Spoilers (4)

Home Forums General Spoilers (4)

This topic contains 219 replies, has 23 voices, and was last updated by  JimTheFish 4 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 220 total)
  • Author
  • #63732
    wolfweed @wolfweed


    There has been a ‘cull’ but – If people really want to see the image , Valyrian Siren‏ @valyriansiren

    on twitter still has it up (as of this moment). Obviously it has annoyed the production team and in the photo the room is not ‘lit’, so is a poor representation of what’s to come.

    I had no choice in seeing it as someone posted it on twitter without warning.

    At this rate I expect to see the whole series before it airs…

    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip


    Yes, I can see why they’re annoyed. The lighting is awful, so it’s clearly a ‘set photo’ rather than a proper production photo. Somebody sneaked a snap on their mobile, then leaked it? A continuity photo? It’s certainly not a proper publicity shot.

    Properly lit, I can see that design being really great – it reminded me a bit of the Russell T Davies TARDIS.

    wolfweed @wolfweed


    Frozen plumbing desktop.

    Yes it will probably work well on screen. Most witnesses are outraged of course…

    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip


    I was thinking more ‘dilithium crystal desktop’. 🙂

    JimTheFish @jimthefish
    Time Lord

    @wolfweed @bluesqueakpip @blenkinsopthebrave et al

    Yeah, you can’t really tell much from that unlit shot. And it is definitely a step back towards the 9/10 interior, which I was not a massive fan of. Also impossible to tell from this one shot about the sense of scale in the console room as a whole. One of the things I loved about the 11/12 console rooms was their multi-level aspect, that really opened the TARDIS out. But if CC is aiming for little more than a bit of preliminary chat and then out to the adventure a la BG Who, maybe that’s all he thinks he needs. And it won’t be possible to make any kind of call till we see proper production shots.

    As I’ve said before, I think CC has made a (totally understandable) error in trying to operate in as much secrecy as he has. RTD learned this the hard way with the 9 regeneration debacle. SM seemed to be savvy enough to drip feed enough tidbits (often outrageously red herring ones) to keep the mad speculators happy and off his case and that to me seems to be the only approach you can take these days.

    But what with the sonic, and now this Crystal Maze-type console, I think I’m with @janetteb when I say that every time I get hopeful for the new series, there seems to be something to dampen that enthusiasm…

    Mind you, I thought 11’s console room looked insane when I first saw it and I ended up loving it….

    syzygy @thane16

    I am watching the interview with CC, the other dude, the Doctor and 2 of the 3 companions and I’m not sure about it all. I love the Doctor -whether female, male.  But their responses regarding their favourite Doctor -David Tennant?

    Possibly because the Doctor has worked with Tennant on Broadchurch?

    Even watching the interviews and the endless laughter, I miss Peter Capaldi. He was never odious….Now, I’m not suggesting any of these people are but the constant giggling, the new TARDIS interior, the sonic, makes me miss PC’s brilliantly inspired Doctor. 🙁

    Perhaps fans will eventually say, “you know, Capaldi, as a Doctor, has aged well….his stories were brilliant. The spectacular layering and metaphors unrivalled” except perhaps with Mat Smith’s first series  – -and the young lady did say her favourite was Smith.  🙂

    Perhaps CC is brokering a deal to move away from any ‘moribund’ ideas which allegedly concerned fans who never warmed to Capaldi’s manner?  And Whittaker sure laughs a lot. I suspect the entire series will be adventure after adventure which is the ‘thing’ that drives the show.

    Even as a seven-year old, those dirty corridors, the mystique behind the terrifying monsters, the whole darned alien nature of it all is what grabbed me. I lived for that alien quality and I’m still hooked into that. But it’s early days and the energy they all have is certainly catchy and a necessary marketing tool….


    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip


    Truthfully, I think Chris Chibnall is taking advantage of the lack of continuity (no inherited Doctor, no inherited composer, no inherited assistant…) to do what Stephen Moffat did – not a complete reboot, but a brand-new jumping off point. So, new sets, new props, new everything.

    As for the very giggly cast, I think you also have to realise that ComicCon was their first exposure to the madness that is convention season. As Jodie Whittaker said at one point, they’ve basically been spending the last nine months working away in Cardiff. Then they dutifully turn up at Comic Con to do a round of publicity interviews and find that they’ve just achieved geek stardom.

    And it’s insane. 🙂

    janetteB @janetteb

    @thane16 and @bluesqueakpip Yes they were probably all extremely nervous as well as excited. It must be pretty intimidating sitting up there in front of all those intense fans without a script or character to hide within.



    ichabod @ichabod

    @blenkinsopthebrave  I fear that Chibnell is trying too hard to be “different”

    My impression is that he’s committed to being *the same*, but the same as in just like early DW in that this Doctor will be comic book adventures, nothing “troubling”, just lots of fun.  “Fun”.  Okay; I know; I was there.  I left because lots of “fun”, in the somewhat older days, meant “See DW goof around and defeat Monster of the Week with nonsense pulled out of his ear at the last minute”, as I recall.  Not always but too often for me, after a while.

    “Escape”, they keep saying.  I prefer engagement, even if only tangentially and in a fantastical manner, with some of the salient issues in RL, but in an imaginative manner as befitting a fantasy/SF show.  I doubt I’m going to get it on DW any more; maybe now and then . . . maybe enough for me?  Not likely; I’ve had my “fun”, and then some.  But for a new generation(s) of potential  fans — great.

    Looks like it’s going to be just what I (and some others here and elsewhere) have been expecting.  Here’s what I heard in these interviews: each episode is discreet, so you can jump in anywhere and not need to know anything about the (admittedly immense) backstory behind S11 (or even remember what happened in the *last* episode).   Fun.  Escape.  Energy.  Fizz.  The Doctor is “delighted”.  For the whole family to share together of an evening.

    Back to the playpen, sounds like to me; an unusually bright, sophisticated playpen, to be sure, and, IMO, perfect for the purpose: seeding a new child audience to carry the show for another 50 yrs as they grow up and it does too, as it did with NewWho.

    But – – big questions that may have no answers?  Pause to reflect?  Deep feelings that last for more than the length of a scene (that is, have implications down the line)?  For that matter, depth of any kind?  Sounds like, not.  So: I’ll gladly give S11 a try, see if it has anything to hold my interest.  I’m not too old for fun (partly because my sister keeps posting hysterical stuff on my FB page); but I don’t have time to spare for sprightly-but-shallow any more.  Maybe next year.

    Too bad my grandkids are grown.  It would be much better to be watching with kids, I think, so cheers to everybody in a position to do that, and I look forward to others’ comments here when S11 begins.




    blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave

    @ichabod It was, in fact, @janetteb who provided us with the reflection that you quote, not I.

    But I tend to agree with your assumptions, particularly the section on “seeding a new child audience”. Of course, even back in the days of early BG Who it was a show that could be appreciated by parents as well as children. Still, I confess to being a trifle nervous of what is in store.


    ichabod @ichabod

    @blenkinsopthebrave  @janetteb  Quite right, sorry about the misattribution.

    Yeh; nervous, with a doomy edge; though I do still feel that it’s fine either way, really, since those of us with a taste for the darkness that Moffat brought have had quite a feast of that over the past few years, a youthful lightening-up is probably the best option for S11, by way of a freshening contrast to all that at a time when the old DW audience is starting to die off (well friends of mine, and it’s people in their 60’s and 70’s that I’m thinking of).

    If it’s the kids’ turn again, I don’t feel that I can complain; mourn a bit, maybe, but complain?  No.

    Though if I were to live long enough (which would be too long, really), I can imagine a DW somewhere down the line who’s both female *and* darkly-antic-with-depths, something like the “heroine” of a little series called “The Good Place” x Mrs. Peel x — who else have we got?  I’m going blank; I don’t mean to go as far as “Fleabag” or Jessica Jones, but someone female who can trip the dark fantastic with an edge of sardonic humor and flashes of passion (I don’t mean sexual passion — I really prefer my Doctor a bit more mysteriously alien in that department).

    You know, I just read a 2016 novel the heroine of which has the kind of edge I mean.  I can whole-heartedly recommend “Borderline”, by (then) new author Mishell Baker — good, wry fun with a truly original take on a reason for the fey to get involved with humans at all (modern world setting).  She rushed her ending a bit, very common beginner’s mistake, but wow, what a ride!

    Oh, screw it.  If I want something like that, I’d just damn well better write it, eh?


    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip


    Here’s what I heard in these interviews: each episode is discreet, so you can jump in anywhere and not need to know anything about the (admittedly immense) backstory behind S11 (or even remember what happened in the *last* episode). Fun. Escape. Energy. Fizz. The Doctor is “delighted”. For the whole family to share together of an evening.

    That would make sense because, with the best will in the world, the ‘darker’ Capaldi years lost the non-core audience. Yes, fine, audiences are changing and watching on catch-up, but if you look at the first Capaldi series versus the second and third, his first series performs respectably compared with the Eccleston, Tennant and Smith Doctors, then his second and third loses between one and two million viewers. Which is distinctly more than the 5% drop you’d expect by comparing Who to all the other shows.

    The Capaldi era may well be one that will be considered artistically successful (I’d place it as a bold experiment that failed, myself), but the conclusion that has to be made by any sensible producer is that things need to lighten up if Who is to get its non-core audience back.

    If Chibnall wants to have a series arc, it needs to be the type of arc that makes sense at the end of the series; people who want to dip in and out can enjoy the show, people who watch everything find that all the episodes do tie together. And I have to admit that I heard the ‘standalone’ comment slightly differently – I seem to remember that it was described as ‘you can jump in anywhere, and will then want to go back and watch the earlier episodes’.

    ichabod @ichabod

    @bluesqueakpip  Yup, “childing it up” (as opposed to actively “dumbing it down”, although there’s some inevitable overlap there) makes sense.  I have no quarrel with it as a strategy, and I agree on the type of arc that would work.  But that’s pretty likely to lose me, and other older fans who don’t have kids or even grandkids around to watch with, and I can’t say that I’d be happy about that, and so what, really?  It’s obviously more important to draw new youngsters in than to please an older crowd that’s already begun dying off, assuming that that that could be done and that enough of the oldsters would be pleased anyway.  So best of luck to them, and I think it will work fine.

    They did say in so many words that each episode will be a closed story, right at the start of taking up that subject, and that does worry me.  It’s pretty much a sure road to a “monster of the week” formula after a while, and while that can be refreshing now, after all of Moffat’s (sometimes overreaching) complexities, in the long run (whatever that turns out to be) that’s going to lose everybody except kids and their parents.  Even with higher-budget monsters, it gets old; when my husband and I stopped watching regularly, it was for exactly that reason.  We always checked in for a look at a new Doctor, but didn’t stay long.

    Which might put the show back to where it was before Tennant took off with it in terms of viewing figures.  Good thing, bad thing — who knows?  Nicer for the kids; but what’s the fastest-growing segment of the population these days?  Not kids — although that could change too, I suppose.

    I think what I’d like most would be to see them bring more science into it, but I don’t think that’s likely to happen either.  More likely, “comical superhero” is the way they’ll go.  I’m thinking about the success of  “Deadpool”, which basically snarked its own genre and became very popular with teens because of it.  Oh, Hell, who knows; I’ve no doubt Chibnall knows what he’s doing, and I’ve also no doubt that whatever it is, he’s definitely not doing it for viewers like me.

    However, I, and some viewers like me, will stick around to see how the whole female Doctor thing works out.  I suspect that it’ll be a smooth, low-key transition, barely a ripple in fact, with occasional spikes of controversy over this or that bit of business, or a (rare) story that deliberately confronts some rougher aspect of modern gender relations.  Chibnall was quick to say that they’re deliberately starting out with the new Doctor just “trying to survive”, rather than any to-do about the gender switch.  Probably a wise choice.


    ichabod @ichabod

    @pedant  [disputing Bluesqueakpip’s assertion of a significant slide in viewing figures during the Moffat/Capaldi era]

    @pedant  Having seen a good deal of discussion about ups and/or downs in viewing figures after the end of S10, I concluded that a person’s opinion varied with the sources they took their figures from (and, quite obviously in many cases, the biases they began with) — but how many reasonably reliable sources can their be out there?  I saw both arguments stated and re-stated many times: “viewing figures dropped off a lot during Capaldi’s second and third seasons” v. “Viewing figures dropped for *everything on TV* during that time period, because of shifts in technology and viewing habits, and DW did no worse than everybody else.”

    So — ??  I was confused then, and I’m confused now . . .

    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip

    @ichabod and @pedant

    Replied about the viewing figures thing on the sofa, because it’s not really a spoiler anyway. 🙂

    ichabod @ichabod

    @bluesqueakpip  Thanks.

    Mudlark @mudlark

    @thane16  @ichabod  @blenkinsopthebrave

    Although not particularly spoiler averse, in this case I decided not to watch the interviews with Chibnall and the cast for fear it might create preconceptions, even a prejudice, about the way the Doctor and companions will be played, and what puro says about the giggling etc. suggest that I was probably right in my decision. I would prefer to approach the coming season with something approaching an open mind, at least on that score

    On the other hand I am aware of some of what has been written about Chibnall’s plans for the show, and I share  your apprehensions about what is to come.  Unless it becomes formulaic, or proves too much of a regression to the past rather than a development in a new direction, I will probably continue watching; but I fear that, compared with the richness and complexity, not to mention controversies, of the Moffatt era, it may provide meagre food for discussion here, let alone material for bonkers theorising.



    blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave

    it may provide meagre food for discussion here, let alone material for bonkers theorizing.

    @mudlark. Egad! That is an awful prospect, but I can see only too clearly the logic of your reasoning. This has been a Moffat-oriented site. While there has been rich discussion of BG Who, the bonkers theorizing has been in direct response to the complexity of Moffat’s approach to the show.

    Time for a glass of red. You may have driven me to drink, my friend!

    syzygy @thane16

    @mudlark -cheers to see you back, our dear Mudlark.  And also @bluesqueakpip

    @blenkinsopthebrave  You must be driven in order to drink? Nooo!

    Having almost given up the good stuff due to medication, I decided to treat myself to a half glass (a real half glass not the enormous bulbous things into which one’s nose can fit -or be stuck- depending on its size) of a particularly woody but citrusy red from the Cuttaway Hill Estate.

    I may just meet Chibber’s Doctor that way first   🙂

    I shall, however, remain optimistic. I like Whitakker in what I’ve seen her in and possibly the giggling mentioned was just my aversion to giggling! When really, the actors look thrilled with what they’ve achieved and I suspect, being a tad younger than Capaldi, they’re in the honeymoon period filming a show that even Tennant acknowledged aged him considerably due to long hours of re-takes etc. Then there’s all the promotion which is exhausting. Possibly, they’re over-tired (Thane, even at 16, resorts to weird behaviour when he’s had little sleep or long flights).

    Under Chris Eccleston there was a period of good bonkers theorising with Bad Wolf and it returned with Tennant in the Weeping Angels spell which, yes, was a Moffat driven story but I feel there was a sense of impending….something ….in that era and we know Who-fans (Whofans?) are clever and want something chewy which gently teases and projects a thoughtful layering… I think Chibber will deliver on this, actually.

    And also I am -these days -and for many reasons -an optimistic soul. More so than Thane who is a little pessimistic, which considering his school and teaching, doesn’t surprise me whatsoever. He’s of the mind that all students should leave school at 14 and be “bus-stop kids” where they teach themselves, saving billions in tax payer’s money; preventing the coddling which even state schools seem accustomed to; where they learn how to get off  “their bums and do something including lots of reading and writing instead of flipping about with their damn phones” as well as working together, at times, to produce quality work…

    There endeth the sermon. Go in peace to love and serve!



    PS: @pedant He watched Ashes to Ashes (at long last).

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by  syzygy. Reason: misspelled Mr B's name AGAIN! Note: add to dictionary
    Mudlark @mudlark


    You may have driven me to drink, my friend!

    I hang my head in apology 😳

    After two months of complete abstinence, I confess that I have just restocked what passes for my cellar* and have opened a bottle or two in the past week.  In my case ’twas my brother led me astray, swooping in from France on a whirlwind visit, bearing products of the vine. It would have been churlish of me to spurn the gift, after all – and I can withstand most things except temptation 😉 .  Following puro’s example, I may well settle down to view the first episode of the coming season with a glass of some mellow red beverage to hand.


    Despite the misgivings expressed above, I am looking forward to seeing what Chibnall has in store and how Whittaker embodies the Doctor, and will do my best to follow your example and maintain a positive attitude. The gods forfend that I should venture into ARSE territory. At the very least I will withhold judgement until I have seen a fair number of episodes.

    Thank you for the welcome back.  It is good to be here again and to see the Forum beginning to come back to life after the long fallow period.  In the intervening months I haven’t even been re-watching old episodes – in fact I seem in retrospect to have spent most of my spare time during the past few months in the garden, because there has been plenty to do in spite of the long drought in this region, and I am definitely getting slower in my old age. The high point was probably the afternoon spent, in a temperature of 35 degrees C, cleaning out the garden pond and restocking it with plants.   Result: one very muddy, smelly but surprisingly cool** Mudlark, some briefly traumatised but ultimately much happier frogs, and a greatly improved water feature, with clear though still slightly greenish water containing a fresh crop of oxygenating plants and embellished with a dwarf water lily and a miniature bulrush for the dragonfly and damsel fly larvae to climb up.  I did leave some gunge in the bottom for the frogs to hibernate in come winter, but the rest went to fertilise the flower beds.

    This straying further and further off topic, but what was Thane’s verdict on Ashes to Ashes?

    *A shelf in what was originally a walk-in pantry but now serves as a general glory hole

    ** which brings to mind the Hippopotamus song  ‘Mud, mud, glorious mud, nothing quite like it for cooling the blood’ (Flanders and Swann, for the uninitiated)


    syzygy @thane16

    @mudlark regarding The Flanders and Elephant Swann I’ve responded on the muddy music thread.

    I have the entire Flanders and Swann collection. Great fun.

    Ooh, even I -in heat like this, muddy, musical or elephantine (there’s a reference to elephants in the room in the live Flanders & Swann version and as there’s the “actual elephant in the room” in Sherlock Season 2 I felt it appropriate…) wouldn’t attend to the garden over 32 degrees.

    I sure hope those frogs are thankful!


    ichabod @ichabod

    @thane16  I do like the idea of thankful frogs.  A lot.  I myself do not garden; getting down low enough to do it is hard enough, but getting back up again — Yog-Sothoth!  What a hassle.  Just this month, legs have become — unreliable.  I hope that seeing a podiatrist will help.  I *know* that a nice glass of red will — so long as I remain sitting down, anyway.

    Mudlark @mudlark


    getting back up again — Yog-Sothoth!  What a hassle

    You said it!  Getting down is not too much of a problem in my case, but these days, getting up from a kneeling position, I resemble nothing so much as an ancient and arthritic cow getting to its feet, rump first.  Fortunately when gardening I have a handy piece of kit – a folding frame which doubles as a stool and as a kneeling pad with high railed sides by which to lever myself up.  Long gone, alas, are the days when I could leap lightly in and out of trenches and assume and sustain the most contorted positions for digging in narrow spaces or to excavate something fragile and awkwardly placed without damaging it  🙁

    ichabod @ichabod

    @mudlark  . . . gone, alas, are the days when I could leap lightly in and out of trenches and assume and sustain the most contorted positions for digging in narrow spaces

    Gone indeed; that archaeological dig that my husband and I went on in Thailand, during which we descended into a deep pit to dig up the skeletons of an ancient graveyard (it’s okay — we had the blessings of his late Majesty the King of Siam), was wonderful, but — when Earthwatch, the sponsoring organization, sends me updates and tries to lure me into signing up for another round, I remember going up and down those ladders.  And being squooshed into far too small a space with dire warnings about, you know, falling over and crunching a clavicle or two (not to mention the allergy cough I brought home with me and lived with for half a year), I have to regretfully decline . . . And I do mean, regretfully.

    Although, of course, I do understand that you can’t step into the same river twice — so the regret is tempered by realism: who knows what kind of infection or infestation I could bring home *this* time!  My stepdaughter is going through the prep for attending my grandson’s Indian wedding in New Delhi next spring, and she tells me it’s a nightmare of shots, Rxs, antibiotics, anti-malarial daily doses, etc., on top of some slow bureaucratic paperwork.  I wouldn’t want to take all that on again, either!

    Walking the dog of an evening, now . . . that would be more my speed.  An old dog.  I had one, but she’s long gone, and neither of the cats take the slightest interest in walkies (good!).



    Devilishrobby @devilishrobby

    Funny there’s nowt on the official web site though


    janetteB @janetteb

    I have got behind of late with the discussions taking place here, homework, podcasts and grant acquittals all taking up way too much time. @mudlark you garden sounds wonderful. I am deeply envious. I have realised that gardening is not my forte but I still enjoy it. In the last week the weather has mellowed, the sun has been shining and I have been lured out to the back yard only to realise just what a sad state my garden is in.

    @wolfweed. I will mark the date. I guess if Dr Who screens on a Sunday in the U.K. we will be watching it on Monday here which is somewhat less appealing. (we tend to have a Who themed party to celebrate the start of a new season) so may not be drinking red, it being a weeknight but there will be jelly babies and jammy dodgers.




    JimTheFish @jimthefish
    Time Lord


    That’s interesting, assuming it’s not just a slip of the keyboard. Personally, I think Sunday might be a pretty good home for the show these days. There’s no point in getting sentimentally attached to the Saturday teatime slot. TV viewing has changed immeasurably since the 60s and 70s.

    What will be equally interesting is if they also, as rumoured, make the whole series available on iPlayer in one hit as they did with Hard Sun. I’d be genuinely surprised if they do….

    janetteB @janetteb

    @jimthefish TV viewing is evolving. The old way of watching tv, which incidentally I have always disliked, is fast disappearing. People do cling to hold habits as though “the way it was” is the way it should be for ever. I refused to buy a TV until I could also afford a video, (this being back in the early 80s) because I wanted to watch TV on my own terms, ie when it pleased me to do so and not when someone interstate decided I should having always been of a cantankerous frame of mind. It has been many years since we have watched ‘free to air” in our household. Yes we tend to binge watch but as Moffat said, we don’t read books one chapter a week. We take a book off the shelf and read it when we please. A TV series should be watched in whatever way pleases. I would be surprised however if they do put the entire series up on iview in one hit. It is still fun to have that wait for each new episode. Makes Dr Who “event” viewing. Maybe Dr Who is an exception.

    I noted on the Guardian a couple of days ago they said Dr Who would start either September or October. Nothing definite.





    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip


    Looks like whatever the exact date, it’s going to be Sundays. I think that’s a good choice – Sunday evening has taken over as the ‘family drama’ slot, and Saturdays has become ‘live variety shows’.

    Now let’s hope the BBC gives Who a regular start time and stops playing ‘what time is it on this week?’ 🙂


    Awesome. My birthday.

    Devilishrobby @devilishrobby

    Hmmm I had wondered if they were going to go for the 20th or 21st October it being the weekend just before Dr Who’s anniversary on the 23rd and it being almost a relaunch of who with Jodie and Chibbers taking over. Of course if they wanted to go the whole hog so to speak they could have gone for the Tuesday as a one off then settled to whatever day it’s going to be broadcast ( just my own wild theory).

    wolfweed @wolfweed

    I’ve just read something…

    Apparently any mention of the theorised airdate may have legal consequences, so @jimthefish or another Timelord might want to delete all mention of it.

    The BBC and their partners keep leaking stuff and then seeking legal action against anyone who shares said stuff ‘after the fact’.


    law gif

    wolfweed @wolfweed

    Okay, this just happened…

    wolfweed @wolfweed

    JimTheFish @jimthefish
    Time Lord


    Since the airdate has now been made official, I don’t think there’ll be any problems, but I’ve parked the earlier post to save our blushes anyway. And yeah, the Beeb does seem to being worryingly dickish about online reaction these days. I suspect the age of relatively benign production/fan relations that we had in the RTD and even SM eras might be a little more strained now.

    But Sundays it is, which strikes me as the right move. Takes Who away from the Saturday evening battleground and gives it a chance to breathe. It’ll be interesting to see if there is any manifest difference in the overnights with the change.

    blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave

    Posting here as not sure if this is BBC approved or not.

    Jodie Whittaker on Taking Over ‘Doctor Who’ and Why She Knows She’s Getting Equal Pay

    No previous monsters, no 2-partners, all stand alone episodes.



    I guess this should go here, although no real spoilers: Guardian review of the premiere.

    No real spoilers, I think but tl;dr – they loved it.

    Also one very encouraging note re the new theme tune (which we will not hear properly until ep 2). It actually made me squee a bit. Some of the sample’s on Segun Akinola’s website did have a very Blue Veils and Golden Sands quality to them…

    janetteB @janetteb

    @pedant I just read that review and am beginning to feel a “tinsy” bit excited. The general tone of the review is warm. Have not head the theme music yet but from what is said in the review it sounds promising. If it picks up on the otherworldly quality of the early years that can only be a good thing.




    wolfweed @wolfweed

    Jodie with Sean Keaveny from Thursday

    I can’t remember if there’s a spoiler here or not, coz I listened to it yesterday…

    Doctor Who: Jodie Whittaker chats to 6 Music

    💫 The Doctor will see you now… Jodie Whittaker speaks to Shaun Keaveny.

    Публикувахте от BBC Radio 6 Music в Четвъртък, 27 септември 2018 г.

    wolfweed @wolfweed

    A Wibbly Wobbly, Timey Wimey Chat from Build Series NYC. Warning: Contains actual spoilers.


    blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave

    Have yet to watch the latest episode (tonight, when Mrs Blenkinsop returns home from work).

    I have, however, seen the trailer for the New Year’s special. So, a creature that has been buried on Earth since the 9th century, and which will kill whoever gets in its way. Could this mean, finally, a creature from the show’s past history?

    Could it be–and I know just how taken @jimthefish would be with this suggestion–The Rani?

    Alas, probably not. Will Chibnall continue to eschew everything from the past history of the show? Perhaps. It was just, well, Graham saying: “Does it have a name?” Then cut to the Doctor…pause…and clip ends. That does feel like we are being set up to hear a familiar name.


    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip


    Graham says ‘Does it have a name?’, then cut to the Doctor and she says:

    ::cue drumroll::

    “The Celestial Toymaker!” 😀

    [Which is, of course, why the trailer editor thought ‘hmm, better make a cut there.’]

    Devilishrobby @devilishrobby

    Lol finally we get to bonkerise that is until another trailer comes along that reveals too much or some idiot insider let’s slip a spoiler 🤪🤣😜😝

    Devilishrobby @devilishrobby

    Have to say Chibnall’s insistence on “not” using old monsters or enemies is a bit of a backfire in my own opinion. Yes introduce new “villains” but not using past monsters is totally stupid as it’s like trying to ignore Who lore the Doc has been around that long he/she is bound to bump into old enemies/frenimies at some point. There have been times the past  where overuse of old favourites  has appeared to be a bit like let’s get this seasons appearance the Daleks or the Cybermen in, but that’s in part because the fans love these characters. It’s not as if there isn’t a plethora of other rogues and villains for Chibnall to pick from in Who lore.

    nerys @nerys

    @devilishrobby But then you’ll get someone like my husband who, upon seeing that Daleks are involved, mutters, “Not another (expletive deleted) Daleks episode!” And he’s been watching Doctor Who since the Tom Baker era. So you can’t please everybody. He finds the absence of the Doctor’s usual suspects refreshing.

    And, if the villains aren’t the Daleks or the Cybermen, then is the average fan going to remember them? I’m not talking about the folks here, who know so much more about Doctor Who than I do. I mean the average fan who tunes in once a week to see monsters or aliens, and how the Doctor dispatches them.


    @blenkinsopthebrave @bluesqueakpip

    It’s The Zarbis….

    blenkinsopthebrave @blenkinsopthebrave

    @pedant, @bluesqueakpip

    Surely, it has to be:

    The Slyther!

    Mudlark @mudlark


    There are times when I would have agreed with your husband; the frequent recurrence of the old familiar monsters can get stale except when the writer comes  up with a completely fresh angle. RTD’s initial reintroduction of the Daleks was stunning, but the impact decreased with their every reappearance. Moffat’s use of them was sometimes underwhelming but he did find several very effective new ways of approaching the theme – as, for example, in The Magician’s Apprentice/The Witch’s Familiar. Cybermen had less potential from the start, I think, and I would be more than happy not to see them for a while; but the reintroduction of the Mondasian type was welcome and effective.  It hasn’t really bothered me that the monsters this series have been, not just new, but for the most part not even the central element of the stories.

    The trailer does hint at the reappearance of an old antagonist, (let bonkerising abound) but if so I hope it is something which hasn’t been exploited recently, and certainly not one of the usual suspects because I’m not sure in such a case that Chibnall could be trusted to come up with a completely original approach. (OK, I’m prejudiced, but I would be more than delighted to be proved wrong).

    Devilishrobby @devilishrobby

    @nerys I’m not advocating the reuse of one of the usual suspect  in fact I could quite happily not see the Daleks or Cybermen for a while. What I was saying is by Chibanall’s apparent eschewing of all past monster he’s possibly missing the chance to reintroduce us to some of the doctors lesser known foes perhaps to even to reinvent that foe into something that has more relevance today. I don’t disagree  with introducing new monsters and let’s be honest some of the Doctors best “monsters” have been those that haven’t necessarily start out as a monster but are victims of the situation they find themeselves in. I can understand your husbandinthatrespect as I too am a child of pre-gap who.

    Bluesqueakpip @bluesqueakpip

    @nerys and @mudlark

    I’d be perfectly happy if it wasn’t the Daleks – I was surprised on Sunday how much I enjoyed having a finale which didn’t include either the homicidal pepperpots or the delete merchants. It’s a bit like your husband, I think, Nerys – I’m reaching the point of ‘oh, not another episode where the Doctor is fighting ten billion Cybermen’.

    Not that there haven’t been good stories with both of them, but as you say, mudlark, if you feel you have to include them every single series, you eventually end up running out of possible stories.

    9th Century – wonder if they’re going to include Ivar the Boneless? There’s a nickname that just shouts out for alien involvement. 🙂 The other real life thingy is that Beowulf might have been written down about then.

Viewing 50 posts - 101 through 150 (of 220 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.