Home › Forums › Ganymede & Titan Forum › Spoilers! Doctor Who – New Series. New Thread Search for: This topic has 337 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by Jonathan Capps. Scroll to bottom Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 338 total) 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 Author Posts January 3, 2010 at 12:23 am #107671 Seb PatrickKeymaster I?m still incredibly dubious about the whole thing, but I?m undecided and I?ll give him the benefit of the doubt until I?ve seen him do his thing properly. Quite honestly I don?t know how you can say ?he?s got it nailed? or that his Doctor ?feels less arrogant than Tennant?s? when you?ve barely seen any of him?! Personally, based on the few seconds we saw of him, I don?t think anyone can make a decision just yet. You can have gut feelings, though. And you can piece together what you know of the actor, of the writer, and everything else. I also think that a lot can be said in a single line of dialogue, particularly when you take into account how it’s delivered – and personally I find the body language throughout the opening scene and trailer to be quite telling. It’s all a matter of interpretation, and we could be *terribly* wrong. But it’s instinctive to look for a “vibe” in these things – and frankly, stuff like this is all part of the game that we, as fans, love to play. January 3, 2010 at 12:31 am #107673 JoParticipant I didn’t say you couldn’t, it was the certainty of the statements that I highlighted that I objected to. I understand that some people want/hope/think he’ll be good and have every right to say so, but saying “Yeah, he’s nailed it already” I think is jumping the gun a bit, since I don’t think his line of dialogue showed us much. January 3, 2010 at 12:58 am #107677 pfmParticipant Well from what we’ve seen I think he DID nail it there and then. The way he went from screaming in pain to that ‘uuh shit, what?’ bewildered expression in a split second is, to me, him cementing the characterisation straight away. It’s similar when he punches the guy out in the trailer. That kind of blundering genius that Johnny Depp does so well as Jack Sparrow (sorry, Captain Jack Sparrow). Then you’ve got him switching from seeming quite immature with his ‘I’m a girl!’ delivery to the old-fashioned adventurer stylie of ‘geronimooooo!’ To me, especially on also viewing the trailer, he’s already very different and more interesting than Tennant’s portrayal. So there. January 3, 2010 at 1:23 am #107678 JoParticipant You say tomato… I think he was so all over the damn place that you can’t possibly say for sure what he’s going to be like. SO THERE. Why don’t you and Seb go get a room. January 3, 2010 at 8:53 am #107685 John HoareParticipant Has anyone else noticed the ULTRA-QUIET dialogue you get on the trailer from 00:50 onward, that sounds like a radio broadcast of some sort? Was just watching it again now with headphones, and I noticed it. I can’t make out the words properly, especially the first few – but it sounds something like this: “In the news …since the ring… the dune has taken its place in the Scottish…” I don’t think that’s right, but I’ve tried amplifying it, and the buzz makes it difficult to decipher. Anyone got a better guess? Or has someone else noticed this already, and done a proper transcript? January 3, 2010 at 9:09 am #107686 Tarka DalParticipant > Why don?t you and Seb go get a room. I’ve allready booked out the hotel. January 3, 2010 at 9:13 am #107687 Tarka DalParticipant > Has anyone else noticed the ULTRA-QUIET dialogue you get on the trailer from 00:50 onward, that sounds like a radio broadcast of some sort? Was just watching it again now with headphones, and I noticed it. Okay that’s the second time I’ve read someone refer to something after the 50 second mark. What trailer are people watching? The one on the BBC Who site ends with “Trust me I’m a Doctor” at about the 45 second mark and then it’s all just logos after that, isn’t it? January 3, 2010 at 9:16 am #107688 John HoareParticipant The one on the BBC Who site ends with ?Trust me I?m a Doctor? at about the 45 second mark and then it?s all just logos after that, isn?t it? Not if you’re listening with headphones and have them whacked up loud, it doesn’t… January 3, 2010 at 9:18 am #107689 Tarka DalParticipant Ah fair enough. I was just worrying then that everyone else had access to an entirely different trailer ;-) January 3, 2010 at 11:31 am #107691 AndrewParticipant Oooh. I wondered why there was such a long pause at the end of the thing… January 3, 2010 at 11:38 am #107692 Ben PaddonParticipant Isn’t there some way we can pump up the volume and clear out the hiss? Clean up the audio and listen to the radio bit properly? Isn’t there some sort of gizmo lying around someplace that can do that? And if not, why not? January 3, 2010 at 11:40 am #107693 John HoareParticipant I’m going to have a go at that this afternoon, but if anyone with better audio SKILLZ than me wants to try it, please do! January 3, 2010 at 11:42 am #107694 AndrewParticipant This is what I’m getting: ?In the year since the rangers players (?) made him famous the doon (?) has taken its place in Scottish foot-?? Sounds like Scottish footballing stuff to me… January 3, 2010 at 11:46 am #107695 John HoareParticipant Very odd. It’s almost tempting to suggest Moffat is teasing us, and it’s of absolutely no relevance whatsoever! January 3, 2010 at 11:48 am #107696 AndrewParticipant Ooh, some ‘facts’: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=37617830&postcount=12 January 3, 2010 at 12:01 pm #107697 John HoareParticipant You know, I wondered if audio from something else had been accidentally edited in… but I couldn’t see *how* it’d happen, so I dismissed it. January 3, 2010 at 12:30 pm #107698 AndrewParticipant Oh, I think it’s entirely deliberate – that long set of logos at the end isn’t accidental, and the Scottish connection is as big a deal as an RTD clip mentioning an incident in Cardiff. My feeling is that something Sea Devilish is heading onto land via the Ayrshire coast… January 3, 2010 at 12:49 pm #107700 Seb PatrickKeymaster Silurianish, shurely? January 3, 2010 at 1:34 pm #107703 AndrewParticipant To be fair they’re not species I’m overly familiar with – I’ve mostly had to Wiki (the Silurian entry prioritises paragraphs of fan-theory-naming-and-dating for some reason). Ended up plumping for the ones that sounded like they might emerge from the ocean… January 3, 2010 at 3:28 pm #107715 John HoareParticipant I can’t think of any other UK show whose trailer would be dissected as much as this. Not because Who attracts rabid fans – but because I can’t think of another show that has a trailer *worthy* of dissection. Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes is the closest, I guess. I want more telly that warrants everyone being ridiculously anal. January 3, 2010 at 3:36 pm #107714 pfmParticipant > Why don?t you and Seb go get a room. Well I’m already booked in with Matt so I can’t. Revamped Silurians and Sea Devils. If they are the returnees (not 100% confirmed yet, obviously) then I will be very happy. The Daleks I think we can all welcome back. In fact it’s the first time I’ve been excited at the prospect of an appearance by the crazed pepperpots in a long time. Just as long as they’re not the BIG BAD for a long time. Moffat should save that for the very end of his tenure. Daleks vs Time Lords redux. January 3, 2010 at 3:48 pm #107716 John HoareParticipant I can?t think of any other UK show whose trailer would be dissected as much as this. Erm – apart from Dwarf, of course… January 3, 2010 at 3:53 pm #107718 Tarka DalParticipant Did you ever do a Gallifrey & Titan banner? I’m sure it was discussed at some point. January 3, 2010 at 6:27 pm #107722 JamesTCParticipant I’d love a return for the Sea Devils. Favourite Pertwee story is ‘The Sea Devils’. January 7, 2010 at 12:32 pm #107893 Jonathan CappsKeymaster New DWM! Love the new logo and that picture of Matt is pretty good, if a little heavily touched up. I guess it’s supposed to be a little stylised, anyway. The mag has revealed all the writers, too. Brace yourselves: Steven Moffat – 6 episodes Mark Gatiss – 1 episode Gareth Roberts – 1 episode Richard Curtis – 1 episode Toby Whithouse – 1 episode Chris Chibnall – 2 episodes Simon Nye – 1 episode Interestingly, this syncs up almost exactly with that big list of episode spoilers from a few weeks ago, so some of the other details are likely to be spot on, too. Moff doing six is great (that’ll be ep 1, 2(maybe), 4, 5, 12 & 13 then?) but Gareth Roberts, Toby Whithouse and Chris Chibnall all fill me with varying degrees of chill, though. I guess Whithouse has proved his sci-fi credentials a lot since School Reunion, but Roberts has been consistently shit. Planet of the Dead was one of the worst things I’ve ever experienced on TV and the rest of his Who stuff isn’t much better. Chibnall, too, wrote one of the worst episodes of Who I’ve ever seen, but he did manage to write one or maybe two decent Torchwood episodes. Really, it’s not as radical as I thought it would be, but the addition of Richard Curtis and Simon Nye is very different and exciting. And Gatiss is great, obviously. No matter what happens, it’ll be interesting to compare and contrast how these episodes turn out under the script editing eye of Moffat rather than Davies. January 7, 2010 at 1:08 pm #107894 Seb PatrickKeymaster LOVE the cover. DISAPPOINTED with the writers list. Gatiss & Whithouse = fine. Roberts & Chibnall = NO. And Nye and Curtis are both good writers, but having them both in the same series means taking the “noted comedy writer who hasn’t really done genre stuff” risk twice. I’d have preferred to see one of them bumped to series six to make room for one of the other writers that we know are hovering on the periphery but that we’ll probably have to wait a year for. January 7, 2010 at 1:30 pm #107895 Jonathan CappsKeymaster That’s a good point, actually, although I really wish you hadn’t started