December 25, 2008 at 7:07 pm #2710
That was… bloody lovely. Terrific stuff, and everything a Christmas special should be. The disappointment at yet another lack of a decent big villain reveal (like last year’s crappy one) when the nature of the “Cyber King” was announced was… well, it was pretty massively dispelled by what happened later.December 25, 2008 at 7:10 pm #87859
Also, yes, I may have possibly done a little sex wee when we got pictures of all ten Doctors.December 25, 2008 at 7:24 pm #87860
Me too! I’m not changing though, I’m just going to sit in it til Easter.December 25, 2008 at 9:24 pm #87862
Brilliant! Possibly my favourite Christmas episode. Up there, any way.
Is it sad I got a thrill with the big stomping steampunk cyberking at the end?
I wasn’t sure of the Doctor’s use of the capsule at the end, since it hadn’t been used that way before, but I can think of an easy enough explanation, so that’s no biggee.
And it’s great to have a Christmas episode not set in present day London/Cardiff.December 26, 2008 at 12:34 am #87866
I fell asleep (true). Probably no reflection on the actual episode, more the big dinner and the fact I’m clearly turning into MY DAD. iPlayer it is, then.December 26, 2008 at 2:04 pm #87871
Pete Part Three
A bit ropey, I thought. The Cyberman (who I’ve always thought were a bit lame) stuff was by-the-numbers. The other Doctor thing was nicely handled though; and David Morrissey was very good.
The Christmas Invasion still gets my vote.December 26, 2008 at 2:11 pm #87872
I thought this was cracking. DM’s Doctor story was great, with a proper kick in the gut when it’s revealed he lost his wife in the attack. Also, I *loved* DM bursting the Doctor’s bubble when he starts rambling too much. A brilliant double act.
The CyberKing was utterly preposterous, but I didn’t mind a bit as the episode really earnt that finale. Although, the inclusion of the orphans working on the ‘starter motor’ was a bit ropey. Surely a few Cybermen could’ve managed it?December 26, 2008 at 2:47 pm #87873
> I may have possibly done a little sex wee when we got pictures of all ten Doctors.
And here was me thinking we’d never climax together…December 26, 2008 at 4:43 pm #87875
The CyberKing was utterly preposterous, but I didn?t mind a bit as the episode really earnt that finale.
I agree. It was daft, but in a thoroughly good way, and certainly earned.
Although, the inclusion of the orphans working on the ?starter motor? was a bit ropey. Surely a few Cybermen could?ve managed it?
I didn’t really get what the orphans were used for either. If they had been abducted in those huge numbers earlier on, then I’d accept it. The Cybermen aren’t the powerful force they used to be after all, so extra labor was required. Actually children had been abducted for a while, but they made a big thing about the latest influx, didnt they? They weren’t there that long before the Cyberking structure was completed, so I don’t think that plot point worked too well.
That doesn’t take my love of the episode though. And it beat the ‘huge alien ship that’s a direct replica populated by aliens who look exactly human’ scenario of last year. (Although I didn’t hate it, and thought Kylie was pretty good in it.)
I’ve come to realize, Who is full of plot holes, but it’s such good fun.
> I may have possibly done a little sex wee when we got pictures of all ten Doctors.
And here was me thinking we?d never climax together?
That’s an image I could do without. ;} Dirty boys!December 26, 2008 at 4:46 pm #87876
>I?ve come to realize, Who is full of plot holes, but it?s such good fun.
Like a certain other programme we could all name, in fact.December 26, 2008 at 4:51 pm #87877
I really enjoyed it, too. A really nice story, funny, and some great moments. (When they were skidding along on their arses! Hilarious!)
Great stuff.December 26, 2008 at 8:24 pm #87878
The human story was great, the Cybermen stuff not so good. I’ll give it 4/5 because even though there plot holes and logic flaws, it was still always exciting.
Someone tell me this though – was it severing the link that caused the Cybermen to explode? If so, that’s piss poor.December 26, 2008 at 9:40 pm #87881
>> I may have possibly done a little sex wee when we got pictures of all ten Doctors.
> And here was me thinking we?d never climax together?
And I would’ve joined in but I was 24 hours late.
I loved it! The steampunk, the victorian era stuff, the details, the visuals (like the colours and light in the streets and on the graveyard), and yes, even the cybermen (that I don’t usually like so much), most of all their queen and cyberzilla. What I didn’t fancy was the cyberdogs in rugs. They confused the hell out of me. What were they good for? The rest was lovely.
The cybermen storyline was good, but the “next Doctor” one was even better. I bloody loved everything about it.
Did anyone else think that this christmas special was almost a satire of new Who, with mock versions of the Doctor and all his “assets”, including a cockney girl companion?
Jackson Lake was good. Did whine a bit much. But still, such pleasure to watch.
The sad thing is… I think tonight I have finally clicked with the Tenth Doctor. He was lovely.December 26, 2008 at 10:57 pm #87882
Better than Voyage of the Damned but still stuffed with clumsy bollocks aplenty. Thankfully both Davids worked really well together so that saved it all from complete disaster. As nonsensical as it was, I liked how Tennant’s Doctor genuinely believed he had met a future incarnation and how pleased he was about it. So it was shame that the truth about Jackson Lake was so depressing. Everything hinging on the capsule was pretty weak. It should have felt like a reveal instead of *meh*.
You can’t beat seeing all 10 Doctors though. Nice idea of having all the images in black and white (probably less effort required than colourising the Hartnell and Troughton footage). What puzzles me is why RTD has waited so long to do something like this. OK there were the drawings in Human Nature but this was actual footage.December 26, 2008 at 11:28 pm #87883
>Someone tell me this though – was it severing the link that caused the Cybermen to explode? If so, that?s piss poor.
Do you mean at the end?
Not directly, I don’t think. The doctor severed the cybermen influence from the lady in red* (I’ve forgotten her name already… shame on me, she was great!) allowing her to see what she’d become. In her shock she lashed out at the Cybermen. I think she could do this as she was still linked to them or at least could still use the apparatus she was plugged into although she was no longer influenced by their ‘Cyberking’ agenda. (Albeit hers was always the controlling mind, they couldn’t control her completely, hence the changing code and the killing of the controller etc. But now the Doctor allowed her to step back further. I think that’s it.)
*That was the bit I was referring to when I said I wasn’t sure of the Doctor’s use of the capsule at the end. Those things are supposed to upload information (to a fatal extent if you take away the ‘safety’) but this seemed to take it away. I presume the Doctor uploaded a code which caused the severance… which he could do intelligent chap as he is.December 26, 2008 at 11:36 pm #87885
>What I didn?t fancy was the cyberdogs in rugs. They confused the hell out of me. What were they good for?
Again, I think that was due to the Cybermen lack of power, tech and their low numbers in that age. It’s easier to partly convert animals (I think they were supposed to be converted dogs… they weren’t very believable as dogs.) than create full cybermen. They’re still a good deal tougher and faster than people, although not as powerful as full cybermen.
Of course activating the Cyberking would change all that having a built in conversion factory.
Sorry about the atrocious run-on sentences in the first post.December 27, 2008 at 2:49 am #87887
>And I would?ve joined in but I was 24 hours late.
It’s never too late.December 27, 2008 at 9:18 pm #87893
the lady in red* (I?ve forgotten her name already? shame on me, she was great!)
Miss Hartigan. Alf’s missus.December 27, 2008 at 10:23 pm #87896
…I thought it was okay. More enjoyable than Kylie Minogue’s shenanigans but I’d have liked the whole “Next Doctor” thing to have been embraced more. I know he was supposed to be a Doctor with memory issues, but it seemed to me that after the initial meeting he just stopped having the presence of a possible replacement – that whole “I’m the Doctor! The one. The only…And the best! ;)” didn’t last very long – and had stopped being relevant by 30 minutes in.
Rosita seemed to have faith that the guy was reliable, so it would have be nice to have seen it.December 28, 2008 at 2:13 pm #87900
The Christmas Invasion>The Next Doctor>The Runaway Bride>Voyage Of The Damned
>What I didn?t fancy was the cyberdogs in rugs. They confused the hell out of me. What were they good for?
I was hoping for a big reveal of what was under the Cyber-rugs. RTD compared them to Cybermats in terms of their function.
>Rosita seemed to have faith that the guy was reliable
What a fucking terrible actress, though.December 28, 2008 at 2:57 pm #87903
Pete Part Three
The Christmas Invasion>The Next Doctor >Voyage Of The Damned>The Runaway Bride
Have yet to bother rewatching The Runaway Bride though. That may have more to do with shouty Tate than the story.
I’ll watch TND at some point, I’m sure.
It wasn’t as disappointing as The Royle Family (which was SHIT) or Wallace and Gromit (which was good but still a shadow of former glories).December 28, 2008 at 3:10 pm #87904
> The Christmas Invasion>The Next Doctor>The Runaway Bride>Voyage Of The Damned
Does anyone have any gossip about the specials? How many are we actually getting. Has it been confirmed yet?December 28, 2008 at 3:43 pm #87905
It’s been confirmed long ago that there are four specials. The precise broadcast dates are anyone’s guess, though. The assumption is that they’re all going to be in 2009 (two at easter, one in the summer, one at Christmas), but I’ve seen something that suggests that two might be in 2009 and two in 2010. Not sure how up-to-date my information is, though.December 28, 2008 at 10:10 pm #87911
> The assumption is that they?re all going to be in 2009 (two at easter, one in the summer, one at Christmas), but I?ve seen something that suggests that two might be in 2009 and two in 2010. Not sure how up-to-date my information is, though.
It’s been long confirmed that one special will be RTD/Roberts’s episode in Easter (Planet of the Dead, as we now know) a second special written by RTD/Pope broadcast whenever and then the last two as a two parter written solely by RTD. Going from his comments quoted by karl, I’ll assume that part one will be Christmas Day and the second part shortly afterwards (New Year’s day, maybe?), which will leave the RTD/Pope episode to be broadcast in Summer or Autumn.December 28, 2008 at 10:17 pm #87913
> New Year?s day, maybe?
Is that considered a good slot? I was going to say no…but in fact it’s where the Beeb have put the new Jonathan Creek. So you may well be right.December 28, 2008 at 10:52 pm #87917
Also, the Sarah Jane pilot. Although there’s no telling whether they considered the show to be a big deal at the time or not.
I dunno, I’m really struggling to work out what a good post-Christmas day slot would be and New Year’s day seems as good as any as you’ll have a huge amount of people in front of the TV, unable to move.December 28, 2008 at 11:03 pm #87919
RTD said they’re not saying when the specials are to stop ITV from planning schedules too far ahead, but that sounds like bollocks. ITV will likely put something safe like Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire up against the Easter ’09 special.
They COULD just be prolonging telling us that series 5 is gonna air autumn ’10 (with Merlin, if it gets a 3rd series, being moved to spring/summer ’11). So that would make the four specials – Easter ’09, Christmas ’09 and Easter ’10 (2-parter, last one ending with the regeneration).
