Doctor Who Comeback

Eeek! by dustmote · 2003-09-26 00:57 · Score: 5, Funny

My god, I think I just had a nerdgasm. I've been waiting to hear this for years. :)

--

-1, "1337" speak

Re:Eeek! by T-Kir · 2003-09-26 01:04 · Score: 2, Funny

I saw the 'behind the series' program about Queer As Folk UK last week, and your nerdgasm takes on a whole new meaning (shampoo, err showergel?).

In the interview though, Russell Davies is a huge fan of Dr Who... if there was ever someone who could have used their work to say 'I Love Dr Who' in giant pink neon lights, then Queer As Folk would be it.

--
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Re:Eeek! by dustmote · 2003-09-26 01:15 · Score: 3, Informative

The Doctor tended to be a nonsexual character, most of the time. I don't think it will be too much of an issue, if Davies is fan enough to stick to that as a vital part of the show. Having the Doctor get involved with his companions would probably screw the plots up something awful, although I expect we will all find something to complain about in the new series. I'm just happy to hear that something is being done at all, for now.

--

-1, "1337" speak
Re:Eeek! by tiled_rainbows · 2003-09-26 02:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

It makes sense to me - for some reason, most diehard Dr. Who fans seem to be gay. I asked a gay Dr. Who fan (or "Whovian" as they style themselves) about the connection, and he said:

Well, the vast majority of high-profile Dr Who fans are big gays, and I've heard at least one lament about the new level of acceptance people have of gaysexuality leading to a boring paucity of furtive, secretive trouser adventure. This is chronologically the reverse of your description of DW fandom. Also, to get all 3/4 angle, "I heart the Dr Who" for a moment, that it was utterly, utterly British, and we're very much engulfed by Americanised telefantasy, ever since the Star Trek revival. The other odd lot is Blake's 7 fans (who tend to be bored housewives who, by adorning eyepatches and leathers, treat the B7 scene as a diversion from the path to fully fledged swinging - a sort of polyamorous swimming pool verouka bath).

Which doesn't quite answer the "whay do gay people like Dr Who so much?" question, but is interesting, anyway.

--

evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation!
Re:Eeek! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 03:46 · Score: 0

According to the article, it's going to be written by the same guy who created the series 'Queer As Folk'. Not sure if we'll get to see it in the US, but I guess it's a good time to start bugging your cable company to carry BBC America if they don't already."
PUKE, sounds like a great reason to threaten to cancel cable.
Re:Eeek! by darien · 2003-09-26 04:00 · Score: 1

Having the Doctor get involved with his companions would probably screw the plots up something awful

I'll say! Remember the last time it happened??
Re:Eeek! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 05:47 · Score: 0

... same guy who created the series 'Queer As Folk'...good time to start bugging your cable company..

Don't you mean buggering your cable company?:)
Re:Eeek! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 06:48 · Score: 0

The Doctor's smart enough to know that getting involved with his companions when routinely travelling through time and space is liable to cause that companion to give birth to his next enemy or, even better, his own grandfather.

While it's an interesting idea (bring back one of the actors who played the Doctor, if they're still alive, to play his grownup grandson-turned-enemy that he hasn't fathered yet) I think it would cause him enough headaches keeping things straight while writing the episodes that he won't do it.

Hmm ... as a side note, "Invasion of the CowboyNeals" would be a good title for an episode, wouldn't it? :)
Re:Eeek! by NanoGator · 2003-09-26 08:30 · Score: 1

"The Doctor tended to be a nonsexual character, most of the time. I don't think it will be too much of an issue, if Davies is fan enough to stick to that as a vital part of the show. Having the Doctor get involved with his companions would probably screw the plots up something awful, although I expect we will all find something to complain about in the new series."

The Doctor seemed to have a rather strong affection for Peri. (See Trial of the Time Lord) Though I agree with you, I'm not sure I'd specifically use the term 'nonsexual'. More like 'deeply buried'.

I agree with you that having him get involved with a companion is bad news. Part of me thinks that the reason he doesn't show affection for his companions is that in his 900 years of existence, and his dangerous line of work, he knows he could lose them in an instant. He can't get too attached.

You know, I wouldn't mind an exploration of this happening once. Maybe there's one companion in particular he's in love with. She is lost. From there he really turns icy.

I think that's been done before, but it would be interesting to see something deeply bother him.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Eeek! by Ralph+Yarro · 2003-09-26 09:28 · Score: 1

While it's an interesting idea (bring back one of the actors who played the Doctor, if they're still alive, to play his grownup grandson-turned-enemy that he hasn't fathered yet) I think it would cause him enough headaches keeping things straight while writing the episodes that he won't do it.

As far as I remember, in the original series the first Doctor has a granddaughter called Susan. Travel being what it will be, there's plenty of scope for him to father one of her parents at some point that hasn't happened yet. But yeah, it would get complicated. Fun though if they spun it out over a while and did it right (which they wouldn't).

--

The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
Re:Eeek! by fiannaFailMan · 2003-09-26 09:46 · Score: 1

Nah, no the Doc's style. Remember when Jimmy Bond married some chick and cried buckets over her at the end of the film when she got plugged? What a load of garbage that was! What did it add to the story apart from makin Sean Connery play a completely different character for a few seconds? It was the same in that movie where the Doctor snogged that woman near the end. It just didn't look right. I mean, how the hell is he supposed to know how to kiss anyway?

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Re:Eeek! by Graspee_Leemoor · 2003-09-26 10:14 · Score: 1

Sean Connery played such a completely different character that he became George Lazenby.

graspee
Re:Eeek! by Cerv · 2003-09-26 11:13 · Score: 1

Exsperminate! Exsperminate!

--
sig
Re:Eeek! by Illbay · 2003-09-26 15:40 · Score: 1

Yeah, but with the writer of "Queer as Folk..."
Are we really ready for Harvey Fierstein as the new Doctor?

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

It's about time ! by doc_smiley · 2003-09-26 00:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Now if they can just get Tom Baker.... Still, I am not sure if this is going to be successful. People today don't seem to appreciate the 'intellectual' hero, they want action. Maybe they are going to cast Arnold as the new doc?

Re:It's about time ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:07 · Score: 0

... yeah but people who watch Doctor Who aren't like normal people.

Free music that's actually quite good!
Re:It's about time ! by VAXcat · 2003-09-26 02:11 · Score: 1

They should cast the Doctor as a woman, and get Cathy Rogers to play the part.

--
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Re:It's about time ! by nomadic · 2003-09-26 02:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

People have rarely appreciated the intellectual hero. Isaac Asimov had a great essay on the subject of pulp heroes, where he pointed out the hero was usually physically powerful but mentally dense, while the villain was usually brilliant but physically weak, and the stories typically ended with the musclebound idiot beating up on the brilliant weakling. He thought it was an ugly idea, and arose from an intense anti-intellectualism in this country based on agrarian philosophies about where the worth of a man lay. I don't think the current time is much worse than the past in that regard; it's probably a little better now than it used to be.
Re:It's about time ! by gborland · 2003-09-26 02:26 · Score: 1

The reason the TV movie in 1996 was such a flop is because they tried to turn it into an action adventure set in the USA with car chases and crap like that. If they want this to be a success they'll have to let it be proper Dr Who?.
Re:It's about time ! by I_M_Noman · 2003-09-26 02:40 · Score: 1

Now if they can just get Tom Baker
Oh, no... TB may be the actor most closely associated with the role, but I think that's only because he played it for the longest time. He was hardly the best Doctor; I'd put him better than only Sylvester McCoy, but YMMV.

It's time they went back to a crotchety old man in the role -- John Gielgud, perhaps?
Re:It's about time ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 02:47 · Score: 0

slgrghf! wha thef fsdf1!!!??
#
arrghghgh!

better only than S.M??!!?!?!?

oh, I get it, you've only seen episodes with Tom Baker and Sylvester McCoy.
that's the only rational explanation for thinking the way you do.
Re:It's about time ! by I_M_Noman · 2003-09-26 03:00 · Score: 1

you've only seen episodes with Tom Baker and Sylvester McCoy. that's the only rational explanation for thinking the way you do.
Actually, I started in the Pertwee era. I'd rate the Doctors in this order: Colin Baker, Hartnell, Pertwee, Davison, Troughton, Tom Baker, McCoy. (I don't count McGann.) Funny enough, though, my favorite episode is from the Tom Baker era ("Logopolis"). Again, though, YMMV.
Re:It's about time ! by Hittite+Creosote · 2003-09-26 03:08 · Score: 2, Funny

> stories typically ended with the musclebound
> idiot beating up on the brilliant weakling
But what about the Tom and Jerry cartoons?
Re:It's about time ! by TomV · 2003-09-26 04:00 · Score: 1

I think that's only partly true.

The Action Adventure With Car Chases Model was key to the 1970 reworking when Jon Pertwee came in, with the Exile On Earth theme and UNIT. Car chases every week for several years, troops in jeeps, airstrikes, and all in wondrous new shiny colour. First there was Bessie the yellow edwardian roadster, then towards the end of Pertwee's tenure, the glorious Whomobile, with tailfins to make a 1950's T-bird weep with envy.

I think the major problem was that no matter how hard people tried to stop Phil Segal producing a festival of fanwank, a lot of it still got through. Enough continuity to utterly befuddle a new audience, but fast and loose enough to infuriate established fans (Eye Of Harmony within the TARDIS, hello?) plus the half-human doctor thing peed a lot of people off. At least they managed to get away from his original concept of the Doctor with his Gallifreyan mentor Borusa charging around the galaxy looking for his lost father.

tomV
Re:It's about time ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 04:42 · Score: 1, Funny

Isn't Tom Baker something like 150 years old by now?
Re:It's about time ! by Razor+Blades+are+Not · 2003-09-26 04:48 · Score: 1

Except for Doc Savage, Buckaroo Banzai, Batman and probably a couple of others.
Re:It's about time ! by MagikSlinger · 2003-09-26 05:14 · Score: 1

But in those cases, the brute is also an intellectual. Batman could solve the Riddler's puzzle and beat the snot out of him.

--
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
Re:It's about time ! by Leif_Bloomquist · 2003-09-26 05:18 · Score: 1

People today don't seem to appreciate the 'intellectual' hero, they want action

You can successfully mix the two, this worked for MacGyver.
Re:It's about time ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 05:28 · Score: 0

That's an interesting observation, and it still holds - the brilliant English-speaking villain is alive more than ever.

On the other hand, there's the Sherlock Holmes tradition so I don't know if I agree entirely.
Re:It's about time ! by pureevilmatt · 2003-09-26 06:52 · Score: 1

How much exactly did a man lay go for back then? If queer as folk taught me anything, these days it's about the cost of cover for the club, and the time it takes to walk to the back room.
Re:It's about time ! by Graspee_Leemoor · 2003-09-26 10:22 · Score: 1

On the subject of people appreciating the intellectial hero, one must not forget the IMMENSE popularity of Sherlock Holmes, who was persuaded to not die spectacularly in a waterfall thanks to the love for him by the public.

Sherlock was very much a Dr. Who figure, with his "Master" being Moriaty.

And if you think I have that the wrong way round, consider time travel.

graspee
Re:It's about time ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 13:21 · Score: 0

Isaac Asimov had a great essay on the subject of pulp heroes, where he pointed out the hero was usually physically powerful but mentally dense, while the villain was usually brilliant but physically weak, and the stories typically ended with the musclebound idiot beating up on the brilliant weakling.

If Asimov wrote this, in my opinion he was waaay off. The intellectual qualities of pulp heroes were in fact very strongly emphasized, in a way that sometimes seems ridiculous today. For example, Doc Savage, "The Man of Bronze," was a world-reknowned expert in multiple scientific and engineering fields as well as being a specimen of physical perfection... sorta like Buckaroo Banzai. To the list you can add The Shadow, Zorro, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan (being King of the Apes does not necessarily make you stupid), and others.

A lot of these guys were good at fighting as well, but having some kind of secret knowledge was even more common than having a secret identity or being a vigilante. Sherlock Holmes had his eXXtreme deductive reasoning and extensive specialized knowledge (like distinguishing brands of tobacco); Tarzan was basically a super-naturalist who could track anything, get animals to do his bidding, ... the radio version of the Shadow had learned in "the Orient" a hypnosis technique, "to cloud men's minds so they cannot see him." And there was Chandu the Magician (radio, not pulp, but from that era)... Fu Manchu was an genius anti-hero.

Where it changed was with Superman. In the comic books, radio serials, and the TV show, Superman was portrayed as being fairly smart, but AFAIK he almost never used his intelligence to solve problems. His special powers are not something that he earned, but just part of his nature.

The other really different innovation with Superman was (starting in the early 1940s) the emphasis on his virtue. Many (probably most) of the pulp heroes were good guys, although some were morally ambiguous, and some were anti-heroes. But after the first few years, Superman became the champion of "Truth and Justice," which a few years later turned into "Truth, Justice, and the American Way!"

Which might seem kind of corny now, but at the time, it was what kids needed. Looking back at what was going on the 1930s, Doc Savage seems like a sorta creepy ideal of the type championed by the Nazis. Not that the Doc Savage stories were more racist than any of the other stuff being published at the time, but the whole super-smart, super-fit, Man of Bronze thing gets to you. Superman on the other hand quickly adjusted to fight representations of the WWII enemies of the US, and to embody the moral clarity of the age. After the war, he continued to be super-patriotic. This may be an artifact of the cold war, but I haven't made up my mind about that. The good thing about the patriotism was that it actually was not very jingoistic, at least, not in the bits that I've seen. For quite a while Superman spent his time fighting a thinly-veiled caricature of the KKK, spoke about the need for tolerance, and so on. If you're going to be feeding moralistic stories to kids, fighting racism is at least a decent cause to be espousing.

Anyway, this is way off topic. To conclude, if Asimov was referring to comic books rather than pulp fiction, then I agree with his assessment. But I do think some of the comic books actually had a positive message... at least, Superman of about 1945-1955, and years later, the stuff that Stan Lee wrote in the 1960s and 1970s. Superman is not quality literature, but it's not harmful to people, and neither is pulp fiction. (The Silver Surfer on the other hand... :-)
Re:It's about time ! by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2003-09-26 14:00 · Score: 1

Well considering Tom Baker also played Holmes a few times, it makes sense :)

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re:It's about time ! by Darby · 2003-09-26 17:36 · Score: 1

On the subject of people appreciating the intellectial hero, one must not forget the IMMENSE popularity of Sherlock Holmes, who was persuaded to not die spectacularly in a waterfall thanks to the love for him by the public.

Actually, he did die.
The book, "Exit Sherlock Holmes", was written by one of my high school english teachers.

He bought the rights and wrote the book in which he killed Holmes off.

He also told one of the students (who ended up going to MIT ) that she needed to "relax once in a while, maybe smoke a joint".
Re:It's about time ! by nomadic · 2003-09-27 04:35 · Score: 1

Holmes was mostly mental, but he could definitely rely on brute strength when necessary; he was portrayed as physically powerful. In fact, he didn't die in the waterfall precisely because he was able to use his physical abilities not to.
Re:It's about time ! by Razor+Blades+are+Not · 2003-09-29 04:54 · Score: 1

But you have to agree that none of these characters are "musclebound idiots". Characterizing the entire swath of fiction in this manner is a generalization of the worst kind. Most "heroes" throughout time display a wide variety of traits. I happened to pick a few examples where the heroes were mentally capable. That they were also physically capable doesn't invalidate my argument - which was to point out that musclebound idiots are not the be all and end all of our heroic icons.

No lead actor yet by henrygb · 2003-09-26 00:59 · Score: 2, Funny

At least (unlike James Bond) they have an excuse for changing the main actor, and so keep costs down.

If it is not cheap then it is not Doctor Who.

Re:No lead actor yet by AlecC · 2003-09-26 01:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

If it is not cheap then it is not Doctor Who.

Yes - up to a point. Certainly they won't have a chance of competing with Hollywood whizz-bang effects and shouldn't try. But things have moved on a bit, and expectations are higher. Thery have to be 2000s cheap, not 1970s cheap.

On the other hand, al low budget can be a great stimulator of originality. The TV Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy did very well for cheap, I thought. We need just the right amount of tongue-in-cheek. If they take the great legacy of Dr Who too seriously, it will become pompous, whereas if they take it too lightly, it will become silly.

Having carped on, nevertheless Rejoice!, for the Doctor is returning. Better to try and fail than not to try at all. Daleks on the London Eye, Cybermen in the Eden Project and a blue police box in Downing Street - if we're lucky.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Re:No lead actor yet by Jaysyn · 2003-09-26 02:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

I thought the deal behind the name James Bond was that it was just an identity given to whomever happend to be Agent 007 at the time.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:No lead actor yet by w00master · 2003-09-26 02:12 · Score: 1

My theory is that James Bond is just another timelord. The "suave" timelord that is. :P w00master
Re:No lead actor yet by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 02:54 · Score: 0

yeah, the Bond thing is ridiculous.

but even more worse than that is Hamlet!

I mean one time you see him he's quite old, and dark haired, then they get some young guy with weird bleached hair in the role.

what is up with that?

and not only that, every Episode of this Hamlet thing, even though it has different people for some unknown reason, the same thing always happens, then he somehow regenerates for the next episode and it all happens again.

freaky.
Re:No lead actor yet by Hittite+Creosote · 2003-09-26 02:58 · Score: 1

> Cybermen in the Eden Project
Doctor Who filmed in a disused quarry in Cornwall? It'll never happen...
Re:No lead actor yet by Biscit · 2003-09-26 03:11 · Score: 1

There is a prominent British comedy/drama star giving not so subtle hints on daytime TV that it's him
Re:No lead actor yet by TomV · 2003-09-26 04:03 · Score: 1

There can never be a timelord of sufficient suavity to give the late Roger Delgado's Master any competition. Evil personified, with impeccable manners, old-world charm, hypnotic powers and extremely sharp suits. RIP.

tomV
Re:No lead actor yet by Grab · 2003-09-26 04:12 · Score: 1

Thing is, X-Files has redefined what you can do for "cheap". Doctor Who needs to take a leaf out of that book, rather than following the example of Invasion Earth which was the last big BBC sci-fi programme. Invasion Earth tried hard, but in the end they just couldn't rise above bad acting and lousy FX.

But if they can hire the folks who did 28 Days Later, we're in for a serious treat...

Graham.
Re:No lead actor yet by Monkey+Angst · 2003-09-26 12:42 · Score: 1

I thought the deal behind the name James Bond was that it was just an identity given to whomever happend to be Agent 007 at the time.
Well, in the films at any rate, there is a little (though not much) continuity carryover between them. Sean Connery's opening a can of whoop-ass at the beginning of "Diamonds Are Forever," for instance, is clearly in response to what happened to George Lazenby's wife in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." My take is that they're the same guy, and if you wonder how he's around the same age now that he was in 1962... well, you're thinking waaaaay too much for James Bond.

--
stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
Re:No lead actor yet by FnordX · 2003-09-26 16:59 · Score: 1

The great thing about the show, for me, is that it was always cheap, but the plots were always great enough that it didn't matter.

I mean, honestly, I would normally never be frightened of a robot armed with a plunger, or think that an RC car with a dog-looking shell on it would be anything but laughable, but with good writing, I'm willing to forgive those types of things and let them get on with the story.

--
____________________
Clouds in the Sky,
Water in a bottle

Dr.Who is back! by BigBadBus · 2003-09-26 00:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Funny, my post to Slashdot was rejected...grrr :( Anyway, now that the show is coming back, it might be worthwhile reminding fans that the history of the show is incomplete, so while Dr.Who's future is assured, its past is very patchy. Theres an initiative to find lost UK TV treasures: have a look here

--
My web domain.

Re:Dr.Who is back! by ayjay29 · 2003-09-26 07:53 · Score: 1

We do have some good TV in the UK. I just heard you guys over the water are getting you'r own version of "Coupling".

Please, do yourselves a favour and download the original episodes from iMesh, Direct Connect, or whatever.

From the site:

"NBC is promoting Coupling as sexy and risque but it has backed down over throwaway jokes about swallowing and refused outright to allow Moynihan's Jeff to refer to girlfriends you can't get rid of as "unflushables"."

Without Jeff's "Unflushables", your are really missing out...

--
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.

YES!! by evilspyperson · 2003-09-26 00:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Dr. who is comng back, kill the fatted calf, fetch our finest wine, Horray! I's about time this happened.

Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 00:59 · Score: 0, Funny

Queer eye for the timelord guy

I'll get my coat

Re:Sounds like... by QuackQuack · 2003-09-26 01:03 · Score: 1, Funny

On the other hand, maybe the Colin Baker outfit will never see the light of day again!

--
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
Re:Sounds like... by djdavetrouble · 2003-09-26 02:14 · Score: 1

i was dreading the jokes even before i finished reading....

--
music lover since 1969

BitTorrent by SuperBanana · 2003-09-26 01:00 · Score: 4, Funny

Not sure if we'll get to see it in the US

I hear with this magical thing called The Internet, you can download TV shows and give those who want to control viewership, demographics, audience, and timed 'rollouts'(ie, UK now, US 4 months later, or vise-versa) a conniption.

I've been watching the BBC's (unedited, ie, stupidified-and-more-commericals-for-us-market) Spooks, aka MI-5. I watched the start of season 2 while A&E was still running teasers for the previous show.

I've also managed to watch Enterprise about 6 hours before it airs- and I can skip the #$@!ing annoying theme song. They should look on the bright side- with the commercials, I'd loose motivation after the first commercial break.

--
Please help metamoderate.

Re:BitTorrent by sanqui · 2003-09-26 01:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's pretty funny to see it put that way: for geeks outside the US, grabbing TV shows on the net is pretty much de rigeur.

But you should hear the laughing fits us non-USians go into when we see discussions about region-code-free DVD players for a north american audience...

On topic: Russell T. Davies (the "guy" referred to in the article) is also a great big fan and an author of Doctor Who fiction. Queer As Folk gives a pretty good indication of his talent when it comes to putting "non-standard" content in a po-mo TV context, which is why Who fans are getting pretty excited about this.
Re:BitTorrent by Ubergrendle · 2003-09-26 01:30 · Score: 1

With all due respect, if the revival Dr Who is equivalent to the quality of Enterprise, I'd rather they not revive the series at all. I am still very skeptical, despite this article. I've heard at least a dozen 'credible' rumours of the past decade referring to the resurrection of the series -- Speilberg has optioned it; it will become a weekly radio play; Fox has optioned it; etc.

--
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Re:BitTorrent by lgftsa · 2003-09-26 01:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've also managed to watch Enterprise about 6 hours before it airs- and I can skip the #$@!ing annoying theme song. They should look on the bright side- with the commercials, I'd loose motivation after the first commercial break.

By "They", I assume you mean the people behind the Enterprise series. I hate to break it to you, but they don't want you to watch the series, just the commercials. The revenue generated by the show(merchandise, etc) barely pays for the toilet paper in the restroom.

They'd prefer to run uninterrupted commercials with no content - this is the whole premise behind free-to-air programming. It's a balance of rewards and punishments, where they supply just enough reward(content) to keep you coming back for more punishment(commercials).
Re:BitTorrent by hornrimsylvia · 2003-09-26 02:40 · Score: 1

i've had to download most of the old episodes of dr. who! i had the urge to see "horns of nimon" and a bunch of other tom baker era episodes. i went out and bought the key to time, but i can't get anything else on demand, and i'm not going to waste my life wading through that bbc america shite.
Re:BitTorrent by Biscit · 2003-09-26 03:13 · Score: 1

Didn't russel T. Davies do Dark Season for Childrens BBC; very Doctor Who like.
Re:BitTorrent by uberdave · 2003-09-26 04:26 · Score: 1

Yes. The TV shows are there to draw an audience for the commercials. Broadcasters are not in the business of providing entertainment. They are in the business of selling audience share to advertisers. Just follow the money.

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Re:BitTorrent by Saeger · 2003-09-26 04:37 · Score: 1

It's hard not to notice how in the 3rd season of Enterprise, they have ramped up the sexual inuendo, and tightened T'Pols bodysuit, in order to capture more eyeballs for the advertisers.
In the latest episode of Enterprise (3x3), the mutant Captain Archer had T'Pol up against a rock and hard place and said, "I need to find 'Hertwat'!" ... or was it 'Ertwat'? or 'Erquat'? You just know they had to do several takes before they stopped laughing. :)
--

--
Power to the Peaceful
Re:BitTorrent by Saeger · 2003-09-26 04:41 · Score: 1

Yep. Suprnova's TV Show section is almost as good as a Tivo (with global reception).
--

--
Power to the Peaceful
Re:BitTorrent by SomeoneGotMyNick · 2003-09-26 04:57 · Score: 1

Then Comcast destroys that business model.

Comcast always seems to replace commercial content with their own "Don't buy a dish" commercials and other info for their services. The funny thing is, only Comcast subscribers see the damn commercials.

If it weren't for Comcast, I'd have never known there was an alternative such as a Dish. :)
Re:BitTorrent by NexusTw1n · 2003-09-26 05:18 · Score: 1

He's such a fan he made one of the central characters a Doctor Who fan in Queer as Folk.

He included story lines where characters discussed Doctor Who, and even had a full sized replica of K-9 in one episode.

If anyone can bring Doctor Who back with a vengeance, Russell can.

--
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
Re:BitTorrent by isorox · 2003-09-26 05:43 · Score: 1

Would you pay for it? How much? Would you *really* pay for it even if you can get it for free?

The BBC is in a pretty unique position to be the first to roll out online sales - as they dont rely on adverts. Of course they'd never justify giving out free content to america - reducing the money BBC America et. al. would pay at the cost of the license payer.
Re:BitTorrent by GuyMannDude · 2003-09-26 05:49 · Score: 1

I've also managed to watch Enterprise about 6 hours before it airs- and I can skip the #$@!ing annoying theme song.

Not to mention all those boring non-T'Pol scenes! :)

GMD

--
watch this
Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 05:53 · Score: 0

Good Im not the only one who cracked up watching that episode. another thing that didnt make sense was that they didnt have DNA on file for everyone on board and had to get Tpols from a peach. wtf? stupid excuse for drama.
Re:BitTorrent by NanoGator · 2003-09-26 08:51 · Score: 1

"With all due respect, if the revival Dr Who is equivalent to the quality of Enterprise, I'd rather they not revive the series at all. I am still very skeptical, despite this article."

You should be. When Doctor Who didn't have the fx budget, it forced them to come up with other creative ways of making the show interesting. Give them the FX budget, will they have the drive to keep it interesting, or will they opt for whatever's visually interesting that's been done before.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:BitTorrent by disc0rdian · 2003-09-26 10:41 · Score: 1

Australia 8 months to a year later, we still havent seen of all Enterprise, Alias and SG1 (stargate being almost an entire series behind but now they are showing double episodes each week its rapidly catching up)

Good old bittorrent/IRC, without it us aussies would be screwed
Re:BitTorrent by Crestez+Leonard · 2003-09-26 13:41 · Score: 1

I wonder if somebody could find a way to make this legal. A company that distributes tv-shows and movies laced with comercials, with a distribute-but-don't-remove-ads license. I don't see who would ever bother to remove them, just to make downloads 5 or 10 percent faster.

Television stations work like that, and a few megs of bandwidth(since users use bittorent) should be waaaaay cheaper than running a tv network.
Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 13:47 · Score: 0

Lucky you... I wish we could get broadband here.
Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 13:49 · Score: 0

Yeah, but Dr Who is on the BBC, which has *no* commercials.
Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 20:05 · Score: 0

When, oh when, will people learn to spell the word "lose"???

You LOSE your car keys.

The handle on your door came LOOSE.
Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 20:37 · Score: 0

That's why I love the BBC, no commercials :) I'm also a Star Trek fan, and while commercial TV here has Enterprise, the BBC had (and still re-run) TNG, DS9, and Voyager, which are better than Enterprise IMO. If they re-run Doctor Who again as they have in the past, it's without commercials, and this new Doctor Who series will be without commercials too, at least for it's British audience.

But who will be the Doctor? by Kell+Bengal · 2003-09-26 01:01 · Score: 1

I wonder what lucky actor will find the role that will make (or break?) their career. How will that effect the series itself? Interesting potential.

--
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.

Re:But who will be the Doctor? by EddWo · 2003-09-26 01:33 · Score: 1

It said somewhere that it would be Richard E Grant.

--
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
Re:But who will be the Doctor? by psykocrime · 2003-09-26 02:00 · Score: 1

Hopefully they get Paul McGann to come back as the 8th Doctor for a while... if no, at least they need to get him to do a cameo for a regeneration scene, like Sylvester McCoy did in the Fox movie...

Gotta keep continuity, and all.....

--
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Re:But who will be the Doctor? by wagemonkey · 2003-09-26 03:11 · Score: 1

I would like the memory of that abomination expunged from my brain please.
I think Richard E. Grant would make an excellent Doctor, the has all the panache required with the requisite dash of the unconventional. One of my favourite actors, he's rather good when interviewed too, did anyone else like The Scarlet Pimpernel?
Re:But who will be the Doctor? by TomV · 2003-09-26 03:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

noooooooooooooooo!!!!

Gotta NOT under any circumstances treat continuity as a shibboleth. If this is going to survive its first season it HAS to be a new series for new viewers. Every time it harks back to something from The Dealy Assassin or Genesis Of The Daleks, expect another 10,000 viewers to switch off in confusion and disappointment.

And that also means no regeneration. IMHO one of the key problems with the TVM was the way it spent 15 minutes introducing the McCoy character to a brand new audience (after a bollocks spiel about taking the Master's remains back to Gallifrey from Skaro, puhleaze!) and then killing him to get a regeneration in. Catastrophic mistake.

Doctor Who is a show about a mysterious traveller, generally a good, kind and helpful one, who travels around time and space in a bizarre and mostly unexplained vehicle, righting wrongs and getting into scrapes.

Anyway, Russell Davies already said, with his Doctor Who 2000 proposal and i think on BBC teletext this morning again, that this would be starting well after any theoretical regeneration, with some bloke called 'the Doctor' having adventures. Hartnell didn't start with a regeneration after all. And Scream Of The Shalka will be taking exactly the same approach with the Richard E Grant doctor for the November 29th webcast. The Big Finish 'Unbound' series is showing very nicely that you just don't need regenerations, and you don't need single-threaded continuity. At present we've got TV continuity (which was always patchy and secondary to the dramatic requirements of the meoment. except in the death-throes of the last couple of seasons), Virgin NA continuity, BBC EDA continuity, Big Finish audio continuity, Telos Novellas continuity, DWM comicstrip continuity and so forth.

Doctor Who needs continuity no morethan does Superman.

tomV
Re:But who will be the Doctor? by Grab · 2003-09-26 04:21 · Score: 1

He's doing a version on the radio, I think.

Trouble is, Richard E Grant is just too obvious a choice. I reckon they'd do better taking someone who's good at off-the-wall characters but isn't as well known. I favour Peter Capaldi, who's a very good actor with exactly the right kind of heritage.

As for a side-kick, I wouldn't mind the return of Sophie Aldred (hey, I'm the Sylvester McCoy generation, I know which Dr. Who girl I prefer! :-) Better to have some kick-ass girl with a baseball bat than some token bit of skirt in a fur bikini.

Grab.
Re:But who will be the Doctor? by Richy_T · 2003-09-26 04:45 · Score: 1

You insensitive clod! My wife is a token bit of skirt in a fur bikini.
Rich
Re:But who will be the Doctor? by Grab · 2003-09-26 05:13 · Score: 1

You married Leela? Remind me not to visit your place in case K-9 gets me... ;-)

Grab.
Re:But who will be the Doctor? by beebware · 2003-09-26 05:26 · Score: 1

Ahhh...Sophie Aldred *drool*. I know when the 25th Anniversary of Dr.Who images came out and she was dressed in tight black PVC....
Re:But who will be the Doctor? by Wolfrider · 2003-09-26 16:53 · Score: 1

...Obviously you understand NOTHING about Dr. Who.

--What is one of the most valuable commodities? NOSTALGIA.
If they *don't* refer back to the official canon, the fans won't accept the show.

--Battlestar Galactica on Sci Fi should have understood this. Instead of trying to use name recognition on a show that was so mind-blowingly different from the original, they should have gone the rest of the way and done a completely different show.

--If you try to do Dr. Who without recalling the past body of work, the fans will abandon the effort in droves.

--
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Re:But who will be the Doctor? by TomV · 2003-09-26 20:37 · Score: 1

Obviously you understand NOTHING about Dr. Who. [...] the fans will abandon the effort in droves.

Wolfrider my friend...

I am 36 years old, and have been a fan of Doctor Who since the age of five. The sort of fan who gives obsessive fans a bad name. The sort of fan who did presentations on the history of the Daleks at school and took the consequences. The sort of fan who buys *all* the stuff, BBC books, Big finish audios, Unbounds, Telos Novellas, I've got every Target since Doctor Who And The Zarbi in first editions, most of the NAs and PDAs, there are three Rollamatic Daleks clustered around the Police Box model on top of my TV, I go to Panopticon every year.

There *is* no official canon and there ahave been wars over 'what is canon' since even before Jan-Vincent Rudski's DWAS tirade against The Deadly Assassin, and the debates continue to this day on rec.arts.drwho and at Outpost Gallifrey. And the original series is remembered with a mixture of fondness, and contempt by the general public. Who invented the Daleks, Yarvelling the chief scientist of the Dals, or Davros, chief scientist of the Kaleds? Take your pick, Terry Nation wrote both versions of the history. Atlantis was destroyed in three different ways across the 26-year run. There's no single coherent canon and there hasn't been since the middle of Season One. Doctor Who went into its final deathspin then John Nathan-Turner started to turn it into a nostalgia-based wankfest after Season 19, and not even The Cartmel Materplan could rescue it once that happened. It became self-indulgent twaddle, and it died.

All you need is a mysterious stranger in an unexplained vehicle, getting into scrapes and righting wrongs. It's probably best if the stranger is called 'The Doctor' and the vehicle looks like a Police Box and is bigger inside than out, and you may as well call it a TARDIS because the general public knows the name. But what you *can't* do is get back to a point where nothing makes sense if you don't know about the different roles of the Rod Of Rassilon, the Sash Of Rassilon and the Toilet Brush Of Rassilon in the exile of the Pythia from Gallifrey after the loss of Omega in the Dark Times. Puhleeeaze...

Remember that Doctor Who *was not* a cult niche programme for fans, it was compulsory viewing for around 10 million viewers every saturday afternoon after the football results and before the gameshow, from 1963 to 1969.

If new doctor Who is to survive, it is *critical* that it does NOT pander to anal fans like me, but rather aims at building a new mass audience, and I am eager to welcome these new fans without treating them like shit cecause they can't tell me Jamie McCrimmon's middle name or the Graf Vynda-K's inside leg measurement.

tV
Re:But who will be the Doctor? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 21:29 · Score: 0

There's only about 30,000 Doctor Who fans in the UK (the ones who buy the books etc.) (source: Stephen Cole). Alienating all of them would do no damage.
It wassn't about nostalgia last time it was transmitted and it shouldn't be now. It was all about reinvention. Time Lords? Innovated in Season 6! Travelling through space and time? Not for all of Season 7!
Re:But who will be the Doctor? by Wolfrider · 2003-09-27 10:47 · Score: 1

--I'll go with Davros for inventing the Daleks for $500, Alex... ;-)

--So Atlantis gets destroyed; they can rebuild as long as a few people survived the last attack, and live to get flamed again. :roll:

--I can kind of see what you're saying now. But like I said, if they ignore the very things that made the public fond of the show in the first place, it won't go anywhere.

--This is what I believe necessary (not exhaustive, since I haven't seen any episodes since the Peter Davison (http://www.cuttingsarchive.org.uk/davison.htm ) years, and not all of those:

o Establish the previous Doctor's character briefly, like they did in the Fox movie (hey, it was a nice gesture to give the guy a short role for continuity, even if they did kill him off.) He has to be a Timelord with a British accent and a unique (quirky) personality, and have 1 or more pretty female companions. I would give a lot to see Liz Hurley in this role, with the right chemistry, even for one episode. [G]

o If they don't continue with Paul McGann in the role, do the above and kill him off to establish the new Doctor. I think he did a good job in the role myself, just didn't like the plot very much (esp the ending.)

o Dude, you *have* to have the TARDIS as a blue Police Public Call Box. You just have to. ;-) In light of today's CGI, you can temporarily morph it into other appearances, but it always has to return to the basic form. Say it's because the TARDIS, having a mind of its own, got rather fond of it. :b

o The Doctor cannot be romantically involved with his FC, unless you do it in a restrained way (X-Files) or with subtlety, like Baker rowing Ward in the boat (5 Doctors.) In other words, they can never actually kiss onscreen or hold hands except briefly, etc... Putting an arm across the shoulders is Ok, stuff like that. But with imagination and the right actors, you can do a *lot* with just a Smoky Look, atmosphere, chemistry, contemplative glances, frowns, looks of regret, and such.

o Who canon sounds a bit like Trek canon. There's good and bad about that. You don't want to alienate the True Fans that made the show what it is, but then again you don't want to utterly confound new viewers. So you strike a balance - throw the Fans a bone every once in a while by mentioning something from the past shows offhand, but don't make it a requirement for understanding the current plot. IIRC the Fox movie did this rather well.

o You have to bring back the old villains, like the Cybermen and the Daleks. It's OK to develop new ones, but don't completely ignore the history. Again, nostalgia is key.

--Sorry if I got on your case a bit. I'm 31 and have been a "fan" since about 8. My cousins bought me the 5-Doctors vinyl record from a PBS fundraiser years back, and I've seen most of the old shows thru Tom Baker and Davison, and read a few books. You my friend are a Fan with a capital F. I bow to your dedication. :)

ps - Leela (Louise Jameson) and Romana II (Lalla Ward) are my favorite companions, followed by Tegan. Any prefs on your part?

--
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Re:But who will be the Doctor? by TomV · 2003-09-27 19:46 · Score: 1

Sorry if I got on your case a bit. I'm 31 and have been a "fan" since about 8

Hey, it's perfectly natural and entirely routine that that two long-term fans should hold strong and differing views. It's always nice to discuss stuff for which I have a a passion with others who share the passion, especially at such a joyous time as this :-)

Fact is I seem to pretty much agree with eveything you've said this time round, maybe just differring shades of degree rather than big principles.

I honestly believe that An Unearthly Child is a better launch-model than the TV Movie. Two schoolteachers follow a weird pupil home to a junkyard, where they meet her even weirder 'grandfather' and are whisked away in an impossible machine to impossible destinations. Regeneration was invented three years later, Time Lords six years in. McGann was Doctor Who for 90 minutes in 1996 in a production which, rightly or wrongly, was considered a commercial flop. Only us fans think of McGann as The Doctor, and by the time the TV series starts, if the hints at BBC online mean what I think they mean, we may have had two whole years of Richard E Grant webcasts (I hope, I hope, yes please!). Whoever the 'incumbent' is, I personally feel Regeneration's not a core feature, and I've never felt comfortable with the 'first doctor', 'second doctor' etc thing except for fan convenience as it feels like different characters, where really there's only The Doctor, and I'd prefer to see a new Doctor established as just The Doctor from the first moment. You started at 8, I started at 5, and it's our kids, nephews, nieces and so forth who might just carry the torch for this show for the next few decades - let them have *their* Doctor properly fom the outset :-)

Absolutely I'd do it as a Police Box (as you and many others have said it would be fab if it stated as something else and then got 'stuck' baqck in Police Box form again after a very early adventure in 1960's Britiain. The BBC did after all just wrap up a trademark case with the Metropolitan Police to establish the blue box as a BBC trademark, since the judge agreed that it's perceived as a TARDIS now rather than a Police ting at all. There's not a lot of name or image recognition left with the public, and the blue box, bigger on the inside than the outside (or 'like a TARDIS', as people say) is important. It's just not strictly critical IMHO. This one's a Highly Desirable rather than a full-on Requirement.

No snoging in the TARDIS! Absolutely. Never part of the formula, unlikely to ever become one.

Auntie Lorraine (Heggessey, controller of BBC1 and The New Verity Lambert) seemed pretty clear that the Daleks will be back. Again, like the TARDIS, Daleks are recognised, and were bigger than The Doctor in marketing terms by a country mile. They still appear in UK adverts regularly, most recently a vast billboard advertising, I think, batteries, on my way to work a couple of months back. They'll be back. And this time they'll be proper scary again like they were in the 1960's. I have no doubt.

It's just weird as all hell to be having "How should Doctor Who be Revived?" debate for real after a decade and a half of rehearsal. I honestly doubted this day would ever come.
Romana II is very hard to beat though it's hard to know how much of that is because of the fab emotional chemistry between Tom and Lalla. Leela's great - why scream when you could bellow "die, bentface!!" and hurtle into combat with a knife instead? Zoe and Victoria were the ultimate cuties, but Zoe had more catsuits than Victoria.

But for me because of my age as much as anything, it's Sarah Jane Smith, the ultimate meta-companion. Depending on who'd scripted her, Sarah was the bravest, the screamiest, the thickest, the brightest, the trustingest, the teasingest, all the companions rolled into one.

You my friend are a Thoughtful Fan with a capital TF. I, too, bow to your dedication. :)
Re:But who will be the Doctor? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 04:46 · Score: 0

tV,

I couldn't have said it better myself!!!

roxy

See it in the US by QuackQuack · 2003-09-26 01:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't think we'll need to worry whether we will get to see it in the US, since the original series has a pretty well established following. Maybe BBC America will actually start showing something other than "Changing Rooms" or "Ground Forces" repeats, if not, there's always PBS, and SCI-FI

--
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.

Re:See it in the US by QuackQuack · 2003-09-26 01:27 · Score: 1

I'm not knocking "Ground Force", I just don't think country would be harmed if BBC America showed it less than 12 hours every day. ;-)

--
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
Re:See it in the US by Sabalon · 2003-09-26 01:44 · Score: 1

Amen - I was so happy to finally get BBC America to find that everytime I turn it on, they are in someones garden trying to make a 20x20' backyard look better.

Kinda like turning on SCI-Fi and getting scare tactics and crossing over.
Re:See it in the US by Deanasc · 2003-09-26 01:50 · Score: 1

How many redhead babes in America don't wear bras on prime-time national tele?
Ummm Most of them. Anyway the parent is correct... BBC America really needs to dig up some of those early gems like Dr Who and The Prisoner and ease up on the home improvement shows. If we're not watching the TLC americanized versions of "Changing Rooms" what makes them think we want to watch the brit versions?
Oh yeah, the American version of Coupling?.?.. Sucktastic!

--
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Re:See it in the US by Crow_T_Servo · 2003-09-26 02:35 · Score: 1

BBC America really needs to dig up some of those early gems like Dr Who and The Prisoner and ease up on the home improvement shows.

That would be a good idea, but I don't think that the BBC would put on the Prisoner (as excellent as it is), because the Prisoner was made by ITC (Sir Lew Grade's company), not the BBC.
Re:See it in the US by hornrimsylvia · 2003-09-26 02:42 · Score: 1

yeah, the guy who plays the scottish dude (jeff) on the bbc series was GREAT. the one who plays the americanized version is from wisconsin, and absolutley sucks. the chick who plays jane is the only one who is tollerable. TIIIMBER!
Re:See it in the US by Deanasc · 2003-09-26 02:56 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh I thought all the TV in that country was BBC. Then I guess there's no chance of seeing Benny Hill either.

--
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Re:See it in the US by Dieppe · 2003-09-26 03:32 · Score: 1

This Is OffTopic, but I too saw the American version of Coupling last night... Though Jeff on the BBC version is goofy, in a "weird friend" sort of way, I felt the American Jeff was... creepy... almost perverse.
Maybe because I'm used to the British (Scottish?) Jeff, but the American Jeff just didn't play well with me... Just my 2 cents. "Jane" was very cute though!!!
Re:See it in the US by slimdave · 2003-09-26 03:58 · Score: 0

At least they're finally going to show the second season of "The Office". There was a recent article about them making their entire library available online -- a good place to start would be to put more than ... * Changing Room * Ground Force * So Graham Norton * Faking It * Coupling ... on the damn TV. I hope that I'm not the only person who thinks that Coupling is a pile of badly acted, badly written, unfunny shite.
Re:See it in the US by whovian · 2003-09-26 05:07 · Score: 1

I think either SCI-FI or PBS could end up showing a "one time" episode (like how the movie was on FOX). In the case with PBS, it would happen during one of their quarterly pledge drives. (Clue: PBS holds drives because (1) there's no per-TV set fee as in parts of Europe and (2) they claim ever-decreasing revenues from public institutional contributions.) Accordingly I would expect a new series to appear on SCI-FI way before PBS.

--
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Re:See it in the US by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 05:39 · Score: 0

The thing is, So Graham Norton & Faking It are Channel 4 productions, not BBC. BBC America is a bit of mish-mash of television.
Re:See it in the US by QuackQuack · 2003-09-26 06:20 · Score: 1

Accordingly I would expect a new series to appear on SCI-FI way before PBS.
With Sci-fi's penchant for showing stuff like "Crossing Over", I'd expect it to be on PBS first. Dr. Who has often been a good for bringing in pledges.

The thing that sucks though is PBS stations never seem to schedule it reliably. Not the same time every week, they skip a week or more or they decide to put two episodes on instead of one. I can't tell you how disappointing it is when you think you're taping episode four, and you play it back, only to find a Peter Paul and Mary concert instead. The show having been pushed back 20 minutes, so you missed most of it.

--
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
Re:See it in the US by Tripster · 2003-09-26 06:21 · Score: 1

I agree, I watched the US version last night and then turned to BBC America to watch the original UK pilot, the UK version is much funnier.

I've been a Coupling fan since the first time I saw it, I didn't hold much hope the US remake would be as good though. I'll stick to the original.
Re:See it in the US by alext · 2003-09-26 06:27 · Score: 1

Serendipitously, tonight's Dead Ringers radio show had the revived Doctor [John Culshaw doing his flawless Tom Baker] "fitting in to current BBC schedules" by, you guessed it, doing a makeover on somebody's house. The Daleks got to prepare a souffle in the kitchen - cue built-in egg whisk joke.

Not exactly hysterical to be honest, but the really dedicated can seek it out here when it appears tomorrow (fast forward to about 5 mins before end). Somewhat more amusing are the baffled recipients of Dr Who prank phone calls, as someone else posted.
Re:See it in the US by spectecjr · 2003-09-26 06:31 · Score: 1

That would be a good idea, but I don't think that the BBC would put on the Prisoner (as excellent as it is), because the Prisoner was made by ITC (Sir Lew Grade's company), not the BBC.

Why not? BBC America put Cracker on, and that's Granada. And Graham Norton - and that's Channel 4 (IIRC).

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

More info... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:01 · Score: 5, Informative

...Direct from BBC News

Re:More info... by Scooter · 2003-09-26 02:42 · Score: 1

Photo caption from the BBC article "the tardis was the Doctor's flying machine" How to demonstrate the lack of even basic knowledge of the subject they are reporting on in one phrase... Things like this always make me wonder whether the other stories, that are about things I have no prior knowledge of, are just as inaccurate..
Re:More info... by MrBlint · 2003-09-26 04:07 · Score: 0

Whenever you see any news relating to a subject that you know about it turns out to be full of misunderstandings and factual inacuracies.

--
That's very perceptive of you Mr Stapleton and rather unexpected in a G Major
Re:More info... by Phexro · 2003-09-26 04:32 · Score: 1

As a matter of fact, the TARDIS can fly. Read the production notes for "The Tomb of the Cybermen" DVD.

There was a Tom Baker story (which I can't remember the name of) where the TARDIS was flying around in space as well.
Re:More info... by ideonode · 2003-09-26 04:51 · Score: 1

TARDIS = Time and Relative Dimensions in Space.

So the Tardis was a time machine. Time has a relative dimension in space. Hence "flying machine" would work.

But, yeah, they got it wrong.
Re:More info... by Scooter · 2003-09-26 11:09 · Score: 1

hmm well I'm fairly sure "flying" has a lot to do with aerodynamics, the passge of air over a shaped surface that creates a pressure differential that "sucks" the craft upwards. tardis - shaped like a brick.

Mind you - I guess we do say things like "the rock flew through the window" so maybe, possibly :P

"Flying machine" though? - nah.
Re:More info... by Scooter · 2003-09-26 11:12 · Score: 1

You can't fly in space - you need some sort of fluid (traditionally a gas) to interact with the flight surfaces and provide lift. You can't float there either as there's nothing to displace.
Re:More info... by Phexro · 2003-10-03 14:50 · Score: 1

Well, on Tomb of the Cybermen, the TARDIS touched down on the surface of the planet, in the atmosphere.

I.e. the TARDIS has some sort of conventional (move around inside of space) propulsion system as well as it's dematerialization systems.

Obviously things can fly in space, unless you're a nutter who believes that the moon landing was faked.

Also on BBC News by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-09-26 01:02 · Score: 5, Informative

BBC News story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_ra dio/3140786.stm

BBC News discussion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3142006.s tm

Persononally, if Paul McGann isn't coming back to play the Doctor then I'd prefer Colin Firth, Sean Bean or Sean Pertwee (Jon Pertwee's, the third Doctor, son) to get the title role.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Re:Also on BBC News by Elian · 2003-09-26 01:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

If they're not bringing back one of the previous actors, maybe we'll get lucky and they'll get Rowan Atkinson...
Re:Also on BBC News by mccalli · 2003-09-26 01:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

...or Sean Pertwee (Jon Pertwee's, the third Doctor, son) to get the title role.
Sean Pertwee already ruled himself out a few months ago. He said he simply couldn't do it - he said he had very definite ideas about how the Doctor should be, the interviewer asked "You mean he was your dad?", and Sean just said "Yes".
All in The Metro, a London freebie paper picked up my a fair number of commuters including myself.
Cheers
Ian
Re:Also on BBC News by ralphclark · 2003-09-26 01:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

No - Alan Rickman for Dr Who!!
Re:Also on BBC News by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-09-26 01:42 · Score: 1

That's a real shame. I can see why he'd turn it down even if he was offered the gig - the comparisons with his father's version would be unending and, for an actor who's only just starting to be recognised for being more than his father's son, perhaps unbearable.

Nevertheless, there are only a handful of young British actors that I think would be suitable for the role, and Sean Pertwee is one of them. Unfortunately, I don't think that older actors, such as Sir Ian McClellan, David Suchet, John Hurt, etc would get a look-in - a young Doctor is pretty much a must if they're going to strike a chord across all of their target demographics. On the flip side of the coin, Orlando Bloom is probably too young to play the Doctor himself but he'd make a great companion.

Odds are though, that none of these names will be considered. Pre-Paul McGann, the part of the Doctor has always gone to an actor who's been relatively unknown and whose resume has mainly consisted of TV work.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Re:Also on BBC News by prbt · 2003-09-26 02:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

The Doctor is supposed to be hyper-intelligent; Colin Firth and Sean Bean just don't have the depth, I couldn't believe in either of them. Plus Sean Bean has not an ounce of humour about him.

Sean Pertwee... interesting, off-the-wall choice. They could do worse (and probably will - if the rumours about Richard E. Grant, Paul McGann or Rowan Atkinson being the Doctor are to be believed).

Now, Peter Firth (Harry in Spooks / MI-5), I could see...
Re:Also on BBC News by Stonent1 · 2003-09-26 02:06 · Score: 1

Rowan Atkinson was already the Doctor once. In the "Curse of the Fatal Death".
Re:Also on BBC News by Jeremy+Erwin · 2003-09-26 02:16 · Score: 1

Wouldn't he be more appropriate as the Master? Besides, I'm pretty sure that Rickman is too expensive.
Re:Also on BBC News by ENOENT · 2003-09-26 03:05 · Score: 1

Yeah, he would be awesome.

It takes somebody who can do "weird" to play the Doctor convincingly.

--
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
Re:Also on BBC News by ralphclark · 2003-09-26 03:27 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure that Rickman is too expensive.
Yeah, that's a measure of just how damn long it has taken the BBC to get around to this. Rickman was named as a candidate the last time we saw credible "new Dr Who series" rumours flying round Usenet. He would probably have been affordable back then :o\
As for The Master, how about...Graham Norton?
:D
Re:Also on BBC News by gwernol · 2003-09-26 03:45 · Score: 1

Persononally, if Paul McGann isn't coming back to play the Doctor then I'd prefer Colin Firth, Sean Bean or Sean Pertwee (Jon Pertwee's, the third Doctor, son) to get the title role.

I didn't warm to Paul McGann as the Doctor, but maybe that was more to do with the awful script he was working with. Doctor Who without a great script is pretty pointless. I grew up a Tom Baker man myself. In that mold, the one actor who could top the great Tom would be Mr. Stephen Fry whose name has been linked to the role before. A wittier, more erudite and eccentric actor could not be found in the British or any other isles.

--
Sailing over the event horizon
Re:Also on BBC News by CommieLib · 2003-09-26 05:38 · Score: 1

Interesting sig:

There is no greater insult to one's religion, than to use it to justify violence.

I would argue, however, that it refer less inclusively to Christianity and Buddhism. Hinduism, perhaps also, but Islam has no claim on non-violence. Muhammamed didn't use persuasive rhetoric to change the hearts of his enemies.

I do understand, however, that you're probably being charitable and preferring not to provoke a confrontation with the sig as it is. Probably a wiser course.

--
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Re:Also on BBC News by Rogerborg · 2003-09-26 06:09 · Score: 1

Ooh, ooh, Jack Davenport

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Also on BBC News by Rogerborg · 2003-09-26 06:14 · Score: 1

All good, or how about Jack Davenport?

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Also on BBC News by Rogerborg · 2003-09-26 06:20 · Score: 1

Oh, hang on, Tony Head.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Also on BBC News by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-09-26 06:39 · Score: 1

Yeah, I thought about Jack Davenport too. He'd be a good choice and a believeable one, one that the older Doctor Who fans (ie, anyone who was around to see the any of series when they originally aired) could see in the role.

Anthony Head doesn't do it for me though - perhaps it's the Buffy and coffee connections (I'm not a Buffy fan, and those coffee ads he did before that look so cringeworthy now).

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Re:Also on BBC News by Rogerborg · 2003-09-26 07:52 · Score: 1

Well, here's a couple from left field to ponder. Art Malik, Don Warrington. Clearly the Doctor has to be RADA, but why should he be white?

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Also on BBC News by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:09 · Score: 0

I liked his send-up of the Michael-Boltonesque Doctor in the American movie, but I just don't think he'd make a convincing Doctor. The great thing about Baker was that he could clown around one minute and be deadly serious the next.
Re:Also on BBC News by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:15 · Score: 0

He might be a good Doctor who provided that he can do more than act bored all the time or be a smirking villian with an annoying voice. He's been so typecast that it isn't funny. But William Hartnell had the same problem when he got the Doctor Who role.
Re:Also on BBC News by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 13:58 · Score: 0

Yes! Stephen Fry would be perfect.

Yay by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

Killer metallic salt and pepper shakers, ugly 1960s red phone booths, and an aging guy with a curly afro. I can't wait for this to appear on the airwaves again.

Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:08 · Score: 0

I have to adjust the color on my TV. I had always thought the TARDIS was blue.
Re:Yay by jejones · 2003-09-26 01:22 · Score: 1

Not just killer metallic salt and pepper shakers, but killer metallic salt and pepper shakers that would rule the universe were it not for stairs.
Re:Yay by Zog+The+Undeniable · 2003-09-26 01:27 · Score: 1

It was a BLUE police call box. Philistine!

--
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Re:Yay by ader · 2003-09-26 02:08 · Score: 2, Funny

You remind me of an American tourist I saw in Scotland recently:
"Yeah, Larry Jr's a big Dr Who fan so I bought him a TARDIS!" she squawked, clutching a model of a red public telephone box. Poor Larry Jr, kid must be so disappointed...

Ade_
/

--
Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
Re:Yay by Jeremy+Erwin · 2003-09-26 02:38 · Score: 1

Daleks weren't blocked by stairs in Remembrance of the Daleks
Re:Yay by JCholewa · 2003-09-26 04:35 · Score: 1

> I have to adjust the color on my TV. I had always thought the TARDIS was blue.

Perhaps the tardis was travelling away from him at a relative velocity near that of light when he was watching the show.

--
-JC
Re:Yay by NanoGator · 2003-09-26 08:54 · Score: 1

"Killer metallic salt and pepper shakers, ugly 1960s red phone booths, and an aging guy with a curly afro. I can't wait for this to appear on the airwaves again."

When it comes back, try listening to the talkie bits of it.

--
"Derp de derp."

Some more links... by Zocalo · 2003-09-26 01:03 · Score: 2, Informative

And I was just about to submit this too... Still, here are some more links since the BBC and Sky News are covering it too. Looks like they might actually be serious about going ahead with it this time!

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

Special effects? by rhetland · 2003-09-26 01:03 · Score: 1, Funny

I remember the Dr. Who of old and the amazingly horrible special effects. I mean, they were bad..

However, even cheezy Fox series have pretty decent (by 1970s standard) special effects.

Will the new (gay?) Dr. Who take advantage of these?

Will we finally find out how the Daleks climb stairs?

Re:Special effects? by trash+eighty · 2003-09-26 01:08 · Score: 1

they've shown how Daleks clib stairs already... some kind of jet pack
Re:Special effects? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:16 · Score: 0

they've shown how Daleks clib stairs already... some kind of jet pack

Explanation from the novellisation: they usually hover anyway, and it overdrove it's motivator units to get up the stairs.
Explanation from the BBC: it was lifted on a forklift truck which was deleted in post production :-)
Re:Special effects? by trash+eighty · 2003-09-26 01:19 · Score: 1

i've definately seen in at least one Dr Who episode Daleks climb stairs with a rather lovely blue jet
Re:Special effects? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:20 · Score: 0

In Rememberance of the Daleks (a Sylvester McCoy adventure)they were shown to have rocket booster thingies in their bases with which they could float up stairs.
Re:Special effects? by dustmote · 2003-09-26 01:20 · Score: 1, Funny

EXTER-MIN-ATE...EXTER-MIN-ATE...uh, say could you hit third floor for me, perhaps? Thanks, guv. EXTER-MIN-ATE!

--

-1, "1337" speak
Re:Special effects? by Timesprout · 2003-09-26 01:40 · Score: 2, Funny

With the new improved gay daleks it will more likely be FOR-NI-CATE...FOR-NI-CATE...

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Re:Special effects? by meringuoid · 2003-09-26 02:35 · Score: 1

TV Offal used to feature the Gay Daleks. EXSPERMINATE!

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:Special effects? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 03:21 · Score: 0

Doctor Who: Rememberance of the Daleks (Ben Aaronovich). Underneath the Daleks a field extends (static electricity?) and they ascend.
Re:Special effects? by b1t+r0t · 2003-09-26 03:37 · Score: 1

Real Daleks don't climb stairs. They level the bloody building.

--

--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
Re:Special effects? by Wolfrider · 2003-09-26 17:10 · Score: 1

"It is a GOOD day to exterminate!"

--
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??

Reincarnations by OwnedByTwoCats · 2003-09-26 01:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Has it really been fourteen years since the last Dr. Who episode was made for television? Wow. I've missed the old timelord.

I don't think I will ever be as excited as when Star Trek: The Next Generation came back on TV, but that was also, what, sixteen years ago? Time marches on. We get older, get real lives, more responsibilities. Sigh.

Re:Reincarnations by dustmote · 2003-09-26 01:10 · Score: 1

I was around the same age. I used to be such a huge fan when I was a kid, I actually dragged my parents to a Dr. Who convention. First scifi con I ever went to. There was a cameraman set up in the lobby to take pictures of people next to a TARDIS mock-up, and when he left to use the bathroom he would put a sign up on his tripod that said "Dalek under construction: please do not disturb". Looking back, this did not bode well for my social life in the school years that followed. :)

--

-1, "1337" speak

And this time the doctor will be Gay by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:06 · Score: 0

No surprise there ;-)

Quote by secondsun · 2003-09-26 01:06 · Score: 2, Funny

Considering the writer's past...
Dr: "Aren't you going to say it is bigger on the inside and on the outside?"
Colonel: "I believe that is bloody obvious!"

--
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.

Re:Quote by Zoop · 2003-09-26 01:46 · Score: 1

I really think the ideal would be if there were some sort of British Josh Whedon to write this. With the sense of humor and darkness of Buffy, Doctor Who could be back with Tom Baker-level quality. But it would have to be a Brit, much as it stings my imperial running dog fascist American pride to say so.

Fortunately, the guy is supposed to be a raving fan (though pretty much any Doctor Who fan is raving).
Re:Quote by Anarchofascist · 2003-09-26 01:48 · Score: 1

Dr: "Aren't you going to say it is bigger on the inside and on the outside?"

My favourite one-liner was when the Doctor was installing some sort of detector in a Concorde.
"My goodness, it's smaller on the inside than it is on the outside!"

--
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Re:Quote by spectecjr · 2003-09-26 10:22 · Score: 1

I really think the ideal would be if there were some sort of British Josh Whedon to write this. With the sense of humor and darkness of Buffy, Doctor Who could be back with Tom Baker-level quality. But it would have to be a Brit, much as it stings my imperial running dog fascist American pride to say so.

On the plus side, Joss Wheedon is a poor copy of Russell T. Davies when it comes to sci-fi.

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra

Grammar, tsk, tsk, tsk... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:07 · Score: 0

Sheesh guys, try using a spelling and grammar checker once in a while... It's not "Doctor Who Comeback", but "the doctor, who came back".

But if it's written by . . . by TinheadNed · 2003-09-26 01:07 · Score: 5, Funny

But if it's written by a gay guy, then we could have a camp Doctor, who dresses is really stupid clothes and doesn't seem particularly interested in women . . .

Hang on . .

PS Hurrah! Dr Who is back in 2005!

Re:But if it's written by . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 04:58 · Score: 0

ooo, IknowIknow we'll call it
Dr. Whooftah!

wot do you mean stupid clothes?
stupid breeders....it's a wonder you find the energy to reproduce yourselves you're so dull.

Let's keep the politics out of it please... by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-09-26 01:07 · Score: 5, Informative

Irrespective of the politics of The Daily Telegraph, the story's quite accurate. So, in the context of this story, your "to be read with a pinch of salt" is as redundant as your lambasting of the paper's editorial slant (and people who rip The Guardian for being a "communist rag" are just as bad, if not worse).

As I pointed out in my other post below, the story's being reported by the BBC too. And given that Doctor Who is a BBC production, that makes it pretty hard to refute.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Yeah, that was "the conflict" by ianscot · 2003-09-26 01:07 · Score: 1

Sure does read like the article's looking for some controversy there, doesn't it? The BBC person "insisting" that she doesn't expect a gay Dr. Who is conspicuous -- whenever a simple assertion is described as "insisting" or "admitting" something, it makes a person wary.

Note to Telegraph writers and editors: it's possible for gay people to have interests outside of their gayness, however distracted you may be by that side of their lives. (Additional note: Dr. Who fandom is probably a more distinctive trait than this writer's sexual orientation.)

--
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.

Re:Yeah, that was "the conflict" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:29 · Score: 0

Yes it is possible for gay people to have interests outside of gayness, buy who would give a damn about the interests of a f#*ked up, morally devoid group of people anyway.

You have to take everything that comes out of their mouth or brain with a grain of salt and be on the defense to protect the morality of our society (that is rapidly declining because of people like them).
Re:Yeah, that was "the conflict" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 02:40 · Score: 0

Actually, the Telgraph is right. Most homosexuals are consumed by justifying the sad fact they never grew beyond adolescent experimentation. Ever wonder why so many homosexuals study psychology? It's because they're trying to justify themselves. Ever wonder why so many homosexuals were so "proud" that cartoon characters (Timba and Pumon) were "gay"? It's all because they're so busy twisting the real world to justify their choice.
Just watch. You'll see all kinds of obvious approvals of homosexualality on the New Dr. Q. Not only that, but anyone who disagrees will tolerantly be portrayed as undeniably wrong!
Re:Yeah, that was "the conflict" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 05:48 · Score: 0

...that would be because they ARE undeniably wrong.

And homosexuality is not a choice, moron.
Re:Yeah, that was "the conflict" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 01:33 · Score: 0

YOU ARE ALL GAY BUTT F$*KERS!!!! Fortunately, you'll all eventually GET AIDS AND DIE!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Remember that hair?! by PSaltyDS · 2003-09-26 01:10 · Score: 1

If anybody needed a "Queer Eye for the Geek Guy" make over, it Doc Who!

Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced.

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law

possible cartoon .. by mlush · 2003-09-26 01:12 · Score: 1

a month or two ago I was listening to a (Radio 4) program about the ressurection of 70 TV shows and it was mentioned that they were working on a animated version of Dr Who... perhaps 'upgraded' to live action?

Re:possible cartoon .. by manichawk · 2003-09-26 01:39 · Score: 3, Informative

The cartoon has already been made, and it was in fact a remake of a (partially completed) set of tv episodes. You can watch the anims (dont expect movie quality CGI) here at the beeb.

--
ManicHawk - Just because you're manic doesn't mean the walls aren't bouncy :o)
Re:possible cartoon .. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:39 · Score: 0

Richard E Grant is doing the animated webcast version later this year; this is not an upgrade of that but is in addition to it
Richard (as has probably been stated elsewhere) is on the 'suspects' list to play the Doc live action as well as voicing him in the webcast ...

That's what we wanted them to do, yep by ianscot · 2003-09-26 01:12 · Score: 1

The BBC story mentions the names of the previous series, but fails to insert the faked-up notion that there's some sort of conflict involving the potential gayness of the Doctor or something. It also doesn't go out of its way to describe the earlier series as "controversial."

Nobody said the story was bogus, the poster just winced at the weird sidelight of anxiety that this big time Dr. Who fan was going to write him as a flaming cross-dresser or something. I had the same reaction to the Telegraph article, without any real bias about the Telegraph coming in.

--
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.

Russell T Davies by nattt · 2003-09-26 01:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Russell T Davies also wrote Century Falls and Dark Season, which were pretty good early 90s children's TV series. However, he is a fan of Doctor Who, so as long as he can keep the "fan wank" out of the script, it should be good.

--
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc

Re:Russell T Davies by RatFink100 · 2003-09-26 01:30 · Score: 1

"fanwank" is a term usually used when fans come up with explanations to bridge the gaps or plot-holes not explained by the show explicitly.

Hence by definition if it's in an actual filmed script it's not fanwank.
Re:Russell T Davies by ader · 2003-09-26 01:59 · Score: 1

> as long as he can keep the "fan wank" out of the script

<smirk> You didn't see the first episode of "Queer as folk" then?

Ade_
/

--
Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
Re:Russell T Davies by sanqui · 2003-09-26 02:00 · Score: 1

Or to paraphrase:

"fanwank" is ... used ... to bridge the ... holes ... explicitly.

(Sorry. No, really.)
Re:Russell T Davies by zaibutsu · 2003-09-26 03:36 · Score: 1

Davies is also (IMHO) the writer of the best TV drama to be seen in the UK for many years.
the Second Coming, broadcast earlier this year, portrays the chillingly believable story of the second coming of the son of God to the northern UK city of Manchester.
There are no cop outs, this really is the son of God, and everything follows naturally from that.
Here is a list of reviews and here is a brief description of the plot. I liked it enough to buy the DVD, where the writer and director's commentary revealed he is a Buffy fan, and then buy another copy when I lost the first one.
Re:Russell T Davies by zaibutsu · 2003-09-26 03:39 · Score: 1

Ooops, here are the links;
http://media.guardian.co.uk/firstnight/sto ry/0,111 31,892731,00.html
and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manch ester/features/2003/02/0 7/second_coming.shtml
Re:Russell T Davies by TomV · 2003-09-26 04:56 · Score: 1

Nah, that's a retcon. Almost all retcons tend to be fanwank, but there's a lot of fanwank out there that's not retcon.

So when John Peel used War Of The Daleks to suggest that all the Davros stories from Resurrection onwards were a clever plot to deceive the Doctor so that he could use settings and characters which had been wiped out earlier in the continuity, that was a retcon. Because it involved Davros, Daleks, Skaro, Movellans and The Hand Of Omega, it was an extremely fanwanky retcon

Warriors of the Deep in Season 21 was utter fanwank, depending heavily on the re-use of characters last seen before most of the school-age audience was born, but without a great deal of retcon. The Deadly Assassin was one of the most fabulous pieces of fanwank ever done, and heavily retconned the Time Lords.

tV

No. by Moderation+abuser · 2003-09-26 01:13 · Score: 1, Interesting

Dr Who's time is past and this is just sentimental nostalgia. It was fine for children 25 years ago but it's return will be nothing more than a disappointment.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:40 · Score: 0

Dr Who's time is past and this is just sentimental nostalgia. It was fine for children 25 years ago but it's return will be nothing more than a disappointment.
Is Dr. Who some British program? I've heard the name mentioned from time to time by complete dorks, but I've never seen any of the episodes. This isn't one of those gay programs like Red Dwarf where you have to be British or a dork wannabe to get their humor is it?
Re:No. by Hatta · 2003-09-26 02:12 · Score: 1

You don't know the half of it.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:No. by GoneGaryT · 2003-09-26 03:35 · Score: 1

Dr Who's time is past
And future.
Re:No. by theTerribleRobbo · 2003-09-26 04:01 · Score: 0

> This isn't one of those gay programs like Red Dwarf where you have to
> be British or a dork wannabe to get their humor
> is it?

*Dons flameproof suit*

At least British humour doesn't rely on _Puns_ of all things. :-D

(-2, Flamebait)
Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 05:01 · Score: 0

It's pretty much like that, minus the humor.

Telegraph logic by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:14 · Score: 0

Telegraph logic is interesting. He has written two series about gay men therefore he may make The Doctor gay. Which is of course "alarming".
So, since he has written a drama about Christ he may reveal that The Doctor is/was actually Jesus. When you think about it they both came back from the dead, subsequently weren't recognised by friends, and all those miracles could be explained by the Doc's technology. I wonder if the Telegraph would find that alarming.

Only ONE true Doctor by MImeKillEr · 2003-09-26 01:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

And that would be Tom Baker. 'Nuff said.

I guess I like this iteration of The Doctor the most since he's the first one I ever saw.

I get BBCAmerica. Unfortunately, Doctor Who airs while I'm at work, and its in the digital band so I can't use my PC to "tivo" it. Using the VCR to record it is so "90s".

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!

Re:Only ONE true Doctor by dustmote · 2003-09-26 01:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

Eh, everyone likes whichever doctor they saw first, best. I'm a big fan of Pertwee, Baker, McCoy, in that order, although I like all of them. Well, the sixth doctor kind of got on my nerves, to tell the truth. And the bad Fox movie wasn't very good, although the actor who played the doctor was okay. And the Hammer films don't count. No, doggone it, they don't.

--

-1, "1337" speak
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by MImeKillEr · 2003-09-26 01:44 · Score: 1

Fox movie?

Hammer films?

I missed these. Info??

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by Sabalon · 2003-09-26 01:47 · Score: 1

I like Pertwee the best, though like most American's, Tom Baker is the one that I saw first.

However, Colin Baker I think provided quite a breath of fresh air. In a lot of ways he actually reminded me of Hartnell's Doctor...rough, but caring underneath - just a little darker.
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by Ambient+Sheep · 2003-09-26 01:55 · Score: 1

The Hammer films starred Peter Cushing and were made in the mid-60s. One was an adaptation of the first-ever Daleks story, the other was an adaptation of the Daleks Invasion of Earth story. The Fox movie aired in 1996 and starred Paul McGann, with a completely original screenplay.
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by dustmote · 2003-09-26 02:19 · Score: 1

The Cushing films were terrible, and didn't touch very closely with the show on a lot of plot points, widely considered not canonical. The Fox film, well...people aren't sure about that.

--

-1, "1337" speak
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by JCholewa · 2003-09-26 02:38 · Score: 1

> The Cushing films were terrible, and didn't touch very closely with the show on a lot of plot
> points, widely considered not canonical. The Fox film, well...people aren't sure about that.

Yeah, while it was nice to see Grand Moff Tarkin as a goofy time lord, they certainly took a ton of liberties with the story.

The Fox film was way too Americanized. The plot wasn't retchworthy, but it wasn't that good, either, and it didn't mesh well with the Dr. Who universe on a stylistic level.

Frankly, though, McGann (sp?) -- the Doctor in that Fox movie -- was very good. He had an interesting interpretation which borrowed elements from all his predecessors (the Tom Baker influence shined through the most).

--
-JC
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by dustmote · 2003-09-26 03:17 · Score: 1

Agreed. That is, more or less, my interpretation of the Fox film. Most of the things wrong were stylistic, except for a couple of continuity bits. The actor did a very good job, the plot was mediocre, but it was supposed to be a pilot, so that's forgiveable. It was a nice try. I applaud you on such an even-handed analysis, BTW. :)

--

-1, "1337" