Re: Flesh and Bonehead - The Guardian Speaks (spoilers)

On Mon, 3 May 2010 02:32:10 -0700 (PDT), Phil Bowles
<philipbowles2003@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


No evidence whatsoever - just a line of description which Wasn't 'More
Essential',  just Essential. Again you're twisting the meaning to suit your
purpose without any evidence to support your argument.

You're focusing on the wrong part of SP's post. The evidence was not
the statement itself, it was the point SP made that Ian (and, come to
that, Susan) were given the opportunity to cover absences with pre-
filmed inserts, but the Doctor was not, at least during Russell's
period on the show.

You mean filmed inserts were used where required (and as sparingly as possible).
That doesn't amount to any kind of favouritism as you're suggesting.

There's plenty of production notes available - as well as the complete scripts
of all the stories. If you think these might support your argument go find them.

Yet again you're mischaracterising my argument. I merely selected
between two suggested possibilities - that Ian or the Doctor was
treated as more fundamental to the show by its producers
- based on
the evidence that was presented; I only looked for additional evidence
at your specific request. As you've already mentioned, and apparently
keep conveniently forgetting, it's not an issue on which I have any
fixed personal opinions. If you wanted to support your own case with
evidence, why didn't you cite the production notes with appropriate
quotations?

A comment from a contributor to this group is hardly 'evidence' of the
intentions of the production team.

SP's comment was an inference - it's empirically the case that special
effort was made to include Ian, but not the Doctor, into episodes. SP
inferred from this that Ian was deemed a more important character by
the people producing the episodes. This is an entirely reasonable
inference to draw.

It's pure fantasy to suggest that Ian (and Susan) were deemed 'more important'
because filmed inserts were used to cover their leave. This was purely a matter
of continuity, because the BBC controller Donald Baverstock, extended the
season, and scripts had to be altered in order to let the principles take a
break. Hartnell was written out of two episodes of Marinus and Ian was written
out of two episodes of Reign of Terror.


that evidence being in the form of the greater effort they
put in to ensure Ian was covered for the actor's absences compared
with the Doctor. I simply took pains to point that evidence out to
you; if I recall Wikipedia has a similar testimonial reporting the
production team's intent for the character.

Wikipedia didn't actually produce the series.

No, but it synthesises information and is commonly referenced - it
rarely simply makes things up, and there seems little reason why the
author(s) of that piece would invent that particular claim (though
admittedly I don't recall offhand whether it was specifically
referenced).

Your only motive in this was to marginalise Hartnell as a popular
figure with the audience.

Oh dear, Iggy, have you alreadty forgotten what you just wrote? Note
the point about my having no convictions. You might also want to
reread mine warning against just this sort of tendency on your part to
imagine an invented conspiracy against Hartnell merely because someone
presents a case you disagree with. In fact I pointed out in that very
thread that I'm a fan of Hartnell's Doctor (I didn't make the
additional point that I found Ian rather dull) - that doesn't alter
the fact that the production team accorded him greater prominence in
terms of overall appearances (were I to watch and make notes of
relative screentime in all his appearances, I suspect he might also be
a more prominent figure in that regard, as he was in most of the
serials I've seen). Nothing in that implies any kind of value
judgment, it merely reports a finding - a finding you specifically
asked me to provide evidence for, no less.

And as I've said previously, you've jumped to all these conclusions

You really struggle with qualifiers, don't you? Note "I suspect..." Or
is it the concept of "jumping to conclusions" that's giving you
trouble?

I prefer to read their own accounts.

Feel free to share, in that case. It seems odd that you'd choose to
defend a position without citing the appropriate supporting evidence

Because that's precisely what You are doing. You've assigned ridiculous
speculative 'motives' to the producers based on an observation that filmed
inserts were used. You haven't bothered to watch the relevant episodes or find
out for yourself how these were included, and the purpose they served. You
haven't bothered reading the production notes to find out how or why these were
used.

If you did you would see that they establish continuity, nothing more. The
characters are still absent from the majority of the episode - which is hardly
consistent with the view that they were deemed 'more important'. If you
bothered to read the production notes you'd see the memos on filmed inserts
which explain how and when they were used.

It's Your 'opinion' that we're discussing, and it's up to You to provide the
evidence in support of it. I can see no evidence in any of the documents that
Ian, or Susan, were deemed more important than the Doctor or Barbara.

if the production notes provided said evidence. From the below, it
seems you'd rather argue from hypothetical scenarios.

Just one point occurs, though; when the
future of the show was under review towards the end of the first season would
they have considered the Doctor or Ian as expendable in the event of being
unable to secure the necessary budget?

Would they necessarily have made that choice, rather than, say,
dropping Barbara or cutting costs on sets or props?

Susan's departure had already been planned, and Lambert was happy for Hartnell
to continue alone for a few weeks if necessary. He was awarded a 25 guinea per
episode salary increase, and a six month contract. Susan's replacement, Jenny
(Pamela Franklin) had been written into Dalek Invasion - but the uncertainty led
to this plan being abandoned, and the part of Jenny went to Ann Davies.

Quote
As far as William Russell and Jacqueline Hill are concerned , we will try and
negotiate contracts with them on the basis of a nominal rise of between £10 and
£20 per episode. If this is not acceptable we will write these two artists out
at the end of the present series.
Unquote
Verity Lambert
Wednesday 19th August 1964.

At the time Hartnell was on 250 guineas per episode, Russell 150 guineas per
episode, and Hill 105 guineas per episode
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Flesh and Bonehead - The Guardian Speaks (spoilers)
    ... No evidence whatsoever - just a line of description which Wasn't 'More ... the statement itself, it was the point SP made that Ian (and, come to ... intentions of the production team. ... episode salary increase, ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: Flesh and Bonehead - The Guardian Speaks (spoilers)
    ... No evidence whatsoever - just a line of description which Wasn't 'More ... the statement itself, it was the point SP made that Ian (and, come to ... intentions of the production team. ... episode salary increase, ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: Flesh and Bonehead - The Guardian Speaks (spoilers)
    ... No evidence whatsoever - just a line of description which Wasn't 'More ... the statement itself, it was the point SP made that Ian (and, come to ... intentions of the production team. ... episode salary increase, ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: Flesh and Bonehead - The Guardian Speaks (spoilers)
    ... the statement itself, it was the point SP made that Ian (and, come to ... you're welcome to set the record straight by citing evidence. ... If you think these might support your argument go find them. ... characters are still absent from the majority of the episode - which is hardly ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: Flesh and Bonehead - The Guardian Speaks (spoilers)
    ... CONDEMNED WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. ... provide LIBERAL quotations to support your ASSESMENT of my claims. ... testimonies of members of the cast and production team', ... the statement itself, it was the point SP made that Ian (and, come to ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)