BBC Approved Spoilers
10 September 2018 at 20:32 #64084Devilishrobby @devilishrobby
I had the opurtunity to watch the teaser again but on the TV today rather than on YouTube. For some reason the music didn’t seem quite so jarring for some reason, weather it was the volume seemed lower or I was seeing it on a bigger screen it seemed better.18 September 2018 at 17:40 #64090
Most will have seen it by now, but fresh image for the new series released. It’s looking very MCU to me and that’s by no means a bad thing….19 September 2018 at 06:43 #64092
MCU? have not seen that one before. It is certainly a very “busy” image and um, colourful. Heavy use of CGI which is worrying. CGI is great but not when overused. Nice to see the TArdis poking out of a cloud though.
(on the overuse of CGI have been watching some older Sci fi stuff recently and have been observing that when done well, models have a realistic look that CGI is yet to achieve.)
Janette19 September 2018 at 10:57 #64093
The word that springs to my mind is ‘crystals’.
There’s also a TARDIS hexagon in the upper left (facing) and more TARDIS style hexagons behind the Doctor. The picture seems slightly unbalanced with the left side very ‘busy’, as you say, and the right side clearer and less cluttered. As if the whole picture is spiralling round.
The series tagline is ‘it’s about time’ and the teasers so far have involved time freezing or reversing.
Hmmm. The TARDIS is in the background, as if parked on a cloud, but that cloud could also be a trail of smoke. Reference to the explosion at the end of the last series? Or are they going to make that explosion into something that doesn’t get sorted out by the end of The Woman Who Fell To Earth?
I know we’ve been promised self-contained stories, but I can’t help thinking that Chibnall might have thoroughly absorbed Rule Zero – The Head Writer always lies. 🙂 That is, each episode story might indeed by wrapped up by the episode end, but there’s an undercurrent that leads to the finale, maybe in ‘Bad Wolf’ style.19 September 2018 at 14:35 #64094
@janetteb MCU — is geekspeak for the extended universe of the current Marvel films. Am I the only one who thinks that all those coloured crystals positively scream ‘infinity stones’?
@bluesqueakpip — RE. the smoke. That kind of reminds me of the spec fan-made ‘ink’ opening titles that can be found on YouTube and which I thought were really quite cool. I wonder if CC has taken a leaf out of SM’s book and used them as the basis for the new official titles.
With regards to an ongoing plot thread, I suspect it will be likely that there will be something like that in evidence throughout the series….19 September 2018 at 15:27 #64095
Given Disney’s proactive attitude to copyright infringement, I doubt that the thought ‘Infinity Stones’ has even crossed Chris Chibnall’s mind. 😈
What’s crossing my mind, however, is ‘Key to Time’.19 September 2018 at 16:06 #64096
I was thinking more in terms of the colour scheme as much as anything. It’ll be interesting to say the least if the MCU has some kind of visual or thematic effect on the new series. Even JW’s costume looks a little bit superhero-ey when you think about it.
But it will certainly be interesting if CC is thinking of doing something with the Key to Time (the first and probably most clunky series arc the show ever did.)20 September 2018 at 01:07 #64097
Why on Earth would CGI bother you? Virtually every effect you see post about 2010 is CGI – green screen is the way.
The days one one frame of Treebeard (in LoTR) took 48 hours to render are long gone, so it is much more const effective than was once the case.
Although it might be interesting to try to use some Andy Serkis-style motion capture to push the boundaries of what on-screen aliens cam look like…20 September 2018 at 05:59 #64101
@pedent CGI does not bother me and I did not say I dislike all CGI. Far far from it. I love good well used CGI, It creates infinite possibilities. (indeed one day, I hope, my second son will be employed in the industry) Like all good things however there is excessive use, ie when a scene does not look, “natural”. No immediate examples spring to mind other than movie trailers, which appear to be all CGI, no story or character development. There were times in LOTR when Jackson used CGI to create an effect, Galadrial at the mirror for instance, instead of letting the actor act it out. (there I did recall an example after all.)
Janette20 September 2018 at 13:07 #64102
New trailer… same dodgy music, tho I like it better this time…. very 80s vibe to it, I think…20 September 2018 at 15:37 #64103
Well, the all the running feels like Who, and it does establish the Doctor with an air of authority. I can tell that it is going to take a while for me to accept the music, though. We did get (I assume) a couple of shots of the inside of the Tardis (white and pale green), although not the console room. If those shots are of the Tardis interior, they reminded me a bit of the recent movie version of Star Trek’s Enterprise, which I wasn’t expecting.20 September 2018 at 16:10 #64104
I’d be willing to bet that most of that footage comes from the opening episodes and suspect that those interiors might belong to one of those spaceships we’ve seen here. But yeah, they do look very Star Trek, although like I say they definitely gave me an early JNT-era vibe too….20 September 2018 at 16:41 #64105
Yes, you are probably right. As for JNT feel, I was more struck by the way it consisely telegraphed the relationship of the three companions to the Doctor. If, as you say, the clips are from the early episodes, it seems to indicate a quick and uniform acceptance of the authority of the Doctor. A sort of “Team Who” feel. With previous Doctors there has often been a certain distance prior to acceptance by the companions. Here, the acceptance and recognition of authority seems to come early. A conscious decision, perhaps, to award a female Doctor authority and acceptance in the eyes of the viewers from the get up and go?20 September 2018 at 18:50 #64107
Imagine how exciting a trailer for The Dominators would be, if it wasn’t allowed to show Dominators or Quarks…20 September 2018 at 19:12 #6410820 September 2018 at 19:32 #6410921 September 2018 at 15:39 #64110
Oooh, I like that cover. I do wonder if that was part of the thinking behind the design of JW’s look that it lends itself more to caricature and stylisation than PC’s did (or at least initially)…23 September 2018 at 22:53 #64118
Getting to the actual content of the trailer:
Who (or what) was The Doctor bidding an apparently tearful farewell to?23 September 2018 at 23:37 #64119Devilishrobby @devilishrobby
Hmmm, I see she’s going with a northern accent lol so reinforcing the notion of the Doctor comes from the Gallifreyan “ North” . Is the background music the actual music for the series, it seems more in keeping with past MG style music and not as pop culture orientated that the Beebs British trailers have been indicating. I think I actually prefer the Auzzie version as you can concentrate on the action and what is said better.24 September 2018 at 17:57 #64120
Well, it’s clearly meant to make us think it’s one of the regular characters. But given the death rate of non-regular characters, it’s probably an episode guest star.
What was it Rory once said? “Whenever the Doctor starts getting friendly with someone, I always feel like notifying their next-of-kin.” 😈29 September 2018 at 02:17 #64141
The previously leaked scene is now official. Dunno about you but I totally on board with Whittaker.29 September 2018 at 08:28 #6414229 September 2018 at 14:31 #6414329 September 2018 at 15:40 #64144
She’s definitely nailed the prerequisite Doctor-ey-ness but going solely by that clip and trailers it does still strike me as a little default-setting Doc, a bit too Tennant-ey for my liking. But early days, Smith only really came into his own in the Angels two-parter, I think and Capaldi inListen. But we’ll see how Whittaker settles and finds her feet.29 September 2018 at 15:41 #64145
Is it wrong that I kind of want Hacker to have a semi-regular companion spot. Kind of like Captain Jack, only likeable…29 September 2018 at 17:28 #64146
Hacker defeats all alien threats with merely a ball of string, a signed photo of Sue Barker and a jar of meat paste…29 September 2018 at 19:28 #64147
As you say, she’s still finding her feet – both as an actor playing the Doctor, and as the Doctor in a new body. She could easily be making an acting choice to deliberately riff off previous incarnations until the regeneration has settled. In favour of that, this particular scene comes from a point in the story when post-regeneration confusion is in full swing.
Or it could simply be that Jodie Whittaker, actor, has worked extensively with David Tennant – and is subconsciously mirroring his Doctor until she finds her own. Sort of a ‘What would David do?’
Or it could be a combination of both. 😀30 September 2018 at 01:50 #64148thane16 @thane16
Would we REALLY know how good/like Tennant’s/like Smith’s/like Capaldi’s Whitakker’s depiction of Doctor is without the teaser, I wonder?
I don’t see, necessarily, how it is like anyone, myself? To me, it’s just ‘very’ doctor. I can’t remember what post-regen confusion was -in the past?
Colin Baker: yes. Tom Baker: ?? Doctor Number 3 was probably very saturnine…. & authoritarian. Troughton’s post regeneration confusion??
So we have a name for it: PRC ?
Puro30 September 2018 at 17:42 #64153
I don’t see, necessarily, how it is like anyone, myself? To me, it’s just ‘very’ doctor.
That was my impression, too. The teasers, the trailer and the clip from the first episode give us very little from which to draw conclusions, and the chief impressions which I gained were that a) that the production values look to be as good as promised , b) The dynamics of the Doctor with the three companions will probably work and c) Whittaker has what it takes to be The Doctor.
In one of the interviews I think she said something to the effect that she had largely avoided watching her predecessors after she was cast in the part in case she ended up imitating them.30 September 2018 at 23:14 #641581 October 2018 at 00:57 #64161thane16 @thane16
Yes Mudlark I feel that’s important -she chose to stay away from watching them all. Or at least the more recent incarnations.
I agree, he was. A lot of people loved him. I have to say I was one. A bit later, perhaps in repeats I found him a tad irritating but then, knowing Tennant, this was exactly the personality of Ten’s Doctor he wanted to capture. There was that frantic talking, a tps of arrogance, a tbs of urges……Elizabeth 1st and the wonderful Madame DePomp. etc. I remember that huuuge Children in Need concert, turning on the Christmas lights in Wales, and DVD sales shot up magically with RTD. Some episodes weren’t my thing, others, like many with Donna, were. So, all in all, it’s easy sometimes for me to say “didn’t much like Tennant” when that’s totally false. Thane and I were both smitten.
Smith on the other hand was just more convincing -personally -and there was a ‘fantastic’ quality to this that captured what I needed to see at that time.
Puro.1 October 2018 at 20:21 #64165
It is certainly beyond argument that Tennant was very popular in the role and seems to have drawn in a lot of new viewers, and I certainly didn’t dislike his incarnation of the Doctor, especially not in the beginning. Towards the end, though, and perhaps earlier than you, Puro, I did begin to find his mannerisms and the recurrent emphasis on his romantic appeal and multiple attachments more than a little irritating; it began to look as if he was reprising his role as Casanova.
As regards his amorous adventures, the depiction of the relationship between him and Madame de Pompadour certainly worked in The Girl in the Fireplace, even if it played a little fast and loose with history. But Elizabeth I? No, that is going too far! She was undoubtedly susceptible to male flattery – up to a very calculated point; but before anything else she was a highly intelligent and extremely canny political operator who put her own interests first in what was very much a man’s world, otherwise she would never have survived her adolescence and early adulthood during the reigns of her brother Edward and her sister Mary. She resisted the Earl of Leicester, who was probably the love of her life, and would certainly never have been diverted enough to succumb to the charms of a passing Gallifreyan time traveller to the extent of agreeing to marry him. The 10th Doctor in Day of the Doctor was right in his first assessment. But for those in the know, I suppose that was the point of the joke 😉2 October 2018 at 07:27 #64169
@mudlark Much though I love “Day of hte Doctor” I find the depiction of Elizabeth 1st irritating. to depict one of the strongest, (by no means the nicest) women in British history for comedy was perhaps a bit questionable. (Blackadder does it well but Blackadder is comedy.) Of course there is no knowing exactly how Elizabeth did act because every account of her was coloured by the bias of the writer, and our own impressions are coloured by TV and Film. For me Elizabeth will always be Glenda Jackson and so I found the depiction of her acting like a lovesick teenager to be jarring.
On recent rewatch I find I enjoy the stories with Tennant and Martha and of course Tennant and Donna but so not much the ones with Rose. The every woman but Donna must fall in love with him line became tiresome but that is the fault of the script writers telling the viewer rather than letting the story unfold. I think also they were playing up the romance to help sell the series to a younger audience which it certainly did.
I wonder how Chibnell will handle the producers’ request to ram in romance to keep up audience numbers. (if indeed that is the case.) That is going to be tricky to navigate and do well,, if done at all.
Janette2 October 2018 at 20:46 #64170
Of course there is no knowing exactly how Elizabeth did act because every account of her was coloured by the bias of the writer
To some extent that is true of almost any historical figure of the period, but we do have plenty of her own writings to assess her by, included a great many letters and her poems. Despite the fact that she wasn’t a particularly good poet and they are formal literary productions, the latter do, I think, give some insight into the person she was and the tensions between her private feelings and the persona she had to adopt as a sovereign, and moreover a female sovereign in a world where male superiority was assumed almost without question and where even she felt at times that she needed to pay lip service to that assumption, e.g. ‘I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman … ‘.