It probably will keep it’s usual slot though, so that could give us Easter ’09, Halloween ’09 (falls on a Saturday!) Christmas Day ’09, which ends on a huge cliffhanger being resolved on New Year’s Day ’10.December 28, 2008 at 11:45 pm #87922
Mind you, the Sarah Jane pilot was shocking. It was a wonder it got a full season at all. At least they got rid of that black girl for the series.December 29, 2008 at 12:33 am #87924
That was so obviously set up for a Colin joke that I’m not going to make one.December 29, 2008 at 5:19 am #87931
Is that considered a good slot? I was going to say no?but in fact it?s where the Beeb have put the new Jonathan Creek. So you may well be right.
Vicar of Dibley was the fifth-highest rated show of 2007 with 13.08m, having gone out on New Year’s Day (Eastenders, the Rugby World Cup, Coronation St and Doctor Who were the only shows above it. It also beat the Xmas Day episode of the same show a week earlier, which got 12.39m)December 29, 2008 at 10:11 am #87934
>Does anyone have any gossip about the specials?
David Tennant’s last episode is called FlambatchscuddleDecember 29, 2008 at 6:17 pm #87944
David Tennant is going to regenerate in the last ’09 special. YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!December 29, 2008 at 7:15 pm #87907
Not long after typing the above question I found RTD’s feature on the Xmas special in the Radio Times.
“He’s got four more specials to film, starting in January. We’re already rebooting the computers and fuellng the engines, ready to hit the road.
The first adventure, to be shown in only a few months’ time promises to be the Doctor’s wildest, maddest yet. He won’t just be travelling without a companion, but without the Tardis, too.”
He then goes on:
“…you’ll still have David at the helm of the Tardis this time next year. But oh what a Christmas that’s going to be. Let’s just say that dark forces are gathering already. The Gate is waiting, and life will never be the same again.”
So IF we believe all that. A new special approx. Easter-time. The Doctor without the Tardis and the 2009 Xmas special will be another RTD effort.
Oh and “The Gate”? He’s put a capital on gate there so presumably it’s significant. Any ideas folk?December 30, 2008 at 1:49 am #87955
The Pearly Gate(s) leap instantly to mind.December 30, 2008 at 2:19 am #87956
I prefer to think of the Tannhauser Gate.
But since Davies was on the Next Doctor commentary wondering if the name Hartigan ever appeared anywhere before (hello Sin City) after already admitting to never seeing City of Lost Children (“But it must be a bit like this”) I’m gonna assume it’s an unlikely reference…January 2, 2009 at 4:19 pm #88059
?The name of the actor who will replace David Tennant as Doctor Who will be announced on Saturday.”
Anyone NOT expecting it to be Paterson Joseph?January 2, 2009 at 4:28 pm #88060
> Anyone NOT expecting it to be Paterson Joseph?
He’s still the most likely in my eyes, but the rumours about his casting seem like ages ago now. Plus some posters on OG spilled the beans on this special a couple of days ago, and rumours about Chitewel Ejiofor turned up very recently on those forums from the same rumour mills.
Either way, this is a fantastic way to reveal 11 to us. I’m bristling!January 2, 2009 at 4:34 pm #88062
Tomorrow? Yay! I’m nervous though! Too soon! But then, I also want to know. But maybe it would be nicer to not know until the day I actually see it for myself? But that would be impossible with the internet and all.
Help! I’m afraid of change!January 2, 2009 at 4:39 pm #88063
It is a little too soon but it seems the sensible thing to do as there’s no way in a million years they can keep this secret for much longer. In the absence of the possibility to reveal the new Doctor on Regeneration Day, this seems like the best way to get a lovely big TV event out of it all without the stress of keeping it quiet.January 2, 2009 at 4:46 pm #88064
> In the absence of the possibility to reveal the new Doctor on Regeneration Day,
That is such a shame. They should shoot five different versions. :PJanuary 2, 2009 at 4:51 pm #88065
> That is such a shame. They should shoot five different versions. :P
I Eccleston to Tennant was the closest they’d ever get to managing it. If Eccleston leaving hadn’t been leaked then the BBC wouldn’t have been forced to announce Tennant and it would’ve been the greatest moment in TV history.
A sudden thought: The Sun or someone similar are going to have a leaked confirmation of who it is tomorrow, aren’t they?January 2, 2009 at 5:16 pm #88066
The Sun? Would you trust them? Total rubbish, It said Morrisey was the next Doctor. It said Tennant was regenerating at the end of series 4. It said Tennant was regenerating at the middle of series 3. Oh and lets not forget “The Truth”.January 2, 2009 at 5:44 pm #88071
Didn’t see all this before starting a se[arate thread. Whatever, I’m not moving it.January 2, 2009 at 6:23 pm #88074
> The Sun? Would you trust them?
They’ve had plenty right, as well. Namely Cybermen vs. The Daleks and details of the series 4 finale.
But that’s irrelevant, as if they report the new Doctor tomorrow you can guarantee it’ll be a leak and that they’ll be correct.January 2, 2009 at 6:25 pm #88075
> The Sun or someone similar are going to have a leaked confirmation of who it is tomorrow, aren?t they?
They do enjoy scuppering almost every BBC Who announcement.
I think it will be Paterson Joseph, which is great, it’s brilliant in fact, but I don’t understand why they have to tell us so early. They won’t be shooting the regeneration for months so what’s the big deal? I would be really saddened if the truth was that they were scared of people’s reactions to a black Doctor and they want the extra time for people to ‘get over’ it. I firmly believe they have already been testing the waters by putting his name out there so prominently.January 2, 2009 at 6:29 pm #88077
It’s got to be next to impossible to keep the casting a secret for much longer, though. When Tennant was cast no one even knew Eccleston was leaving, but ever since October people have been desperate to know 11 is going to be. It makes sense to get the announcement out of the way.January 2, 2009 at 6:56 pm #88080
Even if The Sun is right sometimes have they ever explained why they have been wrong or apologised.January 2, 2009 at 7:05 pm #88081
It’s Dexter Fletcher folks.January 2, 2009 at 7:11 pm #88082
> Even if The Sun is right sometimes have they ever explained why they have been wrong or apologised.
If they ever did that there’d be no room for breasts and casual racism.January 2, 2009 at 7:11 pm #88083
> Even if The Sun is right sometimes have they ever explained why they have been wrong or apologised.
Over a Doctor Who story? “The Sun would like to issue an unreserved apology to anyone who read our ‘Harriet Jones becomes a Dalek’ story for any offence of inconvenience caused'”?! Come on.
They’ve got some pretty good ins with the production and have – perhaps sadly – been right much more often than they’ve been wrong.January 2, 2009 at 7:11 pm #88084
> It?s Dexter Fletcher folks.
Don’t scare me, man!January 2, 2009 at 7:21 pm #88085
I don’t want Paterson Joseph. :-(January 2, 2009 at 7:22 pm #88086
>They?ve got some pretty good ins with the production and have – perhaps sadly –
>been right much more often than they?ve been wrong.
But they should never be wrong, they ae meant to be supplying infomation, if that infomation is wrong then what are people paying for, maybe they need an apology page.
Besides why do they need to talk about Who, why can’t they print actual news which doesn’t involve TV or breasts.January 2, 2009 at 7:24 pm #88087
I’m going a bit mad posting everything I hear, as i hear it, everywhere but this:
… is interesting.
“it is not someone you will have heard of”January 2, 2009 at 7:41 pm #88089
> But they should never be wrong, they ae meant to be supplying infomation, if that infomation is wrong then what are people paying for, maybe they need an apology page.
Yes, newspapers should never be wrong. Old people should be looked after, neighbours should keep their music down and people should only post online if they have something wise to impart. But in the meantime, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that there are bigger problems in modern tabloid journalism than stories about the new Doctor Who based on misinterpreted releases.
G&T will, I’m sure, be picking up all sorts of rumours during the new Dwarf production. Knowing these guys, it’ll be safely couched as ‘this might suggest’ phrasing, but they don’t have profits to go after. When a source who’s been right most of the time brings you another good story, you run it. Being ‘mostly right’ will have to do for now. After all, whose life is seriously, detrimentally affected by a duff Who rumour?
> Besides why do they need to talk about Who, why can?t they print actual news which doesn?t involve TV or breasts.
Newspapers are a business.January 2, 2009 at 7:49 pm #88090
Newspapers are desperate, they are quickly becoming obsolete.January 2, 2009 at 8:02 pm #88097
I still want it to be Chitewel Ejiofor and failing that Paterson Joseph. If neither of those I think I could well be dissapointed.
I suppose it’s best that we find out now as it’ll all be done and dusted and all the focus can shift back on to Tennant’s depature.
There was an interesting bit from RTD the other day proclaiming that no one seemed to be discussing who the next companion was going to be and that although ‘Planet of the Dead’ didn’t feature one, the remaining three episodes would do. Could all be bollocks of course, but it is interesting. After all with the showrunner, the production team AND of course The Doctor changing over between 4.18 and 5.1 any new companion would be the one consistent.
Does anyone know if Murray Gold is staying on for Series Five?January 2, 2009 at 8:05 pm #88100
RTD has changed his tune, in DWM he said the last special had an old companion and ‘Planet of the Dead’ would have a young companion, I think it was DWM 402.January 2, 2009 at 8:05 pm #88101
> Does anyone know if Murray Gold is staying on for Series Five?
I remember an old DWM interview where he said he’d leave with RTD and co. It remains to be seen whether he’ll make good on his word. I’d certainly like to see someone else give the music a go, as good Murray can be.January 2, 2009 at 8:09 pm #88103
Oh Capps stop being right! I got all loved up on Murray Gold’s scores during The Prom yesterday, but of course someone else could be just as good, if not better.January 2, 2009 at 8:11 pm #88105
I’ve heard how fantastic that Prom show was, actually, so I’m looking forward to watching it.
I just think Murray would be leaving while he was ahead, as he’s written some amazing themes over the years, and I’d see some of the staler tendencies starting to take over more with time.January 2, 2009 at 8:14 pm #88107
All I want in terms of music for series 5 is a change in theme, I liked it in 2005, once it reached ‘Voyage of the Damned’ they ruined it.January 2, 2009 at 8:17 pm #88108
Well, if Murray goes we’ll definitely get a new arrangement. That’s arguably as exciting as having a new Doctor and head writer!January 2, 2009 at 9:10 pm #88124
I *really* want a new Tardis interior.
Although I’m not sure when they would bring this in. Either it’d have to during Tennant’s final adventures – in which case it wouldn’t be the 11th Doctor’s console room OR at the very start of Series 5. In which case it would be likely some time had elapsed between regeneration and 5.1
Actually I wonder if we will see ’11’ at the end of RTD’s reign or will we not see ’11’ until the opening moments of 5.1?January 2, 2009 at 9:12 pm #88125
If they have casted the actor already I think its safe to say he will appear at the end of 4.18.January 2, 2009 at 11:05 pm #88140
The fact that shops were getting rid of their last remaining console room playsets for ?15 a pop earlier this year suggests that we will get a new one under Moffat.
Or… ooh! Hasn’t RTD said that (at least) one of the specials will feature the Doctor travelling without the TARDIS? So maybe something happens to it, and that’s where we get a new console…
I hope so, though. The current one was great for the time, and a necessary bit of reinvention (they did so much right with it, such as what they did with the doors, and making it actually feel like the thing was being piloted), but I’d like something new. And preferably a bit lighter and whiter – like the current room looked in that weird early promo shot that I Probably Couldn’t Find If I Looked but which made it look more like the old one.January 2, 2009 at 11:15 pm #88141
> The fact that shops were getting rid of their last remaining console room playsets for ?15 a pop earlier this year suggests that we will get a new one under Moffat.
In another 18 months’ time, though. I don’t buy that as the reason. Surely it’s just they’ve been out forever and prices eventually have to come down.January 2, 2009 at 11:18 pm #88142
I saw a broken cassandra the other day in Woolworths for a pound after the money was taken off, I didn’t buy one, ?1 is too much, nobody was buying any, it was the only figure that was on the shelf, they had about twenty of them.January 2, 2009 at 11:29 pm #88143
A quid? Ah, this must mean they’re planning to redesign Cassandra! :-)January 2, 2009 at 11:41 pm #88145
Either that or nobody wants a broken cassandra, the only people I can see buying it are collectors.January 3, 2009 at 12:01 am #88151
>I don?t want Paterson Joseph. :-(
Me eitherJanuary 3, 2009 at 1:45 am #88160
Yeah, I’m not too enthusiastic about Paterson Joseph. But I’ve only seen him in Hyperdrive, Survivors and doing a ghastly American accent in Jekyll. I’ve not seen Neverwhere.
The MediaGuardian website is listing Chiwetel Ejiofor as one of the candidates but I don’t see that happening. He would definitely satisy a lot of camps if he was though – a serious actor and appeared in Serenity.January 3, 2009 at 5:40 pm #88178
Pete Part Three
Well, it doesn’t sound like it’s Patterson Joseph…January 3, 2009 at 5:48 pm #88179
We’re going to go through all ten of them before we get there, aren’t we?January 3, 2009 at 5:51 pm #88180
Pete Part Three
…sounds like Matt Smith.January 3, 2009 at 6:01 pm #88181
Pete Part Three
Looks like Matt Smith. Or Crispin Glover.January 3, 2009 at 6:01 pm #88182
And it is. I have absolutely no idea who he is, though, so can’t pass comment.January 3, 2009 at 6:06 pm #88183
Quite amusing that they filmed two different versions of DT’s “beginning of the end” line there…
And, yes, I’d never heard of him either, never seen him in anything…January 3, 2009 at 6:09 pm #88184
Now I feel old.January 3, 2009 at 6:10 pm #88185
Should be interesting – H e seems to have no lips however…..
Also, they love that Thnks Fr Th Mmrs montage dont they.January 3, 2009 at 6:15 pm #88186
He looks and sounds like a foppish rugby player. And he better sort that fucking hair out before filming.
Fuck.January 3, 2009 at 6:18 pm #88187
>Now I feel old.
Heh. I just said something similar on another board. (Referring to myself I mean. I wouldn’t talk about you like that. ;) )
I don’t really know him, although his face is vaguely familiar.
I did see part of that Victorian drama he was in with Billie Piper too, but I didn’t put the faces together.
I have my doubts, but I don’t know him so… we’ll see. He looks the part with his black outfit anyway.
I’m glad they gave an unknown the chance. It’s good to see the new up-and-comers are getting a chance.January 3, 2009 at 6:18 pm #88188
Pete Part Three
I have a feeling he’ll be bloody good.
But I was concerned that Moffat likes his hair too. It’s a bit of a mess.
He’s also got an amazingly small face. I wonder if he has trouble eating Giant Smarties.January 3, 2009 at 6:18 pm #88189
Yeah, there’s no reason it shouldn’t work out. It might not but at this stage I’m okay with it. Though there is something irritating about the kind of self-congratulation we’re getting in this programme 15 months before we really see the new Doctor in action, 6 months before they start filming and probably still while the new Doctor is starting to be defined. ‘He’s the one isn’t he?’ – save it for an edition of Series 5 Doctor Who Confidential.January 3, 2009 at 6:22 pm #88190
Moffat has hair like an action manJanuary 3, 2009 at 6:31 pm #88191
Jason aka Smeg4Brains
> Moffat has hair like an action man
I knew I recognised it from somewhere.
And I’ve never really seen Matt in action but from those clips they showed, I’m rather happy with the choice.January 3, 2009 at 6:40 pm #88192
I was secretly rooting for Chiwetel Ejiofor.
Oh well. I have some faith in the makes of Who. They probably picked the right person. Or one of the many that would have been right. I think I’ll be… carefully optimistic.January 3, 2009 at 7:29 pm #88193
I didn’t like him in Ruby In The Smoke, but I saw the understudy run of That Face (which therefore he wasn’t in) and he had a very demanding part and got very good reviews.
I’m keeping an open mind. I’m trying not to think he’s too young.January 3, 2009 at 7:32 pm #88194
I have absolutely no idea who the guy is, hence I have no opinion at all.
Although I’m rather disturbed that they’re going for younger and younger doctors.January 3, 2009 at 8:28 pm #88196
It’s funny some of you say you haven’t heard of him, but in the Movie thread, you mention in Bruges. He played young Harry.January 3, 2009 at 9:59 pm #88200
>It?s funny some of you say you haven?t heard of him, but in the Movie thread, you mention in Bruges. He played young Harry.
I honestly don’t even remember where or in what context a young version of Harry appeared (Ralph Fiennes as the adult version is only in it for about ten minutes or so), or whether he had any dialogue, so it’s hardly a surprise that no-one would go “Oh! THAT Matt Smith!”January 3, 2009 at 10:04 pm #88201
>Who has a bright future wants up-his-arse RTD leaves
Yeah, the future is so bright, much brigher than a past in which it’s become the biggest programme on British TV, where a casting announcement holds the country in its thrall and is front page national news, where it tops the weekly ratings for the first time in its history, and where it includes episodes such as “Blink”, “Human Nature” and “Midnight”.January 3, 2009 at 10:17 pm #88202
It is popular and I higly enjoy it but I hate RTD as a person, I will be much happier when he is far away from the show so I don’t have to here is up-he-arse comments about how great he is and how great the show is because it is all him being up his arse.
Oh and ‘Blink’ was barely average if you ask me, the show is not called The amazing adventure of Sally Sparrow and co, I want to see the Doctor! And please, it is easy to blink one eye at a time, try it.
‘Human Nature’ was based on a virgin novel, hardly an original idea but a great two parter.
‘Midnight’ was repetitive and boring and too unoriginal for me.
Lets name more popular episodes of the new series –
‘Dalek’ – Based on an audio called ‘Jubilee’, it was about half as good.
‘Doomsday’ – Hoover! I would like to re-name it “Canon Fodder of the Daleks’. RTD has actually said in an interview that this episode was to show how much better the Dalek swere to the Cybermen, shame he didn’t use the Cybermen, he used some weird alternative robot.
‘The Empty Child’ – Brilliant, you can see why Moffat is getting the job.
‘Girl in the Fireplace’ – Brilliant, you can see why Moffat is getting the job.
‘Silence in the Library’ – Do I have to say it again.
Lest we not forget the biggest punch in teh face for every hardcore Doctor Who fan in the shit fest that was ‘Last of the Time Lords’, hello gollum, my you look like David Tennant, hello Jesus, my you look like David Tennant. Lets all think world peace at the same time all across the world and see if it happens.
As much as it seems I dis-like the new series I do enjoy it, I look forward to 2010 alot. It is just annoying because I enjoy the Confidential show and it is full of RTD comments which are just him being up his own arse. He is a good writer as long as he sticks to small scale character driven plots, he needs some original ideas though.January 3, 2009 at 10:17 pm #88197
He seems to be alot like McGann, maybe it is just me hoping but I think he will be a mix of Davison and McGann. Funny on certain forums they are saying he is too young when Davison was only a couple of years older, I doubt they would have liked anyone who took the part unless it was Tennant’s evil twin brother or Billie Piper.
Well its got me exited, Who has a bright future once up-his-arse RTD leaves, I was never so bitter to RTD until I listened to Big Finish Audio and saw just how much he steals.January 3, 2009 at 10:19 pm #88205
> It?s funny some of you say you haven?t heard of him, but in the Movie thread, you mention in Bruges. He played young Harry.
I honestly don’t remember him.
> Funny on certain forums they are saying he is too young when Davison was only a couple of years older
He’s not “too young”, it’s just that I would have welcomed a more mature actor.
Someone said earlier in the thread that’d they’d like to see another grandfather figure, and I agree. Far more interesting.January 3, 2009 at 10:22 pm #88206
While I would like a grandfather figure I doubt it would work in modern day Who, the audience would go crazy, especially the fan-girls.January 3, 2009 at 10:32 pm #88208
I quite like this – http://thisisnotthedoctor.ytmnd.com/January 3, 2009 at 10:40 pm #88210
but I hate RTD as a person, I will be much happier when he is far away from the show so I don?t have to here is up-he-arse comments about how great he is and how great the show is because it is all him being up his arse.
Sigh. Alright. You’ve got a perception of him (although saying you “hate him as a person” when you’ve never met him is a bit rich) that’ll probably never change, although if you read the Writer’s Tale you’d know that underneath all that bombast (which is a quite deliberate put-on in order to help boost the show in a promotional sense – and besides, the very concept of a modest writer is a self-defeating one. We feign self-deprecation but if we didn’t think what we did was any good, we wouldn’t be putting it out there) is a human being with as many insecurities and neuroses as anyone else.
The RTD that you see in Confidential is as much a fictional creation as a certain Time Lord that he writes about.
Oh and ?Blink? was barely average if you ask me
And with that you’ve just lost the right to talk to me.
?Human Nature? was based on a virgin novel, hardly an original idea but a great two parter.
… scripted by the person that wrote the original.
?Midnight? was repetitive and boring and too unoriginal for me.
What was unoriginal about it?
?Dalek? – Based on an audio called ?Jubilee?, it was about half as good.
… scripted by the person that wrote the original.January 3, 2009 at 10:56 pm #88212
Oh and just because I don’t like ‘Blink’ you think my opinion is no longer valid, we are all different, if we were all the same ‘ME2’ would happen. I think ‘Blink’ would probably be average for me if it wasn’t so overhyped, to me I watch Who to see that over-active alien from Gallifrey, not some bird (that is a double entendre) scared of statues, I do understand what that episode was about but I just didn’t find it entertaining in the end, I guess when Who tries to be out-right scary I just lose interest.January 3, 2009 at 11:00 pm #88211
They are written by the same guy in each cases but why? Why not get the guy who written ‘Jubilee’ and say write something original, I hate them re-making previous Who, why re-make it when you have a universe of ideas to explore.
‘Midnight’ was alot like ‘The Edge of Destruction’ in that an unknown alien was outside the ship and attacking, the crew aboard become suspicious of each other.
I have never met RTD but comments from him about people on message boards who don’t like his episodes are just, well, it is a bit up his arse of him to say we can’t not like his episode and discuss it isn’t it?January 3, 2009 at 11:07 pm #88213
Probably best if this thread dies now.January 3, 2009 at 11:10 pm #88214
>Oh and just because I don?t like ?Blink? you think my opinion is no longer valid
I was quoting…January 3, 2009 at 11:15 pm #88215
Why not get the guy who written ?Jubilee? and say write something original, I hate them re-making previous Who, why re-make it when you have a universe of ideas to explore.
Well, how many people do you think have read Human Nature? A couple of hundred thousand, if that? How many people will have seen the TV version, in total? Close to ten million? Isn’t it good that Cornell gets to see what was, let’s face it, a bloody brilliant story brought to a wider audience?
I have never met RTD but comments from him about people on message boards who don?t like his episodes are just, well, it is a bit up his arse of him to say we can?t not like his episode and discuss it isn?t it?
Have you actually read what he says, or are you just taking it second-hand or going by assumption? Because he doesn’t say that people can’t like his episodes. What he doesn’t like is people making personal attacks against people like Helen Raynor.January 3, 2009 at 11:35 pm #88216
How do I quote?
I guess you are right about ‘Human Nature’, it is good to see it reach a bigger audience, its just I prefer it when Who goes into new original directions.
Anyway I have read several interviews were RTD says fans on message boards don’t like his episodes and has mocked people on message boards, I don’t attack him personally until he does it to me. In one interview he compared fans to mosquitoes, too far I think, fine don’t like people on message boards but don;t mock us!
I think when people attack RTD for being gay or for any other reason it is wrong accept for his writing, they can say they can hate an episode and even attack the episode (though not really apt word to use). He is in the proffesion of writing so when he says in interviews that people on message boards are like mosquitoes for mocking an episode of his then he should really stop working for such a high profile show, wait a minute.
I actually like alot of RTDs episodes (Partners in Crime, Journeys End, Smith and Jones, The Christmas Invasion, The Next Doctor) and over all I praise them more than I bash episodes I hate (Parting of the Ways, Doomsday, Last of the Time Lords, Voyage of the Damned) and many other people on message boards are the same. Over all I just think certain comments from him have gotten me angry and have just led me to dis-like the guy, he is a good writer and a funny guy but he offends me too much.January 3, 2009 at 11:39 pm #88217
Pete Part Three
>I think ?Blink? would probably be average for me if it wasn?t so overhyped, to me I watch Who to see that over-active alien from Gallifrey, not some bird (that is a double entendre) scared of statues
SoundableObject; you’re obviously quite a big fan of Doctor Who, whereas muggins here has no interest in looking at the show pre-McGann days. However, I can say with absolute sincerity that Blink is the finest piece of TV Drama of the last ten years, regardless of how much the title character appears.January 3, 2009 at 11:41 pm #88218
>SoundableObject; you?re obviously quite a big fan of Doctor Who
Was it my DVD collection behind Mr Flibble that shown you?January 3, 2009 at 11:50 pm #88220
However, I can say with absolute sincerity that Blink is the finest piece of TV Drama of the last ten years, regardless of how much the title character appears.
Yes! I actually enjoy the fact that the Doctor has a small role in this episode. It’s a chance to do something different, and episodes without the Doctor are very much in the minimum anyway. How many have there been in new Who? Three? Four?
Also, one of the interesting things about Blink! is that, although the Doctor’s role is small, it is still very central in it’s own way in the sense that he has the key required for the plot resolution. Ultimately it’s still about him, even though you might miss him if you … blink. (Sorry, couldn’t resist. Corny I know.)January 3, 2009 at 11:54 pm #88221
>How do I quote?
You can use the blockquote tag. i.e [blockquote] [/blockquote]
Just replace the square brackets for angular.January 4, 2009 at 12:00 am #88222
Sorry, I’ve been away. Has anything happened in the last few hours?
So. Matt Smith. He’s currently presenting the Football highlights on ITV1, doesn’t seem very Doctory.
I jest, of course. I know it’s not *that* Matt Smith.
Initial reaction? “Oh-kay…” It could have been a hell of a lot worse. I’m glad they didn’t go for a really established, star name, actor. Glad it’s not a woman/kid/token black/ethnic actor.
Not really aware of much of his stuff – I watched The Ruby in the Smoke, but couldn’t really tell you much about him.
My sister thinks he has a head shaped like a peanut, and hair like a walnut whip, but he has an oddness about him, which I think could work.
A bit worried he could be a bit, well, Emo, but, as has been discussed here and elsewhere, Steven Moffat has shown that he is a man who can be trusted in these matters…January 4, 2009 at 12:01 am #88223
You can use the blockquote tag. i.e [blockquote] [/blockquote]
Just replace the square brackets for angular.
Thanks!January 4, 2009 at 12:18 am #88225
You have to read this. This is brilliant…January 4, 2009 at 12:23 am #88226
>Glad it?s not a woman/kid/token black/ethnic actor
What would make an ethnic actor ‘token’, then? Would *anyone* ethnic be token or does is tokenness something only a few actors possess?January 4, 2009 at 12:24 am #88227
If it was a black actor he would be shrouded by that fact and not by the fact that he is the 11th Doctor. Even if he wasn’t “token” he would always be seen that way by the media which is a great shame.January 4, 2009 at 12:27 am #88228
I think that’s balls, I’m afraid. And even if it was true, it’s no reason *not* to hire someone black.January 4, 2009 at 12:30 am #88229
I don’t think the production team were against a black Doctor, they just found the person they thought were best, I don’t doubt the award winning writer on his choice.January 4, 2009 at 12:32 am #88230
> fine don?t like people on message boards but don;t mock us!
Yeah, because that’s a depth online posters would never stoop to. Come on…January 4, 2009 at 12:37 am #88231
> I don?t think the production team were against a black Doctor
I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. I was just a little troubled by si seemingly lumping all black or ethnic possibilities as “token”.January 4, 2009 at 12:38 am #88232
I think that’s being a bit presumptious. Yes it’s naive to think that it wouldn’t be mentioned at all, but if you excuse my wording I don’t think it’s so black and white. A lot of people were very excited about the idea of Paterson Joseph or Chiwetel Ejiofor simply because they are brilliant actors. One benefit of a talented black actor getting the role is that any subsequent casting of a black actor wouldn’t carry anywhere near as much stigma.January 4, 2009 at 12:50 am #88235
Justified?January 4, 2009 at 1:13 am #88239
And Karl gets 200 points for correctness.January 4, 2009 at 1:17 am #88233
> fine don?t like people on message boards but don;t mock us!
Yeah, because that?s a depth online posters would never stoop to. Come on?
High profile writers such as himself should really take the higher ground don’t you think, some people on message boards are idiots who mock the person, RTD is just copying them and is no better, so when he acts like he is better then them I just feel he is a little, whats the word?January 4, 2009 at 1:37 am #88240
SoundableObject – every time you edit your posts they move to the bottom of the forum. Unless the change is really vital, once people have replied it’s best to leave them alone for the sake of the clear flow of discussion.January 4, 2009 at 1:43 am #88241
Yes, I’m sorry, I done it once and it did change the flow of the discussion, the next time it didn’t really matter, if it does change the flow of the discussion I will leave my spelling errors alone.January 4, 2009 at 1:55 am #88242
Where as I don’t agree with SO’s tone, I do think that RTD can be a huge pillock with his comments at times. He clearly has massive problems with OG (no right minded shouldn’t have problems with it, really) but his blanket chastising of ‘the Internet’ can seem horribly petty. It’s not *always* a bad thing that a large number of people can have their opinions aired, you know, and a great deal of those opinions are well considered and fair, even if they are sometimes saying that Helen Raynor has written two mainly rubbish stories.
Back to Matt Smith (I’m trying to resist the temptation to moan about his boring, unmemorable name as I’ve already been told off for doing that by Julian and Gav) I now have a nice hi definition picture of him and the TARDIS as my background to try and hammer the imagry into my head and see if grows on me. I think it’s a bit of a mistake to show him with the TARDIS, though, as it implies that what he’ll look like as The Doctor, which simply can’t be something that’s been decided yet.January 4, 2009 at 1:57 am #88243
(On the subject of the post editing bug, this *is* going to be fixed soon when G&T moves over to a more recent and better version of Drupal. We’re gonna need a more robust back-end (oooh pardon!) for the hopefully very busy period to come.January 4, 2009 at 2:01 am #88244
His hair is very ‘Flock of Seagulls’. Clearly this was inspired by my attempted New-Romantic Doctor at the Series 3 party a few of us had.January 4, 2009 at 2:17 am #88245
> If it was a black actor he would be shrouded by that fact
As opposed to being shrouded by his evil black skin. Black. Black!! Like the clouds of DEATH that follow me into the forest of DOOM and hide in the wardrobe of DARKNESS! BLACK! BLACK!! I’m a fly trapped in a bottle of SHADOWS!!
We could never have had a black Doctor. I mean, we wouldn’t have been able to see him on the front of the annuals! and Silence In The Library would never have worked!January 4, 2009 at 3:02 am #88247
And the thing about space, your basic space colour…January 4, 2009 at 10:48 am #88251
Is it wrong that I’m quite taken with this bit of BBC News imagery?January 4, 2009 at 11:36 am #88252
I have the larger version of that as my desktop in an attempt to hammer the imagery into my head. It is a lovely photo, though, but I’m not sure it was wise putting him with the TARDIS as it gives the impression that we’re seeing a fully realised Doctor rather than Matt Smith.January 4, 2009 at 12:59 pm #88253
When I mentioned that ‘token’ thing, I wasn’t meaning to sound so pompous or political. What I meant was that the press would be reporting on ‘The first Black Doctor’, in the same way as they would have reported on ‘The first female Doctor’, as opposed to ‘The Eleventh Doctor’. Okay, so as it is, we’ve got ‘The Youngest Doctor’, but that’s nothing.
Another thing. A point I wanted to make, without wanting to sound just as pompous and political, is that although the Doctor can change his body, all those years ago, he was born a White Male. If he could change into a woman, then surely you wouldn’t be able to differentiate between Time Lords and Ladies, yes? And so, I’d argue that skin tone isn’t so easily changed either – it’s not a matter of race, just remaining as you were born. Please don’t get upperty with me. I’m not a barrister, just expressing my thoughts.
Plus, I didn’t want Paterson Joseph or Catherine Zeta Jones.January 4, 2009 at 1:01 pm #88254
Is that the final costume? A dark Columbo? The Time Detective. It must be. To show it this way, it would be silly to have him in bright pink in the regeneration.January 4, 2009 at 1:10 pm #88256
Dark Victoriana would be nice.January 4, 2009 at 1:34 pm #88259
> You have to read this. This is brilliant?
Those were my thoughts as well. That’d be quite a stunt.
> Dark Victoriana would be nice.
Yeah… and it’d be popular with the fangirls as well, I’m sure.January 4, 2009 at 2:55 pm #88263
> And so, I?d argue that skin tone isn?t so easily changed either – it?s not a matter of race, just remaining as you were born.
While gender on Gallifrey is confirmed as relevant – people marry and breed – we don’t know that skin colour serves any purpose to them beyond an aesthetic one. If it is only a matter of appearance, then skin tone is reasonably as changeable as height, mouth shape, and eye or hair colour. All are generated the same way – which is to say not, as on Earth, simply via genetic heritage.
