Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Media Television

Daleks Exterminated From New Dr. Who 434

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the gone-but-not-forgotten dept.
albino eatpod writes "The BBC are reporting that despite 'the very best deal possible,' a failure to agree terms between the BBC and the estate of late sci-fi writer Terry Nation has meant that we will not being seeing TV's most evil villains in the new series, starring Christopher Eccleston and Billy Piper."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Daleks Exterminated From New Dr. Who

Comments Filter:
  • Daleks and Dollars (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mfh (56) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:30AM (#9591193) Homepage Journal
    This always happens when you have an estate controlling the interests of an artist or writer. Estate holders only consider the money side of things, but most artists alive wish only to impact the world, by sharing their life-blood with the public -- forget the bottom line. Either that, or the creative community is simply addicted to the process of creation that they don't recognize the business side of things as being very necessary or important. The spirit of art is passion, and sharing passion can make passion spread like a wildfire. I think that it's sacrilege for heirs of creative folks to block the art because of the almighty buck. Therefore, I too will miss our mighty Dalek overlords.
    • by pubjames (468013) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:32AM (#9591215)
      Estate holders only consider the money side of things

      No they don't. They often want editorial control as well. Which was the problem in case case, and I believe has been a problem with the Tolkein estate aswell.
      • "I believe has been a problem with the Tolkein estate aswell."

        Oh great! So we won't be able to see Dr. Who fight Hobbits either!?!?

        -m
      • Copyright Too Long (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Famatra (669740) on Friday July 02, 2004 @11:05AM (#9592009) Journal
        What benefit is it to society to have copyright so long that the great grandchildren of the authors have say over the work?

        Copyright should end at death, and be at most 30 years in length. 30 years seems like a reasonable amount of time to get money out of the monopoly on the expression of an idea.
        • by Andy_R (114137) on Friday July 02, 2004 @11:49AM (#9592451) Homepage Journal
          The problem with copyright ending at death is that spouses and children need some form of income.

          Would you really want to see Yoko Ono made destitute and penniless when John was killed?

          Ok, maybe that was a bad example :-)

          Would you really want to see Courtney L.... erm... Paula Yates... erm... someone help me out here!
          • by Dwonis (52652) *
            More importantly, you don't want to create a situation where someone will immediately benefit from your death.

            Of course, if copyrights were shorter, we wouldn't need to worry about this crap.

          • by Artifakt (700173)
            Roger Zelazny - Great fantasy and SF author, Royalties showing lots of signs they would increase rapidly in the next few years - his Amber series optioned for film, much of his other work coming back into print, books-on-tape versions which he was getting the income both as writer and narrator, and even talk of theme park rides based on his work.
            Roger died still in middle age, of a relatively nasty form of cancer, with huge medical bills, kids at or near college age, and someone else having to be hired
        • by The Lynxpro (657990) <lynxpro@gma i l . c om> on Friday July 02, 2004 @12:14PM (#9592753)
          "Copyright should end at death, and be at most 30 years in length. 30 years seems like a reasonable amount of time to get money out of the monopoly on the expression of an idea."

          No way. If that were permitted, you'd have hired goons killing the copyright owners so publishers could stop writing out royalty checks. I mean, c'mon, look at the history of the RIAA screwing living artists out of their checks, or the various motion picture companies cooking the books to wipe out percentage profits. To this day, Warner Bros. Pictures claims they haven't made a profit off 1989's Batman motion picture.

        • by mpe (36238)
          What benefit is it to society to have copyright so long that the great grandchildren of the authors have say over the work?

          There is also the matter of how broad a copyright is. Here the copyright isn't about a specific story e.g. "The Daleks" or "Remembrance of the Daleks" nor a specific character e.g. "Black Dalek" or "Davros". Instead it covers the concept of the Daleks, a fictional race in a fictional universe. Does this really make much sense...
      • by garethwi (118563) on Friday July 02, 2004 @11:10AM (#9592066) Homepage
        The main problem with an estate wanting to editorial control is that there isn't a tenth of the talent in there as was in the person who died.
    • That or they believe that the person doing it will do a horrible job and destroy the product (unfortunately it looks like George Lucas hasn't thought about this, during his new films).
    • Hardly (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mccalli (323026) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:49AM (#9591355) Homepage
      ...but most artists alive wish only to impact the world, by sharing their life-blood with the public -- forget the bottom line.

      It's a nice, romantic view but it isn't the case here. Terry Nation had a serious falling out with the BBC over control and payments, and continually refused the BBC permission to use them. I believe various other monsters are involved as well - a true Whovian will be able to fill the details in here, as opposed to myself who just watches the programmes on cable sometimes.

      Plus, the BBC doesn't have a very good record with Daleks. There aren't very many working models left, and when the BBC borrowed one from the Dr Who Exhibition in Llangollen (now back in Blackpool after god know's hoow many years) they managed to damage it.

      Nope, I'm not at all surprised by this decision. And to be honest, I'm not all bothered either. It would be nice for a bit of continuity I suppose, but really I'm sure they can find more villians to go up against.

      More worrying to me is the idea of 50 minute stand-alone episodes, rather than maybe half-hour installments that you had before. I really feel they need to keep the cliffhangers that used to typify the series.

      Cheers,
      Ian

      • Re:Hardly (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Gordonjcp (186804) on Friday July 02, 2004 @10:04AM (#9591477) Homepage
        There used to be (5-6 years ago) a Dalek as part of the window display of a garage in Elgin. I used to go past it on my way from Aberdeen to Inverness. I stopped in once, and asked the owner. He said it was a real Dalek, rescued from being disposed of by the BBC.


        Last time I went past, it was an outdoor clothing shop (wtf?). Didn't see the Dalek, but it might be worth chasing.

        • Re:Hardly (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Atrax (249401)
          > There used to be (5-6 years ago) a Dalek as part of the window display of a garage in Elgin

          There was a shop in Clerkenwell (London) that had one, opposite where I used to work. Either the BBC made a hell of a lot of them or they've been breeding while we weren't looking. There are a few floating round Australia now, having seen a couple at the Powerhouse a while back.

          I think maybe everyone who can make a passable replica does the throwaway "genuine dalek" thing.
          • Re:Hardly (Score:5, Interesting)

            by PCM2 (4486) on Friday July 02, 2004 @03:11PM (#9594705) Homepage
            Either the BBC made a hell of a lot of them or they've been breeding while we weren't looking ... I think maybe everyone who can make a passable replica does the throwaway "genuine dalek" thing.
            No, it's very possible the BBC made a hell of a lot of them. Most people don't notice, but the styles of Dalek fashion have changed considerably over the years, particularly in their color schemes. The last few Dalek series featured sort of a war between two factions of Daleks, one sort of cream-colored and the others the more traditional dark grey. The little lights on the sides of their heads have changed regularly throughout the years, too. What's more, the idea that the BBC would throw away such a thing is hardly crazy, either -- they threw away countless original masters of Doctor Who episodes as well, back in the days when reruns on the BBC were unheard-of.
    • by TheTXLibra (781128) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:50AM (#9591367) Homepage Journal
      Not entirely true, but I see your point. However, the estate holders of Charlie Chaplain's old films, for instance, are not releasing the silent versions of many of his famous movies to DVD, only the ones with actual sound, voices, etc. This is because they feel that it holds closest to his own aspirations, as Chaplain was a huge advocate of sound in movies. Though there would be a sizeable market for the silent ones, the family wants to hold on to the original artist's ideal. Granted I think this bites, as I like the silent versions better in the same way I think a black and white photograph requires more talent than colour photos, but that's my personal opinion, and not his vision. Not that this remotely applies to Dr. Who and Daleks, but in response to your comment, my reply is "Perhaps often, they do only consider money, but sometimes that's better than considering only the artist's vision. It gives it no room to grow or be remembered properly, it only limits us to the creator's own interpretation."
    • by JosKarith (757063) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:51AM (#9591376)
      Next episode:
      Dr Who vs. the Lawyers

      Dr Who wants to go to far-flung places, but the evil Lawyers ground him reminding him that it's been 60 years since his TARDIS' last MOT.
      Then, just as that's getting sorted out one of the lawyers points out that an old man enticing a series of (usually skimpily clad) young girls into a secluded telephone booth with promises of of wild adventures is not neccesarily the sort of role model they want to be promoting...
    • The editorial control issue is important. They didn't want unauthorized varients of the Daleks running around.

