Doctor Who — Page 27

adywan said:

Hurt isn't playing McGann's doctor according to inside reports. He is playing a Doctor between 8 & 9. The one that ends the time war. An incarnation that the following ones wanted to forget because of his actions. The whole "not in the name of the Doctor" thing is how they are going to try and explain away why the others call themselves 9,10 11 etc when they are in fact one regeneration further on. Hurt wasn't even in the 50th special until Chris backed out and they rewrote the story.

That is really lame. It sucks Eccleston backed out, but it seems silly to screw around with established continuity when they have a Doctor from that time frame with a wide open storyline. Even if they want to consider the Big Finish productions canon and/or didn't want to use McGann for whatever reason, having Hurt play the role of an aged 8th would have solved this problem by moving so many years past current 8th Doctor canon so not as to have an adverse effect on those stories as well as not preventing future 8th Doctor stories.

And since it has been established that Timelords only have a limited number of regenerations, they are needlessly wasting one of these on nothing.

Remember that Silence will fall at the fall of the Eleventh.

Surely that means silence fell when Tennant left and the Tardis blew up the first time???

Must have been.

Damn, they are really messing things up.

CP3S said:

But then again, could McGann have really pulled it off? He played a really boring and wooden Doctor. All the previous actors who played the Doctor seemed to have brought something to the table, made the character their own and into something interesting, some more so than others. McGann's Doctor just didn't stand out.

all the other actors had more than one story to do this.  For all we know, if McGann had been able to continue playing the role, he might have made the role his own.    I've count of the number of times I've seen an actor playing a role in a pilot of a new tv series, alter and change and improve the way he plays the part in the episodes after the pilot.

CP3S said:

As for the ADHD thing, it is just hard to stay focuses on things like radio dramas unless they pull me in. Especially since I tend to listen to things like that while doing other things. Radio dramas usually hold my attention, and I listen to audio books constantly, but for some reason I just found myself tuning these out and wishing I was listening to something else.

I'll make it a point to check out The Natural History of Fear.

here is a suggestion:  don't listen to the audio books/radio dramas while doing other things.    Here is how I like to listen to audio books/radio dramas:  I like turn off all the lights in the room, silence all other noises and distractions and sit back and relax and listen to them in total darkness.   It really helps turn off the outside world and allows me concentrate my mind on picturing what is go on in the radio drama/audio book that I am listening to.  

Warbler said:

here is a suggestion:  don't listen to the audio books/radio dramas while doing other things.    Here is how I like to listen to audio books/radio dramas:  I like turn off all the lights in the room, silence all other noises and distractions and sit back and relax and listen to them in total darkness.   It really helps turn off the outside world and allows me concentrate my mind on picturing what is go on in the radio drama/audio book that I am listening to.  

The reason I do other things while listening to audiobooks is so I can focus on them. If I try to listen to just an audiobook and nothing else, my mind will wander all over the place. If I make myself do something to keep me busy that is pretty much automatic, then I am able to focus on an audiobook. With my ADHD it isn't the outside world that distracts me, it is my own head that does the distracting. If I can preoccupy enough of my brain by doing other things that don't require active thought, it works wonders for my ability to focus on something else.

If I am going to sit down comfortably and read, I need a real book and not an audiobook.

adywan said:

 Do the BBC forget that WE pay for this program and NOT the American audiences?

we don't?  could have sworn the program in on American tv as well, and that Americans buy the dvds and blu rays of the series as well other Doctor Who books, audio dramas, and various other  Dr Who paraphernalia.    This is not to say that they shouldn't cater to the UK Doctor Who fans, it is a UK show after all.   I am just saying they do make money off of the American audience and some of that money probably goes in the production of the show. 

doubleofive said:

 

Why is this so needlessly complicated?

 

Warbler said:

adywan said:

 Do the BBC forget that WE pay for this program and NOT the American audiences?

we don't?  could have sworn the program in on American tv as well, and that Americans buy the dvds and blu rays of the series as well other Doctor Who books, audio dramas, and various other  Dr Who paraphernalia.    This is not to say that they shouldn't cater to the UK Doctor Who fans, it is a UK show after all.   I am just saying they do make money off of the American audience and some of that money probably goes in the production of the show. 

Warb, BBC is a public service broadcast station, I'm pretty sure that means that it is at least partially supported by public funding. At least I am positive that it used to be, if it still is not. In a lot of countries people pay an annual television licensing fee, which goes to pay for their public broadcast stations.

For example, the running of our PBS station in America is payed for by tax dollars, while the programming is payed for by grants from various institutes and foundations, and from donations.

If you watch some PBS programming, at the beginning or the end of the program they'll list the names of the supporters that payed for that programming. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a major one you'll hear a lot of on PBS, as well as the George Lucas Educational Foundation.

So, Adywan is right, they are the ones paying for it. That is why it has typically been such a low budget show in the past. Though I am sure it brings in a pretty decent amount of revenue from the states, it seems you can't go anywhere without seeing Doctor Who stuff anymore. 

I guess I am mistaken then.   sorry.

Programmes are funded by the television license.

BBC Enterprises raises further money but it's forbidden to fund programming by the Royal Charter.

This is why we got that awful 3D Eastenders crossover instead of Doctor Who and the Dark Dimension.

The plan was that the show would fund itself through VHS and foreign markets sales but the it was deemed counter to the charter. 

Bingowings said:

Programmes are funded by the television license.

BBC Enterprises raises further money but it's forbidden to fund programming by the Royal Charter.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up, Bingo.

That is really interesting about the charter and that funds brought in by BBC Enterprises can't be used to fund shows.

Ere, do you think either Tony Todd or Vance Miller are in with a shout?

This is the first time a new Doctor has come along since I've had any real knowledge of Doctor Who.

This will be interesting.

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/08/02/new-doctor-to-be-revealed-on-sunday/

PLEASE let it be the rumoured Peter Capaldi...and I'll keep watchin'!

Out of all the rumored contenders for the role, I hope it is Capaldi or Ben Daniels. They both look great for the part, and I'd really like to see what either of them could do with the Doctor, especially Peter Capaldi. 

I am tired of the goofy young Doctor thing (and was from day one), I'd like to see him as a competent and sophisticated alien super genius again.

pretty sure he has always been a super genius. 

CP3S said:

I am tired of the goofy young Doctor thing (and was from day one), I'd like to see him as a competent and sophisticated alien super genius again.

Jon Pertwee is largely to blame there. 

For the first two Doctors the character was backed up by a young male companion who would do all the action scenes.

When Jon took those on for himself the role became more action orientated.

It could go back of course.

Of the other mentioned names the young and gingerish Daniel Rigby has something of the seventies about him.

Separated at birth ??

If I were to introduce a female Doctor I would announce a man and a female companion and perform a switcheroo on the actual day.

That way any snoopers would take photos of the new Doctor and his companion only it would really be the other way around and a surprise.

I loathe that we find out about these plot developments too early (yeah it's really a casting thing but it sets up a major plot event).

perhaps Watson could be brought to play one of Romana's selfs.