io9
Sorry, ladies. And gentlemen. While America's TV shows fall over themselves to broadcast in HD, you'll be waiting a long time to see a sharper, more realistic David Tennant on your screens if producer Russell T. Davies has anything to do with it. His reason for television ludditeness? A High Definition picture would show just how cheap the new Tardis actually is.
With Who spinoff Torchwood having made the jump to HD this year, Davies says that that unpleasant experience was enough to make him realize that Who should stay lo-fi as long as possible:
I had a terrible experience on Torchwood. There was a lack of training and there was no extra time or money... We'd have to stop and rebuild the tardis. The flaws would show and it would take a lot of money to fix it. So we won't move to HD while I'm there.Personally, I think he's missing an amazing opportunity here. Ignoring the fact that the Tardis was always meant to be kind of crappy - wasn't it meant to be broken, after all? - the idea of offering hardcore fans of the original series this kind of olive branch is too good to pass up: "I may not be able to offer you four-part stories or overacting by classic British sitcom actors dressed in aluminum foil pretending to be aliens, but now that we're in HD, I can promise you a return to the days when the sets were so bad that you expected them to fall down in the middle of the episode!" The internet would fall at his feet.
HD 'Who' 'would mean rebuilding Tardis' [Digital Spy]
Comments
Nah, I wouldn't really want to watch Doctor Who in HD. It's fine the way it is.
Maybe they should just do an episode called "Fixing the TARDIS", where the doctor goes to a construction worker planet, and they film the natives repairing all the crappy bits.
They could film the actual effects crew working on it, just have David Tennant sitting in a director's chair, sipping some coffee, periodically saying something British.
don't be ashamed of the crapiness!
After seeing the way Russell T Turdis is taking the series - who cares :(
Considering Russell's track record for stating one thing, then going off and doing the exact opposite, I half expect next years "specials" and the following season to be in HD.
It's the same reason Hi-def has not swept through the world of porno... shows all the flaws in vivid, sharp color!
@braak: I like that idea! They'll never do it.
That was one of the best things about Jon Pertwee's tenure as The Doctor: he was always trying to find a way to fix the TARDIS to escape his banishment to Earth.
I think Torchwood looks great in HD, I've seen all of season 1 and season 2 in HD.
Watching it in standard definition, it just doesn't look as vivid. The difference between the 2 is bigger than watching something like CSI in SD and HD.
torchwood does look good in hd, but i'm all for keeping dr. who just the way it is. :)
@braak: Yes! How about a BBC/PBS crossover This Old Tardis? "Well Norm, this control console has certainly seen a lot..." Or should it be The Victory Tardis, since they are grown not built?
WTF cares how cheap it looks?
If it was like THAT the show wouldn't still be here at all!!
The old shows in the glory of faded magnetic tape couldn't hide the painted pot and pannery that was the old BBS props department.
I think one time they had a light bulb, it was awesome.
Phooey. It's Doctor gorram Who!
Everything in HD looks like mid eighties BBC shot on camcorder. The old Doctor Who looked this way due to technical limitations and now we should want it to look like crap on purpose? I'm with Davies on this one. Wish other people would have some sense about jumping on some gizmo bandwagon.
They wouldn't have to build a new one - couldn't they just buy that crazy guy's lifesize replica? I bet it would hold up to the scrutiny.
It's an English show, doesn't have half the budget of American shows and shouldn't have to conform to new American HD (I was going to say standards but it isn't the standard for another year)
Another reason the producers have given for not shooting in HD is that the CGI would take twice as long to render, and be much more expensive. Doctor Who is very CGI-heavy.
@NefariousNewt: Amen. Somethings just weren't made for HD. Worst HD moment of my life? Jason Giambi's face in the batters box when he's up at bat. (Sadly, it's a recurring moment.) You think that's a sports reference, but trust me, it's SF.
That might also be true for the TARDIS as well; however, anyone who oversaw Penis-face the Dalek Sec Hybrid loses a little credibility when expressing his special effects concerns.
@foolish-rain: @NefariousNewt: Honestly, I'll bet they could raise some money in the states for the purposes of updating the sets just by doing an hour-long special on it.
OH NO! You mean it's not a working prototype?? :-)
If I recall what made Dr. Who fun to watch was the unusual stories and the Doctor's swagger and attitude, oh yea, the ladies too. The special effect's however have always challenged the audience's 'suspension of disbelief' engine. That to say bring on the cheap sets in HD. It's been done before... 'terminate, terminate' HA HA.
@92BuickLeSabre: I know the Daleks were upset at the idea of HD, because it would show all the pits and scratches on their hulls.
Perhaps I'm just a luddite, but what exactly is the appeal of HD? Do people honestly want to see the individual pores of their favorite actors?
@NefariousNewt: I heard Billie Piper had similar concerns.
A small comment for people who seem to think that seeing the TARDIS with all it's flaws intact would somehow feel right, they are not thinking about the kind of flaws that are being talked about.
TV props and costumes and makeup and sets are make as cheaply as possible and designed specifically for the screen. When you shoot stuff intended for Standard Definition in HD the kind of flaws you see aren't artsy, realistic, gritty scratches and scrapes.
You see the tiny zippers they use to make the costumes manageable. You see the edges where makeup prosthetics are applied. You see the bumps where nails are sticking out a bit or two bits of plywood don't join perfectly on the painted over 'metal' walls.
HD has real costs in time and money. Makeup takes quite a bit longer. You can't get away with half as many shortcuts when building sets. The CG and other effects take more time to set up and render time goes up geometrically.
Frankly, I sympathize with RTD. Not always a fan of his writing but he's a great producer. And the thought of switching a show to HD that wasn't designed or budgeted for it from the get-go is a nightmare.
Yeah, I'm ok without an HD version. From what I've seen of it, HD isn't worth the hype. Yes, stuff looks a little nicer, but in the end it's still the same poorly-written crap. Personally, I'm waiting for HITV (High-Intelligence TV), but since that's an oxymoron, I'm screwed.
What pisses me off most is how the administration has no trouble making sure kids don't have adequate health care in this country, but we've got more than enough money lying around to subsidize people's entertainment. If only people in this country were smart enough to grok that the overwhelming bulk of "welfare" goes to the rich.
@Belabras:
I'm with you - regular TV only looks bad compared to HD, when they're side-by-side. I don't sit around watching regular TV thinking: "gee, this is too blurry"...
Besides, it's all an obvious scheme to get people to replace their $100 TVs that last for decades, with TVs that cost as much as a used car, and last 5 years. As far as I'm concerned, they can bite me - it's just TV.
-Kle.
yeah screw hd, turn up the digital channel bandwidths so the sd is bearable on a decent sized tv - i'm starting to see artifacts in real life!
@Belabras, Spoonman, and Klebert L. Hall: Wow, I spend so much time on Gizmodo, I had just assumed that everyone was like me and HDTV was just the baseline, an assumed good, a jaw-dropping glorious revelation from the heavens. You all have opened my eyes....either that or you are all aliens, I haven't decided yet.
@BlindKarma: It's... not "new American HD". It's an international standard, and most of the BBC is on it. But if it makes you feel better, in the UK it broadcasts at full PAL output- 576x720 with solid black levels ever since the UK switch to digital transmission.
See, in the US, the reason even high quality SD cable looks like shit is because the black levels are at 7.5%, giving everything a nice washed out look, and it's broadcast at 320x240- while every single SD TV has to double the image to 640x480. So needless to say, they lose a bit of data.
And using HD doesn't mean you have to shoot it with the sharpness it's known for. BSG, for instance, adds a double Smoke and Haze filter to the lens, giving the image a near film-like softness.
Just saying, he's got options. But if the BBC won't give him extra money to upgrade, well, there's no reason to upgrade.
@Klebert L. Hall: I say that, but then again, I barely noticed a difference in clarity when I watched UK SD TV, because they're broadcast standards aren't insanely poor.
Doctor Who is suppose to be a campy show... so "who" cares...
I would love to see a western movie about Haruhi.
[en.wikipedia.org]
Yea, I know is a anime, but come on.. lets break cultural barriers here for a good history!
@92BuickLeSabre:
Heh. Probably the 'aliens'.
I was hanging around with a younger, hipper, more interesting (than me) friend, and she said "I must be getting old. Some of the stuff kids like these days, I just don't get.". I replied "You don't have to tell me. I have a 40-year-old car outside, and in the back seat is a rotary phone I just bought .".
That probably sums me up pretty well.
-Kle.
HD is a gift from the gods, and I will not have it dissed. Especially satellite (not as compressed as cable), or the glory that is over the air, free, with rabbit ears or antenna (the retro irony amuses me daily).
That said, RTD's right about it being impractical for Who. The extra time and money it would take on prosthetics, sets, and CGI isn't worth it, even if the TARDIS got spiffed up.
HD isnt the be all and end all of TV programs, for the moment I am happy watching shows in what ever quality the studios wish to produce it in. Its been so long without some TV shows that I just want to see them already...
Only the chameleon circuit is broken, not the whole tardis.
The show looks good enough now. I can say that there have been a few times where I've been smiling and just thinking "Man this is great" without thoughts of how cheap the show looks as compared to when I was first introduced to the Doctor way back on PBS in the 90s. I'd rather just trust him and wait for the next iteration (or upgrade) of the Tardis. With the Doctor Who break (sans tv movies) coming up that'd give 'em time to fix her up a bit if they felt the need too.
Maybe they could tie in the idea of fixing up the TARDIS for HDTV purposes with the upcoming appearance of the Sontarans in Series Four, and the two could blend together with a special called In a Fix with Sontarans...oh, wait. Never mind. ;)
that the trouble they didnt do dr who in a very profesional way.
Some times I cringe when they puff up BBC wales and the Mill as is they are some welsh version or Weta.
The BBC probaly moved the production to wales for political reasons.
some of the comentry by the DP on the SG vids discusses the pros and cons of Hdef vs 35mm and they do twice the number of shows in the same time.
DR who is flag ship show FFS RTD and the BBC need to get a Fracking Grip
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?