TV in the UK is light years away from what it was in 1999/2000. BBC3, BBC4, ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4 didn’t even exist, for a start!

What I meant was stupid-looking aliens. Like the Cybermen. They just don’t look serious. They look like people in suits. While Cybermen are supposed to be people who have replaced their organic parts, they still don’t look convincing. Other aliens are not well designed either. The Daleks look cheap too.

>Lacking exterior shots?

A lot of it is inside a studio with laughable decor. When I see that, I just don’t wanna see any more.

>You are making it obvious

Matt, don’t piss me off. I know what Dr Who is and have watched it on/off for years now, mostly because I had nothing better to do. I just HATE IT. How many times do I need to write that to stop suggesting it and going off topic? I just don’t like how it looks like, it has a very distinctive “cheap” video look. I can’t take it seriously. It looks like a freaking comedy more than a sci-fi show.

>Scifi broadcast is also not a good indication

Give me a break. What, did they remove pixels or something? And don’t forget that I used to live in UK, and before that in Greece. Or all of my TV receptions “were wrong” somehow? Don’t fuck this discussion by being silly please.

Please don’t mention Dr Who again (neither Red Dwarf or Torchwood). I just don’t like that kind of a show, so I consider it off topic.

As per usual, you are being you though, and we all love you desrly ))

And please use HTML the next time for your URLs.

For me, it’s a bit like the use of extreme audio level compression when applied to music: it’s OK at first but it quickly becomes fatiguing.

There’s a bit of discussion about its use on Dr Who on this video forum.

And Dr Who is mentioned on the Wikipedia page for “film look”.

Dr Who does NOT have the ‘film look processing and cinematography’. Dr Who is a soap-looking show, shot in 50i video without shallow DoF. It is as farthest from “movie-like” as it could be. I think you have it mistaken for something that it’s not simply because it has visual effects. VFX is not enough to make the series’ world look realistic.

> I’d rather have things that were a bit rough around the edges visually but with a good story and good actors

Sorry, but I want all three. It has to have a good story and good actors, and look and feel ultra realistic by utilizing an expensive production.

I think that they make too much of an effort to make it movie like, in terms of the “film look” processing and cinematography and the overly intrusive score. I wonder if you would dislike the look of it if it had been naturally and simply?

On the other hand, what looks like over egging the pudding to me, probably looks like American style high production values to the majority of British viewers.

TBH, I think that you and I working in different directions, I’m hoping that lowering costs of production and distribution will enable an age a greater number of low-budget series to be produced. I’d rather have things that were a bit rough around the edges visually but with a good story and good actors. I’m sure it will happen eventually. For example, I’d love to see a web based TV channel that produced nothing but science fiction pilot shows.

I submitted a sitcom script to the BBC earlier in the year to a department that receives 10,000+ scripts a year, so there easily enough talent out there to support a far greater number of TV shows.

Lost shows that is possible. I wouldn’t mind having complete no-name actors to bring down cost. Lost is the most expensive TV series today, it costs between $2 and $4 million per episode. However, Matthew Fox gets $250,000 per episode and the rest of his co-stars get a hell of a lot of money too. Instead of spending well over $1 million per episode for the stars that appear in it, pay only $200,000 for them by using talented, but no-name actors, and use the rest $800,000 for production costs (e.g. new sets). Also, shoot digitally, with the RED. With $3 to $4 million per episode you can develop a kick ass series like the one I imagine.

So trust me, it’s possible. It just needs a network with guts and fewer prima-donnas.

BTW, one great implementation of the kind of TV series I would like would be about the Marvel super-heroes. You have an overall plot (e.g. a secret Krill invasion), but each episode can study different super hero/villain, where their paths sometimes cross and the mystery unveils through all these different stories and almost completely different characters on each episode. The Marvel universe is big, and in order to do it justice, would require such a format, rather than let’s say, create a stand-alone episodic TV series only about the Avengers or the X-Men with guest star villains on each episode. What I want is to understand the universe they are in and what drives that universe, not just a single team of super-heroes that do their thing for 45 minutes each week. It has to feel bigger than the Avengers or the X-Men or whoever else.

Farscape I found it to be very traditionally made, boring, not exciting or unique. It’s just another sci-fi series. Been there, seen that.

>You should try Torchwood too.

No, I shouldn’t. I just don’t like the look of these series (and I’ve tried Torchwood btw, we had it on our SciFi channel too). Just don’t try to convince me about it, I just won’t like it because it doesn’t feel right to me. The video-shot UK series usually have good ideas, but the implementation and look sucks compared to the expensive US/Canada productions.

>Re: Dr Who, which ugly face?

The new guy. Tom Baker was my favorite of all Dr Whoos. He brought some comedy relief that made Dr Who bearable to me. Otherwise, I would have shot the TV back in the ’80s already.