Andrew

[Andrew]

I liked the nuclear test town itself, but the fridge? Ugh.

http://www.noisetosignal.org/film/2008/06/indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull.php

[Andrew]

> Meet Andrew Ellard and shake hands with a walking continent of common sense.

And typos, sadly. Sorry for flow-breaking, but EDITED to make some of the language English:

So far as I can see, every alternative has its merits and faults. It’s perfectly possible to see all sides, since they all have a point.

‘Series One’ obviously has a lot of ‘fresh start’ feel. It does what the new Trek movie did, really – made it sound like its own thing. It’s easy to understand why it has a use, that newcomers don’t feel like they’re behind. (I’m not watching Spooks because I arrived to the party late. If there was a clear ‘fresh start’ moment, I might join up.)

But it’s also messy. As has been pointed out, two series ones within much less than decade is pretty ugly. Some people thought Batman Begins was a prequel rather than a reboot because it was in relatively close proximity to the last of the previous Batman film series. Using ‘series one’ is the opposite – it implies reboot to something that’s actually a continuation. And of something HUGELY popular, not a show that’s losing viewers at it becomes more self-involved.

So calling it series one will encourage some viewers, yes, but it’s not like that was an problematic area. It’s medicating a condition the patient doesn’t suffer from. It’s also not the way the first wave of viewers will come to the show – ‘Series One’ doesn’t appear on-screen. It’s just ‘The One With The New Doctor’, and as such already feels plenty new-start-y in its marketing without some labelling on the paperwork.

And, as has been said searches online get harder now, not easier. In the years to come people will have to do active research before they can be sure what they’re considering paying for is what they want. Which is a barrier to purchase and involvement in an era of download-to-view – a hindrance as much as a help.

The ‘new Doctor, first series’ argument is valid enough. It’s a first, but there’s no rule that says you can’t do something first. Different bosses will make different decisions. Still, I doubt Moffat would do it again if he ended up having to change Docs half-way through his own run…

‘Series Five’ is a clear continuation of the current, modern success. It makes a measure of sense, since you want that audience to follow on. Since, on screen, it just says ‘Doctor Who’, very few will be swayed to watching or not watching based on a series number they won’t see at that point – meanwhile it helps the current downloaders stay on track.

Moff’s argument that it makes no sense to call it Five is spurious, though. This new series isn’t coming after lengthy hiatus, it’s not part of a wholesale reinvention – it’s a continuance of a reinvention. The difference between the ’89 and ’05 shows is going to be much larger than between ’09 and ’10. New leading man is no different than Tennant’s start. New sets don’t matter to newcomers OR returnees. And the argument that ‘everyone knows he’s Doctor 11’ is based on a definition of ‘everyone’ that would make ‘series one’ just as invalid.

That ‘series five’ sounds ‘ageing’ rather than ‘long running and successful’ is pulled out of thin air. While there’s no shortage of tired, flawed fifth series of shows, nobody assumes tiredness and flaws BECAUSE of that number. I’ve never, ever seen that as a default assumption.

‘Series Thirty-One’. Okay, maybe that does sound old. Certainly it’s bewildering for the huge number of New Who fans. It won’t confuse newcomers and it makes sense to classic fans. Only ’05+ fans – generally kids – get baffled by that. But that’s a massive part of the audience and worth paying attention to.

It barely matters for the most part, since it’s easy for fans to talk about ‘Moffat series one’ (no worse than talking about a fifth series and having to differentiate between the 60s one and the present one, anyway), and while it’s on the air it’ll be “Did you see Doctor Who last night?’ anyway. The number barely matters…

…except to the onliners. People searching iTunes, torrents and web resources. And if there’s where it’s seen and matters most, it’s hard to see ‘series one’ as anything other than a dopy decision.

[Andrew]

Well, Seb wrote it. So there’s that to say…

[Andrew]

King Arthur’s already series canon, though, isn’t he? Thanks to Battlefield if nothing else. Not that it would matter if they did want to make him so now.

[Andrew]

Ooh, I have a query, actually:

> Also infamous as the episode that legendarily had Patrick Stewart on the verge of calling his lawyer (so similar was the setup to TNG’s A Fistful Of Datas) until he realised it was a sitcom.

I’ve not seen any reference to the specific episodes – or if I have I don’t remember. What’s the source for that info?

Nice to see the classic debates going on in the comments. It’s oddly reassuring to see the lack of clear consensus…

[Andrew]

> Jack did what he had to do, he has nothing to be forgiven about.

That doesn’t mean that the character doesn’t feel the need to be forgiven, or that he doesn’t deserve to be.

Nor, in fact, is it necessarily the opinion of the writer that he has nothing to be forgiven for. Whatever your own take, RTD may differ, and it’s that feeling which informs the intent of the scene. It’s not invalid to understand – and feel – the difference between letting people die and chosing to take a life.

[Andrew]

> The Doctor wasn?t there during COE, he was off fucking the Queen so he hardly had anything to be angry about

I take that Good Queen Bess stuff as a joke, to be honest…

But the Doctor knows, surely, about the events of CoE? (He does tend to know everything.) His gesture to Jack is implicitly one of ‘okay, you’ve paid for what you did, but it wasn’t 100% wrong and you need to rejoin the world’. Otherwise it’s just ‘hey, let me get you laid, since we’re old pals’, which surely wasn’t the intent. (What Chris said, basically; it’s not straight holy forgiveness.)

> Besides he was always intended to be a genius, never a god.

I see this as being like the difference between science and magic – it’s only dependent on how advanced your technology is. I like the hero/icon-making RTD brought to it. Happy for it to change, no need to do the same thing over and over, but The Myth of The Doctor has really been a great part of the tone these last few days, for me.

[Andrew]

> Chris Barrie should be 12. It would be beautiful.

“Don’t eyeball me, Dalek Sec.”

[Andrew]

It really is.

Anyone know what became of the Stephen Fry-penned episode? Is it now lost for good?

[Andrew]

> My, did you blow that out of proportion*.

Gee, thanks for the condemnation.

> Never mind. Act out your fantasies and film them. I dare you. ;)

Who says I haven’t?

[Andrew]

> Because he?s a born again Christian?

Well, yes, absolutely. His choice of faith is certainly one reason I would say something like that, not least because all born again Christians can be swiftly categorised by identical behaviour that I dislike. I find it saves time if I hate and judge on these labels. Time I can better spend thinking about deviant sex.

Is that not good?

> In other words they?re just like any other human being with all their variety.

I…but…no! This contradicts my entire world view!

[Andrew]

> ALL I am saying (all I was ever saying) is that it needn?t be the END.

That’s not what you said – you began by refuting that the analogy to the previous cancellation was valid. Then said it was all about whether we ‘wanted’ no Who or cheap Who.

Are we done now? Can we be, please?

[Andrew]

I’m concerned to find that I like Baldwin so far. I hope that’ll pass, since I was looking forward to mocking him.

Aah, the settling-in period. In the days to come, we won’t remember this at all…

[Andrew]

> Surely Vernon Kay would cost far more than Matt Smith?

I’m thinking not, since he’s worth money as a presenter, but not yet as an actor. It’s his launch role. I suspect Billie’s first year fee for Rose was a lot less than it could have been given her ‘name’.

EDIT: Of course I never said the guy would be cheaper than Matt Smith.

[Andrew]

> And, despite the lengthy diatribes, you?re still not really contradicting my initial point, which is that a ratings decrease would probably result in a decrease in budget, rather than cancellation. In fact, you seem to agree (to some degree).

Indeed. But where you see that as a minor problem, it’s demonstrably more than that. Hence the original ’89 comment, where weaker ratings and lower budgets led to the slow decline and cancellation of the show. And that was at a time when ‘value to the corporation’ meant something, it’s why that decline was so slow; but shows no longer survive through habit.

You were absolutely right to say that the landscape has changed. But 100% wrong to suggest that the change has made it easier, rather than harder, for a show to keep running.

