Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:23:58 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
> wrote:
>
.. I think if I'd known
> at the time that the as-yet-unborn David Tennant was going to be a
> Doctor, I might have waited a while longer before choosing "my"
> Doctor.
>

>
> Nick
>

Ah but, was he yet to be born, were you in the Tardis whilst it was in
action, DT might have been in the past, present or future! (Possibly)😉

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 02/02/2024 10:12, kosmo wrote:
> On 1.2.24 18:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I haven't watched it much in recent years (just the odd episode -
>> probably a bit less than one a year), but could it be that the
>> decision to reduce the Toymaker's name to one word is just
>> convenience, rather than any wokism (or similar term)?
>
> I endured a behind the scenes programme where the programme producer
> made a great fuss of the need to remove the word because of the
> connotations no longer being acceptable in the modern world.
>

I think it was as much to do with Michael Gough "yellowing up" for the part.

john

On 06/02/2024 23:02, Nick Odell wrote:

>> So Charles the Ill is Ill. Nominative determinism or wot?
LOL

I hope the homeopathy helps, as well as talking to his plants.

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 08:59:57 +0000, john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 31/01/2024 22:57, Nick Odell wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:47:44 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31-Jan-24 12:02, Vicky wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:05:58 +0000, kosmo <kosmo@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20.1.24 07:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Celestial?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently it is objectionable so it is why the Doctor only had to deal
>>>>> with the Toymaker this time around rather than the Celestial Toymaker.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did anyone watch the specials?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone think that the Doctor has jumped the shark?
>>>>
>>>> I've heard reports that he has, but can't watch as I no longer pay the
>>>> licence, so can't watch BBC iplayer or live. It will come somewhere I
>>>> can watch eventually. B stopped watching a few series ago.
>>>
>>> I lost track of it after William Hartnell moved on to other things.
>>>
>>> Proper actor he was. That voice could reach the back of the Stalls
>>> without any effort.
>>
>> My mother often said that at RADA they taught her to project her voice
>> as if she were speaking personally to two little old ladies sitting in
>> the back of the stalls. "Because in Rep, on a matinee, that's probably
>> all you'll be peforming for."
>>
>> Nick
>
><catching up after an enforced absence due to broken laptop so apologies
>for any gillivering>
>
>One of my current pastimes is watching all the original Dr Who's the
>Beeb have put on iPlayer. The early ones are nearly unwatchable from
>today's perspective for (at least) two reasons.
>
>There's the sexism and racism - any dark-skinned character in the first
>two doctors tenure is probably mute and muscle-bound and of course the
>girls are scantily clad and suffer from "We need to get to work to save
>the world. Polly, can you make us all a cup of coffee." (This is
>redressed to an extent in the later episodes and even sent up).
>
>But to the matter of this sub-thread, the other problem is that the
>actors were all trained for theatre and not television so they ham it up

Well I thought Hartnell's style fitted the idea of the Dr they first
created.

>something chronic. Patrick Troughton is an improvement on William
>Hartnell but even he goes all RSC at a moment's notice. Pertwee is
>better (still learning what works on the small screen but he does seem
>to be able to adapt). I have a theory that having done more radio work
>(even if it was The Navy Lark) he was used to using his voice in more
>subtle ways to convey meaning and emotion and he hadn't needed to
>project more than a few feet to reach the microphone.
>
>john

I loved The Navy Lak. We used to even play it at school play time. I
was Mr Phillips.

Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 08:59:57 +0000, john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 31/01/2024 22:57, Nick Odell wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:47:44 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31-Jan-24 12:02, Vicky wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:05:58 +0000, kosmo <kosmo@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20.1.24 07:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Celestial?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently it is objectionable so it is why the Doctor only had to deal
>>>>>> with the Toymaker this time around rather than the Celestial Toymaker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did anyone watch the specials?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone think that the Doctor has jumped the shark?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've heard reports that he has, but can't watch as I no longer pay the
>>>>> licence, so can't watch BBC iplayer or live. It will come somewhere I
>>>>> can watch eventually. B stopped watching a few series ago.
>>>>
>>>> I lost track of it after William Hartnell moved on to other things.
>>>>
>>>> Proper actor he was. That voice could reach the back of the Stalls
>>>> without any effort.
>>>
>>> My mother often said that at RADA they taught her to project her voice
>>> as if she were speaking personally to two little old ladies sitting in
>>> the back of the stalls. "Because in Rep, on a matinee, that's probably
>>> all you'll be peforming for."
>>>
>>> Nick
>>
>> <catching up after an enforced absence due to broken laptop so apologies
>> for any gillivering>
>>
>> One of my current pastimes is watching all the original Dr Who's the
>> Beeb have put on iPlayer. The early ones are nearly unwatchable from
>> today's perspective for (at least) two reasons.
>>
>> There's the sexism and racism - any dark-skinned character in the first
>> two doctors tenure is probably mute and muscle-bound and of course the
>> girls are scantily clad and suffer from "We need to get to work to save
>> the world. Polly, can you make us all a cup of coffee." (This is
>> redressed to an extent in the later episodes and even sent up).
>>
>> But to the matter of this sub-thread, the other problem is that the
>> actors were all trained for theatre and not television so they ham it up
>
> Well I thought Hartnell's style fitted the idea of the Dr they first
> created.
>
>> something chronic. Patrick Troughton is an improvement on William
>> Hartnell but even he goes all RSC at a moment's notice. Pertwee is
>> better (still learning what works on the small screen but he does seem
>> to be able to adapt). I have a theory that having done more radio work
>> (even if it was The Navy Lark) he was used to using his voice in more
>> subtle ways to convey meaning and emotion and he hadn't needed to
>> project more than a few feet to reach the microphone.
>>
>> john
>
> I loved The Navy Lak. We used to even play it at school play time. I
> was Mr Phillips.
>
>

Oh I say! Left hand down a bit.
Did I ever tell you about my meeting with Leading Seaman Gold…Ouch! That
Hurt!

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 31/01/2024 22:57, Nick Odell wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:47:44 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31-Jan-24 12:02, Vicky wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:05:58 +0000, kosmo <kosmo@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20.1.24 07:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Celestial?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently it is objectionable so it is why the Doctor only had to deal
>>>>> with the Toymaker this time around rather than the Celestial Toymaker.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did anyone watch the specials?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone think that the Doctor has jumped the shark?
>>>>
>>>> I've heard reports that he has, but can't watch as I no longer pay the
>>>> licence, so can't watch BBC iplayer or live. It will come somewhere I
>>>> can watch eventually. B stopped watching a few series ago.
>>>
>>> I lost track of it after William Hartnell moved on to other things.
>>>
>>> Proper actor he was. That voice could reach the back of the Stalls
>>> without any effort.
>> My mother often said that at RADA they taught her to project her
>> voice
>> as if she were speaking personally to two little old ladies sitting in
>> the back of the stalls. "Because in Rep, on a matinee, that's probably
>> all you'll be peforming for."
>> Nick
>
> <catching up after an enforced absence due to broken laptop so
> apologies for any gillivering>
>
> One of my current pastimes is watching all the original Dr Who's the
> Beeb have put on iPlayer. The early ones are nearly unwatchable from
> today's perspective for (at least) two reasons.
>
> There's the sexism and racism - any dark-skinned character in the
> first two doctors tenure is probably mute and muscle-bound and of
> course the girls are scantily clad and suffer from "We need to get to
> work to save the world. Polly, can you make us all a cup of coffee."
> (This is redressed to an extent in the later episodes and even sent
> up).
>
> But to the matter of this sub-thread, the other problem is that the
> actors were all trained for theatre and not television so they ham it
> up something chronic. Patrick Troughton is an improvement on William
> Hartnell but even he goes all RSC at a moment's notice. Pertwee is
> better (still learning what works on the small screen but he does seem
> to be able to adapt). I have a theory that having done more radio work
> (even if it was The Navy Lark) he was used to using his voice in more
> subtle ways to convey meaning and emotion and he hadn't needed to
> project more than a few feet to reach the microphone.

Bill Hartnell did quite a bit of film work too, and I'm immediately
thinking of the sinister Dallow in Brighton Rock, where it was
Attenborough major doing the hamming. But he was also regularly typecast
as sergeant major types (as in Carry On Sergeant), hence the need for
naturally hamming up the role.

His memory was failing him by the time he became The Doctor and his
flubbing of his lines was incorporated into his character.

Rosie

In message <upvhfv$1bqfn$2@dont-email.me> at Wed, 7 Feb 2024 09:11:27,
john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes
>On 02/02/2024 10:12, kosmo wrote:
>> On 1.2.24 18:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> I haven't watched it much in recent years (just the odd episode -
>>>probably a bit less than one a year), but could it be that the
>>>decision to reduce the Toymaker's name to one word is just
>>>convenience, rather than any wokism (or similar term)?
>> I endured a behind the scenes programme where the programme producer
>>made a great fuss of the need to remove the word because of the
>>connotations no longer being acceptable in the modern world.
>>
>
>I think it was as much to do with Michael Gough "yellowing up" for the part.
>
>john

Ah, that would - sort of - make sense; if the character of the Celestial
Toymaker was sort of "Charlie Channed" in the past, I could see that
someone might have seen "Celestial" as inappropriate nowadays. It's a
pity, though: it sort of fits in with the space/science/whatever slant
the show still has to some extent, and it's a shame that word has to go
for that reason.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You cannot simply assume someone is honest just because they are not an MP.

On 06/02/2024 23:02, Nick Odell wrote:
>
> So Charles the Ill is Ill. Nominative determinism or wot?
>
So good I nicked it for FB :)

Happy now Kate ? ;)

[Was he ever actually abbreviated to "Dr.", or always "Doctor"?]

In message <upvlp1$1cpic$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:24:33,
Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> writes
>Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 08:59:57 +0000, john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
[]
>>> <catching up after an enforced absence due to broken laptop so apologies
>>> for any gillivering>

(-:
>>>
>>> One of my current pastimes is watching all the original Dr Who's the
>>> Beeb have put on iPlayer. The early ones are nearly unwatchable from
>>> today's perspective for (at least) two reasons.

I have another two, see below.
>>>
>>> There's the sexism and racism - any dark-skinned character in the first
>>> two doctors tenure is probably mute and muscle-bound and of course the
>>> girls are scantily clad and suffer from "We need to get to work to save
>>> the world. Polly, can you make us all a cup of coffee." (This is
>>> redressed to an extent in the later episodes and even sent up).

My favourite character from the earlier days (before the long gap) was
Tegan, the air stewardess: OK, I think she was in a miniskirt or
similar, but that was the style then. But I knew she wouldn't be there
long, because her character _didn't_ say the "what do we do now,
doctor?" and similar lines that seemed to be the function of the
Companions, especially the female ones (as well as being "something for
the Dads", of course): her character showed some individuality and
intelligence. (So had to go.) [I think I read somewhere that the actress
- was it Janet Fielding? - saying that having done it rather hindered
her career somewhat.]
>>>
>>> But to the matter of this sub-thread, the other problem is that the
>>> actors were all trained for theatre and not television so they ham it up
>>
>> Well I thought Hartnell's style fitted the idea of the Dr they first
>> created.

Agreed. Grumpy old man, he did well.
[]
>> I loved The Navy Lak. We used to even play it at school play time. I
>> was Mr Phillips.
>>
>>
>
>Oh I say! Left hand down a bit.

He's clearly still in the RN - there was a recent event (I think in the
Med - Cyprus was it? See YouTube, anyway) where one navy ship clearly
backed into another; it didn't sink it, but it did rather make a mess!
(Comments suggested a mechanical failure. Hmm.)

>Did I ever tell you about my meeting with Leading Seaman Gold…Ouch! That
>Hurt!
>
No ...

My other two reasons for finding some of the earlier stories almost
unwatchable - I'm not sure when I saw them, I think quite a few years
ago they (might not have been the Beeb) might have re-shown all of them
from the start, I don't think it was online:

1. some of them were _physically_ so - I'm not sure why; probably dated
from 405 line era, but stored on film or something: anyway, contrasty
and dark.

2. Some of the storylines approached The Wednesday Play in deepness: I'm
thinking particularly those around when Jamie the Scots lad was one of
the companions (I think there were two at the time). Needed considerable
attention to follow - not helped by the poor picture (and possibly
sound?) from 1. above. Either complex, or just not very good.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You cannot simply assume someone is honest just because they are not an MP.

BrritSki wrote:

> On 06/02/2024 23:02, Nick Odell wrote:

> I hope the homeopathy helps, as well as talking to his plants.

Ooh, should I be talking to my persimmon seedling?

On 07/02/2024 14:36, BrritSki wrote:
> On 06/02/2024 23:02, Nick Odell wrote:
>>
>> So Charles the Ill is Ill. Nominative determinism or wot?
>>
> So good I nicked it for FB  :)
>
> Happy now Kate ?  ;)
>
>

Mwah mwah (on Nick's behalf... he may not thank me for that, though)

--
Kate B

On 07/02/2024 15:20, Kate B wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 14:36, BrritSki wrote:
>> On 06/02/2024 23:02, Nick Odell wrote:
>>>
>>> So Charles the Ill is Ill. Nominative determinism or wot?
>>>
>> So good I nicked it for FB  :)
>>
>> Happy now Kate ?  ;)
>>
>>
>
> Mwah mwah (on Nick's behalf...  he may not thank me for that, though)
>
I think I prefer it that way though :) No offence Nick !

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <dg82sipjj6qu55lls00jslf8sd63ob3a46@4ax.com> at Mon, 5 Feb
> 2024 18:01:02, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 15:34:44 +0000, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:47:44 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> scrawled in
>>> the dust...
>>>
>>>> I lost track of it after William Hartnell moved on to other things.
> []
>>> I found that grumpy old man far scarier than the robots pointing sink
>>> plungers at people and shouting threateningly. I did enjoy the later ones,
>>> particularly Umbrella Troughton (related to some Archers, AIR).
>>
>> The first one was my Dr and I liked his team, Susan, the PC and the
>> teacher. I tried to watch a couple of episodes a few years ago though
>> and they seemed much less good. Not just the scenery.
>
> My Dr. was Jon Pertwee, though I think I caught a few Patrick Troughton.
> When I later saw the Hartnell ones I didn't like him, but now, I do like
> at least the first one: the Delia (no not that one!) music, and as you
> say the supporting cast, and the setup - the school and so on.
>
> Back to the subject: AIAOU in feeling the new news is getting somewhat
> too much coverage? Yes, it _is_ of national importance - but the news
> (he's got some sort of cancer, and is standing back - temporarily or
> otherwise - from some duties. That is ALL.) did not need 21 minutes (so
> far) of a 25-30 minute news.
>
> Given what he was in for, I guess it's likely to be prostate; having
> dodged that particular bullet in 2023, I wish him well.

Emphasised it’s not the prostate, but I think Charlie’ll keep its type
under wraps until later. They prefer not letting the hoi poloi know
everything. It was good enough for Queenie. (I feel weird writing that.
Stepgrandmother was Queenie - definitely didn’t have a royal bearing. More
mousie than Queenie.)

Mrs McT

Chris <chris.mcmillan@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> In message <dg82sipjj6qu55lls00jslf8sd63ob3a46@4ax.com> at Mon, 5 Feb
>> 2024 18:01:02, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 15:34:44 +0000, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:47:44 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> scrawled in
>>>> the dust...
>>>>
>>>>> I lost track of it after William Hartnell moved on to other things.
>> []
>>>> I found that grumpy old man far scarier than the robots pointing sink
>>>> plungers at people and shouting threateningly. I did enjoy the later ones,
>>>> particularly Umbrella Troughton (related to some Archers, AIR).
>>>
>>> The first one was my Dr and I liked his team, Susan, the PC and the
>>> teacher. I tried to watch a couple of episodes a few years ago though
>>> and they seemed much less good. Not just the scenery.
>>
>> My Dr. was Jon Pertwee, though I think I caught a few Patrick Troughton.
>> When I later saw the Hartnell ones I didn't like him, but now, I do like
>> at least the first one: the Delia (no not that one!) music, and as you
>> say the supporting cast, and the setup - the school and so on.
>>
>> Back to the subject: AIAOU in feeling the new news is getting somewhat
>> too much coverage? Yes, it _is_ of national importance - but the news
>> (he's got some sort of cancer, and is standing back - temporarily or
>> otherwise - from some duties. That is ALL.) did not need 21 minutes (so
>> far) of a 25-30 minute news.
>>
>> Given what he was in for, I guess it's likely to be prostate; having
>> dodged that particular bullet in 2023, I wish him well.
>
> Emphasised it’s not the prostate, but I think Charlie’ll keep its type
> under wraps until later. They prefer not letting the hoi poloi know
> everything. It was good enough for Queenie. (I feel weird writing that.
> Stepgrandmother was Queenie - definitely didn’t have a royal bearing. More
> mousie than Queenie.)
>
> Mrs McT
>
>
>

Her surname was Chaplin but she was no Proper Charlie either!

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 07/02/2024 14:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

>
> My other two reasons for finding some of the earlier stories almost
> unwatchable - I'm not sure when I saw them, I think quite a few years
> ago they (might not have been the Beeb) might have re-shown all of them
> from the start, I don't think it was online:
>
> 1. some of them were _physically_ so - I'm not sure why; probably dated
> from 405 line era, but stored on film or something: anyway, contrasty
> and dark.
>
> 2. Some of the storylines approached The Wednesday Play in deepness: I'm
> thinking particularly those around when Jamie the Scots lad was one of
> the companions (I think there were two at the time). Needed considerable
> attention to follow - not helped by the poor picture (and possibly
> sound?) from 1. above. Either complex, or just not very good.

It was in the time of Jamie that the escapes went from running down
corridors or crawling through ventilation shafts to climbing rickety
ladders, providing ample opportunity for what we would now call up-kilting.

john

On 07/02/2024 14:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> [Was he ever actually abbreviated to "Dr.", or always "Doctor"?]
>
> In message <upvlp1$1cpic$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:24:33,
> Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> writes
>> Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 08:59:57 +0000, john ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
> []
>>>> <catching up after an enforced absence due to broken laptop so
>>>> apologies
>>>> for any gillivering>
>
> (-:
>>>>
>>>> One of my current pastimes is watching all the original Dr Who's the
>>>> Beeb have put on iPlayer. The early ones are nearly unwatchable from
>>>> today's perspective for (at least) two reasons.
>
> I have another two, see below.
>>>>
>>>> There's the sexism and racism - any dark-skinned character in the first
>>>> two doctors tenure is probably mute and muscle-bound and of course the
>>>> girls are scantily clad and suffer from "We need to get to work to save
>>>> the world. Polly, can you make us all a cup of coffee." (This is
>>>> redressed to an extent in the later episodes and even sent up).
>
> My favourite character from the earlier days (before the long gap) was
> Tegan, the air stewardess: OK, I think she was in a miniskirt or
> similar, but that was the style then. But I knew she wouldn't be there
> long, because her character _didn't_ say the "what do we do now,
> doctor?" and similar lines that seemed to be the function of the
> Companions, especially the female ones (as well as being "something for
> the Dads", of course): her character showed some individuality and
> intelligence. (So had to go.) [I think I read somewhere that the actress
> - was it Janet Fielding? - saying that having done it rather hindered
> her career somewhat.]
>>>>
>>>> But to the matter of this sub-thread, the other problem is that the
>>>> actors were all trained for theatre and not television so they ham
>>>> it up
>>>
>>> Well I thought Hartnell's style fitted the idea of the Dr they first
>>> created.
>
> Agreed. Grumpy old man, he did well.
> []
>>> I loved The Navy Lak. We used to even play it at school play time. I
>>> was Mr Phillips.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh I say! Left hand down a bit.
>
> He's clearly still in the RN - there was a recent event (I think in the
> Med - Cyprus was it? See YouTube, anyway) where one navy ship clearly
> backed into another; it didn't sink it, but it did rather make a mess!
> (Comments suggested a mechanical failure. Hmm.)
>
>> Did I ever tell you about my meeting with Leading Seaman Gold…Ouch! That
>> Hurt!
>>
> No ...
>
> My other two reasons for finding some of the earlier stories almost
> unwatchable - I'm not sure when I saw them, I think quite a few years
> ago they (might not have been the Beeb) might have re-shown all of them
> from the start, I don't think it was online:
>
On the weekend of Saturday 22 and Sunday 23 September 1990 Galaxy (a BSB
channel) broadcast a Dr Who weekend showing a mix of early series and
surviving odd episodes, movies, etc. Boy, did I feel rough on Monday
after spending about 32 hours in front of the TV over the weekend.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_(British_TV_channel)#Doctor_Who_weekend
for details.)

> 1. some of them were _physically_ so - I'm not sure why; probably dated
> from 405 line era, but stored on film or something: anyway, contrasty
> and dark.
>
> 2. Some of the storylines approached The Wednesday Play in deepness: I'm
> thinking particularly those around when Jamie the Scots lad was one of
> the companions (I think there were two at the time). Needed considerable
> attention to follow - not helped by the poor picture (and possibly
> sound?) from 1. above. Either complex, or just not very good.

Some of the early episodes were far more imaginative and less formulaic
than anything available in TV these days. Actually, that probably goes
for a lot of programs of the time when they were still experimenting
with the medium rather than simply chasing ratings or profit (or filling
a schedule).

--
Ric

On 7.2.24 08:59, john ashby wrote:
> On 31/01/2024 22:57, Nick Odell wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:47:44 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31-Jan-24 12:02, Vicky wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:05:58 +0000, kosmo <kosmo@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20.1.24 07:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Celestial?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently it is objectionable so it is why the Doctor only had to
>>>>> deal
>>>>> with the Toymaker this time around rather than the Celestial Toymaker.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did anyone watch the specials?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone think that the Doctor has jumped the shark?
>>>>
>>>> I've heard reports that he has, but can't watch as I no longer pay the
>>>> licence, so can't watch BBC iplayer or live. It will come somewhere I
>>>> can watch eventually. B stopped watching a few series ago.
>>>
>>> I lost track of it after William Hartnell moved on to other things.
>>>
>>> Proper actor he was.  That voice could reach the back of the Stalls
>>> without any effort.
>>
>> My mother often said that at RADA they taught her to project her voice
>> as if she were speaking personally to two little old ladies sitting in
>> the back of the stalls. "Because in Rep, on a matinee, that's probably
>> all you'll be peforming for."
>>
>> Nick
>
> <catching up after an enforced absence due to broken laptop so apologies
> for any gillivering>
>
> One of my current pastimes is watching all the original Dr Who's the
> Beeb have put on iPlayer.

Similarly when I have time - so far I have only achieved season 1 as I
have been diverted with other programmes.

The early ones are nearly unwatchable from
> today's perspective for (at least) two reasons.
>
> There's the sexism and racism - any dark-skinned character in the first
> two doctors tenure is probably mute and muscle-bound and of course the
> girls are scantily clad and suffer from "We need to get to work to save
> the world. Polly, can you make us all a cup of coffee." (This is
> redressed to an extent in the later episodes and even sent up).

Having watched them originally (well most of them) when aired I now take
the view that they, along with much else, reflects the attitudes and
mores of the time they were made; it may not be right but I refuse to
use it as a reason to consider it unwatchable.

>
> But to the matter of this sub-thread, the other problem is that the
> actors were all trained for theatre and not television so they ham it up
> something chronic. Patrick Troughton is an improvement on William
> Hartnell but even he goes all RSC at a moment's notice. Pertwee is
> better (still learning what works on the small screen but he does seem
> to be able to adapt). I have a theory that having done more radio work
> (even if it was The Navy Lark) he was used to using his voice in more
> subtle ways to convey meaning and emotion and he hadn't needed to
> project more than a few feet to reach the microphone.

But then, although television had been around for a long time, the
skills needed for the new medium had not been developed, the actors and
the backroom teams were all learning as Dr Who was one of the first
continuing dramas - The Groves had aired for 3 years from 1954 - but
only as 15 minute episodes initially and other continuing dramas -
Emergency Ward 10 / Coronation St had started by this time. So the only
source of trained actors was the stage. I think re-watching these older
programmes to see the developments (as you have mentioned) will be
relevant - perhaps there is a thesis in using Dr Who as a demonstration
of how making television programmes has developed?

>
> john

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 08/02/2024 09:28, kosmo wrote:
>
> But then, although television had been around for a long time, the
> skills needed for the new medium had not been developed, the actors and
> the backroom teams were all learning as Dr Who was one of the first
> continuing dramas - The Groves had aired for 3 years from 1954 - but
> only as 15 minute episodes initially and other continuing dramas -
> Emergency Ward 10 / Coronation St had started by this time.  So the only
> source of trained actors was the stage.  I think re-watching these older
> programmes to see the developments (as you have mentioned) will be
> relevant - perhaps there is a thesis in using Dr Who as a demonstration
> of how making television programmes has developed?
>

<grump grump> Conversely, the only source of trained actors now is tv
and films. Mumblers all. I am appalled that everyone needs now to be
amplified whatever the size of show or stage. So far, the opera stage
has resisted this though one wonders for how long, given the insistence
on looks over voice quality. </grump grump>

--
Kate B

On 08/02/2024 10:32, Kate B wrote:
> On 08/02/2024 09:28, kosmo wrote:
>>
>> But then, although television had been around for a long time, the
>> skills needed for the new medium had not been developed, the actors
>> and the backroom teams were all learning as Dr Who was one of the
>> first continuing dramas - The Groves had aired for 3 years from 1954 -
>> but only as 15 minute episodes initially and other continuing dramas -
>> Emergency Ward 10 / Coronation St had started by this time.  So the
>> only source of trained actors was the stage.  I think re-watching
>> these older programmes to see the developments (as you have mentioned)
>> will be relevant - perhaps there is a thesis in using Dr Who as a
>> demonstration of how making television programmes has developed?
>>
>
> <grump grump> Conversely, the only source of trained actors now is tv
> and films. Mumblers all. I am appalled that everyone needs now to be
> amplified whatever the size of show or stage. So far, the opera stage
> has resisted this though one wonders for how long, given the insistence
> on looks over voice quality. </grump grump>
>
>
<LW>

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 10:32:05 +0000, Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 08/02/2024 09:28, kosmo wrote:
>>
>> But then, although television had been around for a long time, the
>> skills needed for the new medium had not been developed, the actors and
>> the backroom teams were all learning as Dr Who was one of the first
>> continuing dramas - The Groves had aired for 3 years from 1954 - but
>> only as 15 minute episodes initially and other continuing dramas -
>> Emergency Ward 10 / Coronation St had started by this time.  So the only
>> source of trained actors was the stage.  I think re-watching these older
>> programmes to see the developments (as you have mentioned) will be
>> relevant - perhaps there is a thesis in using Dr Who as a demonstration
>> of how making television programmes has developed?
>>
>
><grump grump> Conversely, the only source of trained actors now is tv
>and films. Mumblers all. I am appalled that everyone needs now to be
>amplified whatever the size of show or stage. So far, the opera stage
>has resisted this though one wonders for how long, given the insistence
>on looks over voice quality. </grump grump>

Quite often in TA I can't tell who is speaking to who. Last night I
thought it was Adam in one scene, then it seemed to be Pat and Tony,
or was it Brian...

Kate B wrote:

><grump grump> Conversely, the only source of trained actors now is tv
>and films. Mumblers all. I am appalled that everyone needs now to be
>amplified whatever the size of show or stage. So far, the opera stage
>has resisted this though one wonders for how long, given the insistence
>on looks over voice quality. </grump grump>

One of the cast of the annual Nottingham Playhouse pantomime
explained that it was something of a culture shock in her first
professional role, to forget the years of training in realism,
and just go very much over the top, projecting to the back of the
auditorium.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 12:09:12 +0000, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 10:32:05 +0000, Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On 08/02/2024 09:28, kosmo wrote:
>>>
>>> But then, although television had been around for a long time, the
>>> skills needed for the new medium had not been developed, the actors and
>>> the backroom teams were all learning as Dr Who was one of the first
>>> continuing dramas - The Groves had aired for 3 years from 1954 - but
>>> only as 15 minute episodes initially and other continuing dramas -
>>> Emergency Ward 10 / Coronation St had started by this time.  So the only
>>> source of trained actors was the stage.  I think re-watching these older
>>> programmes to see the developments (as you have mentioned) will be
>>> relevant - perhaps there is a thesis in using Dr Who as a demonstration
>>> of how making television programmes has developed?
>>>
>>
>><grump grump> Conversely, the only source of trained actors now is tv
>>and films. Mumblers all. I am appalled that everyone needs now to be
>>amplified whatever the size of show or stage. So far, the opera stage
>>has resisted this though one wonders for how long, given the insistence
>>on looks over voice quality. </grump grump>
>
>Quite often in TA I can't tell who is speaking to who. Last night I
>thought it was Adam in one scene, then it seemed to be Pat and Tony,
>or was it Brian...

<LW>

N.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 23:34:34 +0000, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 12:09:12 +0000, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 10:32:05 +0000, Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 08/02/2024 09:28, kosmo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But then, although television had been around for a long time, the
>>>> skills needed for the new medium had not been developed, the actors and
>>>> the backroom teams were all learning as Dr Who was one of the first
>>>> continuing dramas - The Groves had aired for 3 years from 1954 - but
>>>> only as 15 minute episodes initially and other continuing dramas -
>>>> Emergency Ward 10 / Coronation St had started by this time.  So the only
>>>> source of trained actors was the stage.  I think re-watching these older
>>>> programmes to see the developments (as you have mentioned) will be
>>>> relevant - perhaps there is a thesis in using Dr Who as a demonstration
>>>> of how making television programmes has developed?
>>>>
>>>
>>><grump grump> Conversely, the only source of trained actors now is tv
>>>and films. Mumblers all. I am appalled that everyone needs now to be
>>>amplified whatever the size of show or stage. So far, the opera stage
>>>has resisted this though one wonders for how long, given the insistence
>>>on looks over voice quality. </grump grump>
>>
>>Quite often in TA I can't tell who is speaking to who. Last night I
>>thought it was Adam in one scene, then it seemed to be Pat and Tony,
>>or was it Brian...
>
><LW>
>
>N.

However most of the time if you wait for BBC sounds to put the episode
up after broadcast and then you can listen you can, if it says more,
click and the synopsis is up. Not Friday as click then gives the cast.
Sometimes synopsis is a time later./

In message <l2jrgkFkni7U1@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 8 Feb 2024
11:16:37, BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> writes
>On 08/02/2024 10:32, Kate B wrote:
[]
>> <grump grump> Conversely, the only source of trained actors now is
>>tv and films. Mumblers all. I am appalled that everyone needs now to
>>be amplified whatever the size of show or stage. So far, the opera
>>stage has resisted this though one wonders for how long, given the
>>insistence on looks over voice quality. </grump grump>
>>
><LW>
>
One of the main reasons I never really got into opera was that I felt
the majority of performers _had_ learnt volume over diction, with the
effect that, even if I could make out what they were saying/singing, it
sounded odd. I'm sure there will now be a host of opera lovers who tell
me this is not so with the real stars of the medium, but I hold my
ground (perhaps the recording quality for many of the stars of the past
was not what it might be).

I think the first generation of singers for whom electronic
amplification meant they did not have to shoutsing were called the
crooners, such as Bing Crosby; however, they did not sound "right" to
opera aficionados, who were used to the traditional style and expected
it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Science fiction is escape into reality - Arthur C Clarke

On 07/02/2024 15:30, Chris wrote:
> It was good enough for Queenie. (I feel weird writing that.
> Stepgrandmother was Queenie - definitely didn’t have a royal bearing.

Which follows on rather nicely with the question I posed to my sister
yesterday. IF - heaven forbid - the King should pass away in the near
future, what will Queen Camilla become? She will not be Queen Mother
and I can't imagine Queen Stepmother being adopted.

--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK