The Eleventh Hour Approaches...

[Starflower]

0_0 Ok. Now I'm worried. I watched it and was kind of speechless in that sort of "what the heck was that" way. So that thing at the very end... I did some poking about and it is supposed to be a Sea Devil. My hopes for them are kind fo squashed. Seadevils: YES, NO. Silurians: YES, NO. If someone can honestly tell me that the little explody blue vorxt thiny-majiger is not actualy going to be in the show I shall be eternally grateful.

[jjpor]

*Hmm...no, I don't like those designs much either. They might be perfectly good as generic reptile-people but they don't look particularly like Sea Devils/Silurians. Where are the Silurians' third eyes?? The gun's similar to the old ones, I guess.

Mind you it wouldn't be the first time NuWho redesigned a classic monster and made them a bit rubbish (sorry, but I really don't like the look of the modern Cybermen).

Still, if the worst criticism I have of S1/5/31 is that I don't like the design of the librarians, I'll be overjoyed... ;D*

EDIT: Excellent Freudian slip in the above:

*Instead of Silurians I typed librarians! ;D*

If lostspook reads that, she's going to track me down and kill me...

[primsong]

As long as this doesn't mean we librarians have to look like the new iguanas 'sea devils', I suppose that works for me. ;-)

[jjpor]

*Maybe they're like marine iguanas, like they have in the Galapagos islands (and which do look a bit Sea Devilish themselves, come to think of it...)?

The one on the left in the first picture has a very human-looking face...I don't think I like that. It seems to be very common in NuWho, though, a bit of a variant on the old Star Trek "aliens with bumpy foreheads" thing, but in NuWho it usually takes the form of "aliens with spiky/brightly coloured heads"...*

[merrythemad]

As we twiddle our thumbs whiling away the last few weeks of our nearly two years without regular DW episodes (that seems like it can't be correct but it's two years in July in the states and as it's March, nearly two years is indeed correct) here's a little something to help you bide your time. It's an interview with Matt Smith. It really is focused on Matt and getting getting to know him more than on Doctor Who but I think it's worth the read. MS seems to have some depth, at least, it will be an interesting spring...

www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/mar/06/matt-smith-doctor-who-interview

[jjpor]

This is a nice gesture from the Beeb (although with all the bad press getting directed at them lately, they probably feel the need to win over some hearts and minds):

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8556096.stm

Obviously, they're not dropping by my neck of the woods - we mustn't be disadvantaged enough or something. It's not far from here to Manchester, but...

And it says Easter, so that's looking like a confirmation of Saturday April 3 to me... ;D

[merrythemad]

I dunno, JJ, whoviannet still says expected airdate Easter and BBC DW site still says later this year. I can still cruelly hope tis after April 17.

[librarylover]

Mar 9, 2010 1:32:14 GMT merrythemad said:

I dunno, JJ, whoviannet still says expected airdate Easter and BBC DW site still says later this year. I can still cruelly hope tis after April 17.

I'm seeing a whole new, slightly evil, side to you Merry. I don't know if I'm impressed or horrified. I'm starting to wonder if JJ's icon has begun to possess other members.

[clocketpatch]

I want it early! Early! Then I can see some of it before disembarking...

It's still up in the air whether or not there will be phone or internet when we come back.

[merrythemad]

Mar 9, 2010 2:13:05 GMT librarylover said:

Mar 9, 2010 1:32:14 GMT merrythemad said:

I dunno, JJ, whoviannet still says expected airdate Easter and BBC DW site still says later this year. I can still cruelly hope tis after April 17.

I'm seeing a whole new, slightly evil, side to you Merry. I don't know if I'm impressed or horrified. I'm starting to wonder if JJ's icon has begun to possess other members.

It's this whole wait nearly years thing, I can't seem to keep it together any longer my disgruntledness (disgruntleation? grammar is so much more fun when you play with it) with the BBC is starting to morph into anger toward those who have easy access to DW, lol. Remember, JJ, it's me in those bushes, I'd be wary mate. mwuhahhahaha


also, the rumors section oftardis.wikia.com/wiki/Series_5_%28Doctor_Who%29 <--- that page had some I hadn't heard and a few that would be just lovely, eh?


And *doubletakes* wait, what? CP? Are you really possibly leaving us and right when things will start swinging again?

[clocketpatch]

*huggle!tackles Merry*

I'd never leave you permanently, but I'm definitely going to be having a fun bit of scrambling when I get back.

[jjpor]

Heheh - welcome to the dark side, Merry! And mind the landmines in those bushes, will you? ;D

If it isn't Apr 3, my own disgruntleation with be great indeed...

[merrythemad]

darkside? naaaaaah, mayhap grey-side, like QuiGonn Jinn, aye? I get more and more antsy the closer we get, and am deeply relieved the first episode will be sixty minutes, I guess I just got used longer doses and it will take a while for weekly doses to be trusted...ooh recent interviews have pegged the day as thje third as well, but according to everywhere I find it's still only 99.9% which means yeah you'll get it first but a gal can hope, lol

[Maggadin]

Which of the rumours are you referring to in particular, Merry? SPOILERI kind of hate the ''take them'' attitude towards any other Time Lord than the Doctor because it kind of smells of Lonely God Syndrome, on the other hand, I don't want them to bring back another Time Lord and then deal with them poorly.

[jjpor]

Well, the Daily Torygraph said Easter too, so... ;D

I've been seeing some pics and reading some things about the first ep that have kind of boosted my optimism a bit (it wavered a bit a couple of weeks ago, don't know if anybody noticed), including an article in said newspaper. Buzz about Smith's performance and the ep in general seems to be good, but that is coming from journos, whose attitude to any pre-2005 Who seems to be mocking contempt (and some of that came across in the article, unfortunately, even if Moffat was as usual doing his best to fight the classic show's corner while stating his reasons for believing that trying to recreate it on modern TV just wouldn't work for today's spoiled audiences - that's not what he said, but I'm kind of summarising ;D). So, it remains to wait and see, but nobody who's in the know is saying it's awful, anyway. Fandom's (and my own) mileage may vary, of course, but we have our own criteria, do we not?

[Maggadin]

Mar 11, 2010 23:02:11 GMT jjpor said:

Well, the Daily Torygraph said Easter too, so... ;D

I've been seeing some pics and reading some things about the first ep that have kind of boosted my optimism a bit (it wavered a bit a couple of weeks ago, don't know if anybody noticed), including an article in said newspaper. Buzz about Smith's performance and the ep in general seems to be good, but that is coming from journos, whose attitude to any pre-2005 Who seems to be mocking contempt (and some of that came across in the article, unfortunately, even if Moffat was as usual doing his best to fight the classic show's corner while stating his reasons for believing that trying to recreate it on modern TV just wouldn't work for today's spoiled audiences - that's not what he said, but I'm kind of summarising ;D). So, it remains to wait and see, but nobody who's in the know is saying it's awful, anyway. Fandom's (and my own) mileage may vary, of course, but we have our own criteria, do we not?

I hate that. It's the same damn show, just picking up where it left off. At least that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[jjpor]

Well, exactly. It was maybe not obvious back in Eccles's day, but NuWho has made it abundantly clear by now that it is not a "reboot" or a remake but a direct continuation of the 1963-1989 series. And to be fair to RTD, he was always clear on that point, even if he, like Moffat does, always argued that television had changed in the intervening 16 years, explaining the different format and the emphasis on some things that we oldschool fans find, well, troubling...

But, yeah, unfortunately, the attitude that the mainstream press here in the UK seems to have is that pre-1989 Who = laughable crap, post-2005 Who = kewl. It is implicit in the tone of just about all of the mainstream press coverage of the new series, and it annoys the hell out of me, as I'm sure it does you. And I think it annoys Moffat as well - certainly, while he toes the party line about "emotional resonance" and not being able to get away with recreating alien worlds in Epping Forest any more, and all that, he does stick up for classic Who in the face of journalistic sneering, and he does acknowledge the things that the new series takes from the old series, even if ignorant press types think RTD invented them.

All of which leads me to think that the Moff is not all bad, whatever Larry Miles might say about him on his blog, and whatever offensive things he might have said in some interviews in the past.

[Maggadin]

Eh, it's possible to agree with someone's views about some things and still think they're utter wankers when it comes to...other stuff.

Did none of those journos grow up watching Who? For once I'd like to read an article where the reporter is an actual fan who doesn't write that Sarah Sutton came directly after Elisabeth Sladen (yes, I have seen something like that).

[clocketpatch]

Would this be what you were reading JJ?

Moffat's One Goal: <i>'For it not to be poo poo,’ he says succinctly. 'One wobbly wall, one pony-looking effect, one tiny thing goes wrong, and it’s back to the 1970s.’ Though there will be obvious differences – a new Doctor, for one – Moffat says that the team are not focused on changing the show from what’s gone before. 'The audience, whether they’re eight years old or 48, they’re not waiting to see why it’s different or strange or new, they’re just wanting it to be really good. It’s actually an incredibly easy challenge to make something different. It’s incredibly hard to make something good.’</i>

[lostspook]

Mar 11, 2010 23:24:23 GMT jjpor said:

All of which leads me to think that the Moff is not all bad, whatever Larry Miles might say about him on his blog, and whatever offensive things he might have said in some interviews in the past.

I'm sorry: half this Steven Moffat is bad stuff comes from Lawrence Miles and people are listening? Lawrence Miles, who may well have written one of the best of all the NAs and EDAs, but who clearly (I own all the volumes of About Time) feels that pretty much everything after Pertwee was not much good? (Personally, I feel prejudiced against anyone who think Image of the Fendahl is a weaker rerun of The Daemons.)

Steven Moffat wrote Press Gang and likes DW. How bad can that be?

(I'm so naive, I know. The only bad thing I know about the upcoming season & SM is that Chris Chibnall, the only man who made me nearly turn off DW (!) and nearly put me off watching LoM and drove me away from TW, is writing a two parter. However, this is my lone and strange opinion, and I'm happy to admit that. Sorry, Chis C. Everyone else may find you harmless, but I'm just hoping SM will have rewritten enough of your eps so that I can get by with them. :lol:)

Actually, DWM has an interview with Donald Tosh this month: he feels that while 'his' Doctor, William Hartnell was one of the best, Christopher Eccleston was the best Doctor, Patrick Troughton the best actor, but they gave him a silly part, Pertwee was very competent, but had a tedious idea to work with, Tom Baker was never any good, David Tennat also good, but likes too much to be liked, and he fears the sharks are out for blood for Matt Smith. (He's worrying for that poor young man...) He comes out with the old 'they should have stopped it before McCoy', but I forgive him a bit, because he says that Sylvester mCoy is actually a good actor. So, we all have our own opinions, some of them more radical than others.

He may be right about those sharks, mind.