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
6MillionCoofs said:
I’m going to be honest. RTD would be stupid to not do that. Having them both kicking allows them to do more stuff and spin offs with the brand whilst also having a safety net in case things go wrong.
Click to expand...
Sure but that would mean that RTD can gaslight the "old" audience all he wants and yet doesn't have the balls to commit to the bit.
Turning Doctor Who into a buck broken time lord with a 30 year old teenaged troon companion and yet he keeps Tennant's corpse in the fridge just in case the ratings go lower than Chibnall's Doctor Karen.
 
Miller said:
Sure but that would mean that RTD can gaslight the "old" audience all he wants and yet doesn't have the balls to commit to the bit.
Click to expand...
I mean he doesn’t have the balls but it isn’t just in case Black Doctor don’t work out. It’s so he can do more stuff with the universe and the characters. His run of Who was full of spin offs or plans for other sttuff. Even if he did commit 100% why would you kneecap yourself in creative and audiances and merchendise when the universe just gives you excuses not to. Any writer would be stupid to do that.
 
starborn427614 said:
Peter Kay basically carries the whole thing. Your enjoyment of the episode is most likely predicated on whether you like him as an actor and/or comedian.
Click to expand...
I don't really like Peter Kay and the Absobalof thing was the worst part of the episode. It was actually designed by a young child who won a competition to design a monster. The kid was disappointed with the episode because he meant it to be huge and absorbing busses and such.

Nonetheless, I have a soft spot for Love and Monsters because it does the same thing as "Jose Chung's From Outer Space" episode of the X-Files by taking the main cast and seeing almost the entire story from outside their perspectives. It's a really fun take on things.

I also recall how it was the number one hated episode on Gallifrey Base (ultimate sperg site for Who fans) who were constantly up in arms about the implications of Moaning Myrtle as a paving slab giving oral sex. I'm not so puritan that this bothered me and the outcries from the forum members there just gave me great amusement.

Also, I'm sorry to all the people who've been watching these episodes and reporting back but I wont be picking Who up again. I'm out. This is a blatant bait and switch, you wont get earlier Who back, just bits of it as sugar to get you to follow the Message. Honestly, don't swallow it.
 
Overly Serious said:
...implications of Moaning Myrtle as a paving slab giving oral sex. I'm not so puritan that this bothered me and the outcries from the forum members there just gave me great amusement.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're gonna agree with my opinion of the episode XD.
 
AnOminous said:
Axe everyone currently on the show, bring on brand new team, consisting of actual humans, decide where the cutoff was, have an "oh my God it was just a horrible dream" open, chuck that gay shit, start over from there.

Or better yet just put the series to a much-deserved rest.
Click to expand...
We all want it, and it will never happen. Not without literally crucifying / Stalin-style executing every ideologue and diversity hire who got us here, but, be honest, as good as that would feel for a few days it'd go the way of the Soviet Union and end up with everyone else against the wall too.
Chaos Theorist said:
View attachment 5537904
Click to expand...
Assuming a consistent cosmos with a "real" past (a philosophical child too vital to casually throw out with the bathwater), we can say there is some fact of the matter for everyone about who did what, when, and what their features were when they did those things. Good alt-history should try and make historical figures correspond as well as possible up to the point of divergence, the fictional "curveball."

But there is still joy in alt-history of the lowbrow sort (as in modern Who) which treats historical figures like action figures from the toy box, taking a popular notion of who they "really" were, though these low-brow attempts lack any serious historical coherence.

All of this hinges on said figure's depiction matching up, at best, with the actual person who once existed (not happening in Who), but at worst, at least matching up with the popular conception thereof.

To flippantly disregard not merely popular conception but also disregard historical facts of the matter dilutes the ability for their "Newton" to resemble the historical referent, and the only thing that makes these speculations fun is adherence to some consistent (and ideally, corresponding) depiction of who the historical figure being referenced was.

Anyone who claims these sorts of changes are of the same sort as the regular "historical curveball" deviations is unwilling to admit that they're willfully altering things either A) to try and forcibly alter an existing popular conception of the historical figure or B) to tone things down for a modern audience.

To be honest, I can think of cases where both are OK. Josef Stalin did his damnedest to create a positive popular conception of himself, and there are plenty of reasons why I hope that popular conception is dead.

Similarly, some historical figures were rough around the edges, and an optimally-accurate depiction may not be appropriate for the intended audience.

However, even granting this, I still think the fucker who tweeted this is a duplicitous tard because first of all they're not just admitting to intentional revisionism, and second of all because whether the revisionism is born from a desire to reshape society or a desire to make the show "appropriate", that implies they - the tweeter and the casting department - believe that White people are undesirable or inappropriate for modern audiences (?).

Tl;Dr trannies won't admit they be like social reengineering, but it do
 
Last edited:
:story: :story: :story:

A comment from Lance Parkin on El ( Phil ) Sandifer's review of the Star Beast

:story: :story: :story:

Niggernaggerwat.jpg
 
starborn427614 said:
I don't think Doctor Who will ever truly die, but I could see it going on break again.
Click to expand...
I just wonder if they will use the "Tennant in case of emergency button" more often now. and if they do, how long till that loses its luster, it took like what, 10 years between DotD and the 60th for them to use him again?
edit: thats not not even counting all the "time lord victorious" stuff
 
Last edited:
Rotollo 2 said:
I just wonder if they will use the "Tennant in case of emergency button" more often now. and if they do, how long till that loses its luster, it took like what, 10 years between DotD and the 60th for them to use him again?
Click to expand...
Hate to be a broken record, but if those rumours are true he's gonna be propping up the franchise in general at least until RTD's ready to leave again. After that, he'll probably feel he's a bit too old for the role, unless he wants to silver fox-it like Capaldi.
 
People who wrote tie in fiction during the years the show qa off air huffing their own fumes

Parkin wasnt even terribly original, his more popular books were copying and pasting Lawrence Miles and others from the various ranges of novels.

@AnOminous is probably the most qualified to explain Phil / Elizabeth Sandifer
6MillionCoofs said:
What did I just read? Can someone explain this nonsense to me?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom