From: danaf@bray1b.its.rpi.edu (Frank R. Dana Jr.)
Subject: Re: Constants a Movie should observe
Reply-To: danaf@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:03:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.224024.601@rivers>, ph9991_manfr@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu writes:
|> 
|> I've been giving thought to this in-the-works Doctor Who movie that will
|> probably finally get made here in a year or two.  

People have been saying that since about 1970... 8)

|> There are few constants in all of the television series, but what few there
|> are I feel are sort of "sacred" and should be observed in the movie, and

Absolutely. That script that was posted a while ago looked, to me, like it was
written by a very good writer, who has a good sense of storytelling and pacing,
but who had only seen about three episodes of Doctor Who, all Jon Pertwee.

|> Thought I'd share 'em with you to see what you think.

Careful there, we're an opinionated bunch... we'll TELL you!

|> 1)  The theme music.  It MUST be the Ron Grainer signature tune.  It can
|> 	be rearranged and restyled slightly as it has been on the TV series,
|> 	but if it's a completely different song, then it very definitely
|> 	won't be Doctor Who to me.

Yes, please. And see Deep Space Nine for an example of how BADLY a signature
theme can be screwed up...

|> 2)  The TARDIS exterior.  Has to be the standard Police Box.

Weeeell... at least for a while. I wouldn't mind having the chameleon circuit
in action (preferrably BADLY, as in ___???___ (C.Baker) of the Cybermen...),
but some token representation of the Police Box must be made, either at the
beginning or the end of the story. I like the way the movie script handled that
just fine...
 
|> 3)  Basic design of the TARDIS interior.  Entry into the console room,
|> 	hexagonal console with translucent column in the centre that rises
|> 	and falls in flight (and lights up). Rotation is optional, but 
|> 	preferred.  Glowing roundelled walls, large double doors on the
|> 	left side, scanner mounted on the right side, interior door on the
|> 	right.  Doors and scanner operated from the main console.
|> 	The console instruments and scanner can be updated of course.

This I can't agree with. The Doctor CAN (and maybe should...) have a totally
new, improved TARDIS. If the TV show ever returns, the TARDIS will probably be
redesigned anyway, as the old set was disposed of. If the TARDIS looked like
the Rani's from Mark, I wouldn't complain. I think the BASIC, fundamental
design parameters (as simple as "console in a big room"...) need to be 
observed, but other than that the designers can go wild...

|> 4)  The TARDIS' dematerialization sound effect.  Has to be the original
|> 	Brian Hodgson effect.  Can be, and I would even advise this, 
|> 	remastered into stereo surround sound so long as nothing is 
|> 	subtracted or added from the original sound.
|> 	Goes for the materialization too.

Well, maybe with a little updating. If the Doctor has a new TARDIS, the sound
produced by his out-of-alignment time engines would not be present... the 
effect would be more regular, without the grating, scraping noise of the 
current effect.

|> 5)  Certain terms such as Gallifrey, Type 40, you get the idea.

Yes.... except for Type 40   8)

|> 6)  Title sequence.  Must contain no "real" images except for the face of
|> 	the Doctor or the TARDIS exterior.  No previous title sequence has
|> 	had in it any real, ordinary everyday object as part of it.  
|> 	Also, the traditional progression of the titles should be preserved,
|> 	thusly:  a) weird patterns or starfield;
|> 	b) patterns form into the Doctor's face
|> 	c) patterns return and form Doctor Who logo  (logo is optional,
|> 	whatever they want it to be)
|> 	d) logo fades and credits follow like this:  Story title, Writer.
|> 	Obviously an episode number wouldn't be in order.
|> 	And that should be it.  No "A Merimax film, A Joe Director film,
|> 	A Phil Producer film, Starring Impressive Star" credits, in
|> 	fact no other credits in the opening at all, or if they do
|> 	appear, they appear after the writer credit and the title patterns
|> 	return.

You can't expect this. There are VERY strict "traditions" in the movie
industry, and they will be followed first and foremost. This **IS** a movie, 
not a BBC production, and the crediting will change. Director's and Producer's
names will probably come even before the LOGO. I agree that the basic style 
should be preserved... altho I think a few more "real" images can be added..
don't forget, that face wasn't part of the original, and the TARDIS was just
added five years ago. If people were as nit-pickey as you, it would still be
just the logo. 

I agree, no true action sequences or film bits should be included, but if they
put in a shot of the planet Earth, or Gallifrey, or of a companion's face, It 
wouldn't be so bad...

|> 	Closing credits are a bit more complicated.  BBC style is to give

And will definitely be changed. Again, remember, this is a movie, not the BBC.

|> This one's probably impossible, but it would be nice if somehow the 
|> BBC Radiophonic Workshop were given the Sound Effects chores, or at least
|> hire Brian Hodgson or Dick Mills on a freelance basis.  

No way. Best you can hope for is that, if the BBC is really involved in this
production, they'll get license to USE the sound effects of the show. Otherwise,
expect some MAJOR changes (eg the former "movies")

|> Steven.K.Manfred

-- 
/////////////////////////[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
(718)             (212)                        (516)             (518)
=======Amiuser============Frank R. Dana, Jr.============Doc Ami=======     
--------My opinions rarely reflect those of any sane person,----------
	   living, dead, or undead... that's gonna CHANGE.