Dr Who News (4)
19 June 2016 at 07:55 #52754
@missy I am NOT a feminist, but that isn’t why I would detest the Doctor becoming a woman. It’s simply because I prefer it that way. It works and if it isn’t broken why fix it.
Does anyone consider the idea of a female regeneration a “fix” for something wrong with DW? Probably some feminists well Left of me, I guess some of the younger folks who react, quite rightly I think, to the persistent anti-feminist backlash (in the US) by becoming more critical, condemnatory, and militant than I think I remember being myself as a youngster. More power to them, since they’re having to fight tooth and nail just to hang on to whatever advances were made by earlier waves before them.
To some of these feminists, just the idea of a male authority/power/figure being central to the show, and usually being orbited by a spunky, attractive young woman is a red flag of battle. To them, a female Doctor *would* be a “fix”, specifically an attempt to counter-balance (or better yet, cancel out) the more usual male-centric template. These are SF fans, so they are all too familiar the original pattern in early pulp SF of the all-knowing (and inevitably male) scientist being cooed at by some generic idiot female to whom he has to explain things all the time (by way of explaining to the reader). It was stupid then, and it would be stupid now.
But DW is not stupid. By adding generous helpings of goofiness, vanity, and an emotional life to the central male, and having the female companions show courage, brains, and humor instead of just making the tea and being brainlessly alluring per the old template, they’ve broken the show away from the old demeaning pulp SF patterns, sufficiently for my taste, anyway.
So I don’t think they have anything to “fix”. On the other hand, in a time of challenging slants on gender identity and social roles, trying out how a female Doctor might be different (and how she might be the same) re the male Doctors just seems a natural thing to try — by way of exploration, not just to throw down a gauntlet to start a fight.19 June 2016 at 08:57 #52756
Come on, you know what I meant. If a show is working and has been working perfectly and is popular as it is for decades, why change it?
As for the young feminists you mentioned, I can understand points ot view up to a point, but as everything else, it can go too far. Poor blokes, don’t know whether they are Arthur or Martha nowadays.
Missy19 June 2016 at 10:04 #52761
@missy If a show is working and has been working perfectly and is popular as it is for decades, why change it?
It’s been working for 50 yrs. or so, and in terms of modern culture and how quickly it shifts, that is a long time. I don’t think it’s ever worked “perfectly” either. Viewers have been complaining about it becoming “stale” for some time, and certainly “monster of the week” has long been an issue (one that led me to quit watching the show the first time I did that, shortly before “the gap”). Public tastes change over time. It can’t be helped. These days, change has been sped up incredibly (take a look at Ancient Egyptian tomb art, and how slightly it varied over several *thousand* years, for a sense of the change in the pace — of change).
A popular art form *must* respond to palpable shifts in public taste or become unpopular, and die (no more “Perry Mason”: not with “Broadchurch” or “Law and Order” on hand). This isn’t ideology: it’s the economics of the entertainment industry, and the fact is that just because something “worked” pretty well for decades does not mean that it will continue to work with new audiences whose ideas are making them restless and less responsive to the “tried and true”.
As for the kids, well, the kids are all right. The problem is actually that they *do* know who and what they are, often quite early, and are no longer willing to shut up about it and live “normal” lives even though they are variants of a “norm” that has long been harshly constricted by judgmentalism. If they choose to assert their own knowledge of themselves over other people’s opinions of who they *should* be, how is that a bad thing? More power to ’em, says I.
“To thine own self be true”, says St. Willie the Shake. Hear, hear! says me. Make your life count by making it *your* life, not your parents’ or your community’s idea of who you are supposed to be.19 June 2016 at 11:47 #52762Anonymous @
I think ichi has a point there. And I’d hoped we’d move this better to the Pub?
I tried! 🙂
But yes, things must change: it’s worked before is not an argument for continuing it/that. It’s clear to me that many people actually want it to change. You may think its great Missy, but many thousands don’t. And if they do now, they wont necessarily in one or two years.
I’d caution use of the Arthur/Martha cliché…it can be offensive to some-absolutely at school it is.
Thx, the Puros (mainly me, the kid!!)19 June 2016 at 11:51 #52763Anonymous @19 June 2016 at 17:31 #52765IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant
If a show is working and has been working perfectly and is popular as it is for decades, why change it?
This argument is simply facile. The show has gone through many periods when it manifestly wasn’t working and wasn’t popular for all sorts of reasons and, indeed, spent 16 years off air because of that.
But none of those reason were anything to do with the gender of the Doctor. If Chibnall can pull off the introduction of a female Doctor that I am more than happy to let him give it a lash. It will be fun to try. The most catastrophic blunder any show can make is to pander to the most reactionary part of its fanbase.19 June 2016 at 22:10 #52773
@puroandson feminism can’t go too far. It’ll go as far as it needs.
Well, yes and no, IMO. It *is* possible for any sort of big change to go “too far”, correct for distortion, swing back again, etc. I’m thinking of politics mainly, eg the French Revolution of 1789 becoming the Reign of Terror (and then the White Terror as the pendulum was shoved back again after the Bourbon Restoration and all the other restorations around Europe after Napoleon was dealt with). It’s most obvious there. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction — although it’s never *exactly* opposite and never *exactly* equal, in human affairs at least. Of course, “as far as it needs” can also mean “as far as it can without tipping over into reaction”, if you care to take a long view.
@pedant The most catastrophic blunder any show can make is to pander to the most reactionary part of its fanbase.
Yes. Because that show will die, as their smaller and smaller fanbase grows old and dies off. I’d rather have the show (which is supposed to be *about* change as well as about enduring values) take the risks of making innovative changes than see it mummify in place. At some point, of course, DW will fail and fall (“blow away like smoke”, actually); but in the meantime, let’s let it live, which I think means let it change.20 June 2016 at 02:28 #52790Anonymous @
I think when young Son wrote “it will go as far as it needs” he meant exactly that.
Not too far and not ‘just far enough.’
If it needs to move forward then it shall -and should. Analogies about the French Revolution are interesting but not necessarily comparable.
Is feminism an ideology? Some would view it as such and others not.
If feminism turns into some mad “let’s hate ALL men” exercise then it’s not feminism at all -such a reaction will no doubt prove criminal, which, if one studies the ‘story’ books of our own history we’ll see that many men hated women completely and utterly.
So, it’s a difficult argument and requires hours of writing, many more hours of discussion and lots of furious debate. I don’t think we’re even half way there yet -and I’m speaking about Australia, a very volatile and yet euphemistically progressive region. 🙂
Oops, wrong thread. I think we tried to move this to the Pub! Even tiny changes aren’t embraced 😉
@pedant @missy (in response to Pedant only, Missy) Indeed -facile argument is spot on. Who mutated into some weird show in the ’80s and was just left hanging. It wasn’t just imperfect it was terrible at times. The fact it’s moved on, moved forward and been tipped on its head is massive evidence of change.
Continuation is evolution and evolution is progress -of some type or another and to some extent but the boundaries and definitions change too and many people possess different interpretations of those very same definitions until generalisation is all we have left. Aaand that’s another story…
PuroSolo20 June 2016 at 07:24 #52794TheDentistOfDavros @thedentistofdavros
Oi! The 80’s weren’t that bad!
They were just bad most of the time!20 June 2016 at 09:07 #52801
@puroandson If it needs to move forward then it shall -and should. Analogies about the French Revolution are interesting but not necessarily comparable. Is feminism an ideology? Some would view it as such and others not.
Oh, to be sure. I alluded to the Fr. Revolution as an example of going from one extreme to another, very quickly, and with some disastrous effects. As for feminism as an ideology — I never could get into it as an alternative theory of history, complete with some unprovable, and probably false, back-story creation (like some stone age era of feminine leadership overthrown by jealous males) of what some *wish* were true. To me, it’s very present-day and a matter of viewpoint, not structural analysis of the largely unknowable deep past: more a matter of “once you see, you can’t un-see” than “ideological analysis shows that x must be true”. It’s a mind-set, for me, and one that men can and do share without having to up-end history as we know it to support it.
What you see is what you get, e.g. 73 cents on the (male pay for the same work) dollar, and that’s not ideology: it’s fact. I just read a study concluding that one of the methods that top management use to control costs is to hire more women executives, who can *still* be paid less than their male counterparts, thereby seeming to abide by demands for more gender parity in leadership positions while maximizing their own pay packages at the expense of the women they hire. Talk about resistance to change!20 June 2016 at 10:58 #52802
There is a lot to say for all points made on this thread. I dare say, in fact I know, there are pe0ple who agree with my view about feminism and a female Doctor. It boils down to individual taste I suppose, and mine is leave it alone.
There are many who don’t like Shakespeare being modernised, strangley, I don’t mind thar at all, as long the acting is up to par.
As for women’s lib or feminism, I’ve had my say and shall leave it alone. Although why on earth ‘Arthur or Martha’ might be offensive is beyond me.
It’s astonishing, for over a week no one posted, then all of a sudden we’re off and racing.
Missy20 June 2016 at 12:16 #52804Anonymous @
well, it’s good people posted isn’t it?
We have plenty to talk about: and as Miss @Ichabod posted above, women are still below the threshold for salary and wages. As for Arthur and Martha? What you are suggesting is that men don’t know who or what they are. When that’s not true either: the issue is that the population don’t want to know: if the man for example is gay, or a cross dresser or transgender -all of which are very very different. The terms you use are old fashioned -I don’t think they are offensive, it just speaks of a difficult time for various men in our communities -and women also.
I’m sure you didn’t mean to be offensive at all and I apologise if you thought that -I guess it’s a different method of expressing yourself is what I meant.
One last thing -you say this a lot: “mine is to leave it alone” but you don’t (with respect Miss) because you have brought up the same points and the same argument over and again. And that’s OK I guess but it’s difficult to then stop when someone else begins the discussion again. I think as @arbutus has said that should be it for now? I kept going to the other thread but it wasn’t happening. We’ll get modded off for sure -and that would be right too, you know (this is the News section: someone coming here for News discussion would freak out and not stay!)
Thx again 🙂22 June 2016 at 12:56 #52833
Here I go explaining myself! It’s obvious that this phrase goes back a bit. when I said Arthur or Martha, it was used a lot when I was young. it means ‘coming or going” and no, I was not being offensive, at least not to my age group, but obviously to yours.
The modern meaning is, that men I have met (quite few) plus the odd one or two who have actually said this on Television, don’t know whether to hold doors open for women anymore, because some of these women were extrememely rude about it? How would some males feel when a man pulls the chair out for a women so that she can get up from the table, or offers to help her on with her coat, only to be told that they can do it themselves –thank you? They certainly aren’t encouraged to act like old fashioned gentlemen anymore. Hence Arthur or Martha, nothing to do with sexual preference. why do people nowadays seem to jump to that conclusion?
If that’s the new order of things, heaven help us. I hope this has cleared that one up.
Missy22 June 2016 at 13:37 #52835Anonymous @
Mostly the expression meant “not knowing one’s gender” (meaning a)) more so than “not sure whether he or she was coming or going.” As for you explaining yourself: “here I go…etc” you don’t have to at all. It’s your prerogative.
With Arthur/Martha, the use of the two gender types is indicative of this expression holding the former meaning. Meaning a) in other words – when one studies texts such as The Use and Abuse of Language, for example.
The issue of men holding open doors (etc) I see as a sign of respect for another person and not an activity for men only. I’ll hold doors open for any person.
Do I like it when a bloke says to me “after you, up the stairs” ? Nope, not at all. I would say “oh no, after you” because I know perfectly well why they want me to go first! As for the puricle, he opens doors for ladies and the same ladies repeat that routine later. Just good manners and isn’t gender based which is healthy. If women are rude about it I would add they’re rude people (possibly) rather than “extremely rude women” but without the context it’s difficult to say.
The puricle wrote “you are not being offensive” directly above. He even apologised if he had caused you offence. I suppose at his school, in his cultural tradition with particular social mores some students found the ‘Arthur / Martha’ expression “on the nose.” In re-reading my son’s post he showed respect and cordiality with his listening ‘ears’ on. A wise habit Obi Wan 🙂
We can agree that society is about mutual respect.
Things are improving in certain areas but in others as @ichabod pointed out, we are waaay behind the marker of equality -opening doors is a cosmetic issue only and detracts from the real diabolical problems we women face.
Kindest, PuroSolo22 June 2016 at 14:02 #52836Anonymous @
@missy this debate needs to be in the Pub! If I could cut and paste that post to a more appropriate thread I would -it’s beyond me. I apologise to all about clogging up The News thread with no actual ‘news’ !
<scurries away>22 June 2016 at 20:50 #52839IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant
Not sure if this is region-locked or not, but Jenna Coleman’s new gig preview:
Fairly sure this IS region-lock: http://www.itv.com/firstlook/preview-victoria25 June 2016 at 02:37 #52890Kharis @kharis
@ichabod and @puroandson very interesting evaluations and deductions as usual.
@missy I am also struggling more than I care to admit with a year off of Doctor Who and Sherlock. It’s like withdrawal or worse. /:
@doctordani Heavens, I hope so, River and and 12 are amazing together, but I pray your theory about 12 is wrong. I can’t even take the idea of it. I refuse to accept Peter leaving, at least not for another 12 years or so, I will protest in the streets and demand he returns.
I had a thought (could be the blackberry wine talking) after watching ‘The Husbands of River Song’ for (actually it best not to give a number on how many times I’ve watched this episode or ‘Heaven Sent’) let’s just say the fourth time, I realised that River has a costume with raven wings, and if you subscribe to my crazy theory on Tasha Lem, she is also sporting raven wings on her outfit when driving the TARDIS. Just saying. Also, little miss Charlotte has a picture of a raven behind her, that we assume she painted. Also, just saying.
Back to my wine, my reruns and feeling sorry for myself.30 June 2016 at 12:09 #53005
Good grief! I didn’t notice the ‘wings’ on River’s costume – you are right!
I feel that demo would be a good thing, perhaps we could get thousnads of signatures to keep PC?
I’ve beaten your record of 4 for “Heaven Sent and Husbands of River Song” you can double that number.
Lawks I’m sad!
If your wine is fizzy, may I join you?
Missy6 July 2016 at 04:12 #53119PhaseShift @phaseshiftTime Lord
During my absence I’ve contributed to a Doctor Who Kickstarter campaign (The campaign is fully funded now, so no pleading for your hard earned dosh). If you’re currently twiddling your thumbs as you wait for the next series of Doctor Who, this may give you a thumb alternative from September.
The campaign was to help pay the licensing costs for a full conversion of the Bally Doctor Who pinball table of the early 1990s into a digital format to play on a device of your choice through Farsights Pinball Arcade App.
I’ve long been a fan of the silver ball and encountered the Doctor Who table in a Bradford pub in 92. It was a marvellous experience for a number of reasons. Primarily because this was post cancellation and the future of the series seemed to lie solely in book form with the New Adventures. This was new, fun and strangely comforting. Perhaps there was life in the old dog yet?
@jimthefish wrote a great blog about the troubled history of Doctor Who computer games (although I don’t seem to be able to find it at the moment), and some of the reasons for the difficulty in translating the Doctor to your computer screen. It’s a problem the more abstract arcade pinball table never had.
It has a plot of sorts, separated into three episodes. That naughty Master has trapped all the incarnations of the Doctor at various points in their history with his devilish Time Expander. The Seventh Doctor and Ace manage to escape and must try to free other incarnations of the Doctor (you select a Doctor at the start of each ball). It later emerges that the true power behind the plan is Davros and his Daleks. The Doctors must unite in multiball madness mode to throw waves of invading Daleks into the Time Vortex.
The table really was a gem. Both the Mechanical and Electrical Engineer involved were big American fans of the show from the PBS era. Sylvester McCoy, Anthony Ainley and Terry Malloy recorded dialogue for the soundtrack, and there were lovely little flourishes. One of the interesting things was the selection of Doctor changed the rules (or perhaps the personality) of the table and therefore you could develop different strategies for gaining the most points for those beery as hoc tournaments we indulged in at University.
So, in the run-up to the 30th anniversary in 1993, we had The Seven Doctors anniversary special delivered through the anarchic medium of the silver ball. Much better than Dimensions in Time.
Pinball Arcade is available for just about every device format available today. I tend to play on a relatively inexpensive Acer tablet running Android. Download is free and comes complete with complete access to the Tales of the Arabian Nights table. You can also download trial versions of any of the other tables which let you play to a score limit. You can buy full access to any table or Seasons of table thereafter if you are interested. A new digitised table is released each month and there is a table of the month feature in which you get unlimited plày on one of the older tables.
I’ve found it a great way to revisit some old favourites like Funhouse, Addams Family and Twilight Zone while getting a chance to experience many tables I’ve just heard about by reputation (both good and bad).
NOT JUST NOSTALGIA
Due to the relative success of the Kick-starter and the cooperation of the BBC the developer has gained not only the rights to the various actors, writers and estates of those involved in the original table, but additional ones as well.
They intend to release Doctor Who Pinball: Regenerated to bring the table up to date with post 7 Doctors and features. The layout of the table (ramps, ball runs, etc) will be the same but it sounds very interesting. An image of John Hurt as the War Doctor was released as “how he will appear on the playfield’ to suggest they are going for a more photorealistic backdrop.
The teasing blurb for the game reads:
The Doctor’s existence is fading… and only you can save him!
After reshaping the events of the Time War, paradoxical fissures have created a causal nexus by ripping the very fabric of space and time. Taking advantage of these anomalies, the Doctor’s most devious adversaries have entered these tears in an effort to defeat him across various points in his life.
Like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff…
As his newest companion, you can relive all the best moments from the Doctor’s most recent incarnations and adventures.
Revisit old friends. Battle against terrifying villains and monsters. Save the universe with attack eyebrows.
Come on pudding brains, what are you waiting for?
Will Missy be replacing the Delgado image and Ainley voice? Will Cybermen be demanding an upgrade to include them? Will the Eighth Doctor be looking ” like a great big Ponce” ( (c) Lucie Miller) or in Night of the Doctor garb? Will there be Fez bonuses?
I can’t wait to find out!6 July 2016 at 11:48 #53130JimTheFish @jimthefishTime Lord
That sounds excellent. Will duly be downloading. I have fond memories of the old Who pinball game (in the old RGIT union in Aberdeen I seem to remember).
Yeah, I definitely did to a blog on video games but I can’t find it either now. Many of the older blogs have now been lost in a morass of fan film reviews, it seems….9 July 2016 at 10:46 #532071997whovian @1997whovian
did everyone hear about the matt smith returning news? what does everyone think? i think it’s great news 😀9 July 2016 at 16:05 #53212Anonymous @
I had not heard this. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
I took a look at the article about this, but it seems like it is simply the media twisting Moffat’s words. He said that when Matt left, he was sad to go and that Peter is considering leaving as well. It seems more likely that Moffat is hoping to convince Peter to stay because he may regret leaving so soon (But that is just one hopeful interpretation of mine because I’m not ready to see PC go). To support this, Matt Smith is a very talented actor, and he was just starting his career when he landed the role of the Doctor. From an acting perspective, even if he did enjoy being the Doctor (as anyone be be expected to), it would be smarter to continue on the path he is going by moving on to other things.
Most likely, there are news article writers trying to make a good story from a single quote like always, and it will blow over in a week.
As far as my personal opinion on the matter (if I am wrong, and Matt does have a chance to come back), I loved Matt Smith as the Doctor. I would be happy to see him return as the Doctor for maybe a single episode, but he has had his run, and if Capaldi really is leaving, then this should be an opportunity for a new actor to take on the job.10 July 2016 at 07:36 #53214Kharis @kharis
I agree with @theconsultingdoctor and think the media (as usual) took it out of context. Naturally, I would love to see Matt Smith return, he brings so much joy, humour, intelligence, whimsy and heart to the show how could I not? On the other hand, it’s too good to be true, which I never trust, plus I refuse to get my hopes up. Another problem with this rumor mill is thst I can’t stand all the rumors that Capaldi is leaving, I’m still hoping he stays on for another ten years or so. Unless the news is “Capaldi signs decade long contract” I don’t want to read it.10 July 2016 at 09:34 #53215
I’m hoping against hope that PC stays on for a while. Matt Smith was good value, but then so were Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant.
Missy10 July 2016 at 23:28 #53217Anonymous @
I sure hope he stays on too. In fact, I almost feel as if he’s only just getting started. Unfortunately, however, I am getting the impression that his next season may be his last. Matt Smith coming back doesn’t really make lot of sense to me though and I don’t think I would be keen to see that either at this point. I think it would be better to give someone else a shot at it instead. But I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens.11 July 2016 at 05:48 #53218
Can this really be true?
Peter Capaldi may be staying on as Doctor Who after all
Missy11 July 2016 at 06:33 #53219geoffers @geoffers
as much as i loved matt, when peter’s time is up, i’d much rather see (at least) one full season of paul mcgann, to see what he could bring to the show…
but i’ll be happy, no matter what they do. hell, i’d love to see all three, taking turns crossing one another’s time streams, in a fifteen episode season… would be EPIC, to say the least…
🙂11 July 2016 at 09:49 #53221Mersey @mersey
@geoffers I would like to see Lucie Miller but I think the whole story with Matt’s returning is a spoof.11 July 2016 at 12:27 #53222janetteB @janetteb
I think the fact that nobody has at yet complained about this story being in News rather than Spoilers indicates how little credibility it has. The story claiming that Chibnal has asked Capaldi to do at least one series with him however does seem credible and is no less than I would expect. All digits crossed that P.C. will stay on. I want him to do at least five more series. I feel as though he is only just settling into the role.
It is possible that Matt is going to make an appearance in Class and that is what has feed the rumour mill.
Janette11 July 2016 at 13:14 #532231997whovian @1997whovian
@theconsultingdoctor It probably is the media just twisting moffats words. I too do not want Pcap to go yet , but i would like to see matt come back at some stage, like you maybe in one episode but he was my fave so i want him to come back fully too. It’s a hard decision.11 July 2016 at 18:37 #53224MissRori @missrori
I think this particular rumor is terribly silly, and it’s a shame people are spreading it. From these and other rumors gaining ground, one would think that poor PCap wasn’t wanted as the Doctor. PCap brought me back to modern Doctor Who (I’m a big classic series fan, specifically Four’s era) after I grew bored with Series 2 — and that was really impressive given all the bad online press Twelve/Series 8 got. Once I actually started watching Twelve’s episodes, I regretted not getting into it sooner. Series 9 wound up being the first season I watched unfold in “real time”, as it were.
I’d rather see more speculation about what Twelve will be up to this season. Given that what looked to be his big, tenure-spanning story arc has already been resolved, I’m wondering if something bigger and bolder isn’t in the cards for him by the time he regenerates. Twelve hasn’t had a Bad Wolf, Big Bang, or Moment-style miracle yet…11 July 2016 at 20:50 #53225Anonymous @
“In fact, new showrunner Chris Chibnall…has made…an offer for series 11,” to Capaldi.
“Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland, the actor confirmed: ‘I haven’t made my mind up. I’ve been asked to stay on, which is lovely…To be perfectly honest, it’s so far away in the future…I don’t want to make that decision right now.”12 July 2016 at 03:29 #53226
That’s the link I sent stichintime. Fingers crossed.
Missy12 July 2016 at 05:53 #53227CountScarlioni @countscarlioni
Matt Smith back as the Doctor?? Dr. Moffat is surely pulling our leg with this one!
In the `BBC Dr. Who Newsletter ‘ from July 5 (I get sent this I think because I ordered a stand-up cardboard weeping angel a few years from the BBC Shop), there were some photos of the new companion’s first day of shooting. For this (blurry) image, the caption says “We can also see from the official pic and Pearl’s video that snow is involved in the story, can we assume the story takes place in winter? (Though, in the UK, sometimes it snows in April.)” On the sign it says “St. Luke’s University, Bristol.”
First time back to Bristol since `Flatline.’ Why?? I suppose we have six months to work out if this has a deep meaning or not…
The same issue of the Newsletter has some news on writers for Series 10: http://www.doctorwho.tv/whats-new/article/writers-new-and-old-confirmed-for-doctor-who-series-1012 July 2016 at 10:05 #53228
Thank you for the above. Yes, it can xnow in April, I was there when it did.
Missy13 July 2016 at 13:44 #53230Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip
In the UK, it can snow in June. Rare, admittedly, but it has happened. 🙂14 July 2016 at 02:29 #53234
@countscarlioni Thanks for the link to the interview with Sarah Dollard — liked it very much. In particular, love the idea of going back in time in her Tardis to see great theater performances, which reminded me of historic ballet performances and other “lost” moments in the ephemeral arts — yes! Of course! “Hamilton”, wow, that would be great.
But what’s the inscription on the stone thing? Something university, I think, but it’s too faint and blurry to make out what it says, at least on my mac screen.14 July 2016 at 04:40 #53237
bluesqueak. Why doesn’t that suprise me. One thing you can rely on, the predictable unpredictableness of the British weather. *nod*
Missy14 July 2016 at 04:53 #53240CountScarlioni @countscarlioni
The inscription says “St. Luke’s University, Bristol.” So a return to Bristol & I think the first since `Flatline.’14 July 2016 at 06:09 #53244
@countscarlioni Thanks, yes, I think so too. I have a friend in Bristol, a publisher (years ago) of a feminist press in London that put out some things of mine in the UK. I really need to visit her, before we (the crowd that was so active in these sorts of things in the genre) all croak . . . !14 July 2016 at 15:15 #53258JimTheFish @jimthefishTime Lord
I hesitate to describe this as news but as it’s kind of thin on the ground at the mo’, I’m going to stretch a point….
PC meeting fans during filming. I’m personally very happy to see that the hoodie look is back. The velvet coat thing was cool but a bit too generically Doctorish for my taste….14 July 2016 at 18:35 #53264MissRori @missrori
I like all of PCap’s costumes as the Doctor so far!
I just keep trying to figure out what his story arc is building towards. Since it wasn’t finding Gallifrey, it has to be something else. I wonder what will drive the action in Series 10…14 July 2016 at 19:11 #53266Anonymous @
I like most of his costumes, but I must admit that I really do like the velvet coat quit a lot.15 July 2016 at 11:02 #53283
Yes, so do I. His original outfit is very smart, but the maroon coat is great. Shades of Jon Pertwee. Isn’t he wearing the original (Magician) outfit in the trailer we saw recently?
Missy15 July 2016 at 17:43 #53286todeledo @todeledo
Ten things about series 10 from the fan show. Contains coats, companions and more!16 July 2016 at 09:12 #53290
Thank you for the above. It led to so many more clips.
Missy17 July 2016 at 04:37 #53295
@todeledo Ah, fun! Thanks! No beard — good news, IMO — that face is so expressive, I don’t want half of it hidden in hair. And I do like that statement re beardlessness, authoritative but not snarky or a put-down. That’s my guy.17 July 2016 at 05:11 #5329617 July 2016 at 06:01 #53298
@missy Yeah . . . gawd, I miss my DW fix! In just about every respect, I can hardly wait for the end of this ghastly year.17 July 2016 at 06:37 #53301
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.