As far as I know, there is no biological imperative that separates black from white which is akin to that which separates male from female. If a Time Lord’s wife awakes on day to find her husband is a woman, she has to change sexuality for the relationship to continue, which is ridiculous. If she wakes to find he’s gone from white to black, they’re fine. Unless she’s a member of the Gallifreyan Klan.January 4, 2009 at 3:13 pm #88267
> she has to change sexuality for the relationship to continue
Homophobe!January 4, 2009 at 6:02 pm #88287
I love that photo and the black suit works well I think.
P J Holden, an artist who has done a lot of work for 2000 AD did this excellent little caricature:
He went for more Baker-type garb what with the scarf, but I think it’s great.January 4, 2009 at 6:30 pm #88291
In regards to the skin tone issue, something is tugging at the back of my mind from my academic days – I dont know how to phrase this as succinctly as I maybe should, but theres something about whether someone has black skin/features or white skin/features being a smaller difference on a genetic level than height, build, ear shape, mouth size, loads of other little minutae. Which, if you look at previous regenerations, never seemed to be a concern.January 4, 2009 at 6:39 pm #88293
>Probably best if this thread dies now.
It seems to have rallied and become relevent again. I’ve decided it’s best that I don’t comment on some of what’s been said.January 4, 2009 at 7:32 pm #88296
Can’t someone start a new thread entitled ‘Matt Smith – The Eleventh Doctor’ or something? then we can start over.January 4, 2009 at 8:32 pm #88297
Do we know how tall Matt Smith is?January 4, 2009 at 9:28 pm #88301
I’m no good at guessing the height of people, but I’d say he’s 18 million feet tall.January 5, 2009 at 9:57 am #88308
> I?ve decided it?s best that I don?t comment on some of what?s been said.
Hmm. Dangling a carrot much? Out with it! Otherwise why bother commenting at all?January 5, 2009 at 11:06 am #88311
And he better sort that fucking hair out before filming.
I think he should keep it his interview look (just not that last shot on Confidential) because those clips of what he’s been in didn’t really give me any optimisim. Unlike Casanova for Tennant. In my opinion.January 5, 2009 at 12:14 pm #88315
I think he should be CLEARLY distinguishable from Tennant’s Doctor, with his own unique look, and that means abandon the crazy hair, or give him an altogether different type of crazy hair.January 5, 2009 at 12:18 pm #88317
Or shave it off all together! Doctor X!
Ok, maybe not…
It’s weird as I found his hair annoying…. yet I think it fits the character well.January 5, 2009 at 12:32 pm #88320
Maybe he should shave all his hair off, black-up and base his entire persona on the Marquis de Carabas from Neverwhere.
It’s only a thought.
Has anyone seen Gaiman’s journal? I’d love it for him to write a Who episode and if it’s in the Moffat-era all the better.January 5, 2009 at 12:38 pm #88321
I don’t read Gaiman’s blog, but I open it every two weeks or so and do a text search for “doctor”.
I, too, want this.January 5, 2009 at 12:58 pm #88322
>Dangling a carrot much?
Look at my beautiful carrot
>It is popular and I higly enjoy it
Have some gratitude then
>but I hate RTD as a person
As opposed to what? As a Louis XV chair? A pipecleaner? A papercut?
>I will be much happier when he is far away from the show so I don?t have to here is up-he-arse comments about how great he is and how great the show is because it is all him being up his arse.
>Oh and ?Blink? was barely average if you ask me
No one did.
>the show is not called The amazing adventure of Sally Sparrow and co, I want to see the Doctor!
And you did, more than you did in The Keys Of Marinus Parts 2 & 3, Mission To The Unknown, or The Massacre Parts 2 & 3 all of which went out under the banner Doctor Who. The effects of the Doctor’s travels on other people is a perfectly valid thing to explore, especially when revealing too much about your leading man is seen as unravelling the myth. The Doctor’s involvement in the episode as a fixed unchanging point was a very clever device.
>it is easy to blink one eye at a time, try it.
It’s called a wink
>?Human Nature? was based on a virgin novel
I haven’t read Human Nature and I probably never will, I loved the episodes, I loved Jessica Hynes, I loved Tennant’s performance.
>hardly an original idea but a great two parter.
I will grant you that ‘What if the Doctor were human?’ is not the hugest of intuitive leaps, but no one acted upon it before Paul Cornell. Give the man his dues. The setting, the tone of piece, the other characters are all beautifully chosen and balanced.
>?Midnight? was repetitive and boring and too unoriginal for me.
I think you’ve missed the point, but I forgive.
>?Dalek? – Based on an audio called ?Jubilee?, it was about half as good.
Dalek owes a debt to Jubilee, but it is not based slavishly on it, plus Jubilee struggles to fill 4 episodes even with a ‘who-is-that-mysterious-wheelchair-user’ subplot.
>?Doomsday? – Hoover! I would like to re-name it ?Canon Fodder of the Daleks?
Knock yourself out.
>shame he didn?t use the Cybermen, he used some weird alternative robot.
They are Cybermen, get over it.
>?The Empty Child? – Brilliant, you can see why Moffat is getting the job.
>?Girl in the Fireplace? – Brilliant, you can see why Moffat is getting the job.
It’s obviously far easier to write one or two episodes a year than it is to orchestrate 14. I don’t think know yet how many episodes Moffat will actually write in Season 5 but I predict less than RTD.
>?Silence in the Library? – Do I have to say it again.
>Lest we not forget the biggest punch in teh face for every hardcore Doctor Who fan in the shit fest that was ?Last of the Time Lords?, hello gollum, my you look like David Tennant, hello Jesus, my you look like David Tennant.
Some hardcore Doctor Who fans need a big punch in the face. I didn’t like the gollum-esque Doctor either but to call the entire episode a shit fest is a bit of a stretch.
>Lets all think world peace at the same time all across the world and see if it happens.
Don’t knock it ’til you’ve tried it.
>As much as it seems I dis-like the new series I do enjoy it
It doesn’t seem like you enjoy it all. It barely seems like you deserve it.
>It is just annoying because I enjoy the Confidential show and it is full of RTD comments which are just him being up his own arse.
There it is again
>He is a good writer as long as he sticks to small scale character driven plots,
>he needs some original ideas though.
>Well its got me exited, Who has a bright future once up-his-arse RTD leaves
There it is again.
>I was never so bitter to RTD until I listened to Big Finish Audio and saw just how much he steals
Borrowed. With consent.
>not some bird (that is a double entendre) scared of statues,
If you have to tell me it’s a double entendre then it’s not a double entendre.
>I guess when Who tries to be out-right scary I just lose interest.
You are going to hate Series 5.
>Midnight? was alot like ?The Edge of Destruction? in that an unknown alien was outside the ship and attacking
That isn’t what happens in The Edge of Destruction.
>I don?t attack him personally until he does it to me
I think he?s sat at a keyboard right now writing SoundableObject is up his own arse
>over all I praise them more than I bash episodes I hate
Very magnanimous of you
>Glad it?s not a woman/kid/token black/ethnic actor.
How could casting a black Doctor be token?
>I don?t doubt the award winning writer on his choice
RTD is an award winning writer who made a pretty good choice too.
>some people on message boards are idiots who mock the person
I?d agree with thatJanuary 5, 2009 at 1:00 pm #88323
> I think he?s sat at a keyboard right now writing SoundableObject is up his own arse
Hahaha!January 5, 2009 at 1:25 pm #88324
> *Moffat will actually write in Season 5 but I predict less than RTD.
This just made me think. One thing I’m really going to miss in season 5 is ‘The Moffat episode’. Presumably he’ll do the opener, season finale and maybe one or two more to move the arc along, but I won’t get that here comes the higlight of my series feeling anymore. Still hopefully Cornell, Gaiman etc will be drafted in and it won’t be missed.
Smith mentioned that he had read scripts for episodes 1 and 4. It’s an assumption but the opener has to be Moff surely? I would assume the finale would be as well and hopefully that episode 4 script too. So that’s at least three.January 5, 2009 at 1:52 pm #88325
>>I guess when Who tries to be out-right scary I just lose interest.
>You are going to hate Series 5.
I doubt Moffat will make it out right scary all the way through, I think he will move to comedy for atleast the first episode.
>>Midnight? was alot like ?The Edge of Destruction? in that an unknown alien was outside the ship and attacking
>That isn?t what happens in The Edge of Destruction.
I used the wrong word, unknown force was disrupting the TARDIS, ‘Midnight’ was a little too much like ‘The Edge of Destruction’ for me, not to say it wasn’t a good episode, I just think many new series episodes get too much praise, ‘Blink’ and ‘Doomsday’ mainly.
Matt Smith mentioned he read episode 1 and 4 and it sounded like Moffat written both of them.
By the way I wouldn’t watch the new series if I wasn’t a fan, episodes like ‘Last of the Time Lords’ make me angry when they are meant to be epic and have the opposite effect (ever heard of less is more?) but so do classic series episodes, ‘Time and the Rani’ is the definition of pile of shit.
I seem bitter to the new series because it is not what it used to be or what it is in Big Finish, the viewer deserves more than CGI that really is not very good in the first place compared with other shows, ‘The Lazerus Emperiment’ was terrible. RTD written an intelligent storyline in ‘The Next Doctor’ but look what happened, big CGI robot, what was the point? It didn’t ruin the episode but it would have been alot better without it, one is reminded of the robot from ‘Robot’, couldn’t they learn it was a bad idea then, it is a bad idea now.
I also think RTD is pushing the “gay” agenda down too much, “not that theres anything wrong with that” as in being gay but looking over episodes I am just shocked by the amount of gay characters, it is unrealistic, I have nothing wrong with a gay character but the amount he bringsd in is just sticking it too far down us, why didn’t he bring in a gay companion, does Jack count?
I don’t want an intelligent story every time, RTD gets the definition of fun romp perfect in his opening stories, they set a great tone for the rest of the series.January 5, 2009 at 2:02 pm #88326
I actually thought RTD was going to push a gay agenda more so than I think he ever did. Captain Jack as a companion is always such a joy and I love the playful sexual aspect he brought to the show without ever manifestly shoving it down your throat.
Torchwood is obviously far more in your face, but then why shouldn’t homosexuality and bisexuality be upfront and a huge part of the mix in a spin-off show that’s always been pushed as an adult sci-fi show. My only trouble with Torchwood is that… well it’s shit.January 5, 2009 at 2:02 pm #88327
> I am just shocked by the amount of gay characters, it is unrealistic,
How many gay characters are there in Doctor Who? I’ve seen them all now and I can remember really only Jack Harkness. How could that be unrealistically many?! (If even the realistic 10-30% of characters in Who were gay or bi, I would’ve noticed!!)January 5, 2009 at 2:04 pm #88328
>>the show is not called The amazing adventure of Sally Sparrow and co, I want to see the Doctor!
>And you did, more than you did in The Keys Of Marinus Parts 2 & 3, Mission To The Unknown, or The Massacre Parts 2 & 3 all of which went out under the banner Doctor Who. The effects of the Doctor?s travels on other people is a perfectly valid thing to explore, especially when revealing too much about your leading man is seen as unravelling the myth. The Doctor?s involvement in the episode as a fixed unchanging point was a very clever device.
