Fiona wrote:
>What you're talking about here, though, is the production.
>If it had been directed by say, Douglas Camfield, it might
>well have been a lot more interesting-- as it is, it's directed
>by the man who directed "Timelash,"and what you get is a
>lot of uninspired interaction, dull lighting, poorly realised
>scenes etc.
I must admit, I'm not very sensitive to the director in television (which
is strange, cos it's the first thing I notice about a film). I was even
surprised to find that my favourite episodes were all written by three
scriptwriters (Nation, Boucher, Holmes). Perhaps if I reconstituted my list
of likes and hates according to director I'd find some trends (Excel must
have some uses...).
Perhaps someone who knows could explain what exactly the director (vs say
the producer) is responsible for in television production?
>For instance, take a look at John Leeson. In "Gambit," the man's
>fantastic. Here, he's lacklustre. Now we know he's capable of
>turning out a good performance so it's not that he's a lousy actor--
>it's that he lacks good direction.
Interesting; I'd never noticed that (not being in the least sensitive to
actors, as I've mentioned here before). To be honest, though, it was not
him I was really moaning about, lacklustre works quite well for xyz crew
member on dull passenger cruiser with nothing much to do. But Sara,
Mandrian and especially Sonheim were dreadful.
>the field of asteroids is only there in the first place to cause
>the neutrotope's case to fall off the table and give them a reason
>to look into it and find it empty.
That was just what I meant by lame plot device upon lame plot device.
Tavia