fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5512 ]

[ SECRET POST #5512 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5512 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #789.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

07. https://i.imgur.com/o4qHGPR.jpg

A shoestring budget, in those days, meant they were given a pair of shoe strings and told to create three monsters, a castle, and some prosthetics for the baddie to wear, with them. And by God, they did it. Usually with a script that Terrance Dicks had sold them three times already in the previous two seasons.

I love old BBC shows for exactly thos reason. They did so much with so little.

I think it'd be good. But I love the old cheesy practical effects.

Ah, a creature concocted entirely of cling film, polystyrene, and bits of aluminium.
Of course that's plausible!
But does it eat jelly babies, I wonder...

Well, we won't have to worry about that for a series or two in any case. The production company RTD started, Bad Wolf Productions, has already been announced as co-producing s14, and Bad Wolf Productions just got partnered with Sony. No idea if the Doctor Who co-production deal will last beyond the RTD2 era, tho.

That....looks like some kind of weird, lumpy, gigantic genitalia.....

The thing I find fascinating about Classic Who is that it seems the writers never really took into account their limited budget. You have shows like Star Trek, where there's a clear understanding that "Oh, we blew our budget, looks like next episode will have to be a ship-based story using existing sets and minimal effects."

Meanwhile, Who was all "BBC cut our funding again? Doesn't matter! Next story will have an alien world in three different time periods, invading monsters, and a cast of thousands!"

...But all of those worlds may have to look slightly like sn old quarry in Wales XD XD XD

It's true what you say though, they never let it stop them.

Either a quarry, or a base under siege. The latter would always look like a tin shed in a quarry on the outside, and a paint explosion on a panto stage on the inside. Sometimes they really pushed the boat out with a conifer plantation, or an office.

The cheap special effects have their charm, but they made it really hard to take certain episodes seriously (like the Mara in Kinda).

This is a needlessly political secret. The main reason it's being cut is political, and it's yet another blow to democracy in the UK. There have been some messed up things going on that have forced them to act more as the vox political, and even then they haven't been kowtowing enough. The majority of other MSM is the UK is Tory party supporter billionaire owned. The BBC is needed, and it's fucked up that it's under threat.

“This is is a needlessly political secret”

And what makes you the authority on that? And so what if the reason it’s happening is political in nature? That doesn’t mean that OP has to make themselves feel sympathy about it if they don’t. All in all, your comment is all over the place.

“The BBC is needed, and it's fucked up that it's under threat.”

Is it really under threat as a whole? Or are they just going through budget cuts? There’s a difference. And the BBC is a fine station with a lot of good programming, as well as a rich and distinguished history. But what do you mean “The BBC is needed”? You make it sound like it’s a basic human right, or a revolutionary counterculture movement.

The BBC isn't a station, it's a network of at least seven TV channels and over 50 radio stations. It's the only news source that isn't swayed by commercial interests and doesn't shove advertising down its audience's throats. The Tories are freezing and potentially cutting the licence fee, which currently accounts for about three quarters of the BBC's income.

Sorry, that first part was my mistake. I did actually know that at some point, but I forgot that it was more than a station.

I stand by the rest of my comment.

Ok, but in that case you're clearly not from the UK and have little chance of fully understanding the nuances of our media landscape.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2022-02-08 16:19 (UTC) - Expand

the tv license is a total anachronism in this age of streaming services - being forced to fund the bbc even if you don't watch it simply isn't a sustainable model

(plus their october rebrand was an absolute mess)

It is an anachronism, but other solutions should be found. The main problem with this move though is that the government are doing it for political reasons and nothing else.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2022-02-08 22:59 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2022-02-09 07:07 (UTC) - Expand

AYRT It's needed because it's impartial. Most MSM isn't, it's owned by billionaires who are also Tory party donors. The BBC isn't a fundamental human right but it is one of the last bastions of an independent press in the UK, and an independent press is a key cornerstone of democracy. And as far as I'm concerned, democracy is near enough a basic human right. So yes, the BBC is needed.

The BBC as a whole isn’t impartial, no matter what the people who run the whole thing claim. They’re responsible for that recent ridiculously transphobic article, that used Lily Cade as an interviewee, and only struck her part out when she later made a genocidal manifesto. They never thought to rethink interviewing her before that, despite her well known transphobic views, and admitted history of sexuall assault against women. The very thing that vile article claims trans women are uniformly prone to, while not applying that inhumane generalization to any other group.

Is it fair to judge the entirety of the BBC for this one article? Perhaps not. But that article alone is a huge mark against the credibility of the BBC, and their claims of impartiality. It also calls into question the ethics of being so “impartial” that every voice is considered deserving of a platform. No matter how hateful and dangerous that voice is, and how bad the consequences are for the people who are already treated oppressively by the hateful people given a platform. The climate is already so bad for trans people, and LGBTQ+ people in the Western world still, that the BBC’s actions in this instance are irresponsible and indefensible.

SA

And also, the BBC’s cut funding doesn’t automatically indicate censorship or silencing of the press. So it’s a bit extreme and unwarranted to use the BBC as a symbol of democracy as a whole. I agree that democracy is a basic human right, but it’s such a leap to go from “BBC’s funding is being cut, for possibly political reasons” to “BBC is an independent press >> Independent press is a cornerstone of democracy >> BBC represents democracy, and it’s cut funding is maybe a political attempt to silence the press!”. Admittedly, you didn’t say or really imply that last part(although I feel like the original anon I replied who said the secret was “too political” did) to did, but it seems like where this line of thinking might eventually go, as much of a reach as it is.

But does the BBC really need to go round threatening people with fines for tvs they don't own (even more so now since most would prioritize having a laptop/device over a TV)? Its not the only station with news on it and is limited with the few programs that they do turn out.

Don't get me wrong, the Tories can fly off into the sun for all I care - but after having to spend months trying to prove that I don't have a TV and therefore didn't owe the TV licencing for the BBC anything - I have very little sympathy for them.

You're really not doing a good job of convincing me you're from the UK.

oh no, whatever will i do.

Op here and I didn't have politics in mind, just doctor who going back on a limited budget.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only