using the word “genre” to refer to sci-fi/fantasy ;) Nye and Curtis don’t even come close to worrying me as much as Roberts and Chibnal but even so, at least it’ll give us a definitive view on their talents, i.e. will they be better with a different script editor or just as shit? I’m really gutted we don’t have Cornell this series, but as you say he’ll be a cert for next year and it’s possible that other factors got in the way of his scripts being ready on time, especially if it’s been commissioned for a specific slot, like the ‘New Adventures’ two-parter. January 7, 2010 at 2:21 pm #107896 John HoareParticipant a) The logo looks great on that cover. But the “MAGAZINE” looks small, awkward, and tacked-on. Hope they change that. b) SIMON NYE = EXCELLENT. A risk, sure, but a fun risk. c) I actually like Chibnall’s Life on Mars episodes, especially the one in the first series. But no, nothing he’s done in the Whoniverse really suggests why he’s got a two-parter… beyond being a safe choice because he presumably brings the scripts in on time and in a state that’s at least shootable. January 7, 2010 at 2:28 pm #107897 Seb PatrickKeymaster Still, at the end of the day, it’s a writers list that includes SIX Moffat episodes. That’s almost certainly going to provide a better hitrate than series four, even if the other seven episodes all somehow manage to be gash. January 7, 2010 at 2:55 pm #107898 MuzzyParticipant “Matt Smith is The Doctor”…and they are the Daaaaaaaa-leks! January 7, 2010 at 4:51 pm #107900 pfmParticipant I think Chibnall proved himself with some great episodes in Torchwood series 2. Saying that, Who is a different kettle of fish entirely. I wonder whether this Silurian 2-parter will be the ‘romp’ one or darker like how the second 2-parter of each series has normally been. With the first one being Moffat-penned, River Song and Weeping Angels-returning, that could turn out to be the ‘deeper’ one. Roberts can write SJA well enough but his Who efforts leave a lot to be desired. They always have such a wanky feel to them. The Shakespeare Code should have been so much better than it was. The visuals and setting saved that one. We can guess that the Simon Nye episode was the slot that was maybe open to a few writers (Neil Gaiman?) and that Paul Cornell perhaps needs a 2-parter for his next effort, so they’re saving that for series 6. Maybe Nye had a brilliant idea that they just couldn’t turn down. If it’s episode 11 it’s likely to be Doctor-lite. January 7, 2010 at 4:54 pm #107901 Jonathan CappsKeymaster I think people have worked out that Moffat’s two parter will be the early one and Chibnall’s the later one. Although it’s anyone’s guess exactly what tone each of these will have under Moffat… January 7, 2010 at 7:22 pm #107906 Tarka DalParticipant Delighted with everything except Chibnall/Roberts. Do we know if Rob Shearman is likely to ever to get another shot? January 7, 2010 at 8:31 pm #107909 Nick RParticipant Aww, I was still holding out hope that Gaiman would be on that list. :( I really liked “The Unicorn and the Wasp” (buzzing vicar aside), so as bad as “Planet of the Dead” was, I’m not too disappointed to see Gareth Roberts listed. (Checking Wikipedia, I’ve only just learned he also co-wrote two episodes of the second series of the Vic & Bob Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased). I loved the first series of that at the time, but the second was a big disappointment… but from what I remember, Roberts’ two episodes were the best of a bad bunch.) January 7, 2010 at 11:48 pm #107920 Seb PatrickKeymaster >this Silurian 2-parter What makes you think the Silurians are Chibnall’s 2-parter? Only ask ‘cos they were spotted on set quite early in shooting, pretty much around the time ep 1 was being shot. I thought it was a fairly safe assumption that ep one is “Sea Devils and Silurians in Scotland”. January 8, 2010 at 1:23 am #107922 ChrisMParticipant This link was posted on another forum I visit. In a nutshell it provides a bit more detail concerning which writers are assigned which episodes. It doesn’t cover them all though. I’ll post a bit here for easy reference (with minor spoilers): Steven Moffat, showrunner, grabs six of the episodes, including the two part with Weeping Angels and the return of the Doctor?s possible future wife, River Song. Mark Gatiss, who wrote The Idiot?s Lantern brings us the World War II Daleks episode, mainstay Gareth Roberts writes one, Richard Curtis does the Vincent Van Gogh one, Toby Whithouse does the Venice vampire one, Chris Chibnall, I know I know, calm down, calm down, writes two, including the Silurian/Sea Devils episode, and creator of Men Behaving Badly and So How Do You Want Me writes one. Some nice recent snowy pictures there too.;) January 8, 2010 at 3:26 am #107924 JamesTCParticipant >Do we know if Rob Shearman is likely to ever to get another shot? I heard he written a script and it has been held over to Series Two. Oh and speaking of the numbering thing, I posted this on IMDB and GB so I’ll repost it here, this is from the Moffat interview in DWM417 – “It’s Series Thirty-One of Doctor Who, and it’s Series One of Matt Smith’s Doctor, Those are both real numbers. I submit that ‘Series Five of Doctor Who’ means absolutely nothing unless you really believe that Matt Smith is the third Doctor. Everyone knows he’s the Eleventh Doctor so that means it’s definitely not ‘Series Five’. Whichever number you choose, ‘Series Five’ is the one that’s flawed.” “‘Series One’ is an exciting sentence. ‘Series Thirty-One’ is an awe-inspiring sentence. ‘Series Five’ is a boring sentence – and also a complete lie” January 8, 2010 at 6:43 am #107925 Pete Part ThreeParticipant Are we back on this again? If the rule is, they reset by Doctor (and not showrunnner) why wasn’t the 2006 series called “Series One”? Sorry, Moff but your logic is bollocks. January 8, 2010 at 8:40 am #107926 JamesTCParticipant >Sorry, Moff but your logic is bollocks. That is just snippets of the interview. Get DWM and read it yourself and it does make sense. January 8, 2010 at 8:50 am #107927 JoParticipant >Oh and speaking of the numbering thing… Please don’t start this again or I may just have to hunt you down and kill you. January 8, 2010 at 10:29 am #107928 Ben PaddonParticipant It’s Doctor Who. It’s new. Beyond that I honestly couldn’t care less about what number appears on the boxset at the end of the series. January 8, 2010 at 10:37 am #107929 JamesTCParticipant In other news Shrek is writing an episode of Series One. Big fan according to Moffat. January 8, 2010 at 11:17 am #107930 Jonathan CappsKeymaster > That is just snippets of the interview. Get DWM and read it yourself and it does make sense. Unless he completely retracts the quote you posted, then I’m afraid it’s nothing other than complete nonsense, for the reason Pete has already pointed out. January 8, 2010 at 11:19 am #107931 Jonathan CappsKeymaster In lighter news: http://www.holymoly.com/sites/default/files/imce/doctor-who-facebook-page.jpg Superb. January 8, 2010 at 11:29 am #107933 JamesTCParticipant >Unless he completely retracts the quote you posted, then I?m afraid it?s nothing other than complete nonsense, for the reason Pete has already pointed out. The reason that Pete pointed out is not really the reason for calling it Series One, they had three choices, one of them being Series Five and it sounded, to the marketing department, to be an aging brand, another being Series One of Matt Smith’s series, another being Series Thirty-One, they picked the one that sounded new and exciting rather than the one whioch sounded like a show which was running out of steam (Series Five). January 8, 2010 at 12:25 pm #107937 Jonathan CappsKeymaster Of course, the marketing department are always going to a level headed bunch of people that should be listened to. And American shows never have problems when they start running to season 5 and beyond, do they? Friends never lost popularity because people were put off by the even increasing season numbers. It is marketing led bullshit working on logic that has already been proved wrong with hundreds of shows. January 8, 2010 at 12:37 pm #107938 Jonathan CappsKeymaster (Apologies to Jo for continuing to beat on this particular drum, but sometimes arguing with SoundableObject is too tempting to resist.) January 8, 2010 at 1:00 pm #107940 Seb PatrickKeymaster I really don’t want to get into this debate as I don’t care all that much (although processing BBC residuals and figuring out which “series 1” the paperwork refers to is going to be FUN), but: >If the rule is, they reset by Doctor (and not showrunnner) why wasn?t the 2006 series called ?Series One?? Er, how about: Moffat wasn’t in charge of the rules back then, but is now? January 8, 2010 at 1:02 pm #107942 JamesTCParticipant >And American shows never have problems when they start running to season 5 and beyond, do they? Friends never lost popularity because people were put off by the even increasing season numbers. I remember that episode of friends were the entire cast changed and the apartments were changed and the cafe was blown up. That was a good’un wasn’t it? January 8, 2010 at 1:18 pm #107944 Jonathan CappsKeymaster > I remember that episode of friends were the entire cast changed and the apartments were changed and the cafe was blown up. That was a good?un wasn?t it? Ok, I see the inherent problem comparing Doctor Who to any other TV show because of the way it can refresh itself, but when you have two series 1 of a series in 5 years it makes no sense at all. If the argument that higher numbers increase the chance that people lose interest in the show is the one that’s being used, then going by old trends they don’t have to worry until they get to about 20… Author Posts Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 338 total) 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 Scroll to top • Scroll to Recent Forum Posts You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Log In Username: Password: Keep me signed in Log In