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
----- Original Message ----- From: Tavia tavia@btinternet.com
Perhaps someone who knows could explain what exactly the director (vs say the producer) is responsible for in television production?
The director does all the main casting for the episode; will rehearse with actors to judge their performance; has the most input in terms of the lighting, etc., decides where the music goes in, sits in on the final edit of the production, might (depending on the individual director) have a varying amount to say about the scenes during filming, and determines budget allocation. S/he also books the studios and locations, tells the cameramen where to stand, watches the recording and asks for retakes.
The producer casts the regulars (in this case, in consultation with Terry Nation and Chris Boucher); is in charge of hiring the script editor and the directors, be in charge of overall budget for the series; will liase with costume, sets, music and special sound effects guy, watches the final readthrough (they do a producer's run which s/he watches and makes suggestions); s/he is also in charge of publicity, and will follow the director around and if the director slips up on anything s/he should catch it. S/he will also discuss scripts, and the general director of the show, with the script editor and guest stars. In the end, the buck stops with the producer.
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.
Plot device yes, but a necessary one-- no writer can do an episode totally without plot devices. But yes, I'd agree that that one's more obvious than usual. Still, considering the budget and the time constraint, I think they did a pretty good job on the script.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane No budget and far too much time at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Fiona Moore -
Tavia