The Doctor Who Spoilers Thread – Part III

[John Hoare]

This thread continues this discussion. Careful, now.

Topic

[Smeg4Brains]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article1437685.ece

[Dave]

http://www.ganymede.tv/forum/2008/06/the-doctor-who-spoilers-thread-part-iii#comment-129194

To finish off pedantically:

The Stolen Earth>Parting of the Ways>Sound of Drums>Journey’s End>Doomsday

[John Hoare]

Bad Wolf > The Sound of Drums > The Stolen Earth > Army of Ghosts
The Parting of the Ways > Journey’s End = Doomsday > Last of the Time Lords

Really can’t decide between Journey’s End and Doomsday – Doomsday is far more coherent, but Journey’s End has so many punch-the=air moments that it’s impossible for me to decide.

I also fully admit that part of the reason Psrting of the Wolf comes top is the sheer joy at having Who back that first year.

[pfm]

“David?s real-life love Georgia Moffett, 23, returns as his daughter Jenny for one of the Who specials.”

Whatever… Moffat saved her, she’ll return in a Moffat-written episode IMO. Let’s say, for instance, that she was the one who picked up the Master’s ring. His daughter returns but she’s really the Master, or at least has the Master inside her. She somehow becomes pregnant and the Master is the father (the Master as the Doctor’s son-in-law…priceless). Because of the way she was ‘born’ her pregnancy doesn’t last long and the kid quickly becomes a fully grown, strangely John Simm-looking adult. The Master’s consciousness passes into this new child and thus he is properly back. However, the accelerated growth continues and he only has a matter of hours to put his dastardly plan into action before he looks like John Simm in the same age makeup used for the old Tennant and Davros. The episode ends with him unexpectedly regenerating and fleeing before we see his new guise.

[pfm]

*lols self to sleep*

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1036567/500-000-Mr-Spielberg-Sorry-Ive-got-date-Beeb-says-new-Dr-Who-writer.html

[Seb Patrick]

>Some experts estimate his pay packet for Doctor Who could be ‘not more than ?150,000’ a year.

I can confidently state that this is absolute bollocks. To say much more would break confidentiality agreements, but… while Moff probably won’t earn as much as Russell, he’ll earn a fuckload more than ?150,000 a year if he plays his cards right.

[Jonathan Capps]

I think it’s pretty safe to say that almost all of that article is made up. The quotes are so obviously fake, it’s painful.

[John Hoare]

One Hollywood insider said: ‘No one walks away from Spielberg and all that money for a show no one has heard of. I mean, what is this doctor show about? It sounds a little silly.’

[Jonathan Capps]

The Moffat quote about wanting the job since he was seven, too. That’s clearly just been constructed by the joke he made when it was announced he had the job.

Fuck the Daily Mail.

[pfm]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KwI-V4AdGYc

Reverse the polarity of the WHAT?

[Zombie Jim Undead]

God almighty that was pantomime awful.

I know it was a kiddies thing but bloody hell…even as a wee ‘un I would’ve found that patronising.

[Zombie Jim Undead]

Interview with Moffat….

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7531310.stm

I love everything he says.

[Andrew]

“It’s impossible for Doctor Who to get it wrong because we can just say ‘he changed time, it’s a time warp, it happens’.”

What pisses me off is that when Davies says stuff like this, a hundred fan-wankers kick up a fuss about how he SO doesn’t get the genre. Yet when Moffat says it, it’s somehow rendered divine.

Fandom is so often rubbish.

[Zombie Jim Undead]

Oh, actually I didn’t like that bit too much. Though he has a point. He was after all the one who invented the “wibbley wobbly timey wimey” stuff, which explains pretty much anything.

I think he’s making the point that with a show like Doctor Who, there’s no corner that you can’t write yourself out of. As long as the way out is written well! I have more faith in Moffat saying it cos I think his writing for the show has proved that he has the ability to do so.

If Davies said it, I get the idea that it’d be as a means of justifying another implausible plot device.

