MS
Sorry, had to laugh at that. The picture quality wasn't truly awful, but something was wrong with it. It looked too soft and blurry in places. Google'in about here and there suggests Primeval was shot on 16mm, whereas Doctor Who is shot on Digibeta, and to me Doctor Who looks the better product! The CG was dodgy in places, some of it reminded me of the classic Doctor Who episode "Invasion of the Dinosaurs", only with slightly more realistic movement.
Obviously this programme contracted "ITV-itis" during its production.
Weird actually, the first couple of minutes in the forest were VERY glossy and very well shot. It looked like it could have been shot on film. But half way through it all turned dull and Digibeta-ish, and in certain cuts it looked like the footage was going out of focus, and odd cutting was rather jaunting too.
Anyways, i have to admit i really liked this, and have series linked it. I find it quite funny that people in this thread (and on other forums) saying they laughed at how bad it was. People who say that, to me go in with the mindset of WANTING it to be crap because it was on ITV. If this was on BBC1, i'm sure it would have been a lot different.
I went into it thinking it was going to be a cheap answer to Torchwood/Doctor Who i have to admit, but after watching it, i thought it was brilliant and miles more interesting (so far) than Torchwood, which it is a lot more like than Doctor Who.
intheknow posted:
Des Cartes posted:
On first impression, it certainly looks a lot glossier than Doctor Who, I reluctantly admit..
Sorry, had to laugh at that. The picture quality wasn't truly awful, but something was wrong with it. It looked too soft and blurry in places. Google'in about here and there suggests Primeval was shot on 16mm, whereas Doctor Who is shot on Digibeta, and to me Doctor Who looks the better product! The CG was dodgy in places, some of it reminded me of the classic Doctor Who episode "Invasion of the Dinosaurs", only with slightly more realistic movement.
Obviously this programme contracted "ITV-itis" during its production.
Weird actually, the first couple of minutes in the forest were VERY glossy and very well shot. It looked like it could have been shot on film. But half way through it all turned dull and Digibeta-ish, and in certain cuts it looked like the footage was going out of focus, and odd cutting was rather jaunting too.
Anyways, i have to admit i really liked this, and have series linked it. I find it quite funny that people in this thread (and on other forums) saying they laughed at how bad it was. People who say that, to me go in with the mindset of WANTING it to be crap because it was on ITV. If this was on BBC1, i'm sure it would have been a lot different.
I went into it thinking it was going to be a cheap answer to Torchwood/Doctor Who i have to admit, but after watching it, i thought it was brilliant and miles more interesting (so far) than Torchwood, which it is a lot more like than Doctor Who.