No, she wasn’t particularly ‘nice. In her position and the circumstances she couldn’t afford to be, and considering her parentage and the traumas of her early life and adolescence she probably wouldn’t have survived as she did without developing considerable toughness and a strong manipulative streak on the foundation of her formidable education. If I had met her, even on equal terms, I don’t think I would have liked her at all, but I have a great deal of admiration for her, nonetheless.3 October 2018 at 06:23 #64172
@mudlark I don’t think anyone in a position of power was “nice”. Those who inherit power maybe though being nice was not a good survival skill, but Elizabeth was certainly highly intelligent and that does not come across in the Day of the Doctor. I have not read any of Elizabeth’s poems or actual writings, only second hand accounts of her, mostly through TV Docos as the Tudor period is not one I have studied. I believe that the script of Elizabeth R did draw heavily upon the letters and records etc of the time and was a reasonable depiction of the woman and era. Back then BBC was committed to historical accuracy. (Australian schools/unis tend to focus upon modern European history and Australian history, or at least they did when I was there. I think they are a little broader in scope now. I did not do history hons because the subjects on offer were History of Religion in Australia, a very definite no for me, and History of South Australia which at the time I thought was non existent, I was wrong about that.)
But I am in danger of veering off topic. I will conclude by saying that I really, really, hope there are some good historical episodes this series. In these days of “fake news” it would be nice to see Dr Who shine a little light upon the past, albeit in a very fictionalised way.3 October 2018 at 19:27 #64173
Yes, allowing for some dramatic license, the BBC production Elizabeth R was fairly accurate as far as I remember. At one point they even included part of one of her poems as a voice-over soliloquy, and in the correct context!
Early in my career, when I was working in the Ulster Museum in Belfast, I attended a conference where one of the speakers discussed the costuming of historical drama, and she contrasted the different approaches in The Six Wives of Henry VIII and Elizabeth R. In the former production the effect of jewellery, fabrics and the embroidery on the rich clothes was achieved by illusory means, using cheap materials including brass chain from the iron mongers, or glue with silver or gold paint. In Elizabeth R the expensive fabrics and the embroidery were real, even if the embroidery was done partly by machine, and even the jewellery was custom made costume jewellery.
Swerving back in the general direction of the forum topic, it has been stated that there will indeed be episodes in historical settings, and I’ll be interested to see how they approach them. When the show was originally conceived and its educational potential was emphasised, the stories alternated more or less regularly between historical and futuristic until the third Doctor found himself marooned on earth with the Tardis out of action and time travel was ruled out. If my memory is accurate, these early historical episodes did not tend to include fantastical elements other than the time travellers themselves, and I confess that I was often a bit impatient with them, nit-picking the inaccuracies. On the whole I preferred the stories set in an imagined future, even if the science was far-fetched.
Since then, though, the episodes with a historical setting have centred on stories of aliens and the like, even when a good deal of effort has been made to get the incidental details right. And sometimes, as in Robot of Sherwood, the historical setting is itself a fantasy. I suspect that this will still be the case, and the stories set in the past will continue to feature other-worldly and fantastical events, with attention to historical accuracy secondary. And no doubt I will continue to annoy people by nit-picking 😈
P.S. Of course South Australia has a rich history. I’m reminded of friends in the US who, when showed me round Long Island and New England, kept apologising for the lack of ‘real’ history, when in fact there was a wealth of fascinating history clearly in evidence. Since much of the region had been settled by immigrants from East Anglia where I live, I was particularly struck by the evidence for that link*. But I’m rambling way off topic again.
*There are places named Norwich scattered all across the globe, and some years back some enterprising soul managed to assemble representatives from many of them to parade in the annual procession which takes place in Norwich in July to mark the installation of the Lord Mayor.4 October 2018 at 05:46 #64175
I really enjoy your nitpicking on historical detail. I drive my sons crazy by doing the same but I believe that inaccuracies need to be pointed out otherwise people are being mis-educated. I have often heard friends say, “well I guess that is how it was”, after watching historical films or tv series to which I often have to reply, “well not, not really.”
Re SA history, I have well and truely learnt the depth of my mistake. I now have a history, (pending revision) about early settlers in our local region. S.A. history is rather like that of the Shire. (LOTR) Not so much about important people or great historical events but “real” people, and SA was also very progressive politically. Still not sorry for ducking out of doing History of Religion however… As another off topic aside, my best friend’s ancestors were East Anglian.
Back to topic, (I am trying to be good…) I am feeling far more optimistic about the new series the closer it gets.
And that reminds me that today I must visit the local Lolly shop and see if they stock English Jelly Babies..
Janette5 October 2018 at 06:43 #64184ichabod @ichabod
@janetteb I wonder how Chibnell will handle the producers’ request to ram in romance to keep up audience numbers if indeed that is the case
Good grief, has something like that been reported? Well, it’s going to be an interesting challenge in any case. Our local free paper (“The Alibi”) has a little column (by Devin O’Leary) on the return of the Doctor this weekend as a woman, and I quote: ” . . . giving the Doctor a female body to inhabit for a while is perfectly in keeping with the show’s canon. For the vast majority of the show’s run, the character has been completely asexual anyway. So what’s the big deal? . . . If the Doctor is now a woman and that has absolutely no effect on the narrative, then there will have been little point.”
There you have it: the gender change is “no big deal” [asexual male/asexual female, *shrug*]; but if it really is “no big deal”, then why make such a change at all? I’m thinking of “Prime Suspect” here as an example of the major character, DI Tennyson, finding that being a female police inspector (even, or perhaps especially, if she’s very good at it) a very big deal indeed — almost entirely due to the reactions of others to her as a female cop. But presumably most of the characters JW Doc encounters won’t know that there were ever male Doctors, will they, or Doctors at all, so they’re quite right to use the trailer to show her being challenged simply as an unknown female exercising authority without even bothering to claim it first — which I think is an excellent approach. That in itself stamps her as The authentic Doctor: natural authority; and knowledge (+ forgetting, of course).
Those qualities, in most cultures, read as “masculine” (yes; even forgetting — who thinks of “the absent minded professor” as a *female* professor? An absent-minded Professore is fondly allowed his lapses; an absent-minded Professoressa will likely be looking for a new job ). So, how will JW show us the Doctor’s womanly side, now that it has come to the fore? Because if she doesn’t — there will “have been little point” in making him female at all.
Which I think is just what the anti-gender-switch wing of fandom would like to see, so that when JW leaves, The Doctor can go right back to being a male role, as if nothing different had happened — just a blip, though that X story was pretty good, but never mind, here’s Kris Marshall (or some other guy); sigh of relief.
On the other hand — if we go with the idea that the Doctor himself chose to manifest as female this time, then his being the Doctor in a female body becomes a declaration that the Doctor isn’t so much asexual as — internally gender-proof? Pan-genderous (?), so it never makes any difference to him/her/it whether the body is this or that gender this time around (or species, for that matter, all other things being more or less equal)?
It’s almost midnight here and my brain is in the twilight zone, so g’night, all.5 October 2018 at 14:21 #64185
@ichabod no nothing like that has been reported. It was merely idle speculation.
Interesting article on the Guardian tonight from our friend, Dan Martin. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/oct/05/can-the-jodie-whittaker-era-secure-the-future-of-doctor-who
Janette5 October 2018 at 21:36 #64187
I read that article and, to be honest, I find the question being asked to be more relevant to bean counters or marketing types, than to people actually watching the show. It is not just Dan that does this, as there are seemingly countless articles that obsess about ratings and the size of the audience.
For me, the questions are: Will I need to hide behind the sofa? Will I laugh? Will I cry? Will I go “squeee!”5 October 2018 at 23:34 #64188ichabod @ichabod
@janetteb It was merely idle speculation.
Phew! Given the BBC’s weird ambivalence about its own show, I wouldn’t have been all that surprised to hear that they have demanded a soapier series for JW.
@blenkinsopthebrave there are seemingly countless articles that obsess about ratings and the size of the audience.
Indeed. Fans keep trying to second-guess the BBC bosses, applying what we can’t help but know/suspect their bottom-line fixation must lead them to think about DW’s prospects, then use that supposition as fuel in the endless discussions about which Doctors were “the best”.
Funny how this article buys into the “can she cement the future of DW” with her performance — when everyone ought to know better: there’s no way to insure the future of DW, ever. Culture changes, personnel changes, the political/entertainment landscape changes — the miracle of the show is that it has managed to persist despite 50 yrs of change, albeit with a sizable hiatus around the end of the last century.
I’m hoping for some great moments. I want to see a female actor do great Doctor moments that fans talk about for years afterward, right before my eyes. Gimme the good stuff! I hope Chibnall & co can and will deliver.6 October 2018 at 04:09 #64189
@ichabod I think your final line there really says it. “I hope Chibnall and co can and well deliver.” The success of the show has every bit as much to do with the showrunner as it does the main actor and to attribute the rise and fall of ratings to the appeal of the actor playing the Doctor is less than fair. Many factors effect ratings. There is a huge shift happening in the way people watch TV but if the “bosses” and they are those who sit over and above Chibnell and those who make the show, obsess with ratings the quality of the show will suffer. I suspect that Moffat was often under pressure from “above” to shape his work to satisfy their demands and the quality suffered accordingly. It was almost certainly also true for RTD though I suspect the later might have been better at ignoring them.
Janette6 October 2018 at 17:43 #64192FrostFair @frostfair
Just seen Jodie Whittaker on Graham Norton and she was delightful. Looking forward to meeting her Doctor tomorrow evening. Also, quite curious as to how Bradley Walsh’s character will link in, especially as he wasn’t part of the “first look” youtube trailer.6 October 2018 at 17:51 #64193
The ratings thing is to my mind just a handy metric that journalists loved to latch onto, regardless of their actual continued relevance. I don’t imagine that even Dan is immune in that regard. And they’re even more moot in Who’s case than in others. Ratings probably do still have some impact in things like ‘The Bodyguard’ — notice the ‘watercooler TV’ narrative that developed around it but a show like that still doesn’t have the international recognition that something like Who has. I suspect that even if it’s not happening this year, Who is not that far away from being released en bloc onto iPlayer in Killing Eve stylee and that will end the ratings narrative once and for all.
But Who fans are and always will be sensitive to ratings chat, after the trauma of previous cancellations, which took place in different times. And really we should never forget that the show will be axed again at some point — and it should, it needs to rest and come back reinvigorated and reinvented — and it’s something that will probably happen sooner rather than later. And when it happens it will be nobody’s fault (although if it happens while Whittaker is still the Doctor, she’ll no doubt get the blame from all the misogynist broflakes out there). But it’ll just be time for it to happen.7 October 2018 at 03:29 #64196
@jimthefish I am certain that there are plenty of “broflakes” who will be on the look out for the slightest dip in ratings to jump in and blame Whittaker. Dangerous times ahead.. I suspect ratings will be right up there for the premier at least. Dr Who has never been so talked about as it was with the casting of Jodie W. I am certain that many lapsed fans will tune in just out of curiosity so here’s hoping that they are “hooked”. There are not many TV series that I enjoy and even less that the entire family watch so I don’t want Who to be axed any time soon. I am hoping that the occasional change in showrunner will provide rejuvenation enough, at least for the near future. (Though Chibnell is not the showrunner I would have chosen.)
I guess in the U.K. tonight is the night!! (We will be waiting until Wednesday to watch but I am looking forward to reading other’s reactions here tomorrow.
Janette8 October 2018 at 17:31 #64280
Couple of passing thoughts in the trailers and the post-credit sequence…
Odds on the Doc’s tearful farewell being Graham?
One of the teased cast was Vinette Robinson – not familiar with her, but her costume has a distinct “Katherine Johnson” look about it. that would be cool (didn’t Johnson have a cameo (so to speak) on Impossible Astronaut?)…
(Side note: if you haven’t seen Hidden Figures, treat yourself to the DVD)8 October 2018 at 18:50 #64281
Vinette Robinson was Sgt Donovan on “Sherlock”. She was very good at being very annoying…14 October 2018 at 22:21 #64479
Rosa Parks, eh?
That’ll have the Angry Virgins frothing.14 October 2018 at 22:26 #64481
That’ll have the Angry Virgins frothing
*rubs hands gleefully in anticipation 😈 *14 October 2018 at 22:28 #64482
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.