[John Hoare]

God almighty that was pantomime awful.

I know it was a kiddies thing but bloody hell?even as a wee ?un I would?ve found that patronising.

I liked it, but bear in mind that it was designed to be *seen* at the Prom. With a Graske running around on stage, and the Doctor’s manuscript flying across the stage, according to reports. And later on, DAVROS APPEARED THROUGH THE FLOOR.

It’ll come across a lot better on the televised version.

[Dave]

>God almighty that was pantomime awful

It’s no Time Crash, but it could’ve been worse

[Andrew]

> If Davies said it, I get the idea that it?d be as a means of justifying another implausible plot device.

And thus was my point made.

[Jonathan Capps]

> What pisses me off is that when Davies says stuff like this, a hundred fan-wankers kick up a fuss about how he SO doesn?t get the genre. Yet when Moffat says it, it?s somehow rendered divine.

I’ve not seen *any* evidence of the latter, incidentally. It’s still a bit of a crappy attitude no matter who says it.

[Andrew]

> I?ve not seen *any* evidence of the latter, incidentally.

To be fair I was coming directly off a post that said “I love everything he says.” But outside of the bughouse craziness of the heavy hardcore – I’m thinking the causal postings as you get on, say, AICN or Chud – there’s a lot of “Moffat knows what he’s doing, see – now Davies should bugger off” stuff.

> It?s still a bit of a crappy attitude no matter who says it.

But it’s not, is it? It’s just…y’know, true.

If it’s better for the show long-term to, say, revive a dead character, you have the means to do it. While I agree that you don’t break rules that you’ve set in stone (at least not easily), the genre is insanely flexible outside of a few of your own pre-set basics. You do, kinda, have a magic wand to wave.

In fact the breaks can be the best part. “Don’t cross the streams” is my favourite example of a ‘rule’ that was set-up early and then broken for the climax…

[Jonathan Capps]

I dunno, I just get the impression it’s being said as an excuse for lazy writing. Like you say, arbitrary rules are there for a reason and basically saying “Our show is special because we can ignore all rules” really limits some of the storytelling potential.

[Andrew]

> I just get the impression it?s being said as an excuse for lazy writing.

Maybe I’ve been listening to too many writers, but I genuinely don’t think this is why they say it. (Davies said one of ’em on Richard and Judy, who probably weren’t interrogating him on his genre techniques.)

I think it’s an expression of joy of liberation from traditionally Earth-bound writers, and an explanation of what isn’t, actually, worrying them right now. (“Do you worry that you won’t be able to change X?” “Bah there’s always a way to change X.”) It’s a quickie answer, but I don’t think it’s a dismissive or defensive one.

[Jonathan Capps]

> (?Do you worry that you won?t be able to change X?? ?Bah there?s always a way to change X.?) It?s a quickie answer, but I don?t think it?s a dismissive or defensive one.

I think the idea that a show can let you do anything naturally extends further than just being able to change things that could be problematic as a quickie solution. It could be used for absolutely anything the writer wants and that’s exciting, yes, but also potentially hugely problematic as it could easily be used to justify extreme laziness that could damage the quality of the show. Internal consistency in any universe (especially a fantastical one) is obviously really important, and any attitude that’s flaunting the opinion that “it’s ok, we can do ANYTHING and explain ANYTHING in this show, wheeeeeeee!” is a dangerous one, as it’s a breeding ground for last minute, one line explanations for everything.

I’m not saying that Moffat will do this, but I *do* thing RTD has been guilty of being reckless with this ‘rule’ in the past and it would be nice to see that reigned in a bit, so it’s a bit worrying to see Moffat say what he has. After all, who knows what sort of a showrunner he’s going to be…

[pfm]

One question to ponder – is a one-line bullshit explanation for something better than no explanation at all?

[Zombie Jim Undead]

>> If Davies said it, I get the idea that it?d be as a means of justifying another implausible plot device.

>And thus was my point made.

How does this confirm your point? You were suggesting that I was displaying fanwankery – i.e. a blind and unjustified faith in Moffat and instant dismissal of Davies for making the same point. I was qualifying my position by saying that judging from what we’ve seen of Davies and Moffat’s respective writing talents thus far, I think Moffat would be more able to satisfactorily write his way out of a corner whilst Davies would create an illogical plot contrivance.

Just judging the horses from the races they’ve run.

[Zombie Jim Undead]

Also, the “I love everything he says” was relating to that specific article, not Moffat in general.

I’m one of the few who wasn’t convinced about his talents until Girl in the Fireplace.

[pfm]

I still think that RTD is the best person out there to run this ship. Moffat’s seriously got his work cut out. Has anyone ever considered that it’s unlikely he’ll be able to produce anything as fantastic as his previous Who scripts when he becomes the boss? He’s not revealing how many episodes he’s writing for series 5 but we can guess at 5 or 6 (inc the Christmas ep), at least 3 of those going to places he’s never been before – series opener and 2-parter finale.

Look at Jekyll. I remember two of the middle episodes being pretty painful to watch at times due to how cringeworthy they were. The first one was all over the place too IMO. The parts I liked were the brilliant tie-in with the novel and, bizarrely, those scenes in the fucking zoo(!) along with all the other times ‘Hyde’ went mental. Michelle Ryan’s character turned out to be pointless. I hated all the cheesy American-accented characters, and what was with the two lesbian investigators?? OK they were played by great people. But to cap it all off, and I know this isn’t Moffat’s fault but still, the acting of Gina Bellman, playing Jackman’s wife, was utterly terrible. Bet she still crops up in Who though due to Moffat obviously loving her.

[Dave]

>I?m one of the few who wasn?t convinced about his talents until Girl in the Fireplace

I almost agree, I loved The Curse Of The Fatal Death, but The Empty Child didn’t wow me like it seemed to with other people. I liked it, but I didn’t nearly drown in my own semen. Girl in the Fireplace & Blink nearly had me treading water.

[Zombie Jim Undead]

My sentiments exactly. It has some nice moments…but there’s a lot of cringe-worthy smug comedy dialogue in his first two-parter…and I don’t really like anything that he’s written outside of Who.

We shall see.

[Ian Symes]

but there?s a lot of cringe-worthy smug comedy dialogue in his first two-parter

When an episode contains lines like:

“Before this war, I was a father and a grandfather. Now I’m neither, but I’m still a doctor.”

“Excellent bottom!”

“There is a war on, is it possible you’ve miscounted?”

“Well, I’ve got a banana, and at a pinch you can put up some shelves.”

“Bananas are good. Good source of potassium.”

…and all the “everyone lives” stuff, you can’t really complain about the dialogue.

[Zombie Jim Undead]

?Excellent bottom!?

?Well, I?ve got a banana, and at a pinch you can put up some shelves.?

?Bananas are good. Good source of potassium.?

and

“It’s….er….A SCREWDRIVER, OK? A SCREWDRIVER!”

“Oooh…a sonic screwdriver…who looks at a screwdriver and thinks ‘that could do with being a bit more sonic”

“Red only means emergency on earth. Everywhere else it’s camp”

– those were the bits I meant. Didn’t do it for me. Made my anus pucker and my brow furrow. To my ears they’re Clunky and smug. Clug and smunky.

[Ian Symes]

This is an entirely subjective matter, but for me those exact same lines are some of the best dialogue ever in the show! Different strokes, and all that.

[Danny Stephenson]

What you talkin’ about, Symes?

(I’m sorry I couldn’t resist)

[Pete Part Three]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article1659508.ece

Probably best to take this with a cellar of salt.

[ChrisM]

So Tate,40, might be back with Tenant,37.

Sorry, I find the age dropping thing amusing for some reason. Just looks a bit strange…

[Zombie Jim Undead]

Some musings from RTD…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7618537.stm

Hmmm.

