On the Sofa (part 2)
This topic contains 918 replies, has 85 voices, and was last updated by Anonymous 6 years, 4 months ago.
20 August 2013 at 22:05 #16439
ok …. let’s try … experiment 1… 😉 …20 August 2013 at 22:12 #16440
Aha!! … cheers http://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/members/whisht/ …
Which was cunningly disguised as Experiment 2 …20 August 2013 at 22:18 #16442
OK .. not such a great result .. Hmm … try again..20 August 2013 at 22:24 #16443
http://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/members/shazzbot/ …. Hmm …. this isn’t going so well …
Bring out the Neanderthal! …20 August 2013 at 22:40 #1644420 August 2013 at 22:44 #16445
Huzzah!! … by George, (Not the mad king – that would just be wrong…) I think that’s it !! …20 August 2013 at 22:59 #16446Anonymous @
@sonicginsling – no pressure, but do you have any theories about past or future Doctor Who episodes? Or, has getting the hang of @-ing members, and doing smilies, taken all of your mortal effort and you now desperately need a lie-down?
It’s not for nothing that our strapline is “Theories even more insane than what’s actually happening.” It would be excellent if you could contribute in that vein, as marvellous as your smilie efforts have been to date.20 August 2013 at 23:31 #16448
@shazzbot – Aah – well …yes, sorry – it’s been a while since I had like-minded folks to chat to about something that’s been a bit of a personal obsession for more than 40 years… you’ll have to forgive me for this little ‘getting used to things’ moment…
As Colin Baker once said … ‘Rest is for the weary – sleep is for the dead’ … so no laying down just yet…
Well, obviously the thing on the mind at the moment is the impending 50th, John Hurt, the upcoming regeneration story, the next season and Peter Capaldi … ok, that’s five things but that’s beside the point… Well, having asked the question that was the whole reason for signing up here (the Stephen Moffatt/Movie Doctor thing) and checked out the suggested ‘bonkers theory’, that was offered in response, I’d better address that one …
Personally, I can’t imagine that Mr Moff would even contemplate a connection between the tv series and the movies – that’s just unthinkable – after all, the two movies are just bigger, more colourful versions of two of the oldest tv stories. It would therefore be virtually impossible to explain how a very clever Earth-man could have invented a time machine, given it the same name and attributes as the classic Time-Lord invention, the TARDIS, and gone on to have a couple of adventures that mirrored the exploits of the Time Lord he’s meant to be replacing, before taking up a life of adventures ‘in the name of The Doctor’ … it just doesn’t work …20 August 2013 at 23:48 #16449
Oh , and @whisht – thanks for the hints – Let the oddball theories commence! 🙂21 August 2013 at 07:16 #16452
Ah that’s ok @sonicginsling
Actually a brilliant guy on this forum did have a theory which brought those films into Who continuity (involving Dalek dry runs on their foe the Doctor if memory serves).
Wonderfully bonkers, but with a real fondness for Cushing and those films. Don’t think I’ve read anything by him for quite a while, which is a shame.
And as @shazzbot says, we love theories even more insane than what’s actually happening21 August 2013 at 15:01 #16465Anonymous @
Personally, I can’t imagine that Mr Moff would even contemplate a connection between the tv series and the movies – that’s just unthinkable – after all, the two movies are just bigger, more colourful versions of two of the oldest tv stories. It would therefore be virtually impossible to explain how a very clever Earth-man could have invented a time machine, given it the same name and attributes as the classic Time-Lord invention, the TARDIS, and gone on to have a couple of adventures that mirrored the exploits of the Time Lord he’s meant to be replacing, before taking up a life of adventures ‘in the name of The Doctor’ … it just doesn’t work …
It could work if that “very clever Earth-man” is actually David Tennant’s half-human half-Time Lord meta-crisis “clone” from Journey’s End, who lives in an alternate universe. He could conceivably build himself a TARDIS and probably wouldn’t see any need to come up with a new name for it. The similarities between the movies and the Hartnell episodes they borrowed from could be explained away by saying they happened on Pete’s World, rather than “our” Earth. (If Mickey & Jackie were able to get from Pete’s World into this universe when Davros stole the Earth, then it stands to reason that the Daleks could find a way to get to Pete’s World.) The only hurdle would be turning David Tennant into Peter Cushing – or a younger facsimilie thereof – since he doesn’t have any inherent regenerative abilities. This could be achieved by having him in close proximity to one or more regenerating full-blooded Time Lords (the “real” Doctor and/or his “daughter” Jenny) – conceivably, the regeneration energy being thrown off could trigger him to regenerate as well.
Note that, while I fully believe that this could happen, I highly doubt that it actually will.21 August 2013 at 21:45 #16480
Nice one… er… ones.. @madscientist72 …. That’s a pretty cool bunch of theories, and I can’t say ‘rubbish’ to any of them! – Just one thing – how’s about this as a little addition, or alteration maybe (not exactly in the name of peace or sanity, just in the name … you know the rest…) … instead of the ‘regenerating in close proximity’ device, which seems just a little bit too ‘quantum-linked’ for comfort, how about a bit of nifty ‘deviated time-line’ action, with the whole ‘Silence assassination plot’ coming to fruition a little sooner and involving the Tennant ‘half-human… (etc) Doctor’, instead of Matt Smiths… that way, River Song could give her regenerations to the ‘human’ version (or a portion of them) thus enabling a divergent time-line to develop in which a regeneration into young Peter Cushing wouldn’t be impossible… of course, that opens the way for a load of tricky questions about Amy, Rory, The Weeping Angels and all those other intervening events which would have to be re-shuffled to lead up to the final giving of regenerations … well, actually … forget all that – I like yours better ….21 August 2013 at 23:27 #16491
and not just a single post, but further replies…
Its a shame we haven’t heard from @denvaldron for a while, as he’s got a true fondness for those films, and had a pretty clear theory.
and he had a nice way with words – was about to put some of the choicest lines in here, but will hold back in case anyone wants to read and I won’t spoil their fun!21 August 2013 at 23:33 #16492Anonymous @21 August 2013 at 23:41 #1649321 August 2013 at 23:49 #16495
@jimthefish – a mighty whisht?? a mighty quiet??
I really owe @galactus a reply to the Sandman comics. I feel pretty bad – on his suggestion I went and ‘found’ some of the first series and read them. But I didn’t write down my thoughts contemporaneously (which would’ve made sense) nor sat back and considered them in more than a glib “these are a few thoughts” kind’ve way.
maybe this weekend (which admittedly I’ve said a few times before weekends)…..22 August 2013 at 00:10 #16497
Ok @whisht … I just want to clarify this…. the whole ‘integrate Peter Cushing’ idea wasn’t really something I was thinking about seriously – it’s always been something I just accepted as ‘there were movies as well as the series’ ever since I first saw them on tv back in the 1970’s – I never got confused between them and the tv series (with Jon Pertwee, as it was back then) especially since one movie had the bloke from ‘Record Breakers’ and the other one had the voice of ‘The Wombles’ (Tv… not pop group…) in it… My whole point was a gentle pointing out of the similarities between SM’s current vision and the style of the films, culminating in Peter Capaldi being cast… (wonder if he’ll wear the scarf and fingerless gloves? … ) Welcome to the can ‘o worms! (Note to self – tread more carefully next time …)
Having said that…. I’m hugely impressed with the level of invention and debate here! you chaps and chapesses are truly marvellous! So tell me – what’s the latest speculation about John Hurt’s Doctor / Half-Doctor / Hybrid / Splinter / mutant jelly baby version …..22 August 2013 at 06:17 #1650122 August 2013 at 21:10 #16511WhoviansRcool @whoviansrcool
Hey people. I’m new here. i really wanted to check out the website because as an english guy in Florida, there is hardly anybody i can talk to about Doctor Who and all its wonders. So i just wanted to let you all know, i am a full fledged whovian. i even have my own sonic and tardis and i am just here for a good old fashioned chat.22 August 2013 at 21:19 #16512Anonymous @
Hello and welcome @whoviansrcool to our wondrous forum.
Where are you in Florida? (And do you realise what a cliche that is, a Brit snowbirding into Florida?!)
I don’t want to shepherd you around the site too much, but for anyone new, I would suggest looking at the Blogs where we have detailed discussions of past Doctors, Caption Competitions, imaginative re-boot fiction, and various other interesting things to read.
There is also the on-going topic of The Faces of the Doctor where, if you’d like, you can add your thoughts about your favourite Doctor.
And, of course, we have our retrospectives on Steven Moffat-written episodes, and BG ** (Before Gap, i.e., Doctors 1 to 8) episodes which have been selected for their interest in sparking lively debate.
** We also use AG for After Gap, i.e., Doctors 9 and ongoing.
Happy reading, and I hope we’ll hear from you when you’re ready to post your own thoughts.23 August 2013 at 00:02 #16522FiveFaces @fivefaces
I wanted to ask if anyone had a favourite story from a visit to a Doctor Who location.
Last weekend I went for walk that took in East Hagbourne (the village that was used for The Android Invasion with Tom Baker). It was just part of an ordinary walk in the country, but the prospect of getting to the special East Hagbourne made it so much more exciting. And it’s nice to report that, when I got there, the local pub was still ‘The Fleur de Lys’, and had some good pictures of Tom Baker with the villagers during the shoot. The key site — the war memorial — was of course the same as it was in the episode. And the Church, which you don’t see in the episode, was lovely. The village is beautiful.
Altogether, it was a great spot to visit, and added something fun to a walk. Since then I’ve learned that there is an excellent Doctor Who location website. Has anyone else enjoyed visting a location, and are there any that they would recommend?23 August 2013 at 00:11 #16523Anonymous @23 August 2013 at 00:22 #16524TardisBlue @tardisblue
Welcome. Mind if I offer a suggestion for finding fellow Whovians in Florida?
No, it’s not dressing up with the Sixth Doctor’s coat, the Fourth Doctor’s scarf, and the Eleventh Doctor’s fez while lounging seductively against the doors of your Tardis (where the St. John’s Ambulance sign has been replaced with a sign saying “Snog Box”). Although that might be worth a try. Who knows?
No, I’m thinking of something more prosaic like Meetup. http://www.meetup.com/find/ Just a thought. There’s a Meetup posted for my area for November 23. You could see if there are any existing Meetups or start your own.
@fivefaces, welcome! All I can claim is Manhattan, Washington DC, and Utah. Other places associated with NASA, but not Cape Canaveral. The Statute of Liberty was stationary when my tourist boat cruised by her. No Daleks, unless they had entered the second dimension to disguise themselves as manhole covers. As for any Silence, well, erm, I really don’t remember.
TardisBlue23 August 2013 at 05:52 #16550janetteB @janetteb
@fivefaces, I have only visited two Who related locations and they are both “embarassingly” obvious. The first is Paris and yes, when I first walked up the Champs-Elysees I was trying to work out just which cafe the Doctor and Romana were sitting at. (City of Death) I was nineteen at the time and despite having studied history and art it was Dr Who that I was thinking of when I first went to Paris. More recently I was pointing Dr Who locations out to my sons from the second stage of the Eiffel Tower so, not much had changed really over the years. 🙂
We also visited the Cardiff Bay area in 2007. We were supposed to be visiting castles but changed plan when we found out about the Dr Who exhibition. Wish I had known more about Dr Who locations last time I was in the U.K because I would have loved visiting some of the villages etc.
Oh and Weclome to the forum.
Welcome to @whoviansrcool too.
Janette23 August 2013 at 06:58 #16552FiveFaces @fivefaces23 August 2013 at 11:03 #16559amywilliams @amywilliams
Hi all! I’m new here. I’ve only started watching Doctor Who in the past couple of months. I’m American, so I started with the 9th Doctor. I’ve been hooked since about halfway through that first season. Love it! I’m almost all caught up now. What am I going to watch next? I understand I have to wait until December for new episodes. I think my favorite, and most scary, villains are the Weeping Angels. I don’t believe I’ll ever look at another statue the same again!
Anyway, excited to be here among other Whovians, new and old 🙂
(BTW, that is my real name!)23 August 2013 at 13:06 #16564Anonymous @
@phaseshift (and @ everyone else too)
I saw this article in Doctor Who TV about about the Dimensions in Time special. It made me think that you – or indeed anyone else – might want to do a blog about one or more of the various charity specials DW teams have done over the years. I’d offer to do it but I don’t have the wealth of background information a more knowledgeable commenter like you has.23 August 2013 at 13:34 #16568PhaseShift @phaseshiftTime Lord
Thanks, I’ll have a think about it, but I have a couple of other blog ideas I’m hoping I get the time to finish over the Bank Holiday. I’ve touched on a couple of the celebratory episodes over on the Faces strand (Dimensions in Time is available to view there as well). I agree with the sentiment of the article you posted though. In my own words “Pretty awful”, and I was being generous.
The same post though has a link to “More than 30 years in the TARDIS”. One of the best documentaries I think has been compiled on the BG years, with some specially filmed scenes (including the Brig coming under attack from Autons). Well worth 90 minutes of anyone’s time.23 August 2013 at 15:02 #16572
Don’t forget – 7pm tonight on BBC 3…23 August 2013 at 16:25 #16573Anonymous @
@wolfweed – TATM isn’t on our forum roster until mid-October, so it will be nice to see it again earlier than that.
P.S. congrats on your Shift+R – it’s all working again!23 August 2013 at 17:56 #16579Anonymous @
@wolfweed and @everyone – I was just about to set my DV recorder for TATM but, according to my Freeview’s scheduler it’s been moved to next Friday. BBC3 is showing highlights from the Reading and Leeds festival instead 🙁
Can anyone confirm this is the case or is it that my digi-box has gone bonkers?23 August 2013 at 18:06 #16580Anonymous @
This is BBC Three for next week 30/08:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/programmes/schedules/2013/08/3023 August 2013 at 19:06 #1658123 August 2013 at 19:22 #16582Galactus @galactus
Just to let you know, I do still dip in to the forum to catch up on the latest discussion, just don’t often log in as I don’t have much time to contribute at the moment. Will definitely be back for the anniversary.
@whisht No worries, I’m just glad I made you feel like you wanted to read them!23 August 2013 at 19:26 #16583
Apologies. I probably got mixed up about TATM. If you’re still pining for it you can find it here:23 August 2013 at 19:38 #16584Anonymous @
Glad to hear you’ll be around more soon. Hope all is well with you.23 August 2013 at 19:56 #16585Galactus @galactus
@Shazzbot Ha! ‘Galactus lives!’ is the best response I think I’ve ever received anywhere. I shall appoint you my herald. I imagine you standing over me triumphantly having connected an aracane power source to me, shouting to the skies ‘Galactus lives!’, before I rise from my slumber and state, ominously, ‘I HUNGER’…23 August 2013 at 20:55 #16586Anonymous @
@wolfweed – It’s the BBC who should apologise. They must have changed it at the last minute as I’m pretty sure I saw TATM scheduled for tonight when I checked on Wednesday.
I’ve compensated by watching Blink instead 🙂23 August 2013 at 21:18 #1658823 August 2013 at 21:50 #16595PhaseShift @phaseshiftTime Lord
Actually, if you get the opportunity at some point, I’d be interested to see your thoughts on Sandman. The main reason is, for all the suggestions that we’ve made in TV, books etc, I think you may be the first person to actually take one up from scratch.
If it’s not entirely positive, don’t hold back. I hesitated posting “Stick with it past the first graphic novel – that one has a couple of issues, but you need it” because that’s kind of offputting, although I think there is a bit of truth in it.24 August 2013 at 18:57 #16630
Last night I was rewatching Torchwood ‘Greeks bearing gifts’.
Lo & behold @ 26.23 Owen points at a hole in an ancient corpse and says to Tosh: ‘Does that remind you of anything?’
Tosh: ‘Erm… that bit in Alien where that thing bursts out of John Hurt?’
A bit of 4th wall cracking, like that time when Dr Who is about to come on the telly in ‘Remembrance of the Daleks’…25 August 2013 at 14:42 #1664725 August 2013 at 14:53 #1664825 August 2013 at 15:10 #1665025 August 2013 at 19:00 #16682winnipegger @winnipegger
I would like to post this as a new topic in “General”, but it looks like a new account can’t do that. So I’ll post here.
Many of my friends are fans of Doctor Who. As am I. We all complain that the actor appears to be changing way too quickly. Checking history, latest actors haven’t changed more frequently; the problem is lack of episodes.
The first doctor lasted 3 seasons (years). The second also lasted 3 seasons. The next 5 seasons. Tom Baker actually lasted 7 seasons/years. Matt Smith lasted 4 seasons/years, so his tenure wasn’t actually shorter. The problem was lack of episodes.
The first season was November 1963 to September 1964. That season saw 42 episodes. Remember this is a weekly series, and there are 52 weeks per year. That pace was sustained through the second doctor: season 6 was 1968/’69 with 44 episodes. That number ticked down with Jon Pertwee: 25 to 26 episodes per season. That was maintained with Tom Baker: 26 episodes per season. He only made 20 his first season, and again 20 in 1979/’80, but he made up for it with 28 episodes in 1980/’81. Peter Davison also maintained that pace. Season 20 in 1983/’84 only saw 20 episodes, but made up for it with the 20th anniversary special that same year.
The problem started with season 21, 1984/’85. From 1984 through 1989, with Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy, production was reduced to 14 episodes per year. In fact, the first season with Colin Baker only saw 13 episodes. This resulted in series termination. Are producers reading this? Get the message: produce regular episodes or lose your audience.
When the series are resurrected in 2005, it was great! However, again doctors don’t seem to last. The problem is far too few episodes. In 2005 only 13 episodes. Ok that was the first season after the reboot. Then 14 episodes per year until July 2008. Then 5 specials from December 2008 through January 2010. Only 5 specials, no new episodes. Are you trying to kill it!?!?! With Matt Smith we got 13 episodes in 2010, a Christmas special, 13 episodes in 2011, another Christmas special, only 5 episodes for 2012, another Christmas special, then 8 episodes for 2013. There are 2 specials scheduled for this year: November will see the 50th anniversary special, then another Christmas special. But where are the episodes?
Tell you what. To keep Doctor Who alive, produce 26 episodes in 2014. That is still no where near the pace of William Hartnell or Patrick Troughton; they produced 39 to 45 episodes per season. Returning to 26 episodes per season is just what Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker, and Peter Davison did. We the fans *might* let you get away with only 22 episodes plus a Christmas special. That’s what you did in 1983.
From a business perspective: you really have to look at what you’re doing. From the beginning the business model for Doctor Who was to keep cost down. So even if audience share wasn’t huge, it was still profitable. Since 2005 the show has gone big budget. That’s risky. It can generate big profits, but also carries big risk. Doctor Who special effects were always low-budget, but carried the story. Modern computer graphics can do wonders with very little cost, as long as you know what you’re doing. The series Babylon 5 introduced the idea of a render farm with a large number of personal computers; Amiga at that time, but there are newer ones now. You don’t need a new TARDIS every season, just keep the same set each season. If you feel you need an update, do it only when you change actor. But seriously, how expensive is it to produce a full season of episodes every year with the same set? How much money are you saving by producing only 8 episodes? Or to put that in business terms: how much money are you losing by not having more episodes to sell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doctor_Who_serials25 August 2013 at 21:14 #16685Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip
Your entire argument seems to be made on a very simple misconception: that the number of broadcast minutes in a normal production year has reduced.
It hasn’t. For most of the Before Gap series, a typical episode was 25 minutes long including credits. For the After Gap series, a typical episode is 45 minutes long including credits. A quick calculation shows that a typical 13 episode + Special After Gap series is about ten and three-quarter broadcast hours. A typical 26 episode Before Gap series is about ten hours 50 minutes.
So the difference is a whole five minutes.
In the Hartnell days, episodes were filmed almost live – editing the primitive video tape of the day cost a bloomin’ fortune. That’s why, in the surviving episodes, you’ll often see the actors carry on through missed lines, bumping into sets and wonky props – they couldn’t afford to stop. And so, it was relatively easy to do one week’s rehearsal and then film the short episode. Nowadays, an episode generally takes ten filming days.
By Patrick Troughton’s time, carrying on through mistakes was becoming less acceptable to the audience. It was Patrick Troughton who actually suggested to the producers – when he was leaving – that they really needed to reduce the number of episodes.
I’d be interested to know how you think a series with two or at most three principle actors can manage twenty six episodes: most of the U.S. series who do that have a regular cast of at least five or six principle actors, allowing them to have a much longer shooting day. The actor playing The Doctor generally finds themselves on set for twelve hours a day (ten hours working, two one hour breaks), ten days on, three days off, nine months a year. That’s not including publicity duties. It also doesn’t include time for learning lines.
Both Tennant and Smith had a final year with a much reduced schedule, allowing them to take other work. And both Tennant and Smith looked about ten years older at the end of their respective runs; it’s gruelling.
U.S. series manage a shorter filming time per episode by having longer shooting days; instead of twelve hour shooting days, you hear tales about fifteen to twenty hours on set. Now, if you have a big cast you can do that – the cast members who’ve done their long stint can have their twelve hour mandated break while other cast members are filming – but you can’t do it with a small regular cast.25 August 2013 at 22:25 #16700Anonymous @
This is blatant marketing for my latest blog:
But in this case, I really do need audience feedback more than ever. The concept of immortality covers so many different types of character, so many kinds of media, and for so many reasons that they can’t die, that I’d appreciate learning what people want to learn more about, before I start researching further parts in the serial.
Thanks folks – Shazz.25 August 2013 at 22:41 #16706winnipegger @winnipegger
Dropped from 39-45 episodes per season, down to 8, and you say this isn’t a problem?25 August 2013 at 22:45 #16709Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip
You’re counting the 2012/2013 split season as two series, then?
Because last time I counted, Series 7 had 13 episodes, and technically two Specials (The Doctor, The Widow and The Wardrobe was Series 7 for production purposes).25 August 2013 at 22:57 #16712Anonymous @
I tend to agree with @bluesqueakpip on this one. In the normal run of things, the amount of Who actually being produced AG is roughly analogous to what was produced on a year-by-year basis BG. And @bluesqueakpip also points out the very good reasons for this. It just wouldn’t be possible to produce more in a year as that necessitated there always being a Doctor/Companion-lite episode for filming purposes.
But the fundamental point is that a 45-minute digitally shot and produced episode is not the same as a 25-minute one shot on the three-camera studio system of the old days. Especially as things like effects, catering, studio technicians etc were essentially in-house in those days, compared to the freelance contracts of today.
But I’m sure no one will disagree with you @winnipegger that there is something of a dearth of new Who this year — particularly bad for it being anniversary year and all. But I think it’s been shown that 13 45-minute episodes is a big ask in terms of budget — and just look at how much it has knackered Tennant and Smith. Production schedules are gruelling and the lead actors are expected to do so much more than just show up for their filming slots. There’s publicity, work for games, work for extra web/DVD content and so on. And then there’s that small issue of having a life of their own.
To my mind, I think it might be wise to knock down the series length to 8 episodes a year plus a Xmas special but that they be scheduled a lot more sensibly. These long gaps between new shows is pretty shocking and an all-round poor show.
The topic ‘On the Sofa (part 2)’ is closed to new replies.