Day of the Doctor

Agreed. Even liked the movies with Peter Cushing as the Doctor...

 

I don't subscribe to BBCA, so I'm hoping for a miracle and can see it at a 10pm movie 3D showing around here on Monday. If that fails, then "Who" knows, I'll probably see it on TV eventually. That said, I just read all the spoilers on the net. Makes me want to see it even more now.

 

The only good thing about Doctor Who (other than Tom Baker and Christopher Eccleston) is Rose/Billie Piper

 

I love the series and really enjoyed the DOTD.
I do have to say though that I enjoyed the drama/documentary 'an adventure in time even more.

 

I haven't watched the 50th anniversary special yet, but I saw An Adventure in Time and Space and also enjoyed it.

I remember watching the first episode of Doctor Who as a teenager in England in 1963, and the docudrama did a great job of capturing the feel of the times.

 

Big time fan here, starting with Matt just after the Pandorica. I ended up watching the seasons backward. So, basically I was following River's perspective. It was all timey wimey.

Yesterday's 50th special was cool, like wearing both a bow-tie and a fez.

 

Anyone view The Night of The Doctor before seeing The Day of The Doctor?

 

Yeah, don't watch the special until you've seen the webisode. It should've been included. I was so upset watching the special because I had no idea what was going on for half the program. What the hell is John Hurt doing in Doctor Who? Then I watched the webisode and said "oh, now I get it." It's literally like missing 8 minutes at the start of the movie if you don't catch it first.


Turn off signatures in Tapatalk Tapatalk

 

I just got back from the 10pm IMAX 3D showing. Glad I was able to make it as it was a last minute decision. The mini pre-episode should have absolutely made it into the movie; instead we got some terribly cheesy 10 minute drivel by Matt Smith warning us about Zygons and 3D stuff. Seriously, if somehow you travel back in time to the 25th of November and see this in a theater, make your bathroom stop then and miss that part. The real movie doesn't begin until 8 or 9 minutes in.

So, having read all the spoilers beforehand, I thoroughly enjoyed Day of The Doctor. And I really didn't get who the narrator was until they showed him onscreen at the end. Great addition!

A friend from work and I met up for this, and I asked if he'd seen The Night of The Doctor yet. "No," he replied - so he watched it while we were in line. I think that helped him get more out of the movie right out of the starting gate.

 

Interesting, I didn't find 'the night of the doctor' added anything at all.
However, I am a Doctor Who fan, perhaps it would be helpful to those not familiar with the character or the previous hints of the Time War?

 

Well, I'm a Doctor Who fan from way back, but I will admit that Night of the Doctor is the first webisode I've ever watched, and I haven't had time/desire to get into the non-cannon novels. To me it answered some questions...

• Who is the warrior doctor? - John Hurt
• Where did he come from? - regenerated from Paul McGann
• Where does he go? per Day of the Doctor he regenerates...into Christopher Eccleston?...not revealed.

This opens up a lot of spinoff possibilities...Just before Paul McGann drinks the regeneration potion he mentions several companions I had no knowledge of...perhaps they're described in DW novels. They're non-cannon offshoots that just may be brought into cannon because of this.

 

One of the most entertaining and well-written shows on TV, for 50 years!

 

Ummm MJfrog, spoiler alert? It an 8 minute webisode but still...


Turn off signatures in Tapatalk Tapatalk

 

Hahaha. Spoilers don't count at this point since the movie was only in the theaters for one evening. It was played once on BBC and BBCA. Unless you have your own TARDIS and can travel back to see TDOTD at a movie theater, or travel into the future a few years when its out in 3D 4K Blue Ray DVD, it is pointless to avoid the content from either version. That said, I'm not going to give anything away, and TNOTD I posted above really doesn't cover what the movie 90 minute full feature contains.

 

Oh, OK. Maybe I can see it again, albeit not in 3D.

 

Bob: I'm a 3D fan from way back, and am a member of a collector group and also of a number of email lists, so I've done quite a lot of research in this area.

The first era of 3D films started in the early 1950s, with classics such as House of Wax, Kiss Me Kate, and Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder. These were shown in movie theaters using a polarizing system; the two projectors were used to show the left and right eye prints tightly synchronized, and polarizing filters mounted over the projector lenses were used in conjunction with polarizing glasses with corresponding filters to send the left and right eye images to the correct place. This permitted full color, but obviously cost twice as much for film stock, and placed some technical burdens on the projectionist if it was to work to full effect. The advent of widescreen formats such as Cinerama, Todd-AO, Cinemascope, and many others, which were promoted as giving a lifelike effect, killed off 3D after a few years.

What you describe above is the anaglyph (red/green) system, which works reasonably well on comic books and on some images, but is absolutely useless for movies. This was used for a number of 3D films in the 1960/70s revival era, generally schlock exploitation films, and quite rightly died off. When seen on a 525 line CRT TV with NTSC color, these are truly dreadful.

The modern era of 3D cinema was pioneered by IMAX in the 1980s, and this eventually led to mainstream films such as Avatar, Hugo, and many others over the last few years - some of them very well done. Filming for 3D is not the same as for 2D, and only directors who appreciate this and employ experienced stereographers are going to get the best results.

The Wikipedia article on 3D film is extensive and quite well done if you'd like more technical details.

For TV there are two systems, which use either active or passive glasses. I prefer the passive system, which uses an enhancement of the original polarized technology and is the same as that used in Real-D movie theaters. The glasses are cheap, you can use ones brought home from the movies, and they're also available in clip-on styles for eyeglass wearers (such as me).

I've had an LG 55" passive system 3D TV for just over two years now, and I'm very pleased with it. The premium for 3D is quite small, as all that's involved is the addition of an invisible thin sheet of polarizing material applied to the face of a standard 2D LCD/LED set, and a few more options in the TV's software. There is no perceptible effect on 2D performance.

I'd recommend at least a 55" screen for the best effect - you can check them out at places like Costco, but they often have the TVs adjusted to give a bright punchy effect when seen under the store's fluorescent lighting, and it's hard to judge how they'll look at home. For further reading and research on current equipment, AVS forums are the equivalent of PriusChat, with many friendly experts offering good advice.

Hope this helps!