[Pete Part Three]

***Spoilers (Apparently) from Den of Geek regarding the Xmas spesh***

>The story is believed to centre around a future version of the Doctor, who is being played by David Morrissey. He is also believed to be married to River Song, which would explain much of the interplay between the Doctor and River Song in Silence In The Library/Forest Of The Dead earlier this year.

Huh? Married to River Song? Was it made explicit that she only knew the Tennant Doctor? Either way, the whole idea sounds a bit fan-wanky for a Christmas special.,

I’d read previously that Morrissey’s character was actually a phoney pretending to be the Doctor, which seemed like a great idea. (Jonathan Creek did a similar idea, but never mind).

[Zombie Jim Undead]

Awww…I don’t want the mystery of River Song to be revealed so soon!

Don’t know if it was made explicit that she just knew Tennant’s doctor…was it?

[ChrisM]

>Don?t know if it was made explicit that she just knew Tennant?s doctor?was it?

No. She recognized him, I think, and said “You’re really young” or words to that effect, but then she might have known that face before he regenerated again. Also you got the impression she was looking at the… inner him.. if that makes sense. (That sound rubbish I know. I mean she recognized him from beyond his outer form. Just an impression I got.)

[Seb Patrick]

I’ll eat my shoes if Morrissey is any kind of “future” Doctor. This is clearly inspired by The One Doctor, and he is clearly (spoilers) an imposter.

[Andrew]

It all strikes me as a very loaded reading of the deliberately non-committal book extracts by RTD, while handily ignoring the “I think she’s she’s his wife, I’m not sure; I dunno, it’s Steven’s thing” implications elsewhere in the same piece.

Anyone else notice how DoG have missed the new Dwarf news? :-)

[Ian Symes]

Perhaps if there was a way of summarising the news in list form, they might carry it.

[Tanya Jones]

Top 10 of Things We’d Like to See in the New Dwarf Specials?

[Pete Part Three]

I think they must have heard you, Andrew.

http://www.denofgeek.com/television/119658/red_dwarf_returns.html

[Andrew]

Anyone else notice how BBC One haven’t shown a late-night all-nude oily trampoline special featuring the female cast of Buffy?

(Worth a try.)

[ChrisM]

All four will be shown in 2009, with the hope that if they achieve the kind of ratings Dave is after ? and if they don?t, they?ll just repeat them on loop anyway ? there may yet be further adventures on the horizon. Here?s hoping?

Actually the latter bits a good point… their tendency to repeat didn’t occur to me. I usually find the repetitiveness of, er, repeats (of whatever show) a bit annoying, but in this case, and in this case (considering the prospect of future Dwarf) all to the good.

[Danny Stephenson]

Anyone else notice how BBC One haven?t shown a late-night all-nude oily trampoline special featuring the female cast of Buffy?

That reminded me of ‘Dogma’.

[John Hoare]

The repeats on Dave would matter less if they pulled out some more obscure stuff at the same time, like UK Gold used to do. As it is, it’s understandable if it gets the ratings – which it *is* – but it sure makes for a more boring channel.

The move into original programming is great, though.

[pfm]

Judging by how far into the ‘spoilers’ book Tennant’s Doctor featured, we’re talking at least another thousand years of the Doctor’s life before he even meets River Song. It won’t ever be dealt with and IMO it shouldn’t be. It’s Jenny who SHOULD be dealt with, by me, with my penis, and my tongue.

[ChrisM]

This could be complete rubbish but take a look.

Of course if it does happen it could be pretty awful, I’m curious. I’d be interesting seeing Tom Baker back anyway. He looks a lot different now to his original incarnation (age’ll do that ;) ) but no doubt they’ll get round it with the usual timey-wimey excuse. Which is ok with me.

EDIT- Oh, ok. Just noticed already covered in your Noise to Signal website. (I came to it via Den of Geek.) Never mind. :)

[Jonathan Capps]

> (I came to it via Den of Geek.)

Highly inadvisable.

[Author]

Replies