      (imagines a barney meets the teletubbies version of the Daleks)

      (jar-jar-binks becomes a dalek, with awful results)

      I'm sure you can see the possibilities

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:30AM (#9591197)
    Bah, they couldn't even climb a flight of stairs!
    • by mab (17941)
      Remembrance of the Daleks (1988)
      shows a Dalek hovering
      up a flight of stairs
      • Remembrance of the Daleks (1988) shows a Dalek hovering up a flight of stairs

        And IIRC Dr. Who said "Don't worry ????, Daleks can't climb stairs". My memory could be fuzzy on this issue as I can't remember as I can't remember if it was Colin Baker or Silvester McCoy, Perry or Ace for that matter. I could ask a friend for this episode.

        But needless to say, Daleks have come a long way since their 1960's version that couldn't glide over a coat.

        • by Aggrazel (13616) <aggrazel@gmail.com> on Friday July 02, 2004 @10:22AM (#9591601) Journal
          The doctor (in Tom Baker form) said:

          "If you're supposed to be the supreme beings of the universe, why don't you climb up and get me?"

          This was on the planet with those other androids (Recalling all of this from memory).

          The doctor did in fact believe at that time that the Daleks were so impotent as to not be able to climb simple stairs.

          That would explain the look of terrified confusion on the Doctor's (Sylvestor McCoy) face when the Dalek in Rememberence suddenly was able to climb up the stairs to "get him".

          Aim for the eyepiece.
    • Hence, the Americans (and Daleks) with Disabilities Act.

      • What I want to know is: who is working on the real-life Dalek contraption? When I am old and infirm I want these to be ready. Implant my withered remains in there and it'll be time to EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

        Time for some enterprising genius out there to change his name to Devros and get working.
    • According to the Dr Who. Weekly (a comic book that was originally the BBC's answer to Judge Dredd), the Dalek's had levitation disks.

      • by armb (5151)
        And a Dalek is finally shown going up stairs in Remembrance of the Daleks. The BBC guide [bbc.co.uk] says "Although this is the first time that a Dalek is actually seen to ascend a flight of stairs, there is a scene in season two's The Chase: Journey into Terror in which such an occurrence is clearly implied; and season twenty-two's Revelation of the Daleks shows that both the Daleks and Davros are capable of hovering above the ground."
  • Ho hum.
  • ...this season. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doktor Memory (237313) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:32AM (#9591211) Journal
    I have a sneaking suspicion that if the new show does well, and is renewed, the Nation estate and the Beeb will suddenly discover their strong mutual interest in reviving the flow of money from Dalek merchandising.

    (Can someone explain to me how it is that Nation's estate personally own the Daleks? Didn't he write those scripts on spec for the BBC?)
    • And in other news, it's reported that the next season's installment will do away with the doctor.
      Said BBC spokesperson R. U. Nutts, "We feel that this will increase the quality of the production, and bring a more balanced product to the audience."
      There's no words on what will replace the doctor, although speculations are that BBC is in negotiations with EMI Films Ltd. about aquiring rights to incorporate sword wielding immortal scotsmen and evil guys in bird costumes.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    • Back then lawyers were nice cudly things, and evil media empires (which the BBC isn't, anyway) didn't have the thumbscrews on so tight.

      I believe for BBC shows older than a certain date, they actually have to pay the actors more money when they re-run them or release them on DVD.
      • Repeat fees for actors are normal. It's quite common even for commercials: Every time something is shown on TV or sold, the actor gets money.

        The problem is that for many shows, the actual amounts aren't written into the actors' original contracts. Tracking down each actor and haggling over who gets what can be very expensive, accounting for a much larger slice of the budget than the actual repeat fees. It can also delay many releases, sometimes indefinitely.
    • Who owns the Daleks? (Score:3, Informative)

      by ToSeek (529348)

      (Can someone explain to me how it is that Nation's estate personally own the Daleks? Didn't he write those scripts on spec for the BBC?)

      The way the BBC does things (or did), if you're an employee of the BBC, your ideas belong to them. If you were hired by the BBC to do something specific (like write a script), then your ideas belong to you. This explains why Terry Nation (not a BBC employee) "owns" the Daleks and has made millions off them, while the guy who designed them, Raymond Cusick (a BBC employee)

  • stupid (Score:4, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:32AM (#9591212) Homepage Journal
    star wars without darth vader

    star trek without klingons

    c'mon ;-(
    • We still have the Cybermen and the Master. I want K-9 back.
    • Nah, the equivolent of Star Wars without Darth Vader would have been if they had remove The Master from Dr. Who. The Daleks, while a powerful force en masse, were individually unable to overcome even a tweed jacket draped hastily over them. The equivolent of Star Trek without the Klingons would probably be the best equivolent.

  • In most circles, staring is considered impolite. ...staring Christopher Eccleston and Billy Piper.
  • they eliminated the "fu manchu" klingons at some point too
  • SUCKS!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by torpor (458) <ibisum.gmail@com> on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:33AM (#9591225) Homepage Journal
    The Daleks were one of the things that kept me going back for more, time and again, from Dr. Who.

    That and the short skirts of the companions too, of course, but ...

    You *CAN'T* call it Dr. Who if he's not battling the Daleks. Daleks are like, undeniably part of Dr. Who.

    Would you have put up with Star Wars without Darth?
    • Re:SUCKS!!! (Score:3, Funny)

      by AdrainB (694313)
      James Bond has survived quite nicely without S.P.E.C.T.R.E. If it was up to me I would create an alien scurge that is so bad ass that their main claim to fame is that they completely wiped out the Daleks. This will do two things. It will create a greater challenge to Dr. Who and deny the Nation estate future revenue. It would serve them right.
      • Except that the main tennant of Dr. Who is that he is a time traveller. Killing off the Daleks in the future, would still leave those in the past. Plus, the Master would just go back in time, and bring some Daleks to the "future", just to piss Dr. Who off.

    • > would you have put up with Star Wars without Darth?

      We already have: Episode I and Episode II.

      Any they both sucked.

      (No, this isn't a troll because its true).

      I actually have hopes for Episode III... but then I had hopes for the third Matrix movie as well.
  • Lets be honest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Timesprout (579035) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:35AM (#9591234)
    The daleks trundling about would look pretty pathetic to modern kids.
  • For the best? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gilesjuk (604902) <.giles.jones. .at. .zen.co.uk.> on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:35AM (#9591235)
    In some ways it is for the best. It hold back the progression of a TV series if all you do is recreate yet another encounter with the Daleks.

    Perhaps something along the lines of the Borg could be used. The cybermen but a lot more evil. I'm sure someone must have some good ideas.
    • Having been a long-time fan of Dr. Who (God Bless Tom Baker, the REAL Doctor), I have always felt that the best villains were the more subtle varieties. A Hive-Mind species just isn't that scary because the Doctor can easily outwit Daleks with a tweed jacket draped over them, or stop the Cybermen with a clever pun and the extinction of dinosaurs.
      • Obviously, The Master was among the best villains, along with The Rani. Teamed up, they made a formidable force. Heck, it took an equally brilliant mind, Adrick
  • No Daleks for now (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hal2814 (725639) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:37AM (#9591253)
    There might not be Daleks right now, but I gaurantee you that if Dr. Who becomes a hit, the Beeb will gladly pony up the cash to the Nation estate for rights to the Daleks.

    Personally, there are few Dalek stories I like (Genesis, Day of, the 7th Doctor one) so I'm glad to see they won't be returning. I tend to prefer non-recurring villans.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:37AM (#9591257)
    In the new version, Davros puts the Dalek bioplasm into Roombas. Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate all dirt in deep pile!
  • star - may refer to an actor of prime importance to a production, t perform the duties thereof
    stare - to gaze intently

    staring = to stare in the present perfect tense
    starring = to star in the present perfect tense
  • Sounds great to me (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Megane (129182) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:39AM (#9591270) Homepage
    I think we've already got more than enough of the Daleks in reruns. They may be the number one bad guys, and rather popular with the fanbase, but they're hardly integral to the series like Gallifrey and the Time Lords (and Earth!) are. Time to move on to other bad guys and other problems with time and space. I'd rather see more of The Brigadier, even though I know he's getting a bit on in the years.
    • "...hardly integral to the series like Gallifrey and the Time Lords (and Earth!) are."

      Don't tell that to William Hartnell.
    • I'd rather see more of The Brigadier, even though I know he's getting a bit on in the years.

      U.N.I.T was dismantled due to government cutbacks. The battle against alien invasions has been outsourced to private contractors who charge an upfront of 50% before fighting, and the remaining 50% after successfully defeating the invasion force. The rate will double if ther is more than one invasion force. An additional danger fee will also be charged if the aliens are coming from an hyperdimensional portal, starga
    • Hrm, well, the Timelords and Gallifrey didn't even exist up until the very last story of the 2nd Doctor, and most of the history of Gallifrey was fleshed out even later in the mid 70s and the 1980s.

      Actually, the BBC shifted their entire audio drama range to an alternate universe where there was no Gallifrey or Time Lords, leaving the Doctor as a mysterious wanderer as he originally was.

      So I'd actually say Gallifrey and the Timelords aren't integral to the whole idea at all. Doctor Who is a very different
  • More than money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by voice of unreason (231784) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:39AM (#9591273)
    Actually, money isn't behind this fallout. Basically, when Terry Nation died, he was pissed of at the BBC, and pretty much didn't want them to have the Daleks under most circumstances. So I'm not surprised that the estate is being picky.

    As for the new show, I don't think the lack of Daleks will really hurt it. If you watch the old shows, they had a pretty big variety of popular villians. The Daleks didn't appear in most episodes. The BBC still has lots of other classic villians they can use, like cybermen, autons, the Black Guardian, and the Master, who was always popular. They also had some great baddies that were only on for one storyline, like Sutekh or the Tractators. Really, though, they should also be making up new villians and characters as well, not just using old ones.
    • Re:More than money (Score:4, Interesting)

      by eggboard (315140) * on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:47AM (#9591336) Homepage
      The Master was pretty fantastic: always on the verge of total defeat and total success, such as when he almost destroyed the universe (at least once or twice) in his attempt to control it. Actually, Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter books has a clear lineage in the Master.
    • Re:More than money (Score:4, Informative)

      by BigBadBus (653823) on Friday July 02, 2004 @10:04AM (#9591475) Homepage
      But if Nation was pissed off with the BBC, why did his lawyers (Roger Hancock) allow the VHS and DVD releases of Blakes 7? Incidentally, I believe that the rights to that series have now reverted to another group with the intention of updating it.

      I'm not sure editorial control is the reason why the Daleks use in the new Dr.Who show was vetoed. If you recall, and you live in the UK, there was an advert showing the Daleks wandering around a shopping mall with a group of tambourine banging hippies saying "WE LOVE YOU!"

      Also, in the past, Hancock have said that they will allow Daleks to appear in shows etc., but ONLY if they don't say anything. I think the reason for this is because the look of the Daleks is retained by the BBC, but what they say and do is retained by the creator.

      I suspect the reason for the Daleks being booted out is simple - money. Hancock have been well known, allegedly, for demanding huge pots of money for the use of the Daleks. Thats why it took so long to get the remaining Dalek stories novelised - and why Eric Saward had refused to do the two outstanding stories that he wrote (Nation's lawyers wanted something like 75% of the profits of the book ISTR). Hancock also came down heavy on a fan magazine in the 1980s who produced a photonovel of the missing story "The Power of the Daleks". Despite the money from the novel going to charity, Hancock wanted a lot of cash, until Gary Levy, the editor of the magazine reminded Hancock that Nation wrote the script, and that surely the designer (Raymond Cusick) and script editor (David Whittaker) deserved equal credit as they were both instrumental in the success of the Daleks, but whom, as BBC staff, were not eligible to receive a penny in royalties from the tinpot meanies.

    • I agree. I always thought that the Sontarans could kick Dalek ass any day of the week - especially the members of the Sontaran Special Space Services (the SSSS).

  • Cybermen? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by British (51765) <british1500@gmail.com> on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:39AM (#9591275) Homepage Journal
    I wonder if they will bring back the Cybermen, or skip it in worry that it would pale in comparison to the borg.

    Other than that, I can't think of any major villan race that would have the potential to be broughtr back.

    Maybe the Sontarans? If so, give them bigger looking guns. I always thought they should have a magazine that clips underneath it.

    Sad about the Daleks though, that was one villan race that was so incredibly well-tied to the Doctor Who series.

    Just please don't let the series have any resemblence to the 1996 FOX movie. The only thing it had in common with the series was Sylvester McCoy.
    • If we can't have Daleks, then my wishlist of featured bad guys includes:

      1. Cybermen
      2. The Master
      3. Sontarans
      4. Autons
      5. Ice Warriors

      Also, I'd love to see a return of historical stories, ones that reference Earth's history. These used to be fairly common for the first and second Doctors, (eg, The Reign Of Terror) but the latter Doctors almost always didn't have any such adventures (although the fifth Doctor did inadvertantly start the Great Fire of London in 1666 at the conclusion of The Visitation).

      To be
  • Short Borg (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:40AM (#9591280)
    Maybe they could get permission to use the Borg. Short ones. With wheels instead of legs. And with annoying voices. "You will be assimilated! Assimilate! Assimilate!"
  • fools.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spacerodent (790183) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:41AM (#9591297)
    For a series that old I'd have taken whatever money was offered. In another 10-20 years most the people who know about it will be dead and the brand name will have zero value.
    • Re:fools.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hal2814 (725639)
      "most the people who know about it will be dead"

      If I remember correctly, the series ran new episodes until 1989. Now I can remember some shows I watched from back when I was 3 or 4 years old (Dave Allen at Large, Paul Hogan Show). So to be a fan, I'm assuming you would have to watch at least two seasons. I was a fan of Family Guy after two seasons. 4 (yrs old) + 2 (yrs to be a fan) = 6. 1989 - 6 (total years of age required) = 1983. So someone born in 1983 could potentially be a fan of the show and t
    • Re:fools.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      Hmm I watched it when I was a kid. I'm 30. I hope I've got more than a 20 year lifespan left.. cheers!
  • by Call Me Black Cloud (616282) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:45AM (#9591322)

    ...at this site [compuserve.com] and I can see Dr. Who's problem. Without the Daleks, what new peril's will Dr. Who face if he's matched against a villian that could chase him up a ladder or through a narrow passage? If I ran the estate of Terry Nation I'd come to terms with the BBC before the BBC realizes "TV's most evil villians" are a cross between a shuttlecock and a salt shaker.
  • I thought... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kabocox (199019) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:50AM (#9591363)
    Estate holders only consider the money side of things, but most artists alive wish only to impact the world, by sharing their life-blood with the public -- forget the bottom line.

    I thought most artist's work was zero until they died, then the value would shoot up. I've always gotten the sense that most artists would love to make a buck off their work in life rather than having it all go to their kids. Why shouldn't the kids think about the money first?

    Actually, from what I read of the article, it sounded like "editorial control" and not money was the problem. I could see the BBC wanting to do something different with the Daleks and saying "No" thats not how Daleks should be. I'd rather them just come up with more evil bad guys. Come on the universe is big. It can have more than a half dozen regular bad guy species.
  • by JackJudge (679488) on Friday July 02, 2004 @09:52AM (#9591382) Journal
    I mean look at their track record, after Davros was introduced they were reduced to the level of galactic criminals and pests, not the all conquering ruthless invaders we feared from the show's first decade.
    Fanboys will prolly argue that in Genesis OFTD, where Davros was introduced, the Time Lords asked the Doctor to interfere to hamstring their development. He succeeded only too well. As long as Davros was around he caused so much internal strife among the Daleks, culminating in a civil war, that they realy were just shadows of their former selves.
    • "I mean look at their track record, after Davros was introduced they were reduced to the level of galactic criminals and pests, not the all conquering ruthless invaders we feared from the show's first decade.
      Fanboys will prolly argue that in Genesis OFTD, where Davros was introduced, the Time Lords asked the Doctor to interfere to hamstring their development. He succeeded only too well. As long as Davros was around he caused so much internal strife among the Daleks, culminating in a civil war, that they rea
  • by jonwil (467024) on Friday July 02, 2004 @10:15AM (#9591554)
    Its also bad for any reruns.
    Here in australia the ABC (government owned Free To Air station) has been replaying all of Dr Who right from the very first episode on up. So far, they have skipped stories and episodes that are missing or incomplete. But they have also had to skip a fair few dalek episodes (War Games is one story they had to skip for some dalek-related reason) due to this greed.

    I think this would be a perfect example for that lawsuit thino about copyright mentioned a while back where they talked about things like out-of-print books that you cant get because the copyright holder with you and etc.
    • Here in australia the ABC (government owned Free To Air station) has been replaying all of Dr Who right from the very first episode on up. So far, they have skipped stories and episodes that are missing or incomplete. But they have also had to skip a fair few dalek episodes (War Games is one story they had to skip for some dalek-related reason) due to this greed.

      How very odd.... KBTC broadcasting out of Washington state has been showing Dr. Who in sequence from the first episode, but they are not skipping
  • I hear the estate wanted $10 per Dalek, minimum purchase of a 250 Dalek invasion force.

    On the other hand, 1 Doctor at $25 made more sense, thus we'll be seeing him in probably every movie. He comes cheap. The Doctor's sexy lady friend sidekicks charge "standard lady friend rates" and work by the hour; thus we'll probably have a different female sidekick every film as the older ones are discarded like used coffee cups, just like the series.

