Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
8 December 2013 at 15:06 #22410
@TheFerret
I think that’s fine looking at it. It can be a difficult one to call. I’d say if you read anything in an interview that talks about an upcoming episode, or a revelation in it surprises you, err on the side of caution and post it in spoilers. If people who read it generally don’t think it is a spoiler, we can always move it back to news for a wider audience.
Hope that helps.
7 December 2013 at 22:49 #22384I’m afraid I trashed your reply while moving, which may become an occupational hazard. If it’s not derived from an official BBC source, it should be discussed in the Spoiler thread. Feel free to repost it there for discussion by all means.
7 December 2013 at 19:28 #22377Yep – she’s always done her bit for marketing, but with this latest one @juniperfish has easily won the 2013 Doctor Who Forum “Golden Plug” Award. š
Speech! – Speech!
7 December 2013 at 00:09 #22325Greetings from Yorkshire – love the creations. As youāve:
- Done it in the right way,
- Mentioned somewhere in Yorkshire,
- Have cool creations and avatar,
Please have a link to my Dear Santa blog and an invite to post a link to purchase if you wish to tell anyone. It gets more wandering traffic from those looking for a Christmas gift I believe.
6 December 2013 at 00:44 #22294@timeloop @purofilion
Yep – as much as I’m looking forward to Capaldi I’ll miss Smith as well. If you want to write a bit of a eulogy to him after the episode (or even before), we have the Faces strand for thoughts on the Doctors. I’ll link to my recent post on him below. I’m positive that in my long history of viewing the show, this has been my favourite continuous period, and Matt Smith has been a large factor in that:
http://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/forums/topic/the-faces-of-the-doctor/page/9/#post-197806 December 2013 at 00:38 #22293@juniperfish @purofilion @wolfweed @bluesqueakpip (and anyone else on Slapgate)
I think to a certain extent each personality is a rejection of parts of the one before, so with 10 he often appears completely at home in any situation. Very smooth, charming and socially aware. With 11 (I’m sticking with trad numbering here folks) he likes to think he’s those things but he’s really quite inept saying and doing some deeply inapropriate things for any situation he’s in. Personally I love it.
I mean – as a bloke you know you’re going to be on your best behaviour if you’re meeting a man who may suspect you have sexual designs on his daughter. So he does the most deeply innapropriate thing you can imagine. To me, that is pretty funny. Who else would go to someones stag do and gatecrash it like he did in Vampires in Venice?
I really think the dynamic will change again with Capaldi and a rejection of certain parts of 11 will occur. Unfortunately, that will probably mean that bow-ties will no longer be cool. š
3 December 2013 at 23:13 #22223I almost envy you, going into the Fourth Doctors ere fresh. Lots to enjoy.
How could you object to a beard like that though? He looks like a cross between Santa and Gandalf, which is fitting really, because that’s how I viewed the Doctor as a child. š
3 December 2013 at 19:24 #222082 December 2013 at 23:55 #22170Thanks for that link to the interview. I hope you don’t mind, but I added it to the blog I did on target a while ago (crediting you of course). Nice to hear he’s more upbeat and less curmudgeounly than some of the old script editors (Bidmead comes to mind) on the new series. Always knew he had class. I hope I spoke for all of us young readers in my points about him.
1 December 2013 at 14:13 #22096I’ll just put a link here to @bluesqueakpip s blog on the mechanics of the episode. Well worth a read, and with helpful diagrams!
I had no idea that some cimemas were still showing it. That actually sounds like more of a cinema experience I’d enjoy, with only a few people.
1 December 2013 at 13:40 #22094I’ve just released one, and deleted the duplicate. Is this still happening to you a lot?
1 December 2013 at 13:07 #22089How opportune. Candidates for the Moderator 101 course are invited to examine exhibit A above, dated 1 December 2013 at 09:13, which will form part of the exam.
30 November 2013 at 22:31 #22073Ahhh … TimeFlight. I actually looked at the novelisation of it when I was doing the blog on Target. My mind seemed to self edit what I was reading so it went:
“Tegan, Nyssa …. I just can’t go back on my own Timeline”, protested the Doctor, as he did his happy dance.
I always thought that the SM way of having the fact that the dead (such as Amy) told him they had never seen him before they died makes it almost impossible for him to reverse that decision. It also makes it more real to him (like being told the Brigadier has died). As River said, he doesn’t like to see the damage.
30 November 2013 at 17:42 #22048Many thanks for the endorsements. Just to pick up on a couple of points @jimthefish raised though, and provide an explanation of something.
this site could sometimes be seen as a bit cliquey and unwelcoming to new members
Kind of intimidated is what Iām guessing.
I think we agree here. I think āweā who entered the site in its first days are obviously used to each other to a certain extent. We can play off old jokes and tend to debate with each other more than perhaps new members, and a lot of that is down to the repeat āweekend warriorsā. You start to assume that everyone who signs in is one. I realise that it can be intimidating for anyone who joins a new site, but someone who joins and picks a fight in their first few posts is usually asking for trouble, one would assume.
I think if you look at the way that people like @thommck, @ardraith, @arkleseizure, @fatmaninabox and many others (to many to mention) have leapt in you realise the value of new blood, but it takes goodwill on all sides.
Iāve been a bit unhappy that weāve occasionally been a bit quick to call āTrollā and āARSEā. Donāt get me wrong, @scaryb s invention was a work of genius that does sum up a particular mindset, but its amazing how quickly these expressions just soon become āa term of abuse for someone who disagrees with meā. Iām also unhappy when moderation of the weekend warriors is seen be become a participatory event. It really isnāt beneficial. I donāt need back-up or an audience to do the work. To a casual reader, or someone who is thinking of joining up it can look damn unpleasant.
Iāll explain one event that has happened. As you may have noticed, @shazzbot is not currently listed as a Moderator. As I said in my main post, she volunteered for duty, and I canāt fault her keenness. I think she may have expected something different from the role, however, and saw it as a āpromotionā in some way. At the end of the day, @craig has expressed a desire to retire to the background of the site. Resume his lurker status. I really hope he doesnāt completely, because heās a right laugh. Heās clear though that he wants us to sort our own problems out.
@Shazzbot has refused to take criticism from anyone except @craig, who she then frequently argues with, refusing to see it from any other perspective. Last week she moderated by who the people were, and not what they had written. After refusing to engage with @craig by PM she contacted a number of people to say āthatās itā and has possibly gone into lurker status. There is no censure and sheās not banned. @craig has removed the Moderator status after careful consideration. I agreed completely.
Perhaps the secret is to not REALLY want to be a moderator, but just to accept it for a limited time. That way, you donāt dwell on the issues, because itās a distraction? I hope she returns as a participant. There is absolutely no shame in trying something and finding out itās not for you. There is no ādemotionā. To view it that way is to view it truly as a ācareerā. Thatās surely not the reason we do what we do? If it is, why do I want other people to consider replacing me?
30 November 2013 at 17:25 #22047I think itās a popular complaint about Moffat that his tenure has seen a decline in overall deaths. Itās not something I really mind, as Iāve seen the show lurch in the other direction too often, with seasons of āeveryone diesā and that gets even duller.
I think @juniperfish has made some good points, but I’m less kind about the viewpoint myself. My one big issue is the comparison with the other writers, including Joss Whedon. To be fair to Moffat, that comparison isnāt helpful, as Whedons series have been stand-alone stories with a Start, middle and endpoint. Moffat is a caretaker of a show he feels will still be running when heās expired. He therefore has to consider the future and give the show longevity.
If you read my blog on the Time Lords, and then the comments ā what is the number one complaint? The āLast of the Time Lordsā stuff was becoming tired. An issue that had solved a number of ābaggageā issues the old show had has become fresh baggage.
Even though through 3 seasons SM had downplayed it (āThe regretā of the RTD series had become āforgotā of the new to coin a phrase from the special), people still saw it as an issue. That limits the show. If anything, that is the real danger of killing the show, when it canāt move on.
I think this dynamic doesnāt really change the real regret of the RTD years. His Doctors went through it. You can feel grief at the passing of someone, and then later learn something about them that makes you feel ashamed you wasted your tears. It doesnāt mean that you didnāt go through the grief, and it wasnāt very real to you.
SMs not infallible, and I donāt think heāll ever please some people, but I think he has a better handle on how to keep the show alive and give it a future than some people give him credit for.
30 November 2013 at 13:34 #22028Doctor Who and the Wrath of Mod
Following on from some unpleasantness last week, I want to touch on a couple of things. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to read, and consider the points.
This site is moderated, and pretty tightly moderated, by request of its users who wanted a place that was a bit different to other internet sites. A bit more civil and where disagreements do not lead to tedious flame wars and the accumulation of vendettas between users. On the whole, I think weāve been pretty successful. I was nominated in the first week of the site, and @jimthefish a few months later. @Shazzbot volunteered for duty a little later than that.
They key point here is that we are fans, just like everyone else. I agreed to help to acknowledge the enormous commitment of @craig in establishing the site. A bit of my time to a project that enabled me to mix with posters who I greatly respected. I think all ābehind the scenesā will agree weāve done it with the cack-handedness of the true amateur, learning from our mistakes. There is no rule book for what we do.
There are two elements to what I do, and how I approach it. There is the more visible element, which usually forms a small collection of idiots who invade periodically under various user names for a bit of fun. You know the score. These donāt trouble me in the slightest. They have no intention of contributing to the site, and I feel no obligation to humour them.
Less frequently I have to take up a point with an established user. The best moderation, I hope, is the stuff thatās never seen. That doesnāt embarrass anyone. Most of the time it happens when I think someone may be on the verge of getting too confrontational or getting stuck in a rut. Itās easy to do in the heat of the moment, and many people donāt realise how they may be coming across. Largely, people take the advice although 3 Iāve dealt with have been more tricky. If people disagree, they are free to take it up with other Mods. Weāre not a hive mind, and we donāt discuss our individual work with each other for this reason. If people continue with their behaviour you will often see me get a bit short with them live on the blogs if I think they are repeating history.
Last week though was the first time someone has refused to engage by PM and instead preferred to take the argument to the boards. This was a mistake on his part, not mine. If someone wants to pretend that moderation does not apply to them, they are sadly mistaken. You lose any goodwill, especially if you are a poster who has lectured others on what a special place this is in the past and who was pretty obviously brewing up a nice little vendetta against a new member. I’ll Mod anyone, because I’m not above moderation. @craig s given me the odd clip around the ear. If I’m subject to the rules, then I’m afraid so is everyone else.
I really donāt relish moderation at all. It takes up my valuable time, and when people create problems I have little patience. I would rather be reading some excellent posts, or writing another blog, or just about anything really. Iām a fan. Thatās not to say that if you are troubled by something, or feeling you are being victimised that you shouldnāt contact me, or others, by PM to discuss it rather than escalating it on the forum. I love responsible posters. They make my life easier and can avoid trouble on the site.
If we contact you, letās get it over quickly. No rancour – no grandstanding. Donāt make us out to be the villains of the piece for doing the job that needs doing.
Last week, I discussed with @craig the possibility of standing down as Mod in January after doing the job for a year. Oh, Iād come back after a while and give someone else a rest. Weāre a small site, and itās good to mix things up. Weāll see how that goes on timing, but I urge you to consider if you want to spend a little time helping out. Iāve dwelt on the drawbacks, but it can be enormously rewarding as well (in a personal sense you understand, no money is involved). If you think āNot on your nelly, my dear Phaseshiftā then just pause next time you feel yourself getting a bit angry. Please donāt make the job more difficult than it is. Donāt make it a laborious chore.
Many thanks for reading.
30 November 2013 at 12:05 #22024Heh, I just took one look at your new avatar, and my immediate thought was “Release the Gimp!”.
30 November 2013 at 12:03 #22023I think that interpretation was my favourite when we were speculating about the identity of Doctor Hurt. I think the visualisation of the āTime Trackā was really fragmented, showing gaps that both couldnāt access because they were locked and/or rewritten. I think it was in the Stolen Earth that Doc 10 said that all the events of the Time War were Time Locked and normally inaccessible, so surely that part of his history would form part of those events.
When the GI and Clara jumped into his Time Stream, I always saw them as two influences on his existence. The malign and benign, who overall cancelled each other out. For me the scene with Hartnell was key to that. From the Doctors wife we know the Doc and TARDIS chose each other in that intial time line. The GI as a formless entity that āwhispersā may have been that little voice that told the Doctor to take a different one. With a fully working TARDIS his entire life may have been different. Clara corrected that choice, and the time track continued. The detail changed, but not the flow of his life. I do think that minor changes may have made that intial view of the HurtDoctor to be seen at the end though, and hence my thought that perhaps the Moment couldn’t have forged the link to the future.
30 November 2013 at 11:57 #22022Just to go off on a tangent, I caught the request by @shazzbot about more episode retrospectives, and I think I agree with the general consensus that early next year may be good. Your previous suggestion of Day of the Daleks is now a must for Pertwee I think. I actually think anyone who hasnāt seen it before will find it interesting to compare the takes on time.
30 November 2013 at 11:55 #22021No problem with you quoting me in other places at all (subject to you correcting my usual appalling typos to make me look more intelligent š ) Iām looking forward to the blog with diagrams.
These arcs about time heās done in the three series have been fascinating, all in their own ways. Some story elements of 7B really do play into what NotD and this are all about. I can see the Christmas special forming the end-point to a trilogy of some kind, so Iām really anticipating it now.
30 November 2013 at 00:05 #22009I think the duality has to be the key here. The Doctors time line has been cocked up in a way that pleases me a great deal.
I think we anticipate the Trenzilore end point will be lost at Christmas, and become something that will no longer happen. Perhaps the key to that (and therefore a fresh perspective on this episode is totor consider that by saving Clara from the Time Streams (with its sudden appearance by DocHurt) that enough wriggle room was developed in the time stream for the Moment to forge that link to the future, and change the outcome.
The other possibility is that by saving Clara (who suggested this was the end of her story in NoTD, this also changed the result of the TimeWar. If he had lost Clara in his timeline, she wouldn’t be there to convince her Doctor to seek an alternative? And perhaps it’s that act of retriving her that will lead to the outcome of Trenzilore changing?
So for me, in the RTD period, Gallifrey burned. These latest events have simply altered it’s fate.
But agree with all your points about the Time Lords natier nature though. I really should rename my blog Still Time Locked, and Still Loving it!
29 November 2013 at 23:30 #22007For anyone who didn’t catch it around the celebrations, the Doctors Revisited looks at the Matt Smith period.
29 November 2013 at 11:44 #21979@all
Thanks for your ideas on the posts idea. I’ll give it some thought today, and get in touch with you tomorrow @denvaldron, if you don’t mind. We are interested in ideas like this, but it’s a case of giving them the right exposure.
29 November 2013 at 01:08 #21951What’s I find remarkable about the characterisation of the First Doctor here is how well it fits in with the notion of the Time Lords when you eventually see more of their society in Deadly Assassin. I’d obviously seen that first as a kid, and then saw this just before the 20th Anniversary in a rare “Five Faces of the Doctor” retrospective showing of episodes, and it really struck me.
You can see aspects of his character in the other Time Lords and can imagine this one as one of the Prydonian Chapter, with their slight contempt for the rest of the Universe, cunning and pragmatism. I canāt help but think that when Robert Holmes wrote that story, he must have dwelt on the First Doctor, and tried to extrapolate the kind of people he had as contemporaries.
What really sets them apart is the Doctors burning curiosity (almost obsession) that really starts to emerge in the next story, The Daleks, and as time goes on you can see him soften and humanise as he really becomes the hero of his own series. It really is there at the start ā the Doctor needs companions as a moral compass, the trip into the past, and then an alien futuristic environment (which @bluesqueakpip pointed out elsewhere has become the hallmark for the intro to the modern companion).
I’ll echo the sentiments though that the first episode is really remarkable. The following three parts aren’t as engaging, but there is an awful lot to chew over. The scene where the Doctor looks set to finish the injured caveman with a rock still leaps out and has been referenced in the Big Finish Doctor Eight audios.
29 November 2013 at 00:14 #21949Message understood?
I believe so. You’re a drama queen who has declined my offer to talk about this via PMs (something I believe you’ve advocated in the past), and instead want it public and messy.
No more warnings then. Continue as you see fit, and I’ll respond accordingly.
Or don’t forget to close your account as you leave for pastures more suited to you.
28 November 2013 at 20:00 #21926Shouldnāt this be in the
fanwankfan creativity section? Or is that place reserved for slash (I wouldnāt know ā it is the one bit of board I never look)?Tell me @pedant – back on the Guardian, what would your summation be of someone who dismissed something with contempt, while confessing that they hadn’t really had a look?
There is a word, I’m sure. Begins with “T”.
25 November 2013 at 13:39 #21522@danmartinuk has posted his “official” recap of the episode for the Guardian, if anyone is interested.
It’s here:
24 November 2013 at 18:48 #21410On the one hand, you have to pity Steve Moffat for being in the position heās in, because there are inevitably people who will be disappointed. And letās be frank here, Who fandom has some unstable elements.
Personally, I thought this was great, much better than I think we had a hope for. Iāve been thinking about how to mitigate the angst of the Time War and, as no big fan of the Time Lords in the history of the show, not really wanting them back as was. I think SMs solution is quite neat. Changing the nature of their fate, while keeping the visible consequence (no Time Lords, at the moment) is a master stroke. I canāt help thinking heās given us another āWell, thatās how it all startedā moment like the Five Doctors. I couldnāt help thinking of the first episode, Unearthly Child:
Have you ever thought what it’s like to be wanderers in the Fourth Dimension? Have you? To be exiles? Susan and I are cut off from our own planet – without friends or protection. But one day we shall get back. Yes, one day….The – First Doctor, The Unearthly Child
So here he is. An exile, but knowing that he stands not as an executioner of the innocent, and that one day he could go back to them. Making Arcadia the Second City of Gallifrey is a great notion. The mention by the Time Lords at the beginning that the Capitol āhad their own ideasā and the sound of contempt over Time Lord leadership leaves plenty of potential for future stories. Bringing the Time Lords back as they were seen in the End of Time wouldnāt really be an option.
I think some people seem to assume that the quest to locate the Time Lords will fill his every waking moment from now on, but I donāt think thatās something they should rush towards. The early show managed six years before even revealing them, after all. Itās also the perfect excuse for the Doctor to actually seek an extension to his regenerations. Not for himself, but to ensure that one day he finds and frees them. Altruistic, rather than selfish reasons.
No ā like a lot of decisions heās made, I think heās successfully cut a tie, a limitation to the ongoing story in a subtle way, and increased the scope for future story writers, rather than add to the baggage. The future does start here, and thatās quite a birthday present.
Hurt was magnificent, but Iāll treasure that meet up and the end. The two definitions of the āMad Man in the Boxā for me, on screen at the same time. Brilliant.
24 November 2013 at 16:44 #21371The BBC Youtube sites seem to be uploading loads of content from around the world at the moment. Unfortunately my own internet download speed seems to be as sluggish as me today, so I’m not trawling the content. I did see this one for Strax though, very short with advice for users of social media about “the movie”. Not sure if this is the cinema one:
24 November 2013 at 16:41 #21370Yes – I managed the cocktails for Doctors 5 – 11 in the end, I was nursing “11” during the movie and did feel a bit whoozy. I was convinced I had broken this part of the internet when trying to set up this topic on the homepage. I’ve been informed that it was nothing to do with me, and our countdown timer acted up when it reached zero. Who says Alcohol dulls the senses? Well, me having checked most of my posts.
I’m now in a fit state to watch it again, and can hopefully add something to your excellent ananlysis later on. Glad you enjoyed the party.
23 November 2013 at 23:29 #21309I know – I think it would be difficult to get a comprehenive view that @danmartinuk provided in his reviews, because the media blackout meant that there were no previews. The problem with Neil and Sue is that they’ve anticipated certain things in the reaction and it seems so obvious. Key points are missed, in terms of what you could expect, and the commentary is often about stuff that has been prereleasesed or could be anticipated.
The BTL interaction is what you could anticipate really. It’s the equivalent of tweeting when you watch an episode. You’re not really watching it. You’re concentrating on making droll comments about it. Not really going to work in this era is it? Probably fine for a Strictly come X-Factor, but in those you don’t have to follow a narrative.
23 November 2013 at 23:00 #21304Apologies people
I tried (as I have before, and succeeded) to set up a new forum for the episode while @craig was away. That coincided with the 404 problem, and I don’t seem to be able to rectify it. I may have broken the internet, or it may be a permissions thing since the new site was implemented that I have remained blissfully unaware of. If you can suffer until tomorrow when @craig is back, many thanks.
23 November 2013 at 22:00 #21291Oh dear.
A one off, or the shape of things to come? I know @danmartinuk s doing his buzzfeed “Thang” at the moment, but – jesus christ
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/nov/23/doctor-who-the-day-of-the-doctor-live-blog
23 November 2013 at 21:37 #21283The Curse of of infinite recursion of the fixed speed of light has struck the live broadcast in a tie up to One Direction- it’s hilarious. Zoe Ball is going to pieces.
23 November 2013 at 21:18 #21280Love the saving of Galifrey by all the Doctors. “Oh no- all thirteen” as you see the eyes of Capaldi. Laughed a lot.
23 November 2013 at 21:13 #21278OK – What the hellllll?
Cannot compute. Now switched over to “THE AFTERPARTY” on BBC3 – that’ll bring me down to Earth.
22 November 2013 at 23:22 #21186@wolfweed – Yep, no pictures or updates at all. They’re probably too drunk, or were involved in that fracas with the Strip-o-gram. š
22 November 2013 at 16:45 #21149I just had a look at the main TV page of the Guardian, and all except one article is Who related! Weird.
22 November 2013 at 16:43 #21148Thank buggery it’s Friday! One more sleep, no more work and I’m going to enjoy a Who weekend.
I agree with @juniperfish in that there is nothing to stop the young watching it in terms of content, but they might find it a bit dull. I think you’ll enjoy it though.
I’ve lost track of the people going to the convention on particular days. Are you going tomorrow?
22 November 2013 at 00:38 #21127Don’t worry – if you fall at the frontline there will always be a parcel of the UK forever labelled “BARRS”.
I do have an alternative for a hangover cure though. It may suit the metropolitan “vibe” more.
Take one Andrazani Minor Queen Bat, Milk and whisk the result to an aerated consistency. Add one Terran Chicken Egg Yoke and stir briskly while adding a dash (5cl) of “Martian lovejuice”. Beat until THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MODERATED.
And that’s how I do it!!
22 November 2013 at 00:00 #21122but I donāt believe youāve come up with the Hangover Cure yet!
Oh dear, ScaryB, now come on – You’re Scottish –
fry somethingdrink some Irn Bru. Sorts me out every time! Only GLASS bottles though. To much fizz in the plastic PET bottles. š21 November 2013 at 23:37 #21120@scaryb (and all)
Can I wish the attendees of the convention the best memories and time of their lives.
For the lesser mortals amongst us, including me sadly, we’ll be here. Alone…forlorn….
…having a virtual Party.
Badges… BADGES!?!?!
We don’t need no stinking CONVENTION badges!Tis the 50th Baby ā Party Hearty!
21 November 2013 at 23:15 #21117That was excellent, capturing those moments in time particularly well I thought. The end ā well that had me a bit emotional. We have possibly exhausted our supply of man size tissues.
I posted on the Faces strand that I wondered how Hartnell would have felt about his ālittle adventuresā fame these days. To have his face on a stamp. Immensely proud, I would think. I think this is why Iāve always avoided those theorems about earlier Doctors (pre-Hartnell) It doesnāt quite fit my own narrative, and therefore it canāt be true?
Loads of great performances and cameos though. Bradley was astonishing. Raine was divine as Verity, and Brian Cox as Sidney Newman personified what Iāve always read about him. A true showman of the small screen. The Henry Gordon Jago of his era.
Bloody brilliant. I donāt care if its fan service ā some service deserves to be recognised.
21 November 2013 at 20:53 #21098If I can just dip in. I think the first episode of this has been referenced in every anniversary special (worth a note) since. I have a feeling this is going to be repeated, so try to catch the first episode if you can. It’s a remarkable thing.
Sorry – have to dash off for “revision” while watching “An Adventure” of course – I’m not some sort of heathen! š
20 November 2013 at 21:42 #21044Apparently Iām The Masterā¦
I’d suggest that was taken, but apparently I am … The Exile.
20 November 2013 at 17:11 #21019@shazzbot
I’m lucky enough to have a Hard Disk Freeview PVR, so I can record the broadcasts digitally via the box and listen whenever. I honestly couldn’t rely on i-player as broadband provision isn’t that great for me (especially when trying to access TV shows). The one I have I can export files to other devices, hence while I’m saving the Daleks 10 part reading for a book at bedtime option for later in the year.
20 November 2013 at 16:42 #21015Resist the piscine lure!! I shall never be Phasefish!
20 November 2013 at 16:35 #21013I managed to listen to Fanfare for the Common Men this afternoon (while officially having my nose hard to the grindstone). It was fun enough, but has enough flaws to slightly puncture those few fans who insist that Big Finish is universally great, and somehow true Doctor Who.
It takes a throwaway concept from the very first episode (Susans favourite band were “John Smith and the Common Men”) and weaves it into a tale of time change, with the Common Men taking the place of the Beatles as the Fifth Doctor takes Nyssa to Earth for a bit of cultural eduction. A fun guest star in long time fan and comedy muso Mitch Benn, and the usual good turn from Davison, but the allegory of fame turning you into a monster was a little overdone. It reminds my of some of some of the more comedic New Adventures where you were repeatedly hit over the head with a big stick marked “SATIRE”.
Still worth a listen though, and can be found on i-player here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b007k1vg/Doctor_Who_1963_Fanfare_for_the_Common_Men_Episode_1/20 November 2013 at 16:07 #21010Looking at the fishdoctor twitter thing @pedant and @scaryb mentioned, I guess my question a while ago about the footage Peter Davison was filming is going to be answered very shortly š
3 days… #FDR #FishDr pic.twitter.com/TIe2FbwAbB
ā TheFishDr (@dayoftheFishDr) November 20, 2013
4 days… #FDR #FishDr pic.twitter.com/W85gyxdhLW
ā TheFishDr (@dayoftheFishDr) November 19, 2013
Thanks to both as well over congrats about the “Verity” letter. Sometimes the old jokes need to be wheeled out once and a while.18 November 2013 at 18:09 #20910Quick link to a new interview with Steven Moffat in the Guardian. Non-spoliery, but you know the score and usual caveats about the comment sections around this time.
-
AuthorPosts