I saw a repeat of the Doctor in DVDs and two scenes with him in, in stories you mentioned and I can add ‘The Seeds of Death’ to that the person playing teh Doctor needed a holiday, through each of those episodes the companion took centre stage, like in ‘Turn Left’, it still felt like Doctor Who, ‘Blink’ did not, it felt as I said like the amazing adventures of Sally Sparrow.
‘Mission to the Unknown’ was about the Daleks, when you see the Daleks it feels like Who.
>>shame he didn?t use the Cybermen, he used some weird alternative robot.
>They are Cybermen, get over it.
They are made on a parralel earth and not Mondas or Telos, not the proper Cybermen, I call them Cybusmen.January 5, 2009 at 2:07 pm #88329
Pete Part Three
>not some bird (that is a double entendre) scared of statues
And to say that Turn Left is better than Blink is WRONG.
Aside from that, Last of the Time Lords was pretty shit.January 5, 2009 at 2:12 pm #88330
The old women in ‘Gridlock’, they have two guys in ‘The unicorn and the Wasp’. ‘Voyage of the Damned’ has one doesn’t it?
Jack is a great companion, while he doesn’t push it down you he is still obvious, don’t know how its done.
I think most gay people are not really obvious about it, I don’t see why he can’t just make a characters with an unspecified sexuality.
I do think characters like Jack are needed though, a positive gay role model leads children away from seeing it as a bad thing as is the perspective today from many kids, I just think Jack has done the job and now is in Torchwood, no more needed to be that obvious.January 5, 2009 at 2:14 pm #88331
>And to say that Turn Left is better than Blink is WRONG.
No, it is an opinion which alot of people disagree with, if everyone in the word thought I was wrong it doesn’t mean I am, it just means I have different taste.January 5, 2009 at 2:19 pm #88332
> when you see the Daleks it feels like Who.
Maybe I’m unique in this but this isn’t me. My first Who memories were the end of the Baker.C era and then Bonnie Langford, McCoy and Ace. I went to MOMI to see a some Doctor Who exhibits when I was a bit older and the combination of that and scattered old Who eps on UK Gold mean that for me Who = being slightly scared/creeped out and yet exhilirated about what I was seeing and the infinite cosmos. The monsters I associate this with are Sea Monsters, Sontarans and a man-size Bertie Bassett.
So for me ‘Blink’ was every bit a Who episode. Sally Sparrow = us. The viewer. A normal person, bit inqusitive and one of the classic all-time Doctor Who monsters – An enemy who only moves when you’re not looking. Instead of just idly sitting by and watching the Doctor wave his sonic screwdriver and fix everything he can only offer guidance and the human, the person we all could be is the one who has to work it all out. It’s bloody brilliant.
> Sally Swallows?
Have I told you lately that I love you?January 5, 2009 at 2:25 pm #88333
I guess since I got into Who in 2003 it was the point were it could not be scary just entertaining. The only enemy that has sent a chill down my spine was the Dalek in ‘The Dalek Invasion of Earth’ coming out of the Water, now that was brilliant, coming out of the sand was not such a good idea though as is seen in ‘The Chase’. I’m not a guy to watch a scary film, don’t see the point really, I would rather watch a comedy, a smart film or an action film so when I watch Who I would rather it be a comedy, a smart story or full of action (The latest Sontaran two parter, spot on).January 5, 2009 at 2:36 pm #88334
> I don?t see why he can?t just make a characters with an unspecified sexuality.
I don’t see why you think every character with an unspecified sexuality to be heterosexual.January 5, 2009 at 2:40 pm #88335
The old women in ?Gridlock?, they have two guys in ?The unicorn and the Wasp?. ?Voyage of the Damned? has one doesn?t it?
That’s not that many if you think about it. Especially as they’re scattered about. There are a lot more homosexual people than you might think. Two of my closest female friends are inclined that way (one gay, the other sort-of-bi), and I didn’t meet them in a gay club, this is pure coincidence. If there’s such a thing.) If I were a character in a book that might look unrealistic or as if the author had a gay agenda. (Or I’m just the unluckiest single guy in the universe. ;) )
It did get ridiculous in Torchwood though… Everyone in the team having inclinations that way? (Sure Gwen was under the influence but even so..)January 5, 2009 at 2:45 pm #88336
> I also think RTD is pushing the ?gay? agenda down too much
How did I know that was coming…
> I am just shocked by the amount of gay characters, it is unrealistic,
The fact that you’re ‘shocked’ at the number of gay characters only shows how necessary the agenda is, frankly. Are you shocked at the number of black characters, too?
‘Unrealistic’ is my favourite, though. Unless you it’s well over, say, ten percent of the characters seen (you’ve named six in four years), it’s not only realistic, it’s STILL under-representative.
> They are made on a parralel earth and not Mondas or Telos, not the proper Cybermen,
> I?m not a guy to watch a scary film, don?t see the point really
Then could it be that the issue of Who’s scariness is yours rather than the shows? Where did you think all the ‘behind the sofa’ stories came from? What did you think people meant when they said they were scared by Midnight, Blink, The Empty Child, The Impossible Planet? It’s not a mass hallucination.
> The latest Sontaran two parter, spot on.
And there you have it.January 5, 2009 at 2:47 pm #88337
> > I don?t see why he can?t just make a characters with an unspecified sexuality.
> I don?t see why you think every character with an unspecified sexuality to be heterosexual.
Marleen being brilliant, there.
The women in Gridlock were married. That’s all. Two married people. Donna’s parents were married, too. What crazy, heterosexual propaganda!January 5, 2009 at 2:50 pm #88338
> The old women in ?Gridlock?, they have two guys in ?The unicorn and the Wasp?. ?Voyage of the Damned? has one doesn?t it?
So that’s 4 gay characters then and we’ve had what 56 (?) episodes of New Who. Right let’s have some fun with Maths. How many characters would you say the Doctor meets in an average adventure..one? two, three? Let’s go with three although it’s often more.
3 * 52 = 158. 4 / 158 = 0.025. Convert that as a percentage and we’ve 2.5%
And our survey says…
SIX PERCENT! Crikey. RTD better bring back The Master and Davros for a big ol’ gay-romp-gang-bang-finale!! Throw in a couple of Dalek’s too.
> I think most gay people are not really obvious about it,
Repression? Homophobia? Perhaps we should consider alien concepts here that don’t include flying pepperpots and men in tin-foil suits.
> I don?t see why he can?t just make a characters with an unspecified sexuality.
Like for instance every character who isn’t shown to have a romantic involvement.January 5, 2009 at 2:54 pm #88339
> It did get ridiculous in Torchwood though? Everyone in the team having inclinations that way? (Sure Gwen was under the influence but even so..)
Of course a women with Lesbian tendencies won’t do a thing for the average red-blooded male Torchwood viewer.January 5, 2009 at 3:10 pm #88340
There have been more than the ones I mentioned, just can’t remember now. It is right to discuss the issues in a kids show buit not to continue using it, just do that and then carry on.
I have two friends who are gay, both rescent too, I have nothing wrong with people being gay though I am in the field which believes it is biological rather then a choice.
Yes the “gay” thing is brought up alot, it is because this is a kids show, we have had Jack and he comes back regualry, obviously gay but who cares, with other characters it is completely irelevant to the plot and put in their for the sake of it promoting “gay” which I feel is not needed.
>> They are made on a parralel earth and not Mondas or Telos, not the proper Cybermen,
They are made on different worlds and are completely different things, Cybusmen are brains in a big shell, the Cybermen are humans who were dying and so needed to survive by adding mechanical parts to themselves. I found the Cybusmen closer to the Daleks especially with their cringe worthy catchphrase “Delete”.
>> I?m not a guy to watch a scary film, don?t see the point really
>Then could it be that the issue of Who?s scariness is yours rather than the shows?
It is mine, you are right, its my opinion, if i hate ‘Last of the Time Lords’ their is obviously a large portion of the general public who loved it, thing is what they think won’t change what I think though overrated things sort of get to me, I don’t know why. ‘Blink’ is a fine episode if you are into that sort of story but I’m not and it is why I didn’t really like it, its my problem.
>> The latest Sontaran two parter, spot on.
>And there you have it.
Do people on not understand opinions? The Sontarans two parter outside the awful catchphrase (I see a pattern) was great, the new costume was fantastic, better than ever, the first part was not promising but the second part explained it all and in the end it was highly enjoyable.January 5, 2009 at 3:17 pm #88341
“We saw a dozen or so people, some of them black. There was never any resistance to the idea of a black Doctor and it would have got us all sorts of headlines and brownie points”
Anyway, some worrying names in there, but if Kelly Brook were cast I would be happy because I’m not one of those disgusting gays RTD keeps banging on about.January 5, 2009 at 3:18 pm #88342
> it is completely irelevant to the plot and put in their for the sake of it promoting ?gay? which I feel is not needed.
So was that opinion or fact? Just to clarify.
I shouldn’t argue so much, I agree with one or two of your points, it’s just so much fun.January 5, 2009 at 3:21 pm #88343
Oh I’m having fun too, I love a good argument, I am getting a little desperate now arn’t I? I just want it to continue.
>> it is completely irelevant to the plot and put in their for the sake of it promoting ?gay? which I feel is not needed.
>So was that opinion or fact? Just to clarify.
It is an opinion, many people might think characters are part of the plot no matter how small the character.January 5, 2009 at 3:24 pm #88344
> Anyway, some worrying names in there, but if Kelly Brook were cast I would be happy because I?m not one of those disgusting gays RTD keeps banging on about.
So you would oppose the idea of Rachel Stevens and Kelly Brook as nymphomaniac twins from the planet LesBos?January 5, 2009 at 3:27 pm #88346
> So you would oppose the idea of Rachel Stevens and Kelly Brook as nymphomaniac twins from the planet LesBos?
Save that for the weird fan fiction. I read one which included the Sixth Doctor, Peri, a skimpy robe and punishment from a power shower, I will never look at my favourite Doctor in the same way, I still look at Peri the same way.January 5, 2009 at 3:30 pm #88345
> Yes the ?gay? thing is brought up alot, it is because this is a kids show
And that’s another thing I don’t get, what does Who being a kids’ programme have to do with anything?
Telly shows people. There are tall and short, fat and thin, gay and straight people in the world. Straight couples are on tv all the time, especially in kids’ programmes, so gay couples should, too. Being gay is not out of the ordinary, and the best thing to ensure that something is perceived as out of the ordinary is to not have shown the thing to children 20 years ago. Keeping gay characters out of children’s telly is an agenda, if anything.January 5, 2009 at 3:30 pm #88349
Likewise some people are appallingly bad actors or actresses so isn’t it great that Who has represented that minority too?January 5, 2009 at 3:38 pm #88351
Pete Part Three
>we have had Jack and he comes back regualry, obviously gay but who cares,
I was under the impression that Jack was trisexual.January 5, 2009 at 3:38 pm #88352
> we have had Jack and he comes back regualry, obviously gay but who cares
So once you’ve had one gay character, that’s the box ticked and we can all move on?
> with other characters it is completely irelevant to the plot and put in their for the sake of it promoting ?gay? which I feel is not needed.
You’ll have to help me out on why ‘including’ is the same as ‘promoting’. What the show does is include gay characters, not ‘promote’ them. It deems them normal, that’s all. Regular, part of. It’s not “Hey darling, try this, it’s fun!’ Marleen’s spot on – you don’t know which characters are gay, beyond the few whose romantic interactions are relevant to the story or their character.
“The old women in ?Gridlock?” are two married people. You can’t mean ‘It would have been better if it was a man an a woman’. Why? What’s the difference?
The “two guys in ?The unicorn and the Wasp?”. It’s a 1920s mystery story about hidden secrets. Their secret is an affair, given a layer of poignancy by the fact that the guy is unable to express his grief publicly. It’s a comment on the mores of the time. Again, you can’t possibly mean ‘It would have been better if it had been a heterosexual affair’. Why would it?
Lesley Sharp in Gridlock? Her grief, her intent to take a final trip and commit suicide, would have been somehow more reasonable if she’d lost a male partner? In what universe?
Which examples are so off-the-wall offensive as to be deemed promotion, irrelevant to plot AND character (plot ain’t everything)? Which ones do you mean?
> Do people on not understand opinions?
Completely. You don’t like Blink and think the latest Sontaran story was Doctor Who as it should be. That is your opinion, and it clarifies, to some degree, your perspectives and tastes. And there, as I said before, you have it.January 5, 2009 at 3:42 pm #88353
> >we have had Jack and he comes back regualry, obviously gay but who cares,
> I was under the impression that Jack was trisexual.
Indeed. Though I always preferred omnisexual.
But then who wouldn’t?January 5, 2009 at 3:47 pm #88354
I just… the idea that someone could like the Sontaran two-parter more than Blink is as baffling to me as the question of why Carey Mulligan has stopped taking my calls.January 5, 2009 at 3:49 pm #88355
> I was under the impression that Jack was trisexual.
Well you would wouldn’t you.
…Oh I see Andrew beat me to that one.January 5, 2009 at 3:51 pm #88356
>The ?two guys in ?The unicorn and the Wasp??. It?s a 1920s mystery story about hidden secrets. Their secret is an affair, given a layer of poignancy by the fact that the guy is unable to express his grief publicly. It?s a comment on the mores of the time. Again, you can?t possibly mean ?It would have been better if it had been a heterosexual affair?. Why would it?
Guess your right! It was an episode I don’t remember very well as the last time I saw it was original broadcast when I usually don’t pat too much attention, I usually re-watch episodes a few weeks later but I have not got round to it.
>?The old women in ?Gridlock?? are two married people. You can?t mean ?It would have been better if it was a man an a woman?. Why? What?s the difference?
Would not have been better or worse, I just found it show horning the idea in, it felt like it, doesn’t mean that was what RTD was intending.
I know there is more gay characters in either series 1 or series 3 as I have not sene both for quite some time. It is much worse in Torchwood though RTD has only written one episode of that up to now so I don’t know if that is his doing.
I’m not going to discuss this anymore since really its not a major thing for me, the main problem as I see with RTD is his view on what is epic, millions of aliens attacking earth and killing of a bunch of people is not what I call epic, I think less is more, I felt that he got it right in ‘Journeys End’ when most of the action took place in one room, it felt smaller and to me more epic. Stories like ‘Parting of the Ways’,’Doomsday’ and ‘Last of the Time Lords’ are just over the top which go so over the top an ending is immpossible, while the ending to ‘Journeys End’ was a little out of the blue I could imagine Davros putting a switch to destroy the Daleks in his room, he hasn’t had a good track record with them has he?January 5, 2009 at 3:53 pm #88357
the main problem as I see with RTD is his view on what is epic, millions of aliens attacking earth and killing of a bunch of people is not what I call epic, I think less is more, I felt that he got it right in ?Journeys End? when most of the action took place in one room, it felt smaller and to me more epic
Can you get a dictionary before you carry this on? I can see a point fighting to make its way out, but until you find out that “epic” isn’t the word you’re looking for, you’re going to struggle.January 5, 2009 at 3:54 pm #88358
The very idea of one of us having Carey Mulligan’s phone number.
*Come on lads group…*January 5, 2009 at 3:56 pm #88359
>I just? the idea that someone could like the Sontaran two-parter more than Blink is as baffling to me as the question of why Carey Mulligan has stopped taking my calls.
I have explained it is not my type of story so the Sontaran two-parter which was very good (about 7.5/10) was better in my view then ‘Blink’ which was about 5/10, average, because it is not my type of story, its like if you hate musicals and they made a musical episode of Doctor Who and everybody loved it but you hate musicals and so hate the episode.
Plus I am a complete fanboy who loves old enemies being returned, the Sontarans were done justice in that episode, in ‘The Two Doctors’ the Sontrans were awful though the story itself was fantastic, to see the Sontarans back as a great enemy was very satifying.January 5, 2009 at 4:09 pm #88361
> I know there is more gay characters in either series 1 or series 3 as I have not sene both for quite some time. It is much worse in Torchwood though RTD has only written one episode of that up to now so I don?t know if that is his doing.
I think your choice of the word ‘worse’ there shows exactly why this aspect of the discussion does, indeed, need to end.January 5, 2009 at 4:10 pm #88362
Whilst old villains returning is a great fanboy thing the lifeblood of the series is reliant on new enemies. The future lies in new enemies, not re-cycling old ones. RTD’s time has been great but one of the things I’m most looking forward to about Moff as show-runner is a finale where it’s not guess which classic baddie will turn up this time. We know the Doctor can beat the old guys. We know their weak points. New enemies need new solutions.January 5, 2009 at 4:15 pm #88363
I hope that the finales arn’t a big deal under Moffat.
I also hope Moffat leaves classic enemies for a while but I hope by about series 7 he returns one, the Sea Devils would be great.
As long as the Daleks don’t return I will be happy, they have returned 5 times in four years, the only time that has happened in the past was when Who was starting and back then it was in the middle of Dalek Mania!January 5, 2009 at 4:23 pm #88367
> I hope that the finales arn?t a big deal under Moffat.
?!?January 5, 2009 at 4:34 pm #88369
The Daleks WILL return at some point, of that I think there’s no doubt. Classic non-Cybus Cybermen would also be great. They need to make them more frightening by emphasising the converted human aspect of them. Ditch the Robocop look. Make us look past ‘oh no, it’s the Cybermen again…’.
There are plenty of classic monsters/villains who could reappear and it wouldn’t be any problem at all. Considering The Claws of Axos was sort of mentioned in Last of the Time Lords they could bring the Axons back in a different way. The Eternals, the Silurians, the Sea Devils, the Ice Warriors (rumoured for one of the specials). Then you’ve got RTD era enemies like the Sycorax and Gelth.January 5, 2009 at 5:08 pm #88377
The thing with most of RTD’s returning enemies is that they were created for one specific story and have thus had their stories closed quite convincingly.
The Ood were different and worked excellently when brought back and I think the Sycorax would be a great one to re-visit. Also, anyone want to bet we’ll get some Raxacoricofalapitorians in one of the specials? RTD’s tried to fit them into a number of stories since series 1 and there’s no way he’ll leave without bringing them back to Who one more time.
But, yes, sign me up to the ‘More original monsters from Moffat’ camp.January 5, 2009 at 5:20 pm #88383
The Slitheen are coming back in a novel in March-April as are the Daleks and the Judoon, I doubt we will see any of them enemies next year because of this.January 5, 2009 at 5:35 pm #88389
Ah, fair enough.
It’s strange how the plans for future merchandise has often been the most reliable and definite confirmation of the return of certain people; The Master and Davros boxsets being the best examples.January 5, 2009 at 5:47 pm #88393
Those boxsets were actually a coincedance, I spoke to the head of the classic Doictor Who DVD range Dan Hall and he said if he actually knew the Master was returning he would have called it its original title of ‘The Return of the Master’ or something else with The Master in it. As with the Davros boxset he was quite surprised when I told him Davros was set to return the week before ‘The Stolen Earth’ aired, he said he would remember to set the tape :)January 5, 2009 at 6:17 pm #88396
Yeah, ok.January 5, 2009 at 6:23 pm #88399
I could find you the exact quote if you don’t believe me.January 5, 2009 at 6:28 pm #88401
“We don’t have any insider knowledge – had I known the master was returning I would have called New Beginnings “Return of the Master” and put it out when series 3 was on air!”, that is Matthew Parkes from 2E, it is taken from a topic called connections in the 2E section of DWO, page 13 if you want to check, you need an account on there, its free to make one.January 5, 2009 at 6:29 pm #88402
You were speaking to your friend, the head of the Classic Doctor Who DVD range, via a citable publication?January 5, 2009 at 6:30 pm #88403
A further reply on the same topic by Dan Hall, bearing in mind this was from October 2007 –
“We have been VERY lucky with the Master. But certainly there are no links with the New Series. Speculators have taken the Davros box set as evidence that he’s coming back in S4. I have no idea whether he is. I commissioned this box set back when the news broke that Rose was leaving! I didn’t even know about the Master back then.
It is a can of worms to start to integrate the two schedules. Best keep them apart. And anyway, there’s no hurry. Once a monster gets into the public psyche, it’ll stay there for a while!”January 5, 2009 at 6:33 pm #88404
>You were speaking to your friend, the head of the Classic Doctor Who DVD range, via a citable publication?
It is actually the people from 2E on DWO, they have Colin Baker, Paul McGann, Georgia Moffet, Gareth Roberts and many more people in their ask and answer section, you ask a question, they answer, 2E are a member, go on there and you will see that, it is official, not some random guy who says he is the head of 2E Doctor Who classic series releases.January 5, 2009 at 6:41 pm #88405
Oh if it wasn’t clear it is http://www.drwho-online.co.ukJanuary 5, 2009 at 6:42 pm #88406
My last glib remark was being written as you were posting about where your information came from. So, yeah, sorry, I just got the impression you were referring to some sort of private conversation between you and him.January 5, 2009 at 6:48 pm #88407
*sniggers quietly*January 5, 2009 at 7:00 pm #88408
I CAN STILL HEAR YOU.January 5, 2009 at 8:38 pm #88410
As with the Davros boxset he was quite surprised when I told him Davros was set to return the week before ?The Stolen Earth? aired, he said he would remember to set the tape :)
I nominate this thread for hall of fame status.January 5, 2009 at 9:46 pm #88411
this amused me for, oh, at least three seconds
http://io9.com/5122922/when-did-doctor-who-start-to-go-downhillJanuary 6, 2009 at 5:13 am #88420
Obviously the idiots who voted for Colin Baker are not familiar with 1. what was happening behind the scenes of Who which caused the scripts to be worse and 2. Big Finish Audio. If they heard ‘Medicinal Purposes’, ‘The One Doctor” Arrangements for War’, ‘Bloodtide’, ‘Jubilee’ or ‘The Apocolypse Element’ which are some of the best Who has to offer, people are usually following the crowd saying Colin Baker ruined Who, what the fuck did Colin Baker do, he had character development and mystery? I guess someone will come along and say his outfit was awful, it was meant to be. The only thing that was wrong in 1985 was the lack of money from bastards like Michael Grade who hated the show and would stop at nothing until its off the air, oh and Eric Saward was a bit, erm, overbearing.January 6, 2009 at 7:20 am #88421
Arlene Rimmer BSc SSc
RTD better bring back The Master and Davros for a big ol? gay-romp-gang-bang-finale!! Throw in a couple of Dalek?s too.
I was ready to say “Oh god, don’t give the fangirls any ideas” but there’s probably already ten different stories along those exact lines at ff.net.
I think I read a fanfic once with those exact words in it. And I really wish I hadn’t been reminded of it just now.January 6, 2009 at 9:46 am #88422
I nominate io9 for “worse than Den of Geek” status.January 6, 2009 at 3:19 pm #88427
Pete Part Three
Ok, if Lily Allen gets the assistant gig I’m going to start hitting people.January 6, 2009 at 3:46 pm #88429
Keith Allen would be good, though, especially if they’re looking for somewhere to dispose of the old console room set.January 6, 2009 at 6:57 pm #88431
It would be good if the console room got totally destroyed leaving the Tardis stranded for a time. Then he rebuilds it with a different look.January 6, 2009 at 9:52 pm #88432
The suggestion in previous series is that the console room’s look is in fact like a desk top. Except 3 dimensional. And with, like, physical objects.
Therefore changing it could just be a matter (matter? HA!) of changing settings, and presto! I’m curious how that could work. Hardlight holograms maybe? Or advanced nanotechnology that rearranges things? Or maybe the various rooms already exist somewhere (extradimensionally) prebuilt, and changing the settings is just a matter of changing the coordinates connecting the outer shape with the inner tardis (hence allowing it to be bigger on the inside than the outside.)
Since the chameleon circuit could change the outer shape it makes sense that the inside might be changed the same way.January 6, 2009 at 10:38 pm #88435
>leaving the Tardis stranded for a time
Beached?January 6, 2009 at 10:39 pm #88436
I always thought it was that the TARDIS had several different console rooms through the ship which all have a gateway to the outside of the ship. Certainly the second wooden TARDIS room from season 16 was in a different part of the TARDIS since it starts with Tom and Lis finding the room.January 7, 2009 at 3:31 am #88440
IN Matt Smith news, I’ve been watching the first four episodes of Party Animals tonight, alternating episodes with The Tenth Planet (last week it was alternating between old Krypton Factor and Smallville. I amuse myself in my own unique ways.) and it is very, very good…
And Matt Smith probably deserves an extra very on top of that. I’m starting to picture him as The Doctor, now, which is a relief, but it’s hard to say exactly how he’ll play it as he’s obviously a versatile chap and there are plenty of options. It’s probably due to watching TTP, but I’d still love it if he ended up acting very old and stuffy with flashes of youthful energy every now and then.January 7, 2009 at 8:33 am #88441
After my marathon Tenth Planet/Matt Smith session, I’ve been thinking about how Tennant will regenerate. Mr. Julian Hazeldine (friend, NTS colleague) has made an excellent prediction that Ten’s last words will be “I’m that kind of man” or a variation there-of, which I think is superb. However, since we kind of know that we’ll have no fixed companion over the specials, I don’t think Ten will *ever* get over his ‘being alone’ kick and that, for the first time in the TV series (ignoring the movie and whatever the hell happened to McGann), he’s going to regenerate in the TARDIS, alone.
His last words can be adequately delivered via the TARDIS communicator (I have an image, actually, of his dying moments being addressed to the world via a massive hologram) after which he collapses and regenerates. Then, Matt Smith, Doctor Eleven, will look around, bemused by his situation and loneliness will look into camera and simply say “What?”.
Just a thought, like.January 7, 2009 at 10:31 am #88445
Oh god please don’t let him say “What?” That particular tic has become like The Doctor’s own version of Sam Beckett’s “Oh Boy!” and is one of the few things of Tennant’s Doctor that still grates a bit for me.January 7, 2009 at 11:13 am #88448
I like it – but it’s Tennant’s, RTD’s. New Doctor, new dialogue.January 7, 2009 at 4:33 pm #88455
Well, I’m assuming RTD AND Moffat will be writing the first line, and it fits a post-regeneration/trying to work out who he is situation.
Still, I called the massive hologram addressing the world and him regenerating alone. Remember that ;)January 7, 2009 at 4:46 pm #88458
True, but surely Moffat can do a bit better for a first line.January 7, 2009 at 6:05 pm #88462
Probably not the best way to stamp your new identity, saying what the last guy would have said. (Doctor AND author.)
Who does the ‘that kind of man’ line address? To work, I mean. Surely it’s requires someone to whom the reference is pertinent…January 7, 2009 at 7:33 pm #88463
Pete Part Three
Harriet Jones. She’s not dead, y’know.January 7, 2009 at 8:45 pm #88467
> Who does the ?that kind of man? line address? To work, I mean. Surely it?s requires someone to whom the reference is pertinent?
Re-watch The Christmas Invasion and see me after school.January 7, 2009 at 8:51 pm #88470
I like it – but it?s Tennant?s, RTD?s. New Doctor, new dialogue.
What about Davison and Moffat’s “what?”?January 7, 2009 at 9:47 pm #88484
> Re-watch The Christmas Invasion and see me after school.
Fair point, I guess – in that it’s a showboating, to audience kinda thing. Still, a back reference to that episode without some context to explain it…I dunno. Seems unlikely.
> What about Davison and Moffat?s ?what???
He’s writing that for Tennant’s Doctor during RTD’s tenure as part of RTD’s continuity though. It’s appropriate – and demanded, really – for a brought-in writer to match those rhythms. Davison’s is only there to match Tennant’s; if Tennant’s didn’t instigate it, Davison’s wouldn’t.January 7, 2009 at 11:04 pm #88500
> Probably not the best way to stamp your new identity, saying what the last guy would have said. (Doctor AND author.)
This is a good point. Maybe a “What?” to start with and then a second line to himself that comes more from Eleven.
> Who does the ?that kind of man? line address? To work, I mean. Surely it?s requires someone to whom the reference is pertinent?
I dunno, if he’s addressing the world and/or the people he’s spent the last few episodes with via the TARDIS they wouldn’t necessarily need to see it as a back reference if it fits into his little end-of-life speech.January 7, 2009 at 11:08 pm #88501
> Still, a back reference to that episode without some context to explain it?I dunno. Seems unlikely.
That’s true. Although I could see it being a very gentle sentence to himself (well and us obviously). RTD could potential hinge the entire final story on what kind of Doctor Tennant was. I’d love to have seen a bit more nastyness to him. No second chances.January 7, 2009 at 11:34 pm #88506
> This is a good point. Maybe a ?What?? to start with and then a second line to himself that comes more from Eleven.
I’m very keen on the way ‘Fantastic’ was removed for Ten.January 7, 2009 at 11:53 pm #88510
“Change, my dear! And not a moment too soon!”January 8, 2009 at 9:07 am #88517
“WooooOOOOooooow. Dat’s better. Now I’s got me new nut on straight.
Always feels like a bad trip when dat ‘appens, you get me, blood?
Now, where’s dat Song bird. I’s got some heavy temporal paradoxical rumpy pumpin’ to catch up on! Bookasha!”January 8, 2009 at 12:43 pm #88523
?Change, my dear! And not a moment too soon!?
“What’s the use of a good quotation if you can’t change it?”January 20, 2009 at 12:51 pm #89185
She’s lovely, but I kinda hope she doesn’t get the role. Although some kind of role in new who would be welcome.
Of course it’s all speculation so far…January 20, 2009 at 12:54 pm #89186
Well, she’s the only even slightly reasonable person on the early betting lists, so the rumours could just be stemming from that… I’d prefer an older companion, but I just love Ryan so much I wouldn’t at all mind if it was her.January 20, 2009 at 1:11 pm #89188
Well, the Sunday Mirror this week said she’d be taking over ‘from Freema Agyeman’, completely bypassing series four and Donna.January 20, 2009 at 1:13 pm #89189
> completely bypassing series four and Donna.
A plan with no drawbacks.January 20, 2009 at 1:23 pm #89192
DT was described in the Metro today as “former Doctor Who David Tennant”. Sigh.January 20, 2009 at 3:24 pm #89206
DT was described in the Metro today as ?former Doctor Who David Tennant?. Sigh.
Bloody ‘ell, its the year 2010, I better rush out and get the Red Dwarf specials on DVD, I have been in a coma since january 2009!January 20, 2009 at 3:27 pm #89207
If only.January 23, 2009 at 4:09 pm #89480
Michelle Ryan IS going to be in Doctor Who – She’ll play Lady Christina de Souza in Planet of the Dead at Easter. Lee Evans will play a character called Malcolm…
Apparently, ‘Christina joins the Doctor on a bus-trip which takes a very unexpected detour into danger’.January 23, 2009 at 4:18 pm #89481
>Lee Evans will play a character called Malcolm?
Which means I will not be watching that on original broadcast, I will probably watch one of the new Red Dwarf specials several times while its on. When I do get around to watching it I will be doing something else at the same time so I can ignore Lee Evans while he is on screen.January 23, 2009 at 4:37 pm #89485
At least it’s not Ricky Gervais. I don’t know how I’d cope if *that* was onscreen.January 23, 2009 at 4:41 pm #89486
I don’t find Ricky Gervais funny but I would prefer him, he annoys me alot less than Lee Evans.January 23, 2009 at 4:48 pm #89487
I can’t even look at it.January 23, 2009 at 4:58 pm #89490
Gervais would just be a hypocrite if he appeared in Who. He took the piss out of guest starring in it in Extras.January 23, 2009 at 4:58 pm #89491
?Christina joins the Doctor on a bus-trip which takes a very unexpected detour into danger?.January 23, 2009 at 5:03 pm #89493
‘Delta and the Bannermen’ is not a story I am familiar with outside of it being in season 24, is being the next released Doc 7 DVD and having Ken Dodd in, what is it about?January 23, 2009 at 5:11 pm #89497
It’s the classic example of a McCoy story with a better idea/general theme than execution. See also : Happiness Patrol.January 23, 2009 at 5:15 pm #89500
I have seen ‘The Happiness Patrol’ and I think it is a little underrated, not a classic story but a fun one, a story with a big sweety monster has to be good though.January 23, 2009 at 5:22 pm #89505
I love it. It’s only behind Remembrance and Fenric in the McCoy years for me. And I like it more than a good chunk of ’80s stories in general, to be honest.January 23, 2009 at 5:31 pm #89509
I’m a big Colin Baker fan so Season 22 and 23 are favouritesof mine as well as BFA of course.January 23, 2009 at 6:39 pm #89527
Pete Part Three
> Gervais would just be a hypocrite if he appeared in Who. He took the piss out of guest starring in it in Extras
David Tennant stars in Doctor Who and guest-starred in Extras. Is he a hypocrite?January 23, 2009 at 7:14 pm #89528
>David Tennant stars in Doctor Who and guest-starred in Extras. Is he a hypocrite?
No, he is a foolJanuary 23, 2009 at 7:31 pm #89532
Pete Part Three
Ok, just as long as we’re all on the same page.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.