Dr. Who

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
MirrorNoir said:
More like RTD caused such a shitshow, Moffat got called back to bail him out including writing the Christmas special due to BBC not trusting RTD to turn in a good script for it.
Click to expand...
Ehh, the first one he wrote for 15 was enjoyable enough. Moffat's also writing next week's episode, so it was probably RTD who asked him to do that and not the BBC.
 
starborn427614 said:
Ehh, the first one he wrote for 15 was enjoyable enough. Moffat's also writing next week's episode, so it was probably RTD who asked him to do that and not the BBC.
Click to expand...
Moffat writing the episode said to show off 15’s talent and range when acting as the doctor and the Christmas Special, the one that will have all the family watching because of when it is, really makes me feel like RTD is not really that confidant in himself any more. Or the Tenant Specials got a massive amount of pushback the full extent of which we don’t know.

That being said, considering Ep 3 premiss Moffat is the right person to pen it considering Heaven Sent.
 
IDanceonTrannyGraves said:
Not with more and more people refusing to pay the tv license, It's at least partly why they had to go to Disney.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out why the BBC even THINKS they need a TV license in the age of the internet. I mean, I know it's to tax the dumb and ill informed, but holy shit. I've seen more and more people actively refuse them and just go with a standard streaming service, and these goons STILL think they can just bully people into paying it. I've seen a few of the TV license people visit vids, and that shit is just ... weird to me. Especially with those involving the police. OVER A FUCKING TV TAX.

Now I'm beginning to understand why we dumped all that tea into Boston Harbor all those years ago.
 
marvlouslie said:
I'm still trying to figure out why the BBC even THINKS they need a TV license in the age of the internet. I mean, I know it's to tax the dumb and ill informed, but holy shit. I've seen more and more people actively refuse them and just go with a standard streaming service, and these goons STILL think they can just bully people into paying it. I've seen a few of the TV license people visit vids, and that shit is just ... weird to me. Especially with those involving the police. OVER A FUCKING TV TAX.

Now I'm beginning to understand why we dumped all that tea into Boston Harbor all those years ago.
Click to expand...
TLDR - it's needed because if people had a choice the BBC would have to make programming that people actually wanted.

Think of it this way. If a company produced a product that people didn't want and chose not to buy, wouldn't it be so much better for that company (though not anyone else) if the company's entire potential argument were compelled by criminal sanction to buy the product. That's the TV licence. The BBC needs it because otherwise they would have to produce a product that people actually wanted and were prepared to pay for. The BBC has no interest in doing that.

They say it's public service; the problem with that is the public don't want it (hence the compulsion). They say not having adverts is intrinsic to the special quality of the BBC; BBC content is full of adverts (almost all for the BBC and other BBC content) the real issue being advertiser income relates to program popularity which reverts back to that core issue of people not wanting BBC content. They say people (esp the elderly) wouldn't be able to cope with the mechanics of setting up a streaming subscription (I shit you not, this is a real BBC argument). Leaving aside that this is a problem that all the streamers seem to completely avoid (signing up being remarkably easy; cancellation not so much), this is the same BBC that was happy and enthusiastic to render all analogue reception gear useless requiring new digital kit (often inc a new aerial installation and an engineer home visit) a decade or so ago. The difference then was that the switch to digital was wanted by the BBC so the "problems" went away; in reality they were downplayed and ignored.

The mechanics and enforcement of the licence have been a problem for decades. From the 1960s we had the myth of the detector van trawling the streets detecting who was watching and what they were watching. Creepy stalker stuff - we monitor what you are doing in your own home! Funny thing is, in the relatively few cases where people challenged it, the prosecutions were dropped. All of them. It was bullshit. Just a confidence trick to coerce guilty pleas and payments by lies. The MO of the licence enforcement is to con people into believing they have to allowed in to inspect and catalogue your home electronic and it is the evidence of those "consensual" home inspections that get convictions.

The response to streaming is to expand the requirements so that not only is a licence required for receiving BBC (and anyone else's) terrestrial broadcasts. It's also required for the BBC's iPlayer (whether live or VOD) and for other live streaming services (not VODs).

The real question is how can the licence fee (and the BBC generally still be a thing). There's no real rational defence and those who attempt it tend to do it by drive bys - valued public service, quality, advert free - as if they slow down for a moment it allows for responses that point out that these arguments have no foundation in reality. The only major political party that publicly talks about the issue is the Conservatives but they just talk. For all their performative complaints about bias the BBC is the UK gov't's controlled mouthpiece.

N.B. the standard repost to criticism that nothing is being done to get rid of the licence fee (or the BBC generally) is "we can't do anything until the next royal charter renewal", renewal comes up and it gets renewed for another seven years. That's another lie. There are two fundamentals in UK constitutional law; Parliament is supreme (an Act of Parliament is the ultimate authority) and no Parliament may bind its successor. An Act could be passed today abolishing the licence and the BBC and the charter would cease to be relevant. For an Act to pass in needs House of Commons approval, House of Lords approval and Royal Assent. Commons approval is the significant one and the Conservatives have had many many years for that. Lords approval can be dispensed with at the cost of a year's delay (immediately if the Lloyd George approach of packing is taken) and Royal Assent is a formality.
 
marvlouslie said:
I'm still trying to figure out why the BBC even THINKS they need a TV license in the age of the internet.
Click to expand...
Because they know it’s the only way they’d make money. You can hear clips and watch vids of so many that work for the BBC say that no one would pay otherwise. It’s really amazing. They really don’t believe in the quality of what they produce.
 
Some reviews for "Boom" seem to be out in the wild. There's a few more than these here, but aside from The Telegraph's they're mostly along the same lines.

1715805722200.png
 
Milkshake Sniffer said:
Think of it this way. If a company produced a product that people didn't want and chose not to buy, wouldn't it be so much better for that company (though not anyone else) if the company's entire potential argument were compelled by criminal sanction to buy the product.
Click to expand...
Or in the case of Who, if a company takes one of its few products that people actually did want and then took a giant steaming shit all over it out of pure spite.
 
AnOminous said:
15. My ass. 12 is as many Doctors as there were, every further one is fake. This is lies and bullshit.
Click to expand...
it's weird to me they now call tennant the 14th doctor now solely because of the fanservice bait stint to try and get viewers back where he inexplicably reverts and is like "wait what that's not supposed to happen". What did we get from that? some psuedo-tennant era stuff that had the doctor get lectured about how being man=bad and dumb.

AnOminous said:
Or in the case of Who, if a company takes one of its few products that people actually did want and then took a giant steaming shit all over it out of pure spite.
Click to expand...
Same company that previously infamously intentionally sabotaged the show due to internal drama shit to try and make and excuse to cancel it several decades ago. The only other few times I've seen that happen to shit was stuff like Lego constantly fucking over and trying to kill off Bionicle towards the beginning and latter half of it despite it being a freaky huge hit with kids that's still liked by people into lego shit till this very day. At least the Bionicle revival from years back got fucked over in the same way but earlier instead of turned into an unkillable skinsuit brand like Dr. Who did.
 
New episode is out in the BBC IPlayer if any of you don't feel like waiting until this evening. If last week was all style and little substance, this is pretty much the opposite. Moffat hasn't lost his touch when it comes to writing compelling stories.
 
The Lawgiver said:
it's weird to me they now call tennant the 14th doctor now solely because of the fanservice bait stint to try and get viewers back where he inexplicably reverts and is like "wait what that's not supposed to happen". What did we get from that? some psuedo-tennant era stuff that had the doctor get lectured about how being man=bad and dumb.
Click to expand...

There is another reason for this, something that didn't even occur to me when I said:
DoubleD said:
Actually fuck it. I am a betting man. If David Tennant is the Valeyard, I will post RTD's dox on this thread.
Click to expand...
Because now that I think about it, the "14" nomenclature was probably done (at least in part) to set him up to turn evil and become the Valeyard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original series stated that the Valeyard falls between the Doctor's 12th and final incarnations. (I know there were a bunch of other origin theories offered for this character in extended media, but this is the main one, is it not?)

Well, 14 is after 12 and before the final incarnation, which makes me wonder. It wouldn't have worked quite as well if they'd just kept calling him the 10th.
 
There's actually a rumour about a dark version of 15 that's supposed to turn up at some point. Dunno how true that is though.
 
IDanceonTrannyGraves said:
It was incredibly preachy, that's the problem.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing per se, but I tend to look past that kind of thing when the script as a whole is solid. It's one reason why, even with its problems, RTD's stories are still superior to the boring schlock we got under Chibnall. That was preachy AND tedious, which is a death sentence for any kind of media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom