The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

What's currently on the box
User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

brigham wrote:I doubt that 'African-American' would be used to describe Negroes other than those in the USA.
Nice attempt to side-step the clear indications that "negro" is no longer considered "neutral."
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote:
Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote:In Brixton as a whole? Did any Brixton media complain about its usage in 'Rosa'?
Oh, look - you completely missed the point. Again.
Had you bothered to actually make a relevant one, that may not have been the case.
I also sincerely doubt that your original post was intended to be either amusing or ironic.
Your inability to recognise obvious irony or humour is your own problem.
Not at all. After all, you're hardly a Peter Cook, are you? Not even a Peter Crouch.
Great News Inside, Chums!

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote:That doesn't even make sense, from YOUR perspective.
This statement seems to be totally unconnected to what I wrote above.[/quote]
You completely missed the point, didn't you? it is directly connected to what you wrote above.
I think you'll find the word has moved on a bit since the 1960s.
Is that a knee jerk reaction? "Oh, it's not the 1960's anymore."
Image
Gibberish.
So, everyone in the UK is UK born-and-bred, and knows nothing of the world beyond Britain?
I was neither shocked nor horrified. I was slightly surprised that it was actually used, and referred to it in mildly amusingly ironic terms. I reckoned without someone like you failing to get the joke.
Sorry, but it was neither amusing nor ironic. Had there been a joke, funny or not, I would have got it.
And, more on topic, there may well have been people offended by the use of 'Paki' in "Rosa". However, nobody other than you felt that way about 'negro'.
Except I didn't feel that way in the slightest. The fact that you somehow leapt to the bizarre conclusion that I did is your own problem.
You can almost s-word off then.
Great News Inside, Chums!

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

drmih wrote:Says who? Avoiding urban dictionaries and general google searches, here's what the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries say:

Oxford
"NOUN
dated, offensive
A member of a dark-skinned group of peoples originally native to Africa south of the Sahara."....Negro (together with related words such as Negress) has dropped out of favour and now seems out of date or even offensive in both British and US English.

Cambridge
"a person of African origin with dark skin"
Note:
"Negro" is now considered offensive by most people, and "African-American" is used instead. See the usage note at black (dark skin) ."
'By most people'? I sincerely dispute that.

In any case, you also left out that the Cambridge dictionary said that it's "considered offensive by most people" IN THE US.

Whereas, "African"(to denote Black people) is offensive to certain other people. Namely, African people(such as North Africans), Khoisan etc., who ARE African, but are not 'African'.

Of course, any word can be offensive. Such as the whole hysteria when a school teacher referred to what they were told was an all-female class class as "girls".
Great News Inside, Chums!

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by drmih »

Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote: 'By most people'? I sincerely dispute that.

In any case, you also left out that the Cambridge dictionary said that it's "considered offensive by most people" IN THE US.

Whereas, "African"(to denote Black people) is offensive to certain other people. Namely, African people(such as North Africans), Khoisan etc., who ARE African, but are not 'African'.

Of course, any word can be offensive. Such as the whole hysteria when a school teacher referred to what they were told was an all-female class class as "girls".
Well you can dispute it until the cows come home with the people compiling the dictionary - please please take your nonsense to them. I did copy and paste the quote from the 'American' section of the page (however nowhere does is say 'IN THE US' either in upper or lower case) - in the English section it just says 'OFFENSIVE OUTDATED' - actually in capitals.

You then start a totally spurious discussion about 'African' along with your own slant linking it back to skin colour. African, in any reference I can find, relates to a person from the continent of Africa - no mention anywhere of skin colour (why would there be?). Finally, to get away as far as possible from your lost argument, you go off into gender politics, with something that sounds like page 8 of the Daily Mail.

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

drmih wrote:
Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote: 'By most people'? I sincerely dispute that.

In any case, you also left out that the Cambridge dictionary said that it's "considered offensive by most people" IN THE US.

Whereas, "African"(to denote Black people) is offensive to certain other people. Namely, African people(such as North Africans), Khoisan etc., who ARE African, but are not 'African'.

Of course, any word can be offensive. Such as the whole hysteria when a school teacher referred to what they were told was an all-female class class as "girls".
Well you can dispute it until the cows come home with the people compiling the dictionary - please please take your nonsense to them. I did copy and paste the quote from the 'American' section of the page (however nowhere does is say 'IN THE US' either in upper or lower case) - in the English section it just says 'OFFENSIVE OUTDATED' - actually in capitals.

You then start a totally spurious discussion about 'African' along with your own slant linking it back to skin colour. African, in any reference I can find, relates to a person from the continent of Africa - no mention anywhere of skin colour (why would there be?). Finally, to get away as far as possible from your lost argument, you go off into gender politics, with something that sounds like page 8 of the Daily Mail.
First, it's not "spurious" at all. It's totally relevant. You say that some terms offend some people. And I pointed out that your preferred term, used in the way you were using it, happens to offend other people.

Next, let's use your own preferred dictionaries:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/african

See that one?

African
NOUN

1A person from Africa, especially a black person.
Example sentences
1.1 A person of black African descent.
Example sentences

Thankfully, the Cambridge dictionary says nothing of the sort.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/african

Presumably the person or people who made that listing for the Oxford Dictionary have never set foot in Africa. Or else, they're pushing a political or social agenda. In which case, any other definition listed in Oxford Dictionary is intellectually worthless.

Back to Cambridge, and indeed "negro" has two listings, for UK and US English.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... lish/negro

Under UK English , the definition is simply "a black man". Nothing more is said.

Under US English, we get the note that the word is "now considered offensive".

And, of course as, as you are very well aware, I was NOT "getting away from" anything at all. The comment about "girls" is 100% relevant to the exact same "argument". Even a word that NO dictionary would find offensive did indeed offend someone.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/educ ... 54146.html

How was that man to know? Oops, I called the teacher a 'man'....
Great News Inside, Chums!

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote:Sorry, but it was neither amusing nor ironic. Had there been a joke, funny or not, I would have got it.
The fact that there was, but you didn't, proves otherwise. If you can't keep up with the grown-ups, maybe you shouldn't try?
You can almost s-word off then.
Maybe you need to, because you've proved yet again your inability to engage in rational conversation - your outdated bigotry always seems to get the better of you.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

User avatar
stearn
Committee
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by stearn »

Enough, already.

I'd love to close the thread just to stop all this but know that the Doctor Who chatter would just leak everywhere, spoiling other threads like toxic waste.

The bottom line is, if you don't like Doctor Who, DON'T WATCH IT. Don't go and watch it and come here to vent your spleen over things you don't like.

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by drmih »

Today's episode regarding the partition was very moving - not quite hitting the highs of Rosa but I'm really enjoying this form of storytelling. I wish they'd be brave enough to drop the sci-fi, from the perspective of the aliens, altogether. A season of historicals would suit me down to the ground.

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

drmih wrote:Today's episode regarding the partition was very moving - not quite hitting the highs of Rosa but I'm really enjoying this form of storytelling. I wish they'd be brave enough to drop the sci-fi, from the perspective of the aliens, altogether. A season of historicals would suit me down to the ground.
Yes, I thought it was very good, with - like Rosa - a real sense of danger towards the characters in a way that the series never really manages in its more traditional settings.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

drmih wrote:Today's episode regarding the partition was very moving - not quite hitting the highs of Rosa but I'm really enjoying this form of storytelling. I wish they'd be brave enough to drop the sci-fi, from the perspective of the aliens, altogether. A season of historicals would suit me down to the ground.
When you mentioned it was about "the partition", I thought you meant something else. Without turning this into more politics, it is very telling that Doctor Who can do an episode like this about the partition of India, but another partition-along-religious-lines right in the British Isles would still be "untouchable" for the "liberal" BBC, and "progressive" Doctor Who.

What of the episode itself? I was bored. And the overly preachy nature was distracting. I also assumed the fact that the Doctor is female would be the biggest turn-off for me. In fact it wasn't that at all. It was the fact that this Doctor has no personality or character at all, apart from the fact that she is a she. Tom Baker's Doctor had a well-defined character and personality. Jon Pertwee's had a well-defined personality and character. The Jodie Whitaker Doctor appears to just be 'the most generic Nu Who Doctor, played by a female'. Give her a quirk, a catchphrase, something..anything.

The only one who seems like anything other than a plot device is Ryan.
Great News Inside, Chums!

Xrds1895
405 lines
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:03 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Xrds1895 »

Maybe we should consider the original blueprint of the show: to appeal primarily to intelligent 10-14 year olds along with the rest of the family with historical adventures to allow for an element of education.

Well after years of the Moff making it up as he went along, trying to convince me I should care about characters and their eyepatches and pregnancies, we finally have a show that is doing just what Sydney Newman wanted.

From my personal perspective, after Tennant the interest of my family waned. Mrs.Xrds would go off and read a book, the eldest would sit with me out of loyalty (his earliest memory is of sitting in his baby bouncer vigorously boinging up and down to the title sequence test footage on the Tomb of the Cybermen DVD) and the youngest would go and play on his X-Box.

Now, we watch it altogether. The eldest is 14 the day Who turns 55 and the youngest is 11. They haven't missed an episode. Who is back to being the one time of the week when we sit down as a family and all watch the same show.

I *could* pick holes in it. It is far from perfect. But when was it? Can you really look at The Horns of Nimon or The Keys of Marinus and say "that's golden age television"?
It's also all too easy to point about people saying The Doctor was never a Social Justice Warrior to any number of stories in which he was just that. Most of them in fact. Isn't it in The Sun Makers in which Tom Baker inspires a revolution by quoting Karl Marx?

The fact is it feels more like Who than it has for years for this 43 year old who has been a fan since The Power of Kroll episode 3 and, whether people like it or not, the constantly high ratings (most popular drama on British TV) and the fact that it is always in the top 10, usually the top 5 of programmes broadcast in the week (333 episodes of the "classic" series never broke the Top 100), suggest I am not alone.

It'll do me just fine. If others don't want to watch it, don't watch it.

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3239
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

Sunday's was slightly better, with some competent dialogue, I thought the historical aspect of "Rosa" was laid on with a trowel though and the ending was more like a History documentary, it was written by a children's writer, unusually.

The one with the pregnant bloke was abysmal, and the Spiders one too, JW just talks to much, explaining everything she's doing and going to do, the constant use of the Sonic to work everything out is lazy, and you would think the urgency style direction ( rapid shots and shaky camera) would have gone out of style by now.

This years special is on New Years Day rather than Xmas day, and it looks like another gap year coming up.
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by drmih »

Mark wrote:This years special is on New Years Day rather than Xmas day, and it looks like another gap year coming up.
Although I'll miss the Christmas Day episode I understand that there's only so many happy and twee Xmas related stories you can do, and the move to New Year Day means that they can do an extended episode of whatever they like.

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3239
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

Personally, I never thought it suited Xmas Day, and it was odd that after every epic story arc finale, The Doctor needed a rest at Christmas ( not that he got one of course).

I fully expect the New Years Day episode to be about a group of aliens hypnotizing everyone to celebrate the passing of 24 hours, 'Happy New Monday', 'Happy New Tuesday' etc, until they collapse of exhaustion.

It could be The Beeb have moved it to avoid any serious opposition ( as with Sat/Sun).
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by drmih »

Do you really think that they're that bothered about positioning? In this time of catchup tv the instant viewing figures aren't that important. Although I don't think it's been explicitly said, I think that the scheduling was at the production teams request - certainly that was what I understood about the festive episode. Given the current series has been doing pretty well viewing figures wise, the BBC would probably have preferred to have it on Christmas Day - there wasn't that much competition as it usually goes out quite early.

Cole
625 lines
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:08 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Cole »

Mark wrote: It could be The Beeb have moved it to avoid any serious opposition ( as with Sat/Sun).
Being pragmatic, I wondered if, because the BBC's big drama for this Christmas is The War of the Worlds, they decided to move Doctor Who out of the way so as not to over-do the science-fiction during their Christmas schedule?

User avatar
Private Frazer
625 lines
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:37 pm
Location: A town, UK

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Private Frazer »

So maybe only one episode of Doctor Who in 2019 but we won't have to wait long for it!
"Now listen you guys, I don't wish to alarm you but there's some pretty weird things going on out here..."

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by drmih »

Season 12 has just been confirmed via Starburst for Autumn 2019 - production apparently starts next week.

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3239
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

Maybe that "WOTW" has had an effect on it's scheduling, I just wondered if it had something to do with finding a safe slot for it, which is what they have done with the Sunday screenings.

Overnights do still matter a lot, look what happened after the Capaldi season, late on Sat nights, they didn't do that again!
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3239
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

drmih wrote:Season 12 has just been confirmed via Starburst for Autumn 2019 - production apparently starts next week.
It was announced recently, 12 will be on early 2020 ( so no "Strictly" to give it a boost).

Just over 5m overnights for the last episode.
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

Any thoughts on Series 11 as a whole? I did end up watching all the episodes.

It never felt like Doctor Who to me at all. Jodie Whitaker's character never even seemed to have a character to begin with.

Very poor writing on the whole. The one episode that I enjoying while watching was the 'Kerblam' one, but that ended up with a "Let's blow everything up!" solution.

Lots of SJW preaching.

The central villain of the series(Tim Shaw) was also laughably inept.

On the whole, this was just another assembly line show. The only thing of note was that it was called "Doctor Who", but it never really made you think that it was.

And this man had the gall to insult a writer like Robert Holmes?

Image
Great News Inside, Chums!

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3239
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

I have to say, it was very frustrating, the last thing the series needed at the time was fans sticking the boot in as well.

As for series 11, I thought it was underwhelming to say the least, and the whole thing seemed very tired, it certainly doesn't seem to be the big event it was just a few years ago, no one seems to talk about it now, and the few comments I have heard from non-fans are that it seems to be aimed at kids.

The present format seems almost exhausted.
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

brigham
HD
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by brigham »

The whole thing was exhausted long ago.
The revival seems to be emulating the original show: going on long after its day was clearly over.

wittoner
625 lines
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:10 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by wittoner »

Yes. Eccleston as Hartnell.
Tennent as Troughton/Pertwee
Smith as Tom Baker
Capaldi as Colin Baker/Davison
Whittaker as McCoy?

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by drmih »

I thought it was perfectly fine Sunday evening drama but instantly forgettable, perhaps with the exception of Rosa. It did manage to be the water-cooler programme for the first epsiode or so, but I wasn't expecting anything more, and to be honest it wasn't really for most of the classic run, and only the early nu series caught the attention of the mass public. There is something about comparing old with new, and the thing that I look at is the merchandise. In the Hartnell years it was on everything but then faded except for occassional promotions, such as serial boxes / confectionry. Same with the new series, where for Eccleston and then peaking with Tennant, it was just everywhere - now it's ended up back in Forbidden Planet.

I had hoped that the Doctor would gain more gravitas as the series progressed but it never felt like you were in the presence of a 1000+ year old alien, and it's about time that someone gets rid of the sonic screwdriver once and for all. Strange to say, but the episodes were so light-weight that I started hoping for a confused arc to appear. It would be interesting to change to a Sherlock-type approach where there are two or three movie length episodes with big budgets and three solid scripts. When I look back at the Tennant movies, with the exception of the double decker bus one, they were pretty good and stand rewatching. As people have indicated, there is only so long that you can keep turning out 10 or 12 50 min episodes per year unless you have very strong original material (e.g. Game of Thrones, Handmaids Tale, etc), and stuff knocked out by fan-boys come industry insiders has a limited life.

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

drmih wrote:It would be interesting to change to a Sherlock-type approach where there are two or three movie length episodes with big budgets and three solid scripts.
I think the inherent problem is doing 45-50 minute single story episodes, which usually consist of two-thirds set-up, and one-third rushed resolution.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3239
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote:
drmih wrote:It would be interesting to change to a Sherlock-type approach where there are two or three movie length episodes with big budgets and three solid scripts.
I think the inherent problem is doing 45-50 minute single story episodes, which usually consist of two-thirds set-up, and one-third rushed resolution.
Spot on, that "Witchfinder" one was a good example, all that set up and the villains were despatched (very conveniently) right at the end.

The Sonic Screwdriver and Psychic paper are just used lazily as there's no time for anything else, and the 50 min episodes make it look like the same thing every week.
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

brigham
HD
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by brigham »

Are people today really unable to follow a four-part story?

Ian Fryer
405 lines
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:43 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Ian Fryer »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote:
drmih wrote:It would be interesting to change to a Sherlock-type approach where there are two or three movie length episodes with big budgets and three solid scripts.
I think the inherent problem is doing 45-50 minute single story episodes, which usually consist of two-thirds set-up, and one-third rushed resolution.
I couldn't agree more. It was a terrible problem during the later Matt Smith series, where all he had time to do was run around like bleeding Magnus Pyke, waving his arms around, talking loudly then solving everything in 10 minutes.

I get why individual stories are attractive for producers - the vogue for long story arcs in American TV of a few years ago effectively locked-out casual viewers - but something needs changing in Dr Who's basic story-telling method.

Post Reply