    So instead of evil garbage cans on wheels, the bad guy in this movi
  • Call me crazy but.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by scrubmuffin (173705)
    I was never that intimidated by the whole 'washing machine with a pea-shooter' thing anyway. Now k9 on the other hand, that was just creepy!

  • by blueZhift (652272) on Friday July 02, 2004 @10:25AM (#9591626) Homepage Journal
    The real question for me is will the new series have that wonderful "cheap" look that endeared many of us with the old one. Seriously, Dr. Who was what I'd watch to let my hair down after Star Trek. The cheesy sets were part of the fun, and left some room for the story to be more than it often is in the sfx laden features we have today. This is somewhat analogous to the old 8-bit video games days,when the gameplay had to be king because the hardware was so weak by today's standards.

    In any case, I'll miss those shrill screams of "Exterminate! Exterminate!! EX-TER-MI-NATE!!!"

  • by saintp (595331) <stpierreNO@SPAMnebrwesleyan.edu> on Friday July 02, 2004 @10:26AM (#9591637) Homepage
    ...this:
    Mr Hancock accused the BBC of lying about the reasons a deal had not been made.

    He said the BBC had tried to commission a cartoon series about gay Daleks [google.com] for BBC Three.

    WTF?!?

    What's worse: it's apparently true [gay.com]. Crazy fucking Brits.

    • He said the BBC had tried to commission a cartoon series about gay Daleks for BBC Three.

      We will experiment... experiment! EXPERIMENT! We obey no one, we are the superior beings, so let's disco!
  • The open source version...Laleks
  • Who knew? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anomalous Canard (137695) on Friday July 02, 2004 @10:34AM (#9591750)
    That it would take *lawyers* to defeat the Daleks!
  • by wazoo69 (793507) on Friday July 02, 2004 @10:55AM (#9591925)
    1. Daleks COULD go up stairs. In the 7th Doctor story, "Rememberence of the Daleks", they demonstrated that the Daleks had invented some type of anti-gravity propulsion system giving them JUST enough power to climb stairs but not enough to actually fly around..:)

    2. MOST of the Dalek stories were completely retarded IMHO. You create a monster that is supposed to DEFINE *evil* yet can be (usually) fooled by having the Doctor or a companion throw a towel over their eye stalk. ugh!

    I think "Genesis of the Daleks" was their last good story and that's only because of Tom Baker and Davros (I forgot the actor's name..Michael somebody I think..sorry).

    If they were to be used again, as a Whovian I'm REALLY hoping that they re-create them in a vicious and sinister light. Goodbye retard plotholes, hello ultimate Evil!
  • by Markvs (17298) on Friday July 02, 2004 @11:03AM (#9591994) Journal
    I've been reading "The Hitchhiker", a biography of Douglas Adams. Douglas wrote 3-5 stories (one under a psuedonym, one he's uncredited...) and worked as an editor and script producer role for a year during Tom Baker's tenure.

    Douglas hated dealing with the Dalek scripts, because "Terry would have a storyboard with people running down a hallway and explosions... I'd have to write a story out of it!"

    BTW, Shada was only made because the BBC considered the Krikketmen script too silly. Silly. For a character that flies around the universe in a Police Box, has a robotic dog and offers jelly babies to people...

    -Markvs
  • by HBPiper (472715) on Friday July 02, 2004 @11:20AM (#9592160)
    Didn't a quick hit from the sonic screwdriver diable a Dalek? How bad could they be?
  • by zakezuke (229119) on Friday July 02, 2004 @11:34AM (#9592311)
    ...we were not able to give the level of editorial influence that the Terry Nation estate wished to have --TFA


    *Exterminate Exterminate*
    What strikes me as odd is the concept of editorial control over a one dimentional grade-b supervillon that has been in our culture for over 40 years. Perhaps "Rememberence of the Daleks", an episode that has Davros fighting the the Supreme Dalek was ment to illistrate to us the fight for creative control over the future of the Daleks. The Orthadox Daleks born from Skaro's toxic enviroment with their desire to exterminate anything and everything in site, and the Neo-Davros Daleks without conscience or remorse and a geneticly implanted desire to enslave the universe and exterminate anything and everything in site.

    What I find more peculiar is the very idea that anyone could "ruin the brand of the Daleks". Daleks are a b-class one dimentional supervillion with a very limited vocabulary. While Dalek is likely a trademark of Terry Nation, I don't honestly see how they could be considered to be a brand outside of Doctor Who. They are salt shakers that run around saying "exterminate" are are not likely to be licensed to anyone with the exception of Doctor Who. Keeping the integrity of a brand name is typicaly only important if you are selling a product, in this case a product that has only one customer.

  • My take (Score:4, Funny)

    by Orion Blastar (457579) <orionblastar@noSPAm.gmail.com> on Friday July 02, 2004 @03:00PM (#9594606) Homepage Journal
    the estate of Terry Nation is composed of Daleks. They are tired of being cast as the bad guys, so they made an insane demand of creative control of the film/tv show. They wanted the Daleks seen as the good guys and Doctor Who as the bad guy who lures scantily clad young women into his TARDIS for who knows what?

    I think that there may be a substitute, let us see what evil alien or robot bad guys are not being used much anymore, shall we?

    Cylons, not from that Sci Fi channel show, the original ones. The ones that could not shoot the broad side of a barn, and could not fly a Cylon Raider properly even if there are three of them in the cockpit.

    The Slayers from Krull, slow moving, dim-witted, and get taken out by a super Japanese throwing star named a Glave.

    The Peacekeepers from FarScape. Well FarScape fans want to see more action and are made that the series was cancled. Using these aliens means no special make-up is required, just uniforms need to be made. They speak British anyway. ;) Maybe they go after Doctor Who to learn how the TARDIS works, to use it as a weapon?

    The Geldts from Red Dwarf. If I spelled it right. Doctor Who is captured with his companion, and told that he would die if he didn't marry the Geldts' leader's daughter. He marries, but grabs the Oxygen Generator his TARDIS needs to recycle air and runs. The Geldts chase him all over the galaxy.

    Bring in Servalan and the Federation from Blake's Seven. New actress if you have to. It should prove interesting.

    The robots from Ice Pirates, hey, enough said!

    Borrow the Ferrengi from Star Trek, I haven't seen anything from them since Deep Space Nine went off the air.

    Better yet, have Doctor Who run away from time travelling Lawyers who are trying to issue him a subpeona about the file sharing program he runs in his TARDIS computers. ;)
  • by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Friday July 02, 2004 @04:15PM (#9595306)
    The problem with revisiting old, once-popular stuff is that there is a schism between two types of audiences, and therefore, market forces.

    1. Many older fans don't want innovation or new things. They want comfort food for the soul. They want to be able to take refuge in the things of their youth. Punch the hot button on their emotional centers, wired up nicely from all the work they did reading, viewing, experiencing in their childhoods. Making new connections is hard work, especially with the much wider range of knowledge and experience they have available to filter stories through. When it is so much easier to see the shit, it's so much harder to bother looking. Finding good things to be motivated by is hard, because 'Good' is bloody rare. (I just finished watching the Firefly DVD set. That's good stuff!

    2. The second type of audience is the one NOT looking for old thrills; they are looking for Firefly and new ideas.

    So. . .

    This is not to say that revisiting Dr. Who is a bad idea. Either approach can be done in a successful way. If it's fresh enough and done with an honest intent to really explore and have fun rather than copy old successes, it could easily be a very exciting ride. While, as per Sam Raimi's Spider Man movies, which attempt primarily to be faithful to the originals, there are examples of how re-telling old stories can also work very well. --After all, there is a reason people once sat around the story teller and cried, "Tell it again!" Every society has its favorite myths.

    I wonder how it will go with Dr. Who revisited. . .? The idea of an alien explorer for whom Time is fluid, could be awesome. But I seriously doubt they're going to be exploring all the new territory which is available these days.

    There are some extremely cool ideas which have only recently become available to our popular artists and which have not yet been properly explored, and which could be as explosive and fun as the first Matrix film. In much the way the last couple of Star Wars films could have blown the lid off today's society had they not sucked, Dr. Who could be dazzling. (Just watched the Phantom Edit again. . . Solid stuff. If only the Phantom Menace hadn't sucked, the world would have had a very powerful lesson in how corrupt fascist states can rise. --The methods used by Palpatine were actually more sophisticated and less 'Bruce Willis' than those employed by Bush!).

    Anyway. . , Dr. Who could be a great delivery device for some sympathetic themes which the collective subconscious of the Human race would enthusiastically absorb, as it did with the Matrix. But we'll have to see what they come up with. My sense of jade says, "Suckage." But we'll see.


    -FL

Natural laws have no pity.

Working...