> I never said it would be a wildly popular show in spite of a budget decrease, I said it was possible to still produce interesting stories and remain a creative success, which I stand by.

It’s possible to make interesting shows on a low budget. It’s impossible to continue to make a show that can’t get re-commissioned due to its collapsed position at the BBC. The show you’re talking about is massively unlikely to ever exist. In this climate, Doctor Who needs to be ‘wildly popular’ or they stop making it. It’ll be cancelled before it’s left in the state you’re talking about – nor is mere longevity the goal. Nothing strawman about those facts.

However, this is all apparently both informed industry speak AND completely inaccurate. And since I can’t argue that contradiction, I guess we’re done.

So: Vernon Kay as Doctor Twelve, eh?

[Andrew]

> In which case then, you?re saying they?d simply cancel it?

Again, no, that’s a total reduction of the argument to a binary either-or. I’m talking about a spiral of cause, effect and influence. There is no “simply” in any of this.

> You?re suggesting that the budget continues to decrease anyway, regardless of ratings.

I’m not suggesting it. I’m saying it flat out. It’s a fact. It doesn’t hold for the last specials, which I imagine will have been budgeted very differently, but series-by-series – yes.

But you get all the implications of that, right? That some of it has to do with increased skill sets – as a team works, they get better at what they do. Technology increases yearly which has advantages. Stock sets – the TARDIS mainly – and costumes need only be built once and then get deducted… It’s way more complicated than ‘smaller budget, badder show’. And that’s before we get into inflation, where even a budget freeze is, actually, also a reduction. Except in areas where it isn’t.

> And that a decrease in budget is detrimental to the show, which cannot continue to be a success without access to the budget it has enjoyed so far.

No, no, no. That a budget reduction LINKED TO A RATINGS FALL seriously harms the potential future success of a show. Am I speaking Urdu or something?

A ‘same team, plough on’ budget reduction, predicated on a department’s sense that the same CAN be done with less cash (and, apparently, mostly correctly) is one thing. A ‘new team’s show stumbles, audience down to 6 million by end of series, show moved to Thursdays and given a budget suited to that slot’ budget reduction is not even remotely the same thing. That the word ‘reduction’ is included both times doesn’t make them directly comparable.

Also, your definition of ‘a success’ is different from mine, I suspect. ‘Good enough to watch’ isn’t relevant here. Slash the budget and watch the viewers fall away because the show is not as good. As the viewers leave, watch the corporation panic – you may get a final attempt to save, but in the end no exec wants it to be their fault. And worse – no exec wants to be the one to keep the show that’s back to being a punchline again on the commission list.

> A budget of (completely out of the air) ?1m may be worth 10 million viewers in 2009, but 6 million viewers may be considered of equal value (and therefore worth the money) in five years time.

Yes. Of course audience share is the better figure to use, of course when I attribute X million viewers to some future commissioner that’s based on that currency today. I used ‘five million’ that way you just used ‘one million quid’ – which won’t be worth the same in six years, either.

What I’m saying – apparently on a loop – is that a drop in budget predicated on dropping viewing figures poses a significant threat to the future thriving of the show. But not ‘a drop of audience in line with yearly viewer migration’, and not ‘a budget cut in line with standard cost-saving on regular production’.

Hang on, I’ll draw a picture instead. Back to the original statement:

> Plus, 5 million viewers isn?t to be sniffed at nowadays. They?d have to seriously plummet for cancellation to be on the horizon. Worst that could happen while it?s still a healthy or reasonably healthy ratings draw would be a budget decrease.

Extreme Hypothetical: If the series takes a ratings dive this season – a radical one, because the show somehow stops being to people’s taste under the new writer – your ‘not worrying’ suggestion that the budget might be cut in line with that lower audience means that a) the audience is SO much smaller, so suddenly, that the response from the channel has to be significant, down to, say, 5m, and b) it’s now even harder for a staff already struggling to win viewers over. Because, amazingly, the popular taste is what’s going to get the numbers back up. And now they can’t afford for it to be as good – because, yes, money DOES buy you a level of ‘good’. Good writers, good actors, good crews. We know this.

Moffat quits, because the drop is so huge he knows he can’t tell good stories with it – he, frankly, has his own reputation to think about, plus they can’t afford him as showrunner anyway. So on comes Chris Chibnall, who’s more in the price range. Matt Smith decides it’s wiser to desert the sinking ship than be the man who sank it, and the Beeb take a strong hand in the casting process, plumping for someone inexpensive who can also guarantee a certain viewership. And Vernon Kay becomes Doctor Twelve.

Oh, and the production is finding it hard to replicate the quality of even the cheap ‘banked’ episodes of the previous season, because the new team doesn’t have a history together, so everything’s three times harder and a third more expensive. (This bizarre idea that “If Dwarf can do it for pennies anyone can” – not all productions are created equal. What works for one group won’t for another. There’s a reason Doug and his people are able to do what they do, and it’s not something you just pick up.)

If you’re talking about a budget decrease linked to a hard ratings drop – a soft drop won’t cause a notable decrease out of line with the regular set-up – the implications are ghastly.

> Hence, if true, RD wasn?t denied continuation immediately following its greatest success, but rather years later.

All you’re doing is proving my point – that these things are far more complicated than these simply summaries bely. Yes, I absolutely simplified – you’ll note I didn’t actually say ‘immediately after’, for example – since Dwarf wasn’t the topic for debate. But the expansion you’ve added doesn’t make the point – about complexity and relative factors – moot. Indeed, it only reinforces it. (As, indeed, do the broader reasons FOR Dwarf not being picked up, which had far more to do with perception, reputation and careers than it did ratings, cost or show quality.)

[Andrew]

> it doesn?t mean they?d neccessarily cancel it, as it contributes to the corporation in other ways too.

International sales rely on the same thing – popularity. DVD and retail income’s way more complex then you’re making it sound. “This will struggle TV but do well on disc” isn’t part of any in-house Beeb commissioning discussion…well, not a successful one, anyway. Not one that ends with a show being made.

This mythic value it has to the corporation is fleeting, nebulous and forgettable without care being taken. It’s what happened before, and it’s absolutely possible for that to happen again.

> This whole budget cut debate stems from the simple remark that the worst that?s likely to happen is a budget cut rather than outright cancellation, and that a cut in budget doesn?t mean the show can?t still thrive through creativity.

It makes it HARDER, though – for the show to do bright, creative stuff, to remain true to its own genre (adventure show), and for it to find the same size audience. This idea that creativity is free when it comes to working within a major corporation is pretty naive.

> This argument is starting to make it sound as if Doctor Who couldn?t possibly survive without a big budget, which – as Red Dwarf, the show we all signed up here for, has proven

Only if you don’t understand the point being made. This idea that there are two kinds of budget ‘big’ and small’ – I’m talking about a funding drop predicated on ratings for a show that already suffers reductions when ratings are steady. I’m talking about context, relative factors. “You can technically make a Who series for little money, and it’s possible that it would entertain smaller audiences” isn’t remotely the argument. It’s whether that can happen when you understand the current TV landscape.

Seeing Dwarf as ‘small budget’ and Who as ‘big’ is, again, too reductive to be useful. Time slot, history, public perception, causes of creation, causes of longevity, expectation in commissioning, placement within the station’s wider intentions…it’s not remotely a one-to-one comparison. (Not least the way Dwarf was denied continuation after it’s best-ever figures. This is what I mean about context and relative factors.)

One example of thousands: Expectation. The BBC chief who keeps Who going at 5 million peak is the one who may as well clean out his desk. That’s a career in trouble. And nobody wants to put their career in the hole to save a show that wasn’t theirs to begin with.

> It comes down to the choice really; in this hypothetical ?ratings fall? situation, would you as a fan or viewer prefer cheaper Who, or no Who?

It doesn’t remotely come down to that choice. As I keep saying, this isn’t about some personal desire – “What I want” plays no part in the “ratings/budget” question.

Nor, indeed, is this about creating longevity for the sake of it. ‘Cheaper or no’, again, reduces things to an unrealistic example. That choice will never, ever present itself that way. Not to fans, but not even, realistically, to a commissioner – since there are too many other factors beyond the price.

It comes down to “Does a drop in budget predicated on dropping viewing figures pose a significant threat to the future thriving of the show?” And if you don’t think it does, you don’t know telly.

[Andrew]

> I?m only giving my perspective, as a casual/new viewer, maybe a bit further removed from the show than big fans such as yourselves, less emotionally involved?

Insulting. I’m not arguing the point from a fan perspective, and I’m not sure where you got that from. I’ve mentioned my personal taste and preferences in Who episodes, have I? Argued rabidly from a perspective that wants the show to continue at top quality and to hell with practical considerations?

Unfair to dismiss an argued position based on facts and experience due to some perceived emotional response.

> but I don?t need every episode to be a big epic spectacular? I?ve been watching the first series of Ecclestone episodes over the last few days, and some of the best episodes are the more understated ones?

What you need or don’t need still ain’t the be-all and end-all. Who’s arguing from the emotional fannish side here?

Some of the best are understated, yes – but what was the popular perception? How are the ratings on the showboating episodes? Which stories generate the DVD sales and merchandise you consider important to the show’s future commissioning? (And boy is THAT a can of worms in itself!) Which had all the kids in the playground yelling and screaming the next day? Which caused the most things to be doodled on exercise books?

> and there?s a shortage of major guest stars (I?ve only noticed Simon Callow and Simon Pegg so far) to boot. Maybe their perceived importance isn?t quite as important as people think they are.

Eccleston is and was a huge name actor. He’s in every episode. Billie Piper was both good as Rose AND an attractive name at the time (albeit for novelty rather than expectation of performance). You also missed out Zoe Wannamaker, Mark Benton, Yasmin Bannerman, Penelope Wilton and Tamsin Greig – all of whom are great in the show.

But were they hired for being names, or for being great? Far more the latter than the former, I’d argue. Because, oh yes, it’s more complicated than “HERE’S A NOTABLE CAMEO!’ You pay for the ability, not just saleable value. To separate these things so primitively, to ‘names’ and ‘not names’ is reductive and in no way useful.

Not to mention scripts by RTD and Mark Gatiss, those famous low-rent writers…

> You say one way to kill a show is to put it into cruise control and let off on the gas? I say, another is to push it into being such an expensive proposition it is no longer commercially viable to continue to produce.

But nobody’s suggesting that’s at risk of happening. At all. Indeed, the Who budget famously got lowered each year.

The point I’m arguing is your contention that a ratings fall leading to a budget cut is nothing to be concerned about for either the commercial or artistic quality of the show. When it demonstrably, provably is. A cycle of ‘coast along/cut the budget’ is as dangerous now (more so, in fact) as it was in the late-80s.

[Andrew]

> However my decision to catch it was more because of the reputation of the show and the hyperbole surrounding the outgoing actor rather than any guest stars / returning Time Lords / John Simm (although he?s always brilliant) / storyline elements.

And why was there hyperbole? Because the Doctor had become a full, popular, must-see cultural icon once again. We were losing the Doctor who was with us through a hugely exciting few years of unmissable TV. You can’t divorce the excitement surrounding his departure from the show itself.

It’s not just Tennant’s quality that made his farewell so important. It;’s the quality of the show around him.

> To a casual or first time viewer, the stories and guest/peripheral characters aren?t the draw – if anything they are pretty much meaningless to the uninitiated. It?s the hype and the reputation and the promise, and the trailers and the speculation? all things that can be achieved without spending megabucks on the show.

The hype, reputation and promise are intrinsically linked to the production method. Cheap-looking trailers (someone cheap cutting ’em, presumably, too) and bad word of mouth – “Used to be a cool show, armies of monsters! Now they can’t afford ’em…so I turned over to Primeval” -have a huge effect.

Plus I think you’re mistaking what matters to you with what matters to everyone. Good stories and cool casting carry massive weight.

> They can still prosper without the indulgence.

Mistaking production value – which includes performance and writing as well as sets, costumes and effects – for indulgence is a huge mistake. And, as I say, fails to acknowledge the importance of audience appeal over ‘appeal to me’.

[Andrew]

> Yeah but this strictly hypothetical budget decrease wouldn?t have to be the death knell of the show; it is possible to create intelligent character and situation driven stories without stupidly expensive CGI or paying through the nose for unneccessary high profile guest stars etc.

There’s a massive difference between ‘good’ and ‘attractive to viewers’. Small, characterful episodes ain’t gonna have kids talking in the playground the way cool monsters and explosions will. It should be smart and characterful – and it bloody has been – but being JUST that…you’re thinking about some other show.

Plus, as I say, someone has to write it. Someone has to act in it. The number of truly out-of-this-world writers and actors who, somehow, don’t command decent fees is pretty low. Even the ones you haven’t immediately heard of.

> At some point you can allow a show to stand on its own two feet and ride the wave of its own acquired brand recognition and reputation; put it into cruise control for a little while, and save a few quid.

This is exactly the kind of thinking RTD was so vocal about on the last commentary. Coasting the show is just…it’s the beginning of the end. The production team fight to keep it at the top of the BBC’s agenda precisely because when it drops off, it suffers. It’s bad for the show.

Striving to keep Who appointment viewing is absolutely the right thing to do. Don’t talk about ‘stupidly expensive CGI’ as if the makers have so far been chucking cash to whatever high-bid contractor they get. And, as Karl says, don’t talk about guest stars as ‘unnecessary’ as if it doesn’t matter – they don’t hire just for the name, but the name and talent together. One makes the show commercially viable, one makes the show good. They’re not antithetical.

The use of big actors, inventive writers, cool design choices and epic ambition ARE the show standing on its own two feet. It’s an ideas-based sci-fi adventure show.

> Then inject some cash every so often just to give it that little boost, like filling a hot air balloon? at some point you stop releasing the gas and simply let it float, then hit the gas again when it starts to sink. Nowt wrong with that.

Or like a person. Where, if you don’t feed them for a few months…oh no, hang on, they suffer permanent damage and eventually die. Then you’re just shoving food into a corpse’s mouth.

There’s no need for metaphor – just look at what happens to a show that coasts on its brand. When has that ever been good for either the quality OR longevity of a programme?

“Let it get less popular, just drift for a bit, then chuck some money in” isn’t a way to maintain quality or popularity. Its a way to run the show into the ground, put it on extended hiatus and leave it need of a revival. These things happen fast now – the landscape’s only changed in that it’s even less forgiving than before.

[Andrew]

Thing is, the budget decrease being described has a potentially huge knock-on effect.

A proper ‘well, your numbers are down’ money cut will affect the quality of the show (not to mention the quality of its costly promotion and publicity, not least because the writers, actors and effects the show can afford become less awesome. Affect the quality of the show and yes, you risk an even greater ratings dip. Because production value DOES pull people in, and absolutely gets seen as an indication of quality by wider audiences. And then there’s a harsher budget cut…and around we go.

It may not be the same landscape – and I’ve no interest in doomsaying right now, without a single episode broadcast of a series I full expect to adore – but the basic economics remain absolutely the same. The comparison to the previous trap Who fell into is valid: it happens to shows now just as it did then.

[Andrew]

> Worst that could happen while it?s still a healthy or reasonably healthy ratings draw would be a budget decrease.

Is that 1989? Hey, hi – Carl says don’t worry, it’s all going to be fine.

[Andrew]

> Who are you calling Plot holes?

Don’t worry Karl – I thought it was funny.

(EDIT: Hmm replying to the bottom of page one like it just happened. I AM CLEVER.)

[Andrew]

Oh, and another Brit genre show that’s well worth checking out: Misfits.

Sooooo much better than I expected. Really funny and sharp. One of the best shows of the year.

[Andrew]

> a lot of people find porn and casual sex acceptable

Well yes.

[Andrew]

I’m not remotely fussed about the level of celebrity – they all live a bigger, wealthier, spotlight-y life and that’s the only difference that really matters. That and providing entertaining personalities (in the psychological sense) to watch.

But I dunno…this year’s line-up seems more tabloidy and Heat magazine than usual. Which I get, since that’s a key part of the public appeal, but it wasn’t why I tuned in. I like the style/design choices and theme this time around, but I’m not filled with hope for the show proper.

But we’ll see. Sov alone should be interesting – and I’m always happy to see born-again Republicans make themselves look ridiculous…

[Andrew]

> Are we talking a Torchwood style intepretation i.e wax crayons or something more considered?

Something more considered. I wouldn’t say it had anything big to say on the subject, but it’s handled intelligently.

But then, I wouldn’t say it was especially overdone with ‘deviant sexuality’ though. At all. The scene being described was (to my best recollection) about consenting adult sex, videoed. Which is a long way from deviance. The vampires murdering people, and the sex that goes along with it, IS what you might call deviant – in that the killing ain’t consensual – and in some (not many) instances that’s connected to, or directly in the course of, sex. But that combination is par for the course given nature of any vampire’s implicit subtexts.

Videotaping a murder for selfish and nefarious purposes is deviant. Straight sex ain’t. Doing it for the wrong reasons isn’t fabulous, but that’s a long way from suggesting the show overdoes it with deviant sexual content – that seems to me an an oddly puritanical huge-over-statement. I don’t think it informs the nature of the programme at all.

But it’s best left until you’ve seen the show. Which, if you haven’t, I recommend ya do.

(Oh, and The End of Time’s Sinead Keenan has a recurring role – and she has great comic, and dramatic, timing.)

[Andrew]

It’s good. Watch it.

[Andrew]

> I liked the early series 1 episode about the fairies in the garden.

Lots of nice stuff in that ep, but it’s utterly ruined by the fact that the Torchwood team do NOTHING in it. They know, they see, they watch – but the events and outcome would have been pretty much the same if they’d never shown up. Which is a bit duff, story-wise.

> Also, ?Countrycide? had a brilliant title – can?t remember much about the quality of the episode itself, though.

Shockingly bad. Awful Owen/Gwen ‘fucking’ dialogue and a story that ends like that Scary Door episode in Futurama: “Most evil thing in the universe: It turns out it’s man.”

> I loved Captain John.

I could never get past the lazy creative process there: ‘Get the Spike actor…and have him bring the Spike character with him’.

[Andrew]

> That?d be the website he?s working on ;o)

Aaaaah!

[Andrew]

> Irrespective of anything else, Ian?s always been a BB fan, hasn?t he?

I was thinking more about the recommendation of a site that’s about to be populated once again by the ‘Baldwin iz da shitz, ho!’ brigade.

> Look out for Ian in the crowd! :o)

He didn’t take you with him?!

[Andrew]

I think there are a good half-dozen episodes of Torchwood 1 and 2 that are worth giving time to. It’s a crappy hit ratio, especially for such a high-profile show, but it’s something…

[Andrew]

I was actually thinking about Torchwood’s ‘Risen Mitten’…

[Andrew]

> How are they going to explain that one away?

Seriously?

In a show where – just recently – the ‘last Dalek’ was killed only for mass-Dalek invasion to become a recurring plot line, and the ‘last Time Lord’ has twice battled the Master AND just tussled with Rassilon and his pals, the solving of a little thing like the Doc’s longevity is nothing.

Since the ability to regenerate itself was only lobbed in to allow the show to continue, and the 13-times rule was grafted on even later for the purposes of a then-current story, I see no difficulty in writing a way out of the problem.

[Andrew]

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…

[Andrew]

Hang on – why isn’t Ian being snide? I’m confused!

[Andrew]

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…

[Andrew]

Ooh, some ‘facts’:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=37617830&postcount=12

[Andrew]

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…

[Andrew]

Oooh. I wondered why there was such a long pause at the end of the thing…

[Andrew]

I’m entirely ‘in’.

[Andrew]

Confirmation on the End of Time commentary that Moffat did write the final section (and indeed supervised the shoot), the TARDIS destruction clearly agreed as part of the new series plan. It’s vague as to who put pen to paper on the big bangs – the implication is that the Doctor’s last line was the end of RTD’s work, but the kabooms were seemingly shot under Davies’/Tennant’s auspices.

So, if you want to get into the continuity of the last moments of regeneration – and I’ve no idea why one would – then Moff’s the one to blame for it being more explosive/destructive than ‘normal’…

[Andrew]

I have to say, I find the quickie regenerations – Eccleston to Tennant, Jacobi to Simm – to be unusual in their treatment of the process as ‘same guy, new face’.

Both had their reasons for being that way, of course. A catchphrase or two aside, RTD wrote nine and ten more or less the same, at least early on – he wanted the Rose relationship to be maintained, and it often feels like he’d really have preferred to have had one Doctor all the way through his run (that being Tennant). And once The Master was back, big and bad, it was a case of ‘grab the TARDIS controls and leg it’ – the character’s just been through one personality change, another so soon would be painful to write.

But the deaths I remember – sorry the regenerations – were huge and mortifying and frightening and sad. They were much closer to a death than any kind of joyous rebirth. The process was painful, hard on audience and character alike. Not so much with the ‘farewell to friends’, of course, but then RTD’s been mainly responsible for bringing more substantial friendships and loves to the series. So in that respect there’s not much precedent.

[Andrew]

“Chin? …Blimey!”

Excellent.

[Andrew]

> (whether it was before or after Luke and Obi-Wan walk in)

I was thinking the same thing…

> my interpretation was ?Hey Jack, you just killed your own grandson, have a shag on me?.

On Confidential, RTD pitched it as Jack, having been a long time alone after the events of CoE, being given a chance to connect to someone again.

> As for Tovey in Torchwood won?t he be too busy in Being Human?

It’s possible to do both – these aren’t American series lengths, after all. (And even then it’s possible to do a long-running series AND a movie or two each year.) But I query the likelihood of the Beeb wanting to weaken Being Human’s status and identity by using the same actor as a lead in both shows.

[Andrew]

Also: is ‘Geronimo!’ the new ‘Brilliant/Fantastic/allons-y/I’m so sorry’? Final word of The End of Time, AND it shows up in the trailer…

[Andrew]

It’s missing a laugh track, is the thing…

[Andrew]

Sorry Pete – the progression of the discussion wasn’t wholly clear there.

Right, so “Wilf’s adventures with the Doctor” aren’t the explanation. I agree that that doesn’t add up, either. I agree that Martha and Mickey are likely on Earth (though “It needs a spin-off novel to set up” is nonsense, since there was no “they got married” novel either). I agree the universe was sharing in the dreams, since the Ood said so, and it was happening to them as well. I agree it’s basically a messy bit of RTD storytelling.

How about: The Time Lord psychic chose Wilf. Her influence on him was intended to guide towards prophesy, and it’s her connection to Wilf – selected as the person placed closest to the Doctor during these events – that makes him different. I saw it as part of his being ‘chosen’.

[Andrew]

> The one bit I?m hugely confident about is that I?ll love Moffat Who and I?ll love Smith?s Doctor.

I absolutely share this optimism.

[Andrew]

It did feel a little small and low-budget, the trailer. But between the show having a long post-production process to go through, and the choices likely reflecting a more low-key approach to story – less running, more thinking – I have no worries.

I always want to give RTD his due for this, though – the man knew how to make the show feel unmissable. He made it hard to skip past when channel-hopping, easy to be attracted to the sumptuous eye-candy. I don’t think that automatically equals crassness or pandering. But I do think we might see a ratings drop once the initial new-series vibe wears off if the imagery continues in the vein of that trail…

[Author]

Replies