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

What's currently on the box
GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

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

Post by GarethR »

Well, this recently sold for £131. An actual DW photo with Hartnell's autograph would presumably go for more.

User avatar
Bob Richardson
625 lines
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:47 pm
Location: Gallifrey west

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

Post by Bob Richardson »

I swapped my signed Hartnell pic for a die-cast Dinky police box, circa 1965. I still have that "lucky Tardis" but I'd happily trade it for the photo I gave away to Alan Thompson in the playground all those years ago.

I did correspond with Patrick Troughton many years ago and have a handful of letters from him, and a nice autograph on a separate sheet of Basildon Bond. Patrick also signed a "Nationwide" running order for me in the bar at Lime Grove, but it has been mislaid somewhere in my house. I really should try to find it, as it would top up my pension a little.

Jon Pertwee signed his pic in red marker pen and it was framed in my loo for many years, but the signature has all but faded away in the sunlight.
"Forfar 5 - East Fife 4"

User avatar
smorodina
405 lines
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:42 pm

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

Post by smorodina »

William Hartnell spent his last few weeks in hospital under my mother's care and, despite his frailty, was still happy to have visitors and sign autographs. He usually signed as 'Dr Who William Hartnell' and we have one stored away somewhere.
Andy Hurwitz

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

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

Post by drmih »

The mini-episode for the 50th is now up on iplayer and the red button and it features a Doctor and tidies up many questions - didn't want to spoil it (too much) for people who want to watch it.

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

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

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

drmih wrote:The mini-episode for the 50th is now up on iplayer and the red button and it features a Doctor and a regeneration and tidies up many questions - didn't want to spoil it (too much) for people who want to watch it.
Wow. Thanks for nothing, you dumb twat. It would have been nice to see that without knowing what was going to happen first. Maybe it would have been a good idea to mention the link, and then wait until everyone had actually seen it before giving away SPOILERS?
Great News Inside, Chums!

brigham
HD
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:59 pm

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

Post by brigham »

Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote: Wow. Thanks for nothing, you dumb twat.
Oh dear. It always shows through eventually, doesn't it?

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

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

Post by drmih »

I should have kept the information a little bit better hidden but as it's been viral on every DW and Sci-Fi site since mid-day I assumed that anyone who was so keen to avoid spoilers would have come across the information already and this was just a passing heads-up for people with a 'casual' interest, as it's not going to be terrestrially broadcast and will become a dvd extra.

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

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

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

brigham wrote:
Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote: Wow. Thanks for nothing, you dumb twat.
Oh dear. It always shows through eventually, doesn't it?
What does? That someone gave away the ending of a (mini-)episode that has JUST BEEN UPLOADED? An episode with a MAJOR plot point? Something we've all been waiting roughly a decade to see for ourselves? Without caring whether anyone would have liked to have been pleasantly surprised when they saw it unfold themselves, rather than have it ruined here first? Yes, that certainly "shows through eventually". Was I rude to him? Absolutely. You can only see something like that for the first time ever once. And in my case, it was with full foreknowledge of what i was about to see, thanks to one inconsiderate prick. Make of that what you will.
Great News Inside, Chums!

User avatar
Doom Patrol
625 lines
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:25 pm

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

Post by Doom Patrol »

For heavens sake. You must lead a remarkably sheltered life. As it happens I hadn't got a clue what I was watching. I don't think it would have made a great deal of difference if I had. It wasn't a particular revelation and I was more impressed by the actual performance.

User avatar
penfold
625 lines
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:19 am

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

Post by penfold »

Indeed, a great performance, though that makes it all rather......... bittersweet......???

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

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

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

Doom Patrol wrote:For heavens sake. You must lead a remarkably sheltered life. As it happens I hadn't got a clue what I was watching. I don't think it would have made a great deal of difference if I had. It wasn't a particular revelation and I was more impressed by the actual performance.
How is it that I "must lead a remarkably sheltered life"? Because I didn't want someone stating exactly what happens in something I hadn't seen? And I assume you were fortunate enough to have first seen the link elsewhere, hopefully posted by someone who didn't ruin it for you.
Great News Inside, Chums!

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

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

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

drmih wrote:I should have kept the information a little bit better hidden but as it's been viral on every DW and Sci-Fi site since mid-day I assumed that anyone who was so keen to avoid spoilers would have come across the information already and this was just a passing heads-up for people with a 'casual' interest, as it's not going to be terrestrially broadcast and will become a dvd extra.
Just noticed your reply. "A little bit better hidden"? Why post that at all? And as it was only 6 weeks before Christmas during work hours, I hadn't actually spent the whole day "on every DW and Sci-Fi site since mid-day". You know what they say about assuming things too, don't you? Lastly, why would anyone with only a 'casual' interest' specifically go to page 17 of a Doctor Who thread on the Mausoleum Club? You behaved poorly, and you spoiled something that should have been a wonderful experience. Yesterday I was angry wirh you. Today I just feel sorry for you, thinking you are being clever, when you're really just being an arsehole.
Great News Inside, Chums!

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

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

Post by drmih »

Interesting that back in August you felt it acceptable to post the following spoiler / rumour, so methinks you doth complain too much:

"According to one soruce Mcgann will be appearing in a brief sequence just so we can see his can regeneration into Hurt!"

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

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

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

drmih wrote:Interesting that back in August you felt it acceptable to post the following spoiler / rumour, so methinks you doth complain too much:

"According to one soruce Mcgann will be appearing in a brief sequence just so we can see his can regeneration into Hurt!"
Have you seriously been going through my old posts tot ry and find a way to "prove" something?

And that was a rumour at the time that had already been around a few days. It may have turned out to be as true as the "106 episodes found" rumour, in fact.

And again, you blurtd out that the minisode featured a regeneration! Had you said it featured Mcgann, I'm sure that a lot of people would have guessed how it ended, but it wouldn't have been a SPOILER. Instead, you say straight out that there's a regeneration. So you deliberately gave a way a major spoiler. And really which other one could it possibly have been? The definitive end of "Season 6B"? Richard E. Grant's Shalka Doctor regenerating into the redhaired Good Companions Doctor?

Rather than simply apologise for ruining something people have been keen to see for over a decade, you resort to scratching through old posts about RUMOURS. You didn't post a rumour, you posted a fucking SPOILER. And I have nothing further to say to you.
Great News Inside, Chums!

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

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

Post by drmih »

Good argument - so if you hear a rumour (or perhaps have inside knowledge) and tell everyone (for instance the plot of the 50th) but it's not actually been shown, that's ok, even if you get it spot on. So anyone on here who read your 'rumour' would have known exactly what was going to happen as soon as McGann appeared, whereas my vague description meant little to the non-anoraks, as has been stated. It's obvious that you were aware of the mini-episode rumour, so there was no surprise for you, as it happened exactly as you had heard. You just seem to want to make a noise, which is ok as a form of debate, but abusive language and insults just makes you a troll as far as I'm concerned.

User avatar
stearn
Committee
Posts: 771
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:48 pm

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

Post by stearn »

FFS, what do you think this is, the playground. It'll be my Dad's bigger than your Dad in a minute.

There is no need to post spoilers of any ilk without a 'spoiler alert' warning, that is common courtesy, but there is certainly no need to start tearing chunks out of other posters - that is in the T&C and if it continues it will get you banned.

I have no idea why Doctor Who seems to bring the worst out in people, but it is one of those sad facts, and it is why I usually avoid this thread like the plague.

Now GROW UP, or at least play nicely.

User avatar
Beaker
625 lines
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:22 pm

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

Post by Beaker »

Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote:
drmih wrote:Interesting that back in August you felt it acceptable to post the following spoiler / rumour, so methinks you doth complain too much:

"According to one soruce Mcgann will be appearing in a brief sequence just so we can see his can regeneration into Hurt!"
Have you seriously been going through my old posts tot ry and find a way to "prove" something?
Yeah, you can prove anything with facts, can't you? :o()

(Ducks and hides.)
If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One!

User avatar
Doom Patrol
625 lines
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:25 pm

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

Post by Doom Patrol »

I must admit I knew about it. If only because Paul McGann's son had been telling people in the pubs around Bristol.

User avatar
Juswuh
D-MAC
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:04 pm

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

Post by Juswuh »

I think the whole idea of doing a three-Doctors story should have been dropped when Eccleston refused to come back.

User avatar
Simon36
HD
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:43 am

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

Post by Simon36 »

I thought Night of the Doctor was excellent. I wonder if the "five minute drama" might become a significant trend for television in the future, considering short attention spans and so on. It's amazing what can be done in that time. It's been so rarely done: the Mike Leigh Five Minute Plays back in the early 80s are the only thing I can think of off the top of my head.

GarethR
HD
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:18 pm

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

Post by GarethR »

I think the "short attention spans" thing is overblown. The big thing in TV drama over the last 5 years or so has been the explosion of "slow drama". As long as the characters and writing are good enough, viewers will stick with a slow-burning series.

User avatar
Juswuh
D-MAC
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:04 pm

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

Post by Juswuh »

There's also the fact that Night Of The Doctor would be barely intelligible to anyone not familiar with Doctor Who.

User avatar
Simon36
HD
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:43 am

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

Post by Simon36 »

Juswuh wrote:There's also the fact that Night Of The Doctor would be barely intelligible to anyone not familiar with Doctor Who.
Indeed and hence why the ending left me a bit baffled until I watched it again and did a bit of googling. But I just meant in general as a form, five minute drama can clearly be interesting. Although this one was something we came to with a certain amount of foreknowledge, the basic premise of someone about to die, someone turning up to save them and them refusing to accept their help is instantly gripping. I just think its a form television/ online would do well to experiment with more, especially in this age of youtube things going viral etc. Short films do this kind of length often I know but so often they are, to me at least, more interested in direction than script.

andrew baker
625 lines
Posts: 277
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:22 pm

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

Post by andrew baker »

Paul McGann is such a good actor and Doctor I feel they could easily use him again. It doesn't even have to be a multi-doctor story. They could simply have an eighth doctor story instead of a "doctor-lite" story, or there are any number of ways stories could have flashbacks to earlier events.

I know people who are very keen on the Big Finish stories. The Night of the Doctor seems to make them canon, but it's too much for me. I like Dr Who as a TV Show. That's enough. I only have one lifetime. It has taken over ten years so see all the classic Whos. I keep a note of dates. I will be over 70 before I get round to The Ice Warriors again.

Irongiant
405 lines
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:37 am

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

Post by Irongiant »

andrew baker wrote:Paul McGann is such a good actor and Doctor I feel they could easily use him again. It doesn't even have to be a multi-doctor story. They could simply have an eighth doctor story instead of a "doctor-lite" story, or there are any number of ways stories could have flashbacks to earlier events.
Couldn't agree more - it would be such a waste not to use McGann again.

Brian F
D-MAC
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:09 pm

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

Post by Brian F »

Irongiant wrote:
andrew baker wrote:Paul McGann is such a good actor and Doctor I feel they could easily use him again. It doesn't even have to be a multi-doctor story. They could simply have an eighth doctor story instead of a "doctor-lite" story, or there are any number of ways stories could have flashbacks to earlier events.
Couldn't agree more - it would be such a waste not to use McGann again.
Rather like the repeat via the TARDIS telepathic circuits to Zoe when she came aboard. More of a yes I can look different here's one of my old adventures when I had a different face to a new companion.

User avatar
Doom Patrol
625 lines
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:25 pm

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

Post by Doom Patrol »

I must admit I find it quite amusing that people are raving about Paul McGann when it's supposed to be eleven's show.

Irongiant
405 lines
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:37 am

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

Post by Irongiant »

A nice little interview with McGann:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxSHTmGKiUY

brigham
HD
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:59 pm

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

Post by brigham »

Doom Patrol wrote:I must admit I find it quite amusing that people are raving about Paul McGann when it's supposed to be eleven's show.
To be fair, McGann didn't get much of a chance, did he?

User avatar
Juswuh
D-MAC
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:04 pm

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

Post by Juswuh »

Is it true that at one point the BBC were trying to get Tom Baker to come back full time, with the Doctor doing some kind of reverse-regeneration?

Post Reply