Errol Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 I think its actually the Jenna Coleman show. They really need to get her in a Leela outfit, to be honest - to maximise the viewing audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTMark Posted September 17, 2014 Author Share Posted September 17, 2014 He should be more like Malcolm Tucker. That, I would watch. I have only seen about three episodes of "The Thick of it", I found it a little tedious, though his character was a bit of a star. "We didn't start the fire, it was always burning..." Isn't Capaldi's Doctor markedly more - shall I say "bossy" - than all the ones that came before, with the possible exception of William Hartnell? I had really hoped that the zany, childish madcap antics would fall away with an older actor and thought they picked him in part because of his facetious Tucker character with the staring eyes in order to move away from a "children's Doctor" slightly. Which is a bit of a bold thing to do given that Tennant and Smith were, well, more "huggable". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 They really need to get her in a Leela outfit, to be honest - to maximise the viewing audience. I'm waiting for the pole-dancing storyline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 I enjoyed the start - reminded me of a Sapphire & Steele epsiode - but it just went nowhere. The pretty assistant is very gorgeous and feckable - kept watching just for her to be honest, although the guy she is abput to shag and have kids with is a wimp and so not for her. The strong woman with a wimp-for-a-boyfriend is becoming a bit of a Whovian stereotype (Amy/Rory, and to a lesser extent Rose/Mickey). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 The strong woman with a wimp-for-a-boyfriend is becoming a bit of a Whovian stereotype (Amy/Rory, and to a lesser extent Rose/Mickey). BBC agenda don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 BBC agenda don't you think? Yep, even though they pushed it way too far with the character Catherine Tate played who was mouthy, ignorant, moody, no redeeming qualities at all tbh, but they kept banging on about how special and how unique she was. The nightmare date from PoF come to a screen near you and presented as somebody looked up to / fancied by a time-traveling near-immortal. Riiiiight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenpig Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 BBC agenda don't you think? There are probably quite a few "coming of age" films out there with attractive/sassy chick going "beyond the friend zone" with normal, sweet, senstive young guys, incidnces of which in real life are probably vanishingly small. But it's an appealling scenario, especially to middle aged directors rewriting their autobiography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ologhai Jones Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Yep, even though they pushed it way too far with the character Catherine Tate played who was mouthy, ignorant, moody, no redeeming qualities at all tbh, but they kept banging on about how special and how unique she was. The nightmare date from PoF come to a screen near you and presented as somebody looked up to / fancied by a time-traveling near-immortal. Riiiiight. I expected not to like the Catherine Tate companion, but I think she turned out to be one of my favourites from new Who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ologhai Jones Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 That's pretty sad. Saddest of all is recording yourself watching TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 That's pretty sad. Saddest of all is recording yourself watching TV. How about recording yourself posting on HPC... I'll upload the video in a mo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 That's pretty sad. Saddest of all is recording yourself watching TV. Yes. No idea why the are reacting like that. Have they not seen Tom Baker before? Do they not understand that you can buy nearly all his episodes on DVD - and they are much better than anything made today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 There are probably quite a few "coming of age" films out there with attractive/sassy chick going "beyond the friend zone" with normal, sweet, senstive young guys, incidnces of which in real life are probably vanishingly small. But it's an appealling scenario, especially to middle aged directors rewriting their autobiography. . . and facing jail time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Yes. No idea why the are reacting like that. Have they not seen Tom Baker before? Do they not understand that you can buy nearly all his episodes on DVD - and they are much better than anything made today. What is sad is, judging by numerous videos on Youtube, the number of 'fans' who think that John Hurt turned into Christopher Ecclestone before becoming Tennant, the other one and now Capaldi. They appear to have no knowledge of the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ologhai Jones Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 What is sad is, judging by numerous videos on Youtube, the number of 'fans' who think that John Hurt turned into Christopher Ecclestone before becoming Tennant, the other one and now Capaldi. They appear to have no knowledge of the others. Despite the second sentence, the first sentence is correct isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wherebee Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Despite the second sentence, the first sentence is correct isn't it? Nope. Hurt is an incarnation from somewhere before the hartnell-baker run of doctors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ologhai Jones Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Nope. Hurt is an incarnation from somewhere before the hartnell-baker run of doctors. Please could you cite something to confirm that this is canonical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 This says post McGann and pre Ecclestone, so the ninth but not the ninth because he doesn't count. Look it's fiction ok? When we saw eighth Doctor Paul McGann regenerate