source:
https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-dalek-colourisation-date-newsupdate/

While fans will have to wait until after Doctor Who's official anniversary on
23rd November to see the first of the 60th anniversary specials, it has now
been confirmed that they won't be left wanting on the day itself.

On the contrary, we now know that the already announced colourisation of the
show's second ever story, The Daleks, will air at 7:30pm on 23rd November
on BBC Four.

Not only that, but the colourisation will be followed by a repeat of 2013's
An Adventure in Space and Time, the one-off special about the making
of the show's first episode, starring David Bradley as William Hartnell.

There will also be a five-minute documentary on Hartnell airing alongside it.

For the colourisation, Doctor Who's second ever serial, which is collectively
known as The Daleks, has also been edited down, with its seven 25-minute
episodes being recut as a 75-minute feature-length outing.

....

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Lest we forget 11 Nov 2023 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> source:
> https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-dalek-colourisation-date-newsupdate/
>
> While fans will have to wait until after Doctor Who's official anniversary on
> 23rd November to see the first of the 60th anniversary specials, it has now
> been confirmed that they won't be left wanting on the day itself.
>
> On the contrary, we now know that the already announced colourisation of the
> show's second ever story, The Daleks, will air at 7:30pm on 23rd November
> on BBC Four.
>
> Not only that, but the colourisation will be followed by a repeat of 2013's
> An Adventure in Space and Time, the one-off special about the making
> of the show's first episode, starring David Bradley as William Hartnell.
>
> There will also be a five-minute documentary on Hartnell airing alongside it.
>
> For the colourisation, Doctor Who's second ever serial, which is collectively
> known as The Daleks, has also been edited down, with its seven 25-minute
> episodes being recut as a 75-minute feature-length outing.
>

That’s because colorizers are lazy, as well as shiftless and incompetent.

> ...
>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article <941931769.721320096.415609.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> source:
>>
>https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-dalek-colourisation-date-newsupdate/
>>
>> While fans will have to wait until after Doctor Who's official anniversary on
>> 23rd November to see the first of the 60th anniversary specials, it has now
>> been confirmed that they won't be left wanting on the day itself.
>>
>> On the contrary, we now know that the already announced colourisation of the
>> show's second ever story, The Daleks, will air at 7:30pm on 23rd November
>> on BBC Four.
>>
>> Not only that, but the colourisation will be followed by a repeat of 2013's
>> An Adventure in Space and Time, the one-off special about the making
>> of the show's first episode, starring David Bradley as William Hartnell.
>>
>> There will also be a five-minute documentary on Hartnell airing alongside it.
>>
>> For the colourisation, Doctor Who's second ever serial, which is collectively
>> known as The Daleks, has also been edited down, with its seven 25-minute
>> episodes being recut as a 75-minute feature-length outing.
>>
>
>That’s because colorizers are lazy, as well as shiftless and incompetent.
>
>
>> ...
>>
>>
>
>

Boo on that!

>
>--
>The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Lest we forget 11 Nov 2023 Beware https://mindspring.com

In message
<941931769.721320096.415609.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> writes
>The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> source:
>>
>>https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-dalek-colourisation-dat
>>newsupdate/
>>
>> While fans will have to wait until after Doctor Who's official
>>anniversary on
>> 23rd November to see the first of the 60th anniversary specials, it has now
>> been confirmed that they won't be left wanting on the day itself.
>>
>> On the contrary, we now know that the already announced colourisation of the
>> show's second ever story, The Daleks, will air at 7:30pm on 23rd November
>> on BBC Four.
>>
>> Not only that, but the colourisation will be followed by a repeat of 2013's
>> An Adventure in Space and Time, the one-off special about the making
>> of the show's first episode, starring David Bradley as William Hartnell.

I thought that was superb and will be happy to watch it again.

>>
>> There will also be a five-minute documentary on Hartnell airing alongside it.

Five minutes?! Is it really that short?

>>
>> For the colourisation, Doctor Who's second ever serial, which is
>>collectively
>> known as The Daleks, has also been edited down, with its seven 25-minute
>> episodes being recut as a 75-minute feature-length outing.
>>
>
>That’s because colorizers are lazy, as well as shiftless and incompetent.
>

I suspect it's more because they fear that the pacing of early Who will
feel very slow to modern audiences.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In article <N1MffuAPcnTlFwE4@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
John Hall <john@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In message
><941931769.721320096.415609.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> writes
>>The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> source:
>>>
>>>https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-dalek-colourisation-dat
>>>newsupdate/
>>>
>>> While fans will have to wait until after Doctor Who's official
>>>anniversary on
>>> 23rd November to see the first of the 60th anniversary specials, it has now
>>> been confirmed that they won't be left wanting on the day itself.
>>>
>>> On the contrary, we now know that the already announced colourisation of the
>>> show's second ever story, The Daleks, will air at 7:30pm on 23rd November
>>> on BBC Four.
>>>
>>> Not only that, but the colourisation will be followed by a repeat of 2013's
>>> An Adventure in Space and Time, the one-off special about the making
>>> of the show's first episode, starring David Bradley as William Hartnell.
>
>I thought that was superb and will be happy to watch it again.
>
>>>
>>> There will also be a five-minute documentary on Hartnell airing alongside it.
>
>Five minutes?! Is it really that short?
>
>>>
>>> For the colourisation, Doctor Who's second ever serial, which is
>>>collectively
>>> known as The Daleks, has also been edited down, with its seven 25-minute
>>> episodes being recut as a 75-minute feature-length outing.
>>>
>>
>>That’s because colorizers are lazy, as well as shiftless and incompetent.
>>
>
>I suspect it's more because they fear that the pacing of early Who will
>feel very slow to modern audiences.

Boo.

>--
>John Hall
> "Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
> from coughing."
> Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Lest we forget 11 Nov 2023 Beware https://mindspring.com

In uk.media.tv.sf.drwho John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> I suspect it's more because they fear that the pacing of early Who will
> feel very slow to modern audiences.

That's why I prefer the old series and never liked the new one.
It's mostly the Doctor knowing it all or his magic screw driver will
tell him and all stupidly running around.

I like it when the third Doctor is sitting in his laboratory and
trying to solve a problem.

Stephan

--
| Stephan Seitz E-Mail: stse+usenet@rootsland.net |
| If your life was a horse, you'd have to shoot it. |

In article <kr7pm6Fl84vU4@mid.individual.net>,
Stephan Seitz <stse+usenet@rootsland.net> wrote:
>In uk.media.tv.sf.drwho John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>> I suspect it's more because they fear that the pacing of early Who will
>> feel very slow to modern audiences.
>
>That's why I prefer the old series and never liked the new one.
>It's mostly the Doctor knowing it all or his magic screw driver will
>tell him and all stupidly running around.
>
>I like it when the third Doctor is sitting in his laboratory and
>trying to solve a problem.
>
> Stephan
>

Blame RTD for breaking tradition.
>--
>| Stephan Seitz E-Mail: stse+usenet@rootsland.net |
>| If your life was a horse, you'd have to shoot it. |

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Lest we forget 11 Nov 2023 Beware https://mindspring.com

In message <kr7pm6Fl84vU4@mid.individual.net>, Stephan Seitz
<stse+usenet@rootsland.net> writes
>In uk.media.tv.sf.drwho John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>> I suspect it's more because they fear that the pacing of early Who will
>> feel very slow to modern audiences.
>
>That's why I prefer the old series and never liked the new one.
>It's mostly the Doctor knowing it all or his magic screw driver will
>tell him and all stupidly running around.
>
>I like it when the third Doctor is sitting in his laboratory and
>trying to solve a problem.
>
> Stephan
>

It did mean there was more "light and shade" when everything didn't go
at 100 mph. There was also more chance of being able to follow the plot
when there was time for coherent explanations in the dialogue. I've also
found that as I get older I've had increasing difficult in following
high-speed action sequences in TV shows and films; my brain no longer
seems able to process visual input fast enough to keep up.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In article <0$XxtkCiH9TlFwDi@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
John Hall <john@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <kr7pm6Fl84vU4@mid.individual.net>, Stephan Seitz
><stse+usenet@rootsland.net> writes
>>In uk.media.tv.sf.drwho John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I suspect it's more because they fear that the pacing of early Who will
>>> feel very slow to modern audiences.
>>
>>That's why I prefer the old series and never liked the new one.
>>It's mostly the Doctor knowing it all or his magic screw driver will
>>tell him and all stupidly running around.
>>
>>I like it when the third Doctor is sitting in his laboratory and
>>trying to solve a problem.
>>
>> Stephan
>>
>
>It did mean there was more "light and shade" when everything didn't go
>at 100 mph. There was also more chance of being able to follow the plot
>when there was time for coherent explanations in the dialogue. I've also
>found that as I get older I've had increasing difficult in following
>high-speed action sequences in TV shows and films; my brain no longer
>seems able to process visual input fast enough to keep up.

Still this is 25 minutes 7 parts.

Do the math!
>--
>John Hall
> "Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
> from coughing."
> Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Lest we forget 11 Nov 2023 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <0$XxtkCiH9TlFwDi@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
> John Hall <john@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > It did mean there was more "light and shade" when everything didn't go
> > at 100 mph. There was also more chance of being able to follow the
> > plot when there was time for coherent explanations in the dialogue.
> > I've also found that as I get older I've had increasing difficult in
> > following high-speed action sequences in TV shows and films; my brain
> > no longer seems able to process visual input fast enough to keep up.
>
> Still this is 25 minutes 7 parts.
>
> Do the math!

The story has been abridged Dave... but it's still the same story. The
edited version isn't aimed at you.

It's not like there wasn't quite a lot of padding in those seven episodes
anyway, so I'm sure it was easy enough to cut-out some of the dead moments.

Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <0$XxtkCiH9TlFwDi@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
>> John Hall <john@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> It did mean there was more "light and shade" when everything didn't go
>>> at 100 mph. There was also more chance of being able to follow the
>>> plot when there was time for coherent explanations in the dialogue.
>>> I've also found that as I get older I've had increasing difficult in
>>> following high-speed action sequences in TV shows and films; my brain
>>> no longer seems able to process visual input fast enough to keep up.
>>
>> Still this is 25 minutes 7 parts.
>>
>> Do the math!
>
> The story has been abridged Dave... but it's still the same story. The
> edited version isn't aimed at you.
>
> It's not like there wasn't quite a lot of padding in those seven episodes
> anyway, so I'm sure it was easy enough to cut-out some of the dead moments.
>

We’ll see soon enough. The Cushing movie adaptation/rewrite ran to 83
minutes - and still felt slow in places as well as adding a few comedic
touches for Roy Castle - so 75 minutes may be plenty to convey every
meaningful moment from the serial.

--
"I'm not going to unwrite my good friend Chris Chibnall's work on 'The
Timeless Children'. I'm not going to deny what he wrote. I'm going with it.
It's absolutely fine." — Russell T. Davies

The Last Doctor wrote:

> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> > The Doctor wrote:
> >>
> >> Still this is 25 minutes 7 parts.
> >>
> >> Do the math!
> >
> > The story has been abridged Dave... but it's still the same story. The
> > edited version isn't aimed at you.
> >
> > It's not like there wasn't quite a lot of padding in those seven
> > episodes anyway, so I'm sure it was easy enough to cut-out some of the
> > dead moments.
>
> We’ll see soon enough. The Cushing movie adaptation/rewrite ran to 83
> minutes - and still felt slow in places as well as adding a few comedic
> touches for Roy Castle - so 75 minutes may be plenty to convey every
> meaningful moment from the serial.

I think with the earlier stuff it'll work out okay. They generally were
slow paced stories as that's how TV was back then, plus they had to fill
up the required episodes.

Obviously we'll have to see the abridged version of "The Daleks" to judge,
and maybe knowing the full-length story will help us where there are bits
cut out, but on the face of it 75 minutes is a long enough time to tell a
story.

Regardless, I think it's great idea to try and get new viewers to watch
the 1960's Doctor Who stories. So I'm all for colourised edits of 1960's
Doctor Who.

In article <nnd$169e7b75$64d9e080@380c9df32d761a72>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article <0$XxtkCiH9TlFwDi@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
>> John Hall <john@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > It did mean there was more "light and shade" when everything didn't go
>> > at 100 mph. There was also more chance of being able to follow the
>> > plot when there was time for coherent explanations in the dialogue.
>> > I've also found that as I get older I've had increasing difficult in
>> > following high-speed action sequences in TV shows and films; my brain
>> > no longer seems able to process visual input fast enough to keep up.
>>
>> Still this is 25 minutes 7 parts.
>>
>> Do the math!
>
>The story has been abridged Dave... but it's still the same story. The
>edited version isn't aimed at you.
>
>It's not like there wasn't quite a lot of padding in those seven episodes
>anyway, so I'm sure it was easy enough to cut-out some of the dead moments.

Hence why onlie that say I love the 7 parter in tact !
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Lest we forget 11 Nov 2023 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <uiqenk$32so$1@dont-email.me>,
The Last Doctor <mike@xenocyte.com> wrote:
>Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote:
>>
>>> In article <0$XxtkCiH9TlFwDi@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
>>> John Hall <john@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It did mean there was more "light and shade" when everything didn't go
>>>> at 100 mph. There was also more chance of being able to follow the
>>>> plot when there was time for coherent explanations in the dialogue.
>>>> I've also found that as I get older I've had increasing difficult in
>>>> following high-speed action sequences in TV shows and films; my brain
>>>> no longer seems able to process visual input fast enough to keep up.
>>>
>>> Still this is 25 minutes 7 parts.
>>>
>>> Do the math!
>>
>> The story has been abridged Dave... but it's still the same story. The
>> edited version isn't aimed at you.
>>
>> It's not like there wasn't quite a lot of padding in those seven episodes
>> anyway, so I'm sure it was easy enough to cut-out some of the dead moments.
>>
>
>We’ll see soon enough. The Cushing movie adaptation/rewrite ran to 83
>minutes - and still felt slow in places as well as adding a few comedic
>touches for Roy Castle - so 75 minutes may be plenty to convey every
>meaningful moment from the serial.
>

I do not watched chopped up versions! And then there is

>--
>"I'm not going to unwrite my good friend Chris Chibnall's work on 'The
>Timeless Children'. I'm not going to deny what he wrote. I'm going with it.
>It's absolutely fine." — Russell T. Davies

#savedoctorwho #retconthetimelesschild #thetimelesschildisantidoctorwho
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Lest we forget 11 Nov 2023 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <nnd$52e01686$509dad86@daf91584e5069b4d>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>The Last Doctor wrote:
>
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> > The Doctor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Still this is 25 minutes 7 parts.
>> >>
>> >> Do the math!
>> >
>> > The story has been abridged Dave... but it's still the same story. The
>> > edited version isn't aimed at you.
>> >
>> > It's not like there wasn't quite a lot of padding in those seven
>> > episodes anyway, so I'm sure it was easy enough to cut-out some of the
>> > dead moments.
>>
>> We’ll see soon enough. The Cushing movie adaptation/rewrite ran to 83
>> minutes - and still felt slow in places as well as adding a few comedic
>> touches for Roy Castle - so 75 minutes may be plenty to convey every
>> meaningful moment from the serial.
>
>I think with the earlier stuff it'll work out okay. They generally were
>slow paced stories as that's how TV was back then, plus they had to fill
>up the required episodes.
>
>Obviously we'll have to see the abridged version of "The Daleks" to judge,
>and maybe knowing the full-length story will help us where there are bits
>cut out, but on the face of it 75 minutes is a long enough time to tell a
>story.
>
>Regardless, I think it's great idea to try and get new viewers to watch
>the 1960's Doctor Who stories. So I'm all for colourised edits of 1960's
>Doctor Who.

Anyone for a colourised An Unearthly Child?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Lest we forget 11 Nov 2023 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote:

> In article <nnd$169e7b75$64d9e080@380c9df32d761a72>,
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> > The Doctor wrote:
> >> Still this is 25 minutes 7 parts.
> >>
> >> Do the math!
> >
> > The story has been abridged Dave... but it's still the same story. The
> > edited version isn't aimed at you.
> >
> > It's not like there wasn't quite a lot of padding in those seven
> > episodes anyway, so I'm sure it was easy enough to cut-out some of the
> > dead moments.
>
> Hence why onlie that say I love the 7 parter in tact !

Nobody is stopping you loving the seven part story, intact. The 75 minute
edit of "The Daleks" is aimed at a new audience. If you don't like the
idea of it as it's not intact, and/or don't want to watch it, fine, stop
going on about it. It was not done for you.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 06:03:21 -0800, Blueshirt wrote:

> The Doctor wrote:
>
> > In article<nnd$169e7b75$64d9e080@380c9df32d761a72>,
> > Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> > > The Doctor wrote:
> > > > Still this is 25 minutes 7 parts.
> > > >
> > > > Do the math!
> > >
> > > The story has been abridged Dave... but it's still the same story. The
> > > edited version isn't aimed at you.
> > >
> > > It's not like there wasn't quite a lot of padding in those seven
> > > episodes anyway, so I'm sure it was easy enough to cut-out some of the
> > > dead moments.
> >
> > Hence why onlie that say I love the 7 parter in tact !
>
> Nobody is stopping you loving the seven part story, intact. The 75 minute
> edit of "The Daleks" is aimed at a new audience. If you don't like the
> idea of it as it's not intact, and/or don't want to watch it, fine, stop
> going on about it. It was not done for you.

TV executives "aiming at a new audience" by refusing to
show the classic black and white Doctor Who are like
the executives who refuse to show 1.33 shows without
butchering the picture. It is a problem caused by
management not by viewers.

Colorization is goldbrick engineering, as in intended
to waste time and money. It involves extreme processing
of the film with resultant lowering of the fidelity.
A standard trick of colorizers since 1985 is to do a
false comparison of a "before and after" by taking the
finished project and then turning the color off and
then proclaiming how better the colorization is to
black and white. An honest comparison is avoided
because it shows the re-engineering to be a weakening
of the picture compared to the original.

Younger viewers may be attracted to old programming
*because it is different*, not because it's the same
as modern TV.

Pluted Pup wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 06:03:21 -0800, Blueshirt wrote:
>
> > The Doctor wrote:
> > >
> > > Hence why onlie that say I love the 7 parter in tact !
> >
> > Nobody is stopping you loving the seven part story, intact. The 75
> > minute edit of "The Daleks" is aimed at a new audience. If you don't
> > like the idea of it as it's not intact, and/or don't want to watch it,
> > fine, stop going on about it. It was not done for you.
>
> TV executives "aiming at a new audience" by refusing to
> show the classic black and white Doctor Who are like
> the executives who refuse to show 1.33 shows without
> butchering the picture. It is a problem caused by
> management not by viewers.

They are not refusing to show classic Doctor Who... all of the Doctor Who
episodes since 1963 are available to stream free on the BBC iPlayer. (Bar
the first story, because of the recent fuss.) This forthcoming colourised
75 minute edit of "The Daleks" is in addition to the proper seven part
version already available online.

https://www.bbc.com/articles/c4nlwr5pxw1o

Like everything with Doctor Who these days it's just people moaning for
the sake of moaning... as nobody has lost out on anything. Want to watch
the "The Daleks" in black and white, all seven episodes of it, from 1963?
Go and watch it then! (On the BBC iPlayer, or BritBox if you are outside
of the UK.)

> Younger viewers may be attracted to old programming
> *because it is different*, not because it's the same
> as modern TV.

They might. But if I was a betting man I'd say the iPlayer viewership
figures of black and white Doctor Who stories will only be a small
fraction of the figures for the colour Doctor Who stories.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 21:31:48 +0000, "Blueshirt"
<blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:

>all of the Doctor Who
>episodes since 1963 are available to stream free on the BBC iPlayer.

They've found all the missing episodes, e.g. the entire Marco Polo
story arc, and most of the Patrick Troughton era.

I think you left "extent" out of your above comment.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 13:45:33 -0800, Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 21:31:48 +0000, "Blueshirt"
><blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>
>>all of the Doctor Who
>>episodes since 1963 are available to stream free on the BBC iPlayer.
>
>They've found all the missing episodes, e.g. the entire Marco Polo
>story arc, and most of the Patrick Troughton era.

Oops, that's supposed to be (rhetorical) question. Please replace the
period with an interrobang.

>
>I think you left "extent" out of your above comment.
>--
>
>Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
>
>Tim Merrigan
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

In article <0001HW.2B02B3D80269EBCE305D0238F@news.giganews.com>,
Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 06:03:21 -0800, Blueshirt wrote:
>
>> The Doctor wrote:
>>
>> > In article<nnd$169e7b75$64d9e080@380c9df32d761a72>,
>> > Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> > > The Doctor wrote:
>> > > > Still this is 25 minutes 7 parts.
>> > > >
>> > > > Do the math!
>> > >
>> > > The story has been abridged Dave... but it's still the same story. The
>> > > edited version isn't aimed at you.
>> > >
>> > > It's not like there wasn't quite a lot of padding in those seven
>> > > episodes anyway, so I'm sure it was easy enough to cut-out some of the
>> > > dead moments.
>> >
>> > Hence why onlie that say I love the 7 parter in tact !
>>
>> Nobody is stopping you loving the seven part story, intact. The 75 minute
>> edit of "The Daleks" is aimed at a new audience. If you don't like the
>> idea of it as it's not intact, and/or don't want to watch it, fine, stop
>> going on about it. It was not done for you.
>
>TV executives "aiming at a new audience" by refusing to
>show the classic black and white Doctor Who are like
>the executives who refuse to show 1.33 shows without
>butchering the picture. It is a problem caused by
>management not by viewers.
>
>Colorization is goldbrick engineering, as in intended
>to waste time and money. It involves extreme processing
>of the film with resultant lowering of the fidelity.
>A standard trick of colorizers since 1985 is to do a
>false comparison of a "before and after" by taking the
>finished project and then turning the color off and
>then proclaiming how better the colorization is to
>black and white. An honest comparison is avoided
>because it shows the re-engineering to be a weakening
>of the picture compared to the original.
>
>Younger viewers may be attracted to old programming
>*because it is different*, not because it's the same
>as modern TV.
>
>

WEll said!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Lest we forget 11 Nov 2023 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <nnd$2eb49444$0696d987@fe13f44fab772ff7>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>Pluted Pup wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 06:03:21 -0800, Blueshirt wrote:
>>
>> > The Doctor wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hence why onlie that say I love the 7 parter in tact !
>> >
>> > Nobody is stopping you loving the seven part story, intact. The 75
>> > minute edit of "The Daleks" is aimed at a new audience. If you don't
>> > like the idea of it as it's not intact, and/or don't want to watch it,
>> > fine, stop going on about it. It was not done for you.
>>
>> TV executives "aiming at a new audience" by refusing to
>> show the classic black and white Doctor Who are like
>> the executives who refuse to show 1.33 shows without
>> butchering the picture. It is a problem caused by
>> management not by viewers.
>
>They are not refusing to show classic Doctor Who... all of the Doctor Who
>episodes since 1963 are available to stream free on the BBC iPlayer. (Bar
>the first story, because of the recent fuss.) This forthcoming colourised
>75 minute edit of "The Daleks" is in addition to the proper seven part
>version already available online.
>
>https://www.bbc.com/articles/c4nlwr5pxw1o
>
>Like everything with Doctor Who these days it's just people moaning for
>the sake of moaning... as nobody has lost out on anything. Want to watch
>the "The Daleks" in black and white, all seven episodes of it, from 1963?
>Go and watch it then! (On the BBC iPlayer, or BritBox if you are outside
>of the UK.)
>
>> Younger viewers may be attracted to old programming
>> *because it is different*, not because it's the same
>> as modern TV.
>
>They might. But if I was a betting man I'd say the iPlayer viewership
>figures of black and white Doctor Who stories will only be a small
>fraction of the figures for the colour Doctor Who stories.
>

The pup is spot on correct!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Lest we forget 11 Nov 2023 Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <kk55lil0j2rio3bi59k4u4one3nvv93gh1@4ax.com>,
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 21:31:48 +0000, "Blueshirt"
><blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>
>>all of the Doctor Who
>>episodes since 1963 are available to stream free on the BBC iPlayer.
>
>They've found all the missing episodes, e.g. the entire Marco Polo
>story arc, and most of the Patrick Troughton era.
>
>I think you left "extent" out of your above comment.

They have?

>--
>
>Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.
>
>Tim Merrigan
>
>--
>This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>www.avg.com

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Lest we forget 11 Nov 2023 Beware https://mindspring.com

Tim Merrigan wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 21:31:48 +0000, "Blueshirt"
> <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>
> > all of the Doctor Who
> > episodes since 1963 are available to stream free on the BBC iPlayer.
>
> They've found all the missing episodes, e.g. the entire Marco Polo
> story arc, and most of the Patrick Troughton era.
>
> I think you left "extent" out of your above comment.

Sorry I forgot this was Usenet. Yes, all of the available Doctor Who
episodes since 1963 are streaming free on the BBC iPlayer.

Oh, the word is "extant" by the way... extent means something completely
different.

Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 06:03:21 -0800, Blueshirt wrote:
>
>> The Doctor wrote:
>>
>>> In article<nnd$169e7b75$64d9e080@380c9df32d761a72>,
>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>>> Still this is 25 minutes 7 parts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do the math!
>>>>
>>>> The story has been abridged Dave... but it's still the same story. The
>>>> edited version isn't aimed at you.
>>>>
>>>> It's not like there wasn't quite a lot of padding in those seven
>>>> episodes anyway, so I'm sure it was easy enough to cut-out some of the
>>>> dead moments.
>>>
>>> Hence why onlie that say I love the 7 parter in tact !
>>
>> Nobody is stopping you loving the seven part story, intact. The 75 minute
>> edit of "The Daleks" is aimed at a new audience. If you don't like the
>> idea of it as it's not intact, and/or don't want to watch it, fine, stop
>> going on about it. It was not done for you.
>
> TV executives "aiming at a new audience" by refusing to
> show the classic black and white Doctor Who are like
> the executives who refuse to show 1.33 shows without
> butchering the picture. It is a problem caused by
> management not by viewers.

And if the BBC weren’t going to continue to have the original seven part
monochrome serial available IN ADDITION to this new version, that would be
an excellent point.

But they are, so it’s moot.

> Colorization is goldbrick engineering, as in intended
> to waste time and money. It involves extreme processing
> of the film with resultant lowering of the fidelity.
> A standard trick of colorizers since 1985 is to do a
> false comparison of a "before and after" by taking the
> finished project and then turning the color off and
> then proclaiming how better the colorization is to
> black and white. An honest comparison is avoided
> because it shows the re-engineering to be a weakening
> of the picture compared to the original.
>
> Younger viewers may be attracted to old programming
> *because it is different*, not because it's the same
> as modern TV.

And they’ll have to option to truly compare and contrast, in this case.

--
"I'm not going to unwrite my good friend Chris Chibnall's work on 'The
Timeless Children'. I'm not going to deny what he wrote. I'm going with it.
It's absolutely fine." — Russell T. Davies