoint. As AI comes into the picture and companies go out of there way to try and better one another, it increasingly appears to be at the detriment of good writing and sometimes characterisation. In this present season many of the stories have had interesting concepts but have failed to be well executed and this has shown particularly with the too frequent cop-out endings. My other issue with a special effects driven world is that it creates environments so far removed from reality. When you put the rubbish bin out at night or perhaps go for a forest day walk you may see beautiful sunsets, perhaps lush greenery, enchanting moonlight but you don’t tend to see swooping landscapes of mammoth proportions and the visuals of what you see heightened x 100. The beauty of reality can never really be matched by computers and special effects. The reason one goes wow when standing on a mountain peak is different to the reaction of a teenager saying wow great effects when watching a sci-fi movie. The upside of technology is obvious, but have we reached a point where a saturation of special effects wizardry has made the viewer become switched off or even bored with this excess. Where does the concept of beauty being inherent in the everyday come into play. Even as far as filming goes. Once great cinematography relied on the skills of the camera crew and staff to use natural light, create real shadows and camera angles that helped create a vibe or feel to a place and/or time. Similarly with modern day photography. Once you had the chance to get an amazing image from 24 or 36 film exposures. The photographer needed to know the skills at craftsmanship of setting correct exposure settings as well as light detection and more. Along came digital technology, initially frowned upon by purists but now used excessively, even incessantly to create images that are more computer generated than human made. The problem with technology is that humans generally fail to have the capacity to know when to stop and leave it aside. This therefore can also lead to lazy ‘cop-outs’ be it with the writing of a script, the image originally taken with a camera, or an artist using computer art over physical brushes and a canvas. I am not saying technology is bad and advances should be ignored. What I am attempting to imply is that humans need to become better at realising the importance and benefits of traditional physical skills and human thought rather than simply solely turn to the latest technology in the creation of a product be it film, art, or photography. Many will disagree with me and argue the more ‘impressive’ the effects (usually meaning how convincing they create something that looks stupendous) the better. Star Wars is a franchise that provides a clear example of this. When the first to be released film ‘A New Hope’ came out in 1979 the world went crazy over the latest effects. This was understandable as they were break through technologies at the time. However, move forward to the prequels decades later, which incorporated even more ‘impressive digital’ effects but was generally poorly received by the public. What many missed was the fact that the original three movies had something more than just dazzling effects. They also had great characterisations. The individuals were generally engaging from the terrifying menacing Vader to the tomboy Luke, the strong female lead of Lea and the swashbuckling mockery and gusto of Hans Solo. In The Phantom Menace the characters were poorly acted but worse terribly written. They came across as wooden, manufactured, and dull. Star Wars being a huge epic space opera had dropped the quality bar with poor writing. It had nothing to do with special effects. Now DW is no space epic (maybe to some perhaps) but British charming escapism featuring a very different hero figure and near endless possibilities to tell great stories. Why near endless because budget, or lack of more precisely, did make some narratives impossible to visualise on screen effectively. As the video host provides using the example of The Web Planet (a story I have never been able to sit through). Yet through such constraints ingenuity often flourished and character development was always given priority. To an extent fans came to love the ‘classic’ dud scenes within great stories such as the crawling clam shell that Harry accidentally Sullivan puts his foot into (Gensis of the Daleks). DW fans themselves gave more importance to narrative and character over special effects. Star Wars fans would never have accepted such a thing. So, this in effect made shows like DW and Blakes 7 more endearing, engaging, and special to viewers who could warm to the characters and therefore become invested in their adventures. DW probably has not yet fallen completely into the trap of ‘because we can, we should’ however the Space Babies embarrassment is an example to be concerned by. Why Steven Moffat made a comment that DW can never be created cheaply is one he needs to expand on because the evidence clearly shows otherwise. The man who wrote Blink, sitting alongside RTD who wrote ‘Midnight’ contradicting each other over comments regarding both narrative and budget. There is one thing money can never buy and that is heart and soul, and I would argue that they are the two factors that define DW has something special, something apart from the big blockbusters. The first to screen Star Wars film had it in droves, but after Return of the Jedi, everything seemed to focus on complexities within narrative and characterisations increasingly became either more vapid or worse annoying. Many people feared that Disney co-funding new DW would lead to such outcomes and to an extent there are certainly signs that Disneyfication has begun. It is crucial the fans recognise and be honest about this gradual shift in tone towards pizazz over charm or DW will eventually morph into something far removed from what it once was. We do not need another Marvel hero but the world still has a place for DW. Fingers crossed that is what the future will provide.
Never understood why people liked Missy, literally unbearable in every TV story other than WEAT/TDF - 'crazy, Flirty, camp' is just Stephen Moffat to a T
She isn’t like that at ALL throughout her earlier appearances in Series 10 either (From Extremis to Eaters of Light). Her smaller segments in those episodes show a deeper nuance to the character and gave some solid development in her “rehabilitation”. The excesses of her character were turned down gratuitously after The Witch’s Familiar and she became a very good character after that.