into John Hurt in Night of the Doctor it confirmed he was the ninth Doctor – moving former ninth Doctor Christopher Eccleston to the 10th Doctor. David Tennant became the 11th Doctor and Matt Smith formerly the 11th became the 12th. Or not. Because John Hurt is the War Doctor – and thus outside the numbering, apparently. But, actually not really. Oh, dear. Speaking at the Doctor Who Official 50th Celebration at London’s ExCeL Moffat cleared the whole thing up… sort of. ‘He has no more ever called himself the 11th Doctor than he would call himself Matt Smith. The Doctor doesn’t know off the top of his head [what number he is]‘ he said. ‘If you worry about such things, and I do, then I specifically said John Hurt’s Doctor doesn’t use the title. [Matt Smith's Doctor] is in his 12th body but he’s the 11th Doctor, however there is no such character as the 11th Doctor – he’s just the Doctor – that’s what he calls himself.’ http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/24/doctor-who-steven-moffat-clears-up-the-whole-doctor-regeneration-problem-sort-of-4199592/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Nope. Hurt is an incarnation from somewhere before the hartnell-baker run of doctors. Hartnell wasnt even a timelord...he was Susans Grandfather....yewtree report to BBC immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sPinwheel Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Makes sense. And I don't even watch the bloody thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The XYY Man Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Let's understand one thing. I am old enough to have watched the Pertwee and Baker episodes first time round. I watched them simply because they were science fiction - a genre I love - in a time that didn't devote too many hours of TV time to such shows. They were total shite. They looked - and were most certainly acted, scripted and produced like - they cost tuppence ha'penny. The modern shows eat them alive. I can't understand a word Capaldi says, but I'd watch these shows a million times over and they'd still be more entertaining, thought-provoking and interesting than any of the turgid 60s/70s/80s crap we had to put up with. Steptoe, Porridge and Fawlty Towers are timeless, but the idea that shite like Doctor Who is of the same vintage because it was made in the same era is frankly delusional. Get over yourselves 'Whovians'... XYY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Let's understand one thing. I am old enough to have watched the Pertwee and Baker episodes first time round. I watched them simply because they were science fiction - a genre I love - in a time that didn't devote too many hours of TV time to such shows. They were total shite. They looked - and were most certainly acted, scripted and produced like - they cost tuppence ha'penny. The modern shows eat them alive. Don't agree with this at all. In fact, I think the situation is the reverse. Watching the Pertwee/Baker episodes now just demonstrates how rubbish modern TV (and the modern Dr. Who) actually is. The old Doctor Who episodes are timeless. I watch them regularly and constantly comment on how much better they are than the rubbish that passes for TV today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Don't agree with this at all. In fact, I think the situation is the reverse. Watching the Pertwee/Baker episodes now just demonstrates how rubbish modern TV (and the modern Dr. Who) actually is. The old Doctor Who episodes are timeless. I watch them regularly and constantly comment on how much better they are than the rubbish that passes for TV today. I'm with you Errol, Dr Who is about drama and good acting and the Pertwee / Baker episodes had this because of the quality of their and supporting characters' acting. Sure they had the special effects budget of a sixth form drama group but you know it's not real anyway so you suspend disbelief. Modern Who has the CGI and sets budget through the roof but if you don't back that up with good dramatic scripts it all falls to naught. So many of the David Tennant / Matt Smith episodes resolved the story with a "let's talk nonsense extremely fast" - the "time is a wibbly wobbly thing" being my personal bete noir - that was seen for what it was by adult viewers - lazy writing. There have been great episodes - Blink, The Beast in the Pit - that would I agree top anything from the 70s and 80s but the overall standard is poor and many episodes would best be described as silly. I liked the bank robbery one but that's the first of this season that has held my interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTMark Posted September 25, 2014 Author Share Posted September 25, 2014 I'm with you Errol, Dr Who is about drama and good acting and the Pertwee / Baker episodes had this because of the quality of their and supporting characters' acting. Sure they had the special effects budget of a sixth form drama group but you know it's not real anyway so you suspend disbelief. Modern Who has the CGI and sets budget through the roof but if you don't back that up with good dramatic scripts it all falls to naught. So many of the David Tennant / Matt Smith episodes resolved the story with a "let's talk nonsense extremely fast" - the "time is a wibbly wobbly thing" being my personal bete noir - that was seen for what it was by adult viewers - lazy writing. There have been great episodes - Blink, The Beast in the Pit - that would I agree top anything from the 70s and 80s but the overall standard is poor and many episodes would best be described as silly. I liked the bank robbery one but that's the first of this season that has held my interest. Would agree with all of that. Doctor Who, at its best (say The Caves of Androzani, Davison's last story) is superb sci-fi. I picked that one precisely because the effects and CGI are so very poor in places. And yet, it has real human drama, tragedy, cunning, it is quality writing, and wonderful for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Not on till 8.30 tonight. Outrageous. My son is really unhappy as its past his bed time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.