 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daleks. Again.
Weeping angels. Again.
Boring River Song. Again.
Sorry, but I won't be tuning in. Again.
Then why post that little fact in the first place?
Nothing better to do?
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daleks. Again.
Weeping angels. Again.
Boring River Song. Again.
Sorry, but I won't be tuning in. Again.
Then why post that little fact in the first place?
Nothing better to do?
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 5, 2012 - 2:56 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
KubrickFan
(Member)
|
Daleks. Again.
Weeping angels. Again.
Boring River Song. Again.
Sorry, but I won't be tuning in. Again.
Then why post that little fact in the first place?
Nothing better to do?
Ford A. Thaxton
Because I was making a point about how poor I think the show has become since Moffat took over, constantly reverting to old enemies and characters. Judging from a few posts I've seen here previously, I'm certainly not alone in that view, albeit definately the minority.
Tell you what though, Ford, I'll run everything by you in future before posting, just to ensure you're happy, how about that?
Well, clearly Song's story isn't finished, and this is the Angels', what, third appearance? Doesn't sound a lot to me.
Might just stick to the old Who, where the Doctor never runs into the Daleks, or the Cybermen, or the Master multiple times  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because I was making a point about how poor I think the show has become since Moffat took over, constantly reverting to old enemies and characters.
Are you sure you aren't confusing Mr. Moffat with Mr. Davis?
jujdging from a few posts I've seen here previously, I'm certainly not alone in that view, albeit definately the minority.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but if you are so unhappy, why are you posting here in the first, as I asked earlier 'Nothing better to do with your time?"
Tell you what though, Ford, I'll run everything by you in future before posting, just to ensure you're happy, how about that?
You really don't get it do you?
If you don't like the show that much, why waste your time posting that you won't be watching it?
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daleks. Again.
Weeping angels. Again.
Boring River Song. Again.
Sorry, but I won't be tuning in. Again.
Then why post that little fact in the first place?
Nothing better to do?
Ford A. Thaxton
Because I was making a point about how poor I think the show has become since Moffat took over, constantly reverting to old enemies and characters. Judging from a few posts I've seen here previously, I'm certainly not alone in that view, albeit definately the minority.
Tell you what though, Ford, I'll run everything by you in future before posting, just to ensure you're happy, how about that?
Well, clearly Song's story isn't finished, and this is the Angels', what, third appearance? Doesn't sound a lot to me.
Might just stick to the old Who, where the Doctor never runs into the Daleks, or the Cybermen, or the Master multiple times .
Game,set and match to you sir!
Bravo!
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 6, 2012 - 2:26 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
You really don't get it do you?
If you don't like the show that much, why waste your time posting that you won't be watching it?
Ford A. Thaxton
"You don't get it" seems to a bit of a mantra for you on FSM. You seem to trot the same rhetoric out any time anyone fails to agree with you. I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, Ford but you really are not that hard "to get". I think the polite word is "highfalutin".
If my post was so pointless then what an earth do you achieve by continually attacking it, other than as an excuse to try to demonstrate your own supposed superiority?
What I always find amusing on boards like this is, if someone posts a one liner "wow I can't wait for this show", without any other comments at all, those are just accepted readily or have short "oooh me too!!" responses, but when someone posts anything slightly contrary to this, as I did, there is usually some fool who gets up and arms about it.
Whilst my post may not qualify me for the Buford Thackston Sycophant Of The Year award, its quite legitimate and, frankly I don't really don't respect you enough to be concerned about your view on my opinion. Don't like my posts? Don't read them, chum. Or at least provide some cogent response, perhaps like Kubrickfan did, or maybe even asking me why ai now have such indifference to Dr Who.
I have previously enjoyed Dr Who since the Eccleston return but I just think the writing has gone down hill massively in recent years (not just under Moffat in fairness) as has a lot of the originality. Sure, as Kubrickfan pointed out (in a rather witty way - you could learn something there, Ford) the "original" Dr Who did drag up the old villains constantly and that comment has actually made me think back to whether folks like the Daleks, Cybermen and Master were as over-used in the past and that I've just become jaded in my old age. Again, thats an interesting topic for discussion (interesting see, Ford... not a word I imagine features in your lexicon) and one which I'm currently pondering on. But that said, the old series also had some clunky sets and dreadful monster costumes, so would THOSE be acceptable in the new show? Obviously not.
You know I could expand on this point here - but I think I'll do that in the post from Kubrickfan who raised the point in the firet place because I'm much more likely to get some interesting and cogent dialogue back rather than the tacit "wwwaaaah, you don't like Dr Who" you only seem capable of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 6, 2012 - 2:45 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
Might just stick to the old Who, where the Doctor never runs into the Daleks, or the Cybermen, or the Master multiple times .
You know, KF that is actually a very good point and one which has given me a lot of food for thought; Did the old show re-use the baddies as regularly as the current production? It never seemed that way as a kid but perhaps they did.
I've never been an uber-Dr Who fan as such so I'm certainly no expert, but it just didnt seem to me that dudes like the Cybermen or the Daleks were used quite as often as they are now. Certainly, I appreciate The Master was pretty much the running villain in the early Pertwee era, but as to the others, I just don't recall it that way. I seem to have memories - again quite possibly favoured childhood ones - that it was a real event for the Daleks or cybermen to appear.
Perhaps it wasn't quite so obvious in the old days because each run was a lot longer than the current show? Again, that isnt rhetorical, I really don't know so I'd be happy for a real Who fan to let me know.
But all that aside, let's just say that the old production did churn out the same baddies as the current one. Does that validate the new show's writing? I think not. After all, in the old run - even right up to the end - production values wwre always woefully low, FX were almost always hopeless and the monster costumes were, for the most part, pretty awful too. Would those sort of poor qualities be accepted now? Of course not. And my view, therefore, is that the writing should be treated the same way.
Now as regards River Song, I appreciate there may be more of her story to unfold (I just don'tlike the character). So I'll give you that one. But surely, surely, there is enough creativity on the show to create some new monsters, perhaps even a new classic one to rival the Daleks and Cybermen (has there ever been a Dalek/Cyberman hybrid for example?). And if not what about some of the other monsters from old Who? I always liked the Sea Devils for example, but there must be a whole bunch of others.
The fact I'm not tuning in to the new show isnt entirely down to (my perception of) the lack of originality (which as I say I now need to revist) and in fact is much more due to the poor quality of the writing of late (series long mysteries tied up with silly cheat explanations have never worked for me) which is a shame because I do like Matt Smith a lot. I find the Ponds a bit boring too much soap opera for my taste) but with them going there may be hope. I'll look forward to reading about the new show here and maybe I'll be tempted back. Who knows? (groan).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard E Grant is to be a guest star in the forthcoming Doctor Who Christmas Special, the BBC announced today.
First announced on Twitter just after midnight, in the later press release Grant said:
I played Doctor Who in the digital animated Scream Of The Shalka and I'm honoured to be in the Christmas Special.
No information has been released about his role as yet, though the Sun newspaper has suggested that he will play the Doctor's adversary.
An actor with a lengthy career in film and television, Grant is best known for the film Withnail and I in which he starred alongside former Doctor Paul McGann. Grant is not a stranger to Doctor Who either, having played the Doctor himself on two occasions: he first appeared as the "Quite Handsome" Tenth Doctor in the Steven Moffat-penned Comic Relief special The Curse of Fatal Death in 1999; as mentioned above, the actor then had a brief spell as the official Ninth Doctor for the online adventure Scream of the Shalka by Paul Cornell in 2003 - until the television series was announced with Christopher Eccleston at the helm.
The Christmas Special starts filming this week and is directed by Saul Metzstein, who worked on the Blue Peter special, Good as Gold and the first two stories recorded for the next series (Dinosaurs on a Spaceship and A Town called Mercy).
Another actor announced for the Special is Tom Ward, who is best known for playing Harry Cunningham in the series Silent Witness.
http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2012/08/dwn060812000008-richard-e-grant-to.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
