Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
9 November 2013 at 02:07 #20333
@wolfweed. So it’s the Sunday one. That confirms my point about my predictive powers.
9 November 2013 at 02:03 #20332@wolfweed this one is only 40 seconds, so maybe they are saving the longer one for Sunday.
Then again, I predicted the Kennedy assassination would be in it, so all my predictions should be read accordingly.
9 November 2013 at 00:18 #20311Am sitting on a train with my phone. Just saw a 40 second version of tomorrow’s trailer. Seriously. Since this is the spoiler page I will only say. this: The Time War–big time. Where is @wolfweed when he is needed!
8 November 2013 at 19:40 #20283@shazzbot
blenkinsop as Flash Gordon? Well…no.
blenkinsop will have to be represented by his avatar.
Indeed, I think there will probably be a few surprises when all of you meet each other in the pub, and discover the faces behind the avatars.
Speaking of the booze-up at the pub, perhaps small photos of the avatars of those of us unable to attend due to our locations in far-flung colonies could be printed out and propped up on the table so that we were there with you, in spirit (and spirits), as it were.
8 November 2013 at 14:34 #20258@bluesqueakpip “Twelfth Night”, twins…it gets better and better!
Let’s face it, there is a child of River and the Doctor out there.
The child was born before “Silence in the Library”, but to a Doctor subsequent to 10. “River, you know my name. You whispered my name in my ear. There’s only one way I would ever tell anyone my name. There’s only one time I could.”
I also think that it is highly likely that the child was born to a Doctor subsequent to 11. In “A Good Man goes to War” when River takes his hand and places it on the cot: “I am telling you.” I think that from that point he knows he has/will have a child, but he does not know who it is.
@bluesqueakpip The Christmas story as a nativity play–brilliant. Or…possibly…the arc about Capaldi’s Doctor that will play out over the course of season 8.
8 November 2013 at 02:22 #20208@bluesqueakpip. That is truly brilliant. You have captured a lot of what I was groping for in a really elegant way. But what you are saying goes way beyond my paltry thoughts.
I just watched “The Eleventh Hour” again (as one does) and it would be so easy to see it as the birth of a new cycle of Doctors.
The Hurt Doctor? More and more I now believe he is between 8 and 9–however long that “life” lasted.
But there is something else. Perhaps (like the 6th room on the 1st floor of Amy’s house) it is in the corner of my eye and I haven’t noticed it yet. Time to sleep on it.
7 November 2013 at 21:47 #20196Ah, now that I have read the other pages carefully, I see I was not the first to see the news of the trailer. Well, retirement does mean life is lived at a slower pace.
7 November 2013 at 21:33 #20195Surely I cannot be the first to read about this on another site, but apparently the trailer airs on BBC 1 on Saturday at 8. Typically, I will be travelling and not see it. So, only 48 hours to get in those bonkers theories…
7 November 2013 at 14:08 #201527. Lee Harvey Oswald is a Zygon assassin, who, due to problems with the sights on his rifle, kills JFK by mistake instead of his intended Zygon target who is disguised as Jackie. In his haste to escape capture, LHO is disorientated and repeatedly bangs into the walls of the Texas School Book Depository, finally breaking a wall at the 4th attempt.
That is just too brilliant for words!
Of course, there is an interesting ontological question of when bonkers theorising becomes fanfic…
(My own view is that the solution lies entirely in understanding the position of the tongue relative to the cheek.)
Exactly! And @whohar‘s #7 occupies that “Moment” of genius between tongue and cheek.
*Now to go off and try and find a spot for the claim made in the Tessalector (“Time can be re-written; remember Kennedy”), Clara’s family name (Oswald), and…if only it were possible…Canton*
6 November 2013 at 21:21 #20102OK, back to nail my colours to the mast with more predictions for the 50th.
- There will be a 4th wall explanation…somehow. I really like the “Tinkerbell” allusion that @pedant talks about above.
- While it may not happen in the 50th, it will be set up for a future reveal that Clara is the daughter of the Doctor and the mother of Susan.
- Don’t agree with @jimthefish on the time lock. I think the Time Lock will be broken and the Doctor will no longer be the last of his kind.
- Do agree with @jimthefish that the regeneration limit will be resolved.
- Do not think we will find out why the TARDIS exploded, as Moffat writes for a general audience and for those the age of Linda Lee, and that audience do not obsess about a resolution to the exploding TARDIS (or the missing floor in Amelia’s house, even though I would love that one to be addressed).
- Despite my lingering attachment to the idea, there will be no Kennedy or Canton, I fear.
- The big one: Moffat will bring about a really major change to our understanding of the Doctor so that no future writing can be done without reference to the major change he will introduce. And that change will be….I just don’t know.
- Most of what Moffat will refer back to in the 50th will have been previously introduced by…Moffat. There will be little of consequence that was first introduced by RTD, save the Time War. As for BG Who, it will be there for “colour” (eg, Zygons), but less so for plot. The only possible exceptions will be the Time Lords (introduced in BG Who) and perhaps the Hartnell Doctor and Susan (see my second point).
- It will be brilliant, and we will want more. Immediately.
5 November 2013 at 20:00 #20081@osakahatter Suitably bonkers! However, I think that your theory would require the participation of Eccleston, to return at end of episode to replace Hurt. Come to think of it…Jenna Coleman was kept under wraps before Asylum, so who knows?
@phaseshift, @craig, @jimthefish, @juniperfish, @scaryb, @janetteb, @Shazzbot, @nick, @timeloop, @wolfweed, @bluesqueakpip, @pedant, @whohar, and well, everybody I have forgotten and everybody who is “lurking”.
There are only a few days left–both from the trailer and from the 50th. Perhaps now is the time for everyone to finally nail their colours to the mast, go out on a limb (and other mixed metaphors), and offer their prediction of what is going to happen in the 50th. It does not have to ultimately be proved correct, but it should be suitably insane while possessing some sort of narrative logic based on what we have seen so far.
For my part, I firmly believe that Moffat will “change the game” in a really quite dramatic way; so dramatic that no one will be able to write about the Doctor in a way that predated the 50th.
So, what is my bonkers prediction? Well, I have not entirely given up the idea that the previous Doctors (“our lives”) will fade in such a way that we will never again be able to revisit them (somewhat like Amy and Rory in New York), and only “exist” as long as we remember and believe in them.
But for a fully fledged bonkers prediction before the trailer hits…it will have to wait until I pick up Mrs Blenkinsop from work.
3 November 2013 at 14:29 #19985Somehow, I think it is related back to the 11th’s earlier loss of memory regarding the GI (at Clara’s grave at the end of The Snowmen). Now that we know that the GI entered the Doctor’s timestream to turn his victories into defeats, that loss of memory could be an example of the effect the GI had while in his timestream. There also has to be a reason why he retrieves a map of the London Underground, c. 1967 in The Snowmen.
Perhaps Rose (in a way I have not yet figured out–aided by Clara in the timestream perhaps?) was also painting “Bad Wolf” in more points in the Doctor’s timestream than was necessary for the resolution at the end of the 9th’s tenure (if that makes sense). The purpose was similar–to aid Clara this time to undo the damage caused by the GI after she enters the timestream to save the 11th (and all the other Doctors).
So perhaps we will see what we did not see in The Name of the Doctor–how Clara saved the Doctor by entering his time-stream (a quick flash to Clara in the London Underground c. 1967, and other examples).
I am not sure about any of this, but you asked for some ideas to get you started. Your wish is my command.
2 November 2013 at 14:09 #19895I wake up eager to discover what bonkers theories have been discussed during the long Canadian night, and I find…nothing! (Well, almost nothing.) As the Zygons failed to spark discussion, I now give you something that has been hiding in plain sight on the poster for the 50th…”Bad Wolf” painted on what looks to be the tiled walls of the London Underground.
I had assumed “Bad Wolf” had run its course during the Eccleston tenure, and the London Underground (circa 1967?) conjurs up the GI and…yeti?
And yet here it is on the poster.
So, I leave it with you. And I expect more this time!
*puts on best Hartnell voice: “Eh, eh, what? Come now, humph”*
31 October 2013 at 14:34 #19728Just love the Wholloween photo! Brilliant.
31 October 2013 at 13:55 #19724Yes, I think you are all correct…the Zygons will be there for “colour” rather than plot.
Canada is excellent so far (barring the absurd liquor laws in Ontario–ie, wine shops are a state controlled monopoly, with all the choice and variety that entails).
the weather down here has been fifty shades of shite – they never told me it would be like this
Ah, well, now you know why the publicity to potential immigrants is all beaches and gentle breezes. If people knew what the reality of summer was really like, no one would ever go there. But take heart–it will end soon. Well, next Easter, actually.
31 October 2013 at 12:50 #19712@nick. The status of the Zygon fleet. Here is my memory (admittedly it may be a false memory): the Zygon ship was destroyed, but there was a Zygon fleet out there somewhere on its way to Earth, and what happended to it was unresolved.
Admittedly, I am drawing on a memory of watching this 40 years ago, and these days I am lucky if I can remember what I was doing last night.
31 October 2013 at 12:06 #19696OK, bonkers theorising…the Zygons.
If I am correct, we have had very little (any?) theorising about what the Zygons are doing in the 50th. I am a little rusty on the Zygons, but the only things of potential relevance about the Zygons from the Tom Baker story that I recall is that they are shapeshifters and that there was no resolution to the state of the invading Zygon fleet at the end of the story (another loose end, perhaps?)
What sort of bonkers theory can be constructed from these morsels? Hmmm…well…still thinking…
No, I’m stumped.
Not a particularly auspicious start to a day of bonkers theorising, I am afraid.
30 October 2013 at 18:27 #19594@mini-htpbdets Well, as usual, @htpbdet had outfoxed us all again, by coming up with a theory none of us had thought of! There is something really appealing about it as well–the notion that the title of The Doctor is associated with an office one holds, and that our 11 Doctors have been, perhaps, trying to live by standards that had been abandoned by the Hurt Doctor.
I just re-watched the ending of The Name of the Doctor. I am not sure how to relate the above with the 11th saying “He’s me. There’s only me here, that’s the point”…and…”I said he was me. I never said he was the Doctor”. They would both imply that Hurt is one of the 11 (12?) Doctors.
But…are those statements necessarily incompatible with @htpbdet‘s theory? Well, not if the person becomes the office he holds, which may well exist in a culture that does not accord the importance to individual identity in the way we are used to. And also, think back to the wording of the mini-trailers, where the 11th talks about lives in the plural.
Lots more thought required on this one!
30 October 2013 at 13:22 #19582I awoke this morning and read through all the recent posts, and realised once again how much we have been affected by the loss of @htpbdet.
Yesterday morning I drove Mrs Blenkinsop to work, and told her the sad news. I found my voice cracking as I told her, and was rather stunned that I was as upset as I obviously was. When I brought her home in the evening, she read through everyone’s posts and was wiping away tears herself. I stood in the entrance to the kitchen, not wanting to intrude.
Then, as I was re-reading through all the posts again this morning I realised that yesterday I had also made a couple of posts about the show at the same time as I had posted about @htpbdet. And it seemed a bit unfeeling in retrospect. I think it took a few hours for the news to properly sink in. I suspect that may be true for others as well, as there has been a lull in our usual chaotic posts about some aspect or other of the show. And that is right. But on the other hand, I wonder if perhaps we shouldn’t feel guilty about doing once again what we all, and especially @htpbdet, loved doing; that is, sharing our thoughts and crazy ideas about this wonderful show.
I remember when I spoke at my father’s funeral over a decade ago, I reflected that one of the defining characteristics of my father was that he was a very funny man with a great sense of humour and the best way to celebrate him to to share the laughter that he encouraged. I wonder if that is also what we can do again (perhaps the only thing we, who are separated across the globe and who have never even seen each other’s faces, can do)–and that is to re-engage in the love of bonkers theorising that we shared with @htpbdet.
I wish I could start off again now, but I am, I confess, somewhat at a loss for bonkers theories right now. But if someone what to throw one out, I will respond. Not with the briliance and grace of @htpbdet, but with a similar sense of love and commitment for this wonderful show.
29 October 2013 at 14:56 #19528The link to “put your face into the Doctor Who title sequence” is great!
It is Mrs Blenkinsop’s birthday in a couple of days, and I think you have just found me the perfect present!
Now to join Facebook (I know!) find a suitable photo of Mrs Blenkinsop (who always refuses to be photographed) and do my best.
29 October 2013 at 13:59 #19520@scaryb, @jimthefish, @whohar, @shazzbot, @craig, @all,
The more I think about @htpbdet‘s wonderful posts on this site, I am also reminded of his erudite and civilised contributions on the Guardian site. For that reason, I hope @danmartinuk hears of his passing. While @htpbdet‘s posts are easy for us to access and re-read, it would wonderful if his family could retrieve his posts from the Guardian site. I do not know whether this is possible, and it is easy for me to suggest this, but impossible to implement it. But I just thought it would be nice testament to his ability to inspire those he touched through his posts.
29 October 2013 at 11:52 #1951527 October 2013 at 21:56 #19435Spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers
Allworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesjackadullboyallworka
I re-read the theory a couple of more times and am more and more impressed.
I particularly like the the combination of the Doctor creating the Dalek threat (and therefore the Time War itself) through his progressive encounters with them and the whole idea of amnesia and slowly recovered memory.
Not sure it even needs “The Moment” or the Hand of Omega, but am will to go with those as well.
Damn. When is 23 November going to happen? It seems as if time is slowing down.
27 October 2013 at 14:36 #19411AllworkandnoplaymakesJackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesJackadullboyallworkandnoplaymakesJackadullboy
Hope that worked.
OK, that is a pretty good theory. But it is dependent on information from a comic version of DW. Really? I just cannot see Moffat constructing a story based on information from a comic and not from something very well known in the Who universe. In fact, being Moffat, I can see him only constructing a theory from information introduced by…Moffat.
Having said that I do like the way that the Hand of Omega is part of the theory. I have always felt that the ideas behind “Remembrance of the Daleks” were potentially good, but ruined by terrible execution (I know there are those out there who stand by that episode. But I am not one of them.)
But…yet…the beauty of incorporating the Hand of Omega is that it does tie it all back to the beginning.
Hmmm.
26 October 2013 at 13:47 #19359I am about to change my attitude to polls…sort of.
While I think polls on the show would be a bad idea(for all the reasons discussed), a poll on which is the best of the 50 excellent bonkers reasons for the non-appearance of the trailer might be fun. (has this been suggested? Apologies if so)
Maybe if it was set up so: 1. No one voted for themselves, 2. One vote only, 3. A result after…100…200…300 votes.
And then no more polls…for a while.
25 October 2013 at 21:12 #19333A new (old) Doctor on the front page!
And an excellent rendition of Troughton, no less!
Hats off to all responsible!
24 October 2013 at 19:17 #19231They have added North American locations to the map of where to view the 50th in 3D cinemas:
http://www.doctorwho.tv/watch-the-day-of-the-doctor/
And it turns out that they are to screen it at my local in the wilds of Ontario! Hurrah!
It would have been good to see it in London, but Mrs Blenkinsop gently reminded me that the blenkinsop piggy bank is not as full as it once was (could it be all those DVDs and the imported Australian shiraz?)
Now to decide on the most appropriate attire for the screening on a cold Ontario November evening…
As a Yeti, perhaps…?
24 October 2013 at 17:32 #19226@craig, (Emperor) @phaseshift, @jimthefish, @shazzbot, (Time Lords) @ et al,
Do polls inevitably lead to trolls? Perhaps not. But…
There has been some discussion on this thread about the future direction of the website, whether to run polls, whether to keep the site for “core members”, whether to change the site so as to provide more input from the large number of members who rarely post, and so on.
From my own perspective, one of the reasons I come to this site and not others goes back to its origins. It was set up to provide a space (perhaps even a “haven”) from the ugly, trollish behaviour that was so common on the Guardian site. There were a core of posters on that site that engaged with each other with wit, intelligence, and civility. It was, I think, @phaseshift who categorised that core as “Enthusiasts”. And what they had in common was a commitment to ignore the trollish one-word responses like “crap”, and engage in detailed discussion and conversation. Those posts and posters had in common, not only enthusiasm, but wide knowledge (on all sorts of things), wit, and a generosity of spirit; but also, in a very important sense, a type of gentility that was exceptional in the often uncivilised world of web commentary.
And so this site was born. While there is now talk about “who” it should be for, I would rather focus on what distinguishes this site from others. It has been commented upon that while the site boasts hundreds of members only the same few tend to regularly post. That is true, but partly because active participation operates in a self-selective way. Regular posters are attracted to the type of site it is–that is, one with all the attributes I have referred to above. If they wants to engage in the less-civilised rough-and-tumble of other Doctor Who sites (and there are many, all of which provide a slightly different and unique appeal) then they do so. And there are some who contribute here regularly, but also contribute to other sites, just as there are some who only come here. And there are many members who enjoy “lurking” and not actively participating precisely because they like the tone, nature and content of the collective discussion on the site (a number of members have come on once to say just that).
So, in all the discussion, of core members and changing the site to embrace a wider number of participants, I would tend to shift the emphasis from the members to the nature of the site itself.
It remains, for me at least, a wonderful, funny, enlightening, and civilised place. Of course, in some respects, it has already lost some of the brilliance of the conversation that the core members here engaged in back on the Guardian site. I can recall fabulous posts on episodes that alluded to complex scientific theory, literary analysis, and contextual historical knowledge, that is less common these days. Why? perhaps partly because the Guardian site, where so many of us “met”, was only once a week, and only for a few weeks a year. It is hard to be that dazzling every single day (although @htpbdet and @phaseshift come close). And some, like @whohar, and @juniperfish, and others, who were active each week on the old Guardian site for the few times each year it was up, are less regular (but still brilliant) when they do appear.
But this site has also grown in ways none of us predicted when @craig set it up. And yet it still retains all the qualities that the “enthusiasts” brought with them from the Guardian site. That is no mean achievement.
24 October 2013 at 14:01 #19214Dear incontinent one, there are some things we just don’t want to know about!
24 October 2013 at 02:39 #19184Oh, yee of little faith! OK, I suppose I will have to come up with a different bonkers theory.
Not better, of course (what could be?) but different.
23 October 2013 at 16:26 #19140Actually, I was, as a 12 year-old, a viewer of the very first episode back when it was screened in Australia in 1964 (just after its English debut). And I have grown up and grown old with the show.
It all depends on how it is done.
Knowing the way Moffat writes, whatever he does he will do it with heart-strings being tugged and hearts soaring.
Of course, my idea may also be the result of caffeine-induced delirium…
23 October 2013 at 14:54 #19135I like the idea of a trinity of past, present and future Docs on screen together
So do I. Reading the recent posts, and fortified by a morning espresso, I just re-watched parts of “The Name of the Doctor”, and I think it is entirely possible that the Hurt Doctor is not only a future Doctor, but the LAST Doctor–the Doctor that the Great Intelligence refers to in the past, whose end came in a minor skirmish that was too much for the old man. The problem (for the 11th Doctor–and for us the audience) is that this is ultimately what the Doctor has (or potentially will) become, someone who really is “blood-soaked”.
To go back to my point about the use of words in the mini trailer (ie, “lives” and “our future”) I wonder if, in some way that I haven’t figured out yet, the entire succession of Doctors (the separate “lives”) are threatened, and that, in some time-wimey Moffat way, the only solution to this terrible potential future of a blood-soaked Doctor is for the Doctor is to completely and utterly re-write the past (in order to undo the actions of the “last” Doctor, the Hurt Doctor) so that the previous Doctors (somewhat like Rory) have never existed, but are “alive” as long as we remember them.
In a way, such a resolution would tie into my 4th wall theory. As the show (and the Doctor) goes forward, it is in a unverse where the previous Doctors never existed, but one where they exist in our (ie, the audience’s) memories, and survive (like the lost episodes) as memories.
Time for another espresso, and more thought.
22 October 2013 at 19:13 #19072and Canada too! Hurrah!
Mind you…Mrs Blenkinsop and I are mulling over a quick trip to London in late November!
21 October 2013 at 23:49 #1901221 October 2013 at 20:09 #18965You may be right my friend (although you did leave the policeman’s ear intact in the Hurt mock-up on the right, did you not?), but…I just don’t see it.
But…in the spirit of bonkers theorising…why would they do it? I am really not sure I want them to rewrite “An Unearthly Child” in the 50th. I think that would be a real disservice to the integrity of the show. The one time when they tried to do it (“The Remembrance of the Daleks”) was awful…for me, anyway.
21 October 2013 at 19:22 #18956If that’s not John Hurt playing the Policeman I’ll eat my own beard!
I fear you may have to find some suitable condiments to go with the beard. I can sort of see why you think the policeman looks like Hurt, but I really think this is simply a Reg Cranfield look-a-like who has been heavily CGI’d along with everyone else in the mini trailer. Just as with every other character in the mini trailer, I think he is simply there to allude to the history of the show.
<Now to go off and take up @scaryb‘s challenge to dust-off my 4th wall theory….>
21 October 2013 at 17:18 #1893621 October 2013 at 16:26 #18926The chinstrap on the policeman, Oswin Oswald refers to the Doctor as “the chin”… Is there the potential for s completely new bonkers “chin” theory?
21 October 2013 at 14:46 #18914Just awoke to find a crazy level of forensic attention being paid to the faces in the mini trailer.
Hate to say this, but I think it is simply that the CGI process enhances (and simultaneously distorts) the original TV images. So I think the policeman is BASED ON the original policeman; same with Hartnell, Baker, even Tennant (who looks rather unreal as the camera flys past him).
The only faces that come across as “real” are Matt Smith and Jenna Coleman, and it may be as simple as the fact that they were the only “real” actors used in the making of the mini trailer.
Am personally still hoping the face in the globe is Susan, but will admit it comes across as a strange CGI amalgam of Susan and Sarah Jane.
I realise this all sounds like a theory LESS insane than what is actually going on…perhaps the result of being affected by the strange air of Canadian sobriety I find myself in.
20 October 2013 at 14:51 #18833Hello @geoffers. Agree that the reflection in the globe is Susan. The juxtaposition with Clara and her leaf revives my hope that it will turn out that Clara is daughter of the Doctor and River, and mother of Susan. Talking of River, she is notable by her absence in the mini trailer.
20 October 2013 at 03:12 #18800@hudsey. Glad you agree that the words in the mini trailer are really very important. Totally with you on the notion that it may all be hinting at a restart of the entire timeline. Moffat likes to hide stuff in plain sight. I suspect that he has revealed quite a lot with the spoken word in this mini trailer.
Am sort of surprised that no one else is commenting on this. Oh, everyone in the UK is probably asleep. Well, yes, that would account for it.
19 October 2013 at 22:44 #18790Like everyone else, I have watched the mini trailer, oh, well a “few” times, and a couple of points in the voiceover struck me as rather odd.
“I’ve been running all my lives”. In the plural. Why in the plural? He is one Doctor…isn’t he?
“Our future depends…” Who is the “our”? Humanity? The Timelords? The Doctors (in the plural)?
I don’t know why, but I think the words used might be significant.
Of course, I could also be looking for meaning where there is none.
17 October 2013 at 16:19 #18646P.S. unfortunately, I wouldn’t have a clue about accessing black-download sites. Which is a real cause for concern as 23 November approaches in the Who-barren wilds of Ontario!
17 October 2013 at 15:58 #18645It is not so much the delay in season 8, as the form of season 8. Might they decide to have a VERY few number of 60-75 minute shows instead of a season as we have been used to? The suits at the BBC might reason that they could make it more financially viable that way and pick up extra revenue through DVD sales if each story was released independently of each other. Who knows? But one thing is for sure. They are not releasing the 50th in the cinemas as a favour to the fans, but are seeking a broader audience for the future of the show. How they package that future in 2014 and beyond could have real implications for storytelling possibilities.
[Note to self after reviewing my posts above: retirement is no excuse for typos!]
17 October 2013 at 15:14 #18640Forgiven, my inattentive friend. While retirement is everything is is cracked up to be, and I heartily recommend it to all, there is the downside that the trips to the Qantas Club Lounge will become rather like the lost Hartnell and Troughton episodes–wonderful memories but sadly lost in time.
I really like your notion that the 50th is a trial for cinema. Whether Doctor Who would work outside of a TV format is something I an not sure about–although I do confess a fondness for Peter Cushing’s rather daffy “Daleks Invasion Earth 2150AD”.
Indeed, given all that has been said about the relationship between the BBC suits, the showrunners and the audience, I think there is a real question about what sort of format season 8 might take. What started out as a weekly 25 minute show in 1963 has already changed its format considerably. Who knows where the format might go in the future.
17 October 2013 at 14:54 #18638Fortunately, the many trips to Canada over the years prior to this relocation means that the blenkinsop wardrobe is chock full of winter woolies! Of far more concern is the lack of availability of high quality Australian shiraz!
17 October 2013 at 14:49 #18637Yes, it is a permanent move. However, upon recently discovering that Who-friendly Australia is screening the 50th at cinemas throughout the country and Who-deprived Canada is oblivious to the 50th (even BBC Canada chose not to acquire Doctor Who as part of its line-up) I may be tempted back for a quick Who fix next month!
As for the question of were Hurt fits, I would rule out 2-3 for the reason that most of the audience are not familiar with BG Who, and it would take too much exposition and explanation. He could go with pre-Hartnell as it opens up all sorts of possibilities about sending the show off in a different direction, but even there, the Hartnell Doctor is not as loved and familiar to the mainstream audience the 50th is aimed at as he is to those of us on this forum. Which leaves 8-9 and the Time War. Or…something we just haven’t thought of yet.
16 October 2013 at 22:19 #18608I am liking your theory more and more. Particularly the fact that it provides a coherent alternative to the Time War focus of the 50th that most people have accepted. But…when you say that the “smith doc cannot remember the experiences of the tennant doc in the anniversary episode”, I am not sure where you are getting that from. After all, we haven’t even had a trailer to make such a supposition. Is there a plot synopsis out there that I have missed?
15 October 2013 at 17:57 #18556Hello @janetteb. Yes, indeed, I have decamped for milder climes (you must pay attention, @scaryb!)
I believe, @janetteb, that you will be well served in the unseasonal warmth of my former home (as we both know, Australia has always been very civilised when it comes to Doctor Who), although whether Doctor Who will penetrate the rugged wilds of Tasmania, where, if memory serves correct, the lovely @whohar is now resident, is another question.
For my own part, I am exploring the Who potential of the wilds of Ontario. Apart from finding out that Doctor Who screens on the Space channel (which I do not subscribe to), information on what is happening with regards to the 50th in the Canadian colonies is rather elusive. If anyone else can enlighten me, please do.
14 October 2013 at 20:02 #18516Indeed I do continue to admire the new look as it progresses in your talented hands. I note that you are going to “pop open” a bottle of wine. Does this mean that the screw-top wine bottle has not made it to the Sceptred Isle yet? It is a true advance in my book. I recall using its invention as the main thing that had made an appreciable difference to my “work-lifestyle balance” during an otherwise pointless human relations focus group run by an idiot Moderator (who insisted we reflect on the said work-lifestyle balance). How civilised I find retirement, in the knowledge that I do not have to attend any more “focus groups”.
-
AuthorPosts
