Sea Devils And Die: GeroniMoffat's Doctor Who In The 2010s

liked that video!

good point about Amy's character resets, more interesting as a whole, now that i think about it (but i never had a problem with Amy)

and also had way more patience as a reader of long books i'd now find boring

definitely so true for me too. can't believe i did all that tolkien and narnia as a kid

narnias are like 120pp each

I smoked a lot of Aslan in college

i still can't imagine even trying to read them today

You mean as a kid today, or going back and rereading them now?

I mean now as an adult. I mean, even when I was reading them I recognized these were often boring, but at the time I gobbled up kid books at a crazy rate, regardless of quality - I think I picked stuff purely on genre or wacky premise (mostly junk, even by kid standards)

The series in two minutes.

:D

I usually read the Chronicles of Narnia about once a year, the first three books even more frequently. You can knock out two or three of them in a long afternoon!

Read all of them again recently while bed ridden. The early ones especially are nowhere near as boring as the Lord of the Rings (I loved the vast tracts of Teutonic tedium as a child of course). That's if you can get past the rather obvious but also rather weird Christian stuff. The Last Battle is both very weird and very boring. A preachy surreal fable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7_jrqZD6Ns

we're just going to repost that every two days until Christmas?

The Doctor will be on an episode of the Sarah Jane Adventures before Christmas, but it won't be the same.

Eric Cantona is set to inject a bit of Ooh Ah into Doctor Who.

The former Manchester United star is being lined up for a role as an evil alien alongside Time Lord Matt Smith.

sb'd for posting arrant nonsnenes

ha

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l4vv6drgwi1qc6xeao1_500.jpg

I only came for the dancing...

Most people have said what I thought, in fact ailsa nailed it in one of the first posts that it was very Bill & Ted. I enjoyed it quite a lot (and agree with a lot of Tom's Final Crisis comparisons) despite it being full of holes. But do you know what I absolutely hated? A beautiful, wonderfully written and delivered speech about Billy and his TARDIS - which then turns out to be the lead-up to a crap "something old, something new" wedding-related pun.

I like Suzy's solution to the Big Bad, which is what the generally accepted rumour says is true.

For people asking above Moffatt has said River Song's story will be completed during his time as showrunner.

Eric Cantona is from King Of The Shit Non-Spoiler, the Daily Star, but then Rusty's been swanning round Hollywood telling people Johnny Depp is going to be in his Doctor Who film so who knows.

Is which episode Neil Gaiman is writing next season or what it's called too much of a spoiler? I don't think so, but that means nothing.

The bit where Amy appears in the Pandorica at the beginning, when you're expecting the Doctor, and says 'Ok kid, this is where it's going to get complicated' is just marvellous, puts a chill up my spine. Revelling in the fun. Like the beginning of a detective story.

since Gaiman has been scrupulous about not revealing his episode title, he presumably considers it something to keep unannounced at this point

Well apart from naming the title in a BBC interview last week, and saying which episode it was on his Twitter today, yes.

he's said for about six months it will probably but not definitely be the third or fourth episode next year. last I saw he was still concealing the title. [shrug]

Fighting about spoiling is BORING. I feel like people who whinge are asking for too much coddling - buy your own cotton wool for wrapping shit in. Someone should just screengrab the Gaiman tweet - can't say much against that or BBC site drops.

But is it really spoiling to know which episode Gaiman has written?
Plot details sure, but just the name of the ep and when it'll air is hardly spoiling, surely.

Or I am entirely misunderstanding the conversation in which case I'll be over here. :)

Someone should just screengrab the Gaiman tweet - can't say much against that or BBC site drops.

ALDO was the one who started criticising BBC site info (but saying that he should spread it here even if he's opposed to it being there)!

But I checked Gaiman's twooter and there's nothing on it from the last few days, so presumably what I said three posts ago stands

No I fucking didn't, some people keep saying I did and I'm sick of people misquoting me.

What I criticised was the lazy and stupid journalism that allows you to interview your own stars IN THE SAME WEEK AS A CLIFFHANGER IN WHICH THEY'RE ACTUALLY DEAD to talk about where the show goes next. It's the failure to check what's happening on screen and/or the specific intent to charge off in the other direction regardless that I'm criticising. It's the degrading of television journalism to writing advertising copy, that the only thing it's there for is to SELL SELL SELL the show to increase viewing figures or drive the price up for overseas sales that depresses me. That's the reason I didn't think it was there, that changing the timing by ONE WEEK was all it took, but they were so desperate for more people to watch (which failed spectacularly tbh, lowest figures of the series) that they didn't give a flying fuck what was on the screen. Lazy or self-obsessed.

Same point with Gaiman, he's been scrupulous, except when he hasn't. If the general belief is that he has, does any journo have the right to blab it round, even if he's there?

Or shall I just fuck off again? I only came back because a couple of people wanted me to talk about Doctor Who (and I seem to have missed the Ghost Light chat already).

Did anyone really think that Amy was actually going to die after Rory shot her? If they were going to kill her, they'd have done it in the final ep of the season rather than as the cliffhanger.

Just remembered the scene with the two Amys in the museum, I love the schoolteachery way the Doctor talks to them - "come along, Ponds".

Breathe, aldo! Your criticism was bang on, but you DID also quote the objectionable material here. Go on and link to the BBC interview with Gaiman or the new Gaiman tweets, though.

People may have assumed that Amy wouldn't die, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't enjoy the tension of waiting to see WHETHER she did or HOW she got out of it - and the whole opening of the following episode was built on resolving this tension.

If they were going to kill her, they'd have done it in the final ep of the season rather than as the cliffhanger.

Adric didn't die in a season finale. Neither did Peri.

Yeah but the way they put seasons together has changed since then. It would be unthinkable to have the Doctor regenerate midway through a series these days.

Peri suffered a fate worse than death, actually.

I think fewer people watch early-evening TV in the summer - particularly on the big festival weekends and especially when the weather is good. I wish they would run Who in the autumn-to-Christmas zone instead.

Also would be scarier.

this is obv an issue, so suggest starting a Dr Who thread w/"spoilers" in the title if you want to talk about not-yet-shown-on-screen stuff.

Yeah there was competition on all sides what with World Cup, Wimbledon, Glastonbury and the sunny weather, the latter being a pretty big deal given they'd moved it to an earlier time when most people would still have been out and about.

(There was similar handwringing when viewing figures slumped to 6m during Tennant's first season, wouldn't worry about it)

Anyone know what viewing figures were like in the late 80s?

Grisly. At one point it was something like the 140th most watched programme of the week.

Well, in the 80s it aired at 9pm, and that's when the pool closed, so I usually missed the beginning of most stories.

In terms of the actual numbers though the gap wasn't so huge - Who gets final ratings of 7m or so now, 8m on a good week: at its worst in the 80s it was doing half that I think. But 7-8m now for a drama is still OMG territory.

http://www.themindrobber.co.uk/ratings.html - there you go.

Wow, they're great. Never realised City of Death was the most-watched as well as the best-regarded, it probably bucks a trend in that sense.

And omg, I don't know whether I've made this connection before, but Season 23 is the point I stopped watching as a lad...and that's also the year it started airing against Coronation Street, right? ie I didn't lose interest so much as my mum stopped letting us have it on!

Gaiman is kind of a hack, I don't know why people are so hotly anticipating his episode.

That's my take on him too tbh.

He's an occasionally brilliant writer, hoping Dr Who will bring the brilliance out. His work can be quite hackish, but just look at some of his stuff - a hack could never have written Coraline, for example.

And Gaiman at his hackiest is way more interesting than a Chris Chibnall or Helen Raynor.

graveyard book was trash

Well, considering the size of Sandman, I'd say very occasionally.

No-one seems to have clocked to the part where the Doctor claims Pandorum is a fairy tale and River says something like arent we all??

A fairy tale (time)rewritten by someone who used to write loads of stories about the raggedy doctor, who turns out to be the most important person when time (or stories of the Doctor) needs to be rewritten.

Sorry but I'm on some 4th wall, postmoderney-woderney reading of all this. I think the creating of a Raggedy Doctor fairytale by Pond will be the end of season make-it-all-better device.

I still think I was close enough with this idea, but as I was cribbing from Final Crisis pretty heavily, It all must be organised by some Scottish re-boot cabal of which Moffat & Morrison are part of.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/FULL-LIFE-SIZE-DALEK-LICENSED-PLUS-EXTRAS-/130400802511?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item1e5c7e56cf

please watch the video. its hilarious. (wont spoil it by quoting it here)

haha, great!

Goddamn that thing is amazing, it even has gas??

depends what you feed it