Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Doctor Who's Dalek Designer Dies At 84

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the rest-in-peace dept.

Sci-Fi 106

SchrodingerZ writes "Raymond Cusick, a production designer for the BBC show Doctor Who from 1963 to 1966, has died from illness. 'Terry Nation, who died in 1997, wrote the 1963 story The Daleks, in which the "satanic pepperpots" first appeared, but it was Cusick who came up with the machines' distinctive look, including the bobble-like sensors, eyestalk, sucker and exterminator weapons.' His horrid creation has remained a prime enemy in Doctor Who for over 50 years, and have remained relatively unchanged. His tireless work however was never fully awarded, as his only pay for the project was about £100. Cusick also worked on such shows as Z Cars, Dr Finlay's Casebook and The Forsyte Saga to The Duchess of Duke Street, When the Boat Comes In and Rentaghost. He officially retired in 1987. Claire Heawood, Cusick's daughter, has said that her father was 'suffering from an illness and died peacefully in his sleep on Thursday.'"

cancel ×

106 comments

He didn't die (5, Funny)

maroberts (15852) | about a year ago | (#43000803)

He was ex-term-inat-ed.

Re:He didn't die (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43000845)

I..... I.... I want to... downvote this... and yet... its so full of WIN and Dalek based humor and demands to be voted up as funny...

We cant all be like the Cybermen and not have to make such tough decisions!

Re:He didn't die (2)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#43000941)

Margin between being ex-term-inat-ed and keep going on is sometimes really thin. You have to grasp that concept well in order to continue efficiently in your journey.

The distinctive look and attitude.. (5, Insightful)

ihaveamo (989662) | about a year ago | (#43000837)

...was in part mimicking the Nazis. Extermination .... Supreme race..... and the Daleks look a bit like panzer tanks. I can imagine that 50 years ago, with WWII not such a distant memory, the Daleks would have been personally terrifying to a lot of Brits.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43000867)

They were terrifying to brits that lived on ground floors without stairs. The rest, not so much.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43000921)

Daleks don't need to levitate up stairs. They just level the building.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43000933)

EL-EEEE-VAAAATE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdNizMwDIv8

They can fly. Stairs haven't been an issue since the late 80s.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1, Informative)

Alex Belits (437) | about a year ago | (#43000945)

^^^the actual content of the postings in the original "Trollface" comic.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43000907)

they still are terrifying.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (4, Informative)

Dupple (1016592) | about a year ago | (#43000977)

A while ago I was researching every episode and story line the Daleks have appeared in. It's a bit of a tangle. However, the greatest source of Dalek trivia has to be

http://www.dalek6388.co.uk/ [dalek6388.co.uk]

I've no idea who put that site together, but the depth of detail (every Dalek ever made and when they appeared) is bordering on the obsessive. I read all of it...

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001249)

I've no idea who put that site together, but the depth of detail (every Dalek ever made and when they appeared) is bordering on the obsessive. I read all of it...

Let me guess: Gary McKinnon?

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

sa1lnr (669048) | about a year ago | (#43001265)

"I've no idea who put that site together"

Jon and Gav. Sometimes it's worth scrolling to the bottom of a page. :)

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (2)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about a year ago | (#43001211)

Vale Ray Cusick, you gave me nightmares as a kid... respect.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (2)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#43000973)

There was never any panzer on british soil. Buch of V2s although...

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (3, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#43001009)

True, but there were a LOT of British soldiers on the front lines facing German Panzers. Nobody said they actually saw them in Great Britain.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (-1, Flamebait)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#43001083)

You can rest assured that Churchill and the following Prime Ministers made sure not to let that image contaminate British collective consciousness although. Not that many British soldiers saw panzers with their own eyes and they would be debriefed in order to make them sound insignificant to the ones who haven't.

Therefore, I doubt a panzer shape would have scared the British collective consciousness watching Dr. Who back then.

With all those kind of tricks, Churchill prevented Britain to surrender. Review all available accounts about this please.

Maybe now, in 2013, British citizens could be afraid of a panzer shape since the shape is available for anybody who wants to know. But then again...

We need a Slashpoll on this!

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

grouchomarxist (127479) | about a year ago | (#43001125)

eh? you know during WW II they had these marvelous devices called "cameras", they took "pictures" that were then reproduced in the "newspapers" of the times.

I'm sure much of the British public knew what Panzers looked like during the war, even more so afterwards.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (-1, Flamebait)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#43001185)

You obviously know nothing about information control in war situation. Information (press and radio back then) was easy to control.

Find me a front page of a London newspaper showing panzers with a title such "we got a hell of a beating". Ruins of panzers are OK although, the shape would not be recognizable anyway. You can even show anything and tell people it is a destroyed panzer.

Learn warfare. It includes propaganda, disinformation, etc. If the other side uses it, you may have no choice to use it too especially if you were as military weak as Britain was compared to Germany.

I admire Churchill for the stab he had at it with relatively no budget until the US accepted to help him.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (2)

grouchomarxist (127479) | about a year ago | (#43001237)

You're obviously making a ridiculous request. Of course, there aren't going to be London newspapers with titles like "we got a hell of a beating", with or without Panzers.

How about you find a source that Panzer images were censored from British newspapers?

In any case, the Daleks were introduced in 1963, so the British public would be well aware of the shapes of Panzers by then.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43001629)

This is a quite bizarre argument.

Of course there was propaganda during the war, and lots of censorship. On the other hand not only were there newspaper photos, the British were making action movies about the war during the war. It's unlikely that none of them contained a panzer. As you say it would doubtless be blown up, but that would involve seeing it first.

But the Daleks first appeared in 1963, 18 years after the end of the war. Pretty much everyone will have been very familiar with what panzers looked like by that time, again because of the vast number of action war films.

I'd never really thought about it before but I buy the idea that elements of the design were taken from tanks. The rotating lid, with the projecting eye stalk is very tank like. And the gun and plunger universal joint is absolutely like the one on machine guns on tanks.

Whether or not that helped to make the Daleks scary, I don't know. They certainly terrified me as a child, but it was more the inhumanness, the seeming invincibility, the likelyhood of instant death upon seeing one, and the voice I think. With the exception of the voice, they were scary in much the same way Alien is scary.

I love the design of the Daleks as a classic. But I think their scariness had more to do with Terry Nation's writing. The Daleks, including their Nazi basis, were his idea, as written in the script, before the physical design of the Daleks was thought up. "Exterminate", the supreme race etc. were his ideas.

And photos don't say "AAAARRRGGHHH!!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001695)

But the war correspondents who would, don't.

"A new tank is coming from the German Army, but our plucky lads in their spiffing new Churchil MkVIs are giving them a good 'what for'!".

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

OrugTor (1114089) | about a year ago | (#43004587)

Good point about the writing. In fact, the director did a great job in that first story. I still have a clear memory of the first shot containing a Dalek. It was taken from the Dalek's perspective and the only visible part of it was the plunger closing in on a terrified Barbara. And the terrified me at 12 yrs.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#43002019)

Strangely enough the British ened up destroying a lot of panzers in North Africa in 1942. I am sure Brits saw plemty of footage of the battle of El Alamain in the cinema newsreels that they showed before the main feature.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43002169)

Learn warfare. It includes propaganda, disinformation, etc. If the other side uses it, you may have no choice to use it too especially if you were as military weak as Britain was compared to Germany.

Yeah, the Luftwaffe sure gave the RAF a beating....

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1, Funny)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#43001197)

Or, I don't know, EVERY SINGLE OTHER ALIEN RACE from science fiction? Starting with War of the Worlds, which was already old-fashioned by the time of Dr. Who. "Panzer tanks"? It's the same word repeated twice. What are those, are they like "moo cows"?

You think about the Nazis a lot, don't you?

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43001657)

The War of the Worlds didn't take any inspiration from the Nazis, given that H G Wells wrote it in the 1800s.

You may be thinking of the 1950s movie version. That did have changes from the book, including moving it from Victorian England to contemporary America, but AFAIR it didn't add anything Nazi like that wasn't already in the book.

It's the same word repeated twice.

You mean tautology. Like for example: "repeated twice".

Daleks didn't take any inspiration from panzers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001713)

Despite them being written after their appearance.

Panzers weren't designed after pepper pots, despite having been invented after the pepper pot.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (3, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#43001839)

The War of the Worlds didn't take any inspiration from the Nazis, given that H G Wells wrote it in the 1800s.

That means nothing. After all, H. G. Wells invented the time machine. :-)

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#43002105)

The War of the Worlds didn't take any inspiration from the Nazis, given that H G Wells wrote it in the 1800s.

Specifically, it was actually a very obvious metaphor for the various conquests of peoples living in Africa, Asia, and America by much more modern European armies. The basic musket was as alien to the first North Americans to encounter them as the Martian machines were to the Victorian Brits, and part of the point of Wells' novel was to give those respectable Victorian Brits the same emotional response as, say, the Arawaks.

That's what a lot of good sci-fi does: It examines a contemporary problem by changing the setting so they can get away with looking at it.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#43004647)

Uh, no. The War of the Worlds didn't take any inspiration from the Nazis, given that H G Wells wrote it in the 1800s. The "alien race bent on the destruction of humanity" is what I was talking about. Durr, durr, durr

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43007007)

Who are you quoting there with "alien race bent on the destruction of humanity"? Because the post you replied to wasn't talking about that. It was talking about the concept of them being inspired by the Nazis specifically.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about a year ago | (#43001677)

"Panzer tanks"? It's the same word repeated twice.

Nope. "Panzer" is not the German word for "Tank." It's grammatically to correct to say "Panzer tank" to distinguish a Panzer from a Tiger tank, for example.

-jcr

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#43002163)

I think Panzer means armour or armoured.
The full title of a tank in german is Panzer Kampf Wagen
often abbreviated to PKW

The PKW mark III and IV were in use in North africa
PKW mark V was known as the Panther
PKW mark VI was the Tiger

Disclaimer IANAG (I am not a German

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a year ago | (#43002381)

I think Panzer means armour or armoured.

Google translate says Panzer can mean armoured, carapace, shell, or shield.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43003355)

Disclaimer IANAG (I am not a German

i suppose not everyone is perfect.

Panzer *is* German for tank (1)

henni16 (586412) | about a year ago | (#43006971)

"Panzer" is the word Germans use for "tank".
And you're also right, "Panzer" means armor.
I don't know if the German military uses PKW as an abbreviation for Panzer, but I think it's highly unlikely because most Germans will definitely NOT think of a Panzer when they hear "PKW".

PKW is the very, very common abbreviation for "Personenkraftwagen", i.e. it refers to ordinary passenger cars.
A somewhat literal translation of PKW would be "people motor vehicle".
The most common and general way to classify cars in German is to distinguish between PKW and LKW - with LKW being an abbreviation referring to (heavy) freight trucks ("Lastkraftwagen" or short "Lastwagen" or "Laster" - see "Panzer" instead of "Panzerkampfwagen)

Disclaimer: IAAG ;-)

Btw: according to German wikipedia, the abbreviation for "Panzerkampfwagen" is "PzKpfw".

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#43007071)

The PKW mark III and IV were in use in North africa
PKW mark V was known as the Panther
PKW mark VI was the Tiger

Pzkw VI (Tiger) was also used in North Africa, toward the end.

For that matter, pzkw-II was used in North Africa too. Possibly even a few -I's as well, but they were mostly phased out by then.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#43004563)

A Panzer tank is different from a Tiger tank? A Tiger is a Panzer Mark 6, dumbass. Can't believe you're up to +4 on that.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about a year ago | (#43006093)

Also, Panzer is German for tank. To a German, an Abrams is a Panzer.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

timq (240600) | about a year ago | (#43006567)

Actually, "Panzer" is the German word for "tank"; in fact, it is the best translation in this context.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#43007029)

It's grammatically to correct to say "Panzer tank" to distinguish a Panzer from a Tiger tank, for example.

Oddly enough, the proper designation for the "Tiger tank" was "Panzer VI".

Note, by the way, that "Panzer" was short for PanzerKampfWagen, a generic German term for tank (which means literally "armoured war vehicle".

So, no, it's not correct to say "Panzer tank", unless you're the kind of person who knows nothing to speak of about the subject.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

Existential Wombat (1701124) | about a year ago | (#43004353)

Actually, it's the same word, repeated once.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year ago | (#43002057)

...was in part mimicking the Nazis. Extermination .... Supreme race..... and the Daleks look a bit like panzer tanks. I can imagine that 50 years ago, with WWII not such a distant memory, the Daleks would have been personally terrifying to a lot of Brits.

I watched Dr. Who as a kid with me dad. Daleks were certainly frightening for me, but I was only about 5 at the time. I doubt I even knew what a panzer tank was at the time.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (2)

zorro-z (1423959) | about a year ago | (#43003259)

During the "Master Trilogy" of a few years back- the one in which the Master rejiggers the TARDIS as a paradox machine so as to allow the distant seed of humanity to travel back in time to conquer the Earth- there is a scene in Germany where Daleks are flying through the air screaming "EXTERMINIEREN," to bring that image more fully to life, so to speak...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGx7c-QBotE [youtube.com]

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

mog007 (677810) | about a year ago | (#43006913)

The return of the Master and the Dalek in Germany were two different season finales.

Re:The distinctive look and attitude.. (1)

zorro-z (1423959) | about a year ago | (#43007141)

You're right- this was the return of Davros, moving the Earth + all the other planets to create the Universe Eraser Button, right?

Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43000911)

Doctor Who, or Doctor Poop as I like to call it, is the worst piece of shit show that has ever hit the fucking airwaves. Figures as the British have never been very bright at anything to do with television. Fuck, even the worst trash that is aired in America is 1000s of times better than the piece of shit Doctor Poop, and that is the show they are known for. So big fucking deal that the creator of the oversized, mobile salt shaker characters is dead so I say good fucking riddance. Hopefully the piece of shit Doctor Poop will be eliminated along with that piece of shit network BBC America.

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (-1, Troll)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43000929)

Doctor Who, or Doctor Poop as I like to call it, is the worst piece of shit show that has ever hit the fucking airwaves. Figures as the British have never been very bright at anything to do with television. Fuck, even the worst trash that is aired in America is 1000s of times better than the piece of shit Doctor Poop, and that is the show they are known for. So big fucking deal that the creator of the oversized, mobile salt shaker characters is dead so I say good fucking riddance. Hopefully the piece of shit Doctor Poop will be eliminated along with that piece of shit network BBC America.

Please, let it all out. Tell us how you really feel!

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (0)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#43000951)

Most of the shows from the late 70's had the same plot: capitalists gone bad. They needed to mix it up: more general sci fi plots.

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#43000955)

Come on, pay a little respect anyway. I tried to watch it a few times and my impressions match yours although.

Now, that he is dead, I might try to watch it again and maybe I will get the message. Who knows?

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001007)

I'm not the OP, but you know, I don't know why I keep trying. I've liked a lot of silly scifi, but I just can't make myself enjoy Doctor Who. Everything about it is so campy it's unbearable. That's coming from someone that thinks stuff like Evil Dead movies are hugely entertaining and loved all the Stargate series.

A few times I've thought I just need to watch newer seasons and give up on the older ones, but even those are really, really terrible. The acting is terrible, the aliens are all dumb, costumes and effects are horrible, and the stories are boring. I guess I'm ashamed to admit that I just can't make myself like it, and can't help but wonder if its popularity is somehow fake.

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (2)

grumbel (592662) | about a year ago | (#43001079)

If you are looking for an entry point into Doctor Who, watch the episode Blink [wikipedia.org] , it's incredible well done and probably the most fun take on time travel since Back to the Future. If you don't like that one, then yeah, Doctor Who ain't for you, as it doesn't get better then that, but that episode it worth a try either way.

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#43001101)

Thanks for the advice.

  (take 2)
Slashfilter otherwise refuses it as:
"This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original..."

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001639)

Ooh, we do like that Karma bonus, don't we? Cheeky whore...

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (1)

Slider451 (514881) | about a year ago | (#43003737)

Concur. Blink is the episode everyone talks about. Great time travel and humor. And also some very suspenseful horror elements. Those angels are plain creepy.

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (1)

hackula (2596247) | about a year ago | (#43005429)

lol. I love that episode, but picking an episode to get someone into Doctor Who that barely has the Doctor in it does seem a bit odd. I would recommend just about any of the newer Matt Smith episodes if campyness was the problem. Better acting, cinematography, writing, etc. I love them all, but I don't really have a problem with the campy stuff.

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#43001095)

Thanks for the advice.

Re:Doctor Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001025)

>>> Now, that he is dead, I might try to watch it again and maybe I will get the message. Who knows?

Some random "new series" messages:

1. Beware the Daleks. They are capable of feats such as the destruction of all of Creation (averted by a hair), or fighting Time Lords to a standstill on Gallifrey. Like cockroaches, some ALWAYS escape.

2. Beware the Daleks, but be afraid of the Weeping Angels. Be very, very afraid. Whatever you do, if there are stone statues around, DON'T BLINK.

3. Both good Time Lords and insane/evil Time Lords think alike when it comes to disposing of giant, unrepentant, carnivorous, humanoid-devouring spiders.

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (1)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#43001029)

Ah, a troll. I don't think they've had any of them in Doctor Who.
You don't like it. So what?
I disagree with your opinion, but why is your comment so venomous? Did somebody rape you with a toy sonic screwdriver?

Here's something interesting for you to try, compare the Doctor Who episodes from a particular year with that years episodes of another sci-fi.

Anyhow, happy trolling to you, and just remember, a majority of the sci-fi fans disagree with your opinion. :D

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43002831)

Ah, a troll. [..] why is your comment so venomous?

Er... that'd be because he's a troll. Talk about answering your own question!

I'm not even sure why you went on to pander to him by dignifying that with a response.

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001071)

Fuck off.

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001731)

Is that you Mr. Murdoch?

Re:Doctor Who? More like Doctor Poop (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | about a year ago | (#43001915)

That's cute. Too bad for you the good Dr. will still be on the air long, long after you're dead.

thanks! (4, Informative)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43000913)

I love Doctor Who and the series has entertained me for decades.

Always thought the Daleks had a great look, even if going up/down stairs was a problem. But thanks to the Daleks, I got Davros, and my namesake, Nyder.

Of course, we can't forget the picture of Jo Grant (Katy Manning) posing with a Dalek: https://www.google.com/search?q=jo+grant+doctor+who+dalek+nude+picture&hl=en&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=iBYrUYz4OuKXiQLN74DoCQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1133&bih=844 [google.com]

Anyways, thanks for the Daleks and may you not come back as a zombie.

Re:thanks! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001199)

Uhm, NOT SAFE FOR WORK, link opens to nude photos, tasteful nudes, but still nude.

MY GOD (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001545)

Someone linked somewhere on the Internet, that has NAKED people!?

CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT!

Re:thanks! (1)

Zakabog (603757) | about a year ago | (#43001825)

Well the search query is - jo grant doctor who dalek nude picture

And there's also safe=off in the url, so yeah I would figure it's NSFW.

Re:thanks! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001339)

I watched Doctor Who in the 70s. I don't remember the episode those pictures came from. Is it available on DVD?

Tireless, only £100, etc. *yawn* (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43000927)

If they remained relatively unchanged, how was his work on them "tireless", and how can you assume it was never "fully" rewarded? Kids today think if they make something famous they automatically get rich? No, that's not how it works, and I don't recall Cusick ever complaining, so let's not pepper his memory with our own assumptions about what he would/should have wanted, eh?

Re:Tireless, only £100, etc. *yawn* (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#43000939)

Maybe it's a typo: "timeless"

Re:Tireless, only £100, etc. *yawn* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001053)

If they remained relatively unchanged, how was his work on them "tireless"

Because they have solid wheels?

It's not like his daughter is going to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43000935)

he died in unimaginably agonising pain. But in this case she could've gotten away with it.

Fully awarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001019)

His tireless work however was never fully awarded, as his only pay for the project was about £100.

So how does that compare to the going rate for monster design in 1963?

Legacy (4, Insightful)

symes (835608) | about a year ago | (#43001037)

I, along with many other children, hid behind a sofa because of this guy. An interesting legacy. Both creative and terrifying and I cannot think of anyone who has does similar and touched so many in the process. Cusick had a good innings and, as reformed juvenile sofa dweller, thanks for the memorable scares.

Re:Legacy (2)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#43001231)

I, along with many other children, hid behind a sofa because of this guy.

My mum tells me my uncle hid behind the sofa. My grandma says my mum hid behind a cushion, sometimes.

What I don't understand is why the show is currently popular with 20-something adults. I've watched a couple, and found it pretty boring. I don't see the attraction.

(The original theme music [youtube.com] is fantastic. The newer music [youtube.com] is disappointing. It sounds like the Pirates of the Caribbean formed an indie rock band to cover the CNN theme but tripped over a cheap synth.)

Re:Legacy (1)

symes (835608) | about a year ago | (#43003337)

I loved it as a kid, as a 20-something there were more interesting things to do. But now as a parent I find it is one of the few programs we all can sit down together and watch.

The REAL creator... (1)

Terminus32 (968892) | about a year ago | (#43001061)

Not Terry Nation, who made millions as the writer.

Re:The REAL creator... (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43001689)

The physical design was great. But the concept of the Daleks, the Nazi theme, that they were mechanical things that glided across the floor etc was Terry Nation.

Cusick was the designer. Terry Nation was definitely the creator.

Oh for f... do some bloody research (4, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43001069)

His horrid creation has remained a prime enemy in Doctor Who for over 50 years

That's quite a trick, considering the 50th anniversary is in November this year. Timey wimey, wibbly wobbly...

Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001127)

What's 50 years for a time lord?

A bit late but... (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about a year ago | (#43001165)

You'd think some rich Dr Who fans would have wanted to compensate him a lot of money, and probably get themselves a bit famous at the same time (as the kindness would make the papers)

Re:A bit late but... (1)

hackula (2596247) | about a year ago | (#43005503)

Why would anyone reward the creator of all Daleks, the most evil race in the universe?!

Favourite Dr Who monster (1)

jamesh (87723) | about a year ago | (#43001207)

The Daleks were always my favourite. As a kid they didn't seem that scary, not like some of the other monsters. I used to put a washing basket upside down over my head (the basket was a bit taller than me) when I was little and run around the house saying "exterminate"... fun times :)

disappointed... (-1, Flamebait)

equex (747231) | about a year ago | (#43001273)

I've seen most scifi, but Dr.Who escaped me until recently. Judging from the hype and fanboism, I was expecting something like BSG, but it turned out to be cheap, low budget British tea-time soap. Shit, it's worse than Eureka, if possible.

Re:disappointed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001303)

"Cheap" means "low budget" so you don't need to repeat yourself. Quality is not a function of cost, though, as many prime-time US series prove. If you want BSG, go watch BSG.

Re:disappointed... (1)

equex (747231) | about a year ago | (#43001373)

I mean cheap, as the burping trash can in the first episode, and all the other gags that would fit better in a high school theatre. I do enjoy Red Dwarf, for instance, because it doesn't try to be "quirky" (the new word for shows that aren't up to snuff) , it just was that way, before 'quirky' was cool. British humour are top class, don't get me wrong. But this is not funny. And don't get me started on US prime time shows, it is the benchmark of fail. (the sitcoms anyway). If any of your favourite shows has a laughter box in it, you are fail too.

Re:disappointed... (3, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43001547)

British humour are top class, don't get me wrong.

British grammar are even better.

But this is not funny.

FYI: You are not everyone.

If any of your favourite shows has a laughter box in it, you are fail too.

Whereas believing your opinion to be worth more than everyone else's makes you such a win?

Re:disappointed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43002497)

I like Dr. Who. However, the early ones are *cheap*. They were making a sci fi show on the budget of a sit-com and it showed. The newer ones are way better but that is because BBC finally 1 gave it a decent budget and 2 they can use computer to gen up a bad ass look on a green screen. So instead of a styrofoam bolder and the actors saying 'look at the amazing planet we are on'. They show you the amazing planet.

I think a couple of the doctors spent most of their time roaming around abandoned coal/rock mines (as they were cheap and close locations). Some of the shows were obvious filler (usually them hiding out in some shed/room/set and running quite a bit) shows as they just needed the money for the other episodes of a story usually the monster and/or particular set. The shows would start off cracking along then suddenly stop to a plodding pace then pick up again. Heck one of the shows was nothing more than them standing around in a 'museum' and a bunch of old props on boxes.

It is a brilliant show. However, lets not make it out for more than it was. A cheap production (they did not have the budget/time for anything more) which sometimes had decent stories.

Re:disappointed... (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#43005719)

Really, the tightly constrained budget probably improved the show. They couldn't fall back on stunning effects or even visually stunning locations. The show had to sink or swim on the strength of the writing and acting alone.

Re:disappointed... (1)

stigpalm (615408) | about a year ago | (#43001649)

Opps meant here... Have you actually seen the first Episode??? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0562828/ [imdb.com] [imdb.com]

Re:disappointed... (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43001577)

"Cheap" means "low budget" so you don't need to repeat yourself.

Not necessarily; Dr Who and Red Dwarf are both low budget, but Dr Who is cheaper, in my opinion, because it uses a half an hour of material to fill an hour of airtime. Although there are certainly other factors at play, I find Red Dwarf to be very entertaining, while Dr Who is rather tedious and predictable.

Ep_? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43001347)

*BSD is dying IT is Your own beer

As usual, cutting edge journalism from the Gruanid (1)

HagraBiscuit (2756527) | about a year ago | (#43001853)

Firstly, my condolences to the family. RIP Mr Cusick. We are all thankful for your worthy and enduring legacy. Secondly, are there any actual journalists at the guardian? "...suffering from an illness..." can you be a little more specific? Not too impertinent a question, even for a grieving daughter. The rest of the article I could easily have harvested from Whozines or wiki-whatevers. They've lost their balls since the NoTW went to the wall.

If You Find This Announcement Stressful (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year ago | (#43002155)

Perhaps you should consider relaxing with this video. [youtube.com]

First _post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43002799)

It's b3st to try

A Brilliant Man (1)

Mark Rawls (2648691) | about a year ago | (#43004361)

Mr. Cusick, you were brilliant man, and you shall live on forever in my nightmares. Rest in peace.

Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43006265)

Right. So we have this doctor, who is apparently a "Dalek designer" (jaysus effing christ, guys, grammar please!) and he is dead at 84. Now I have to ask: who is that doctor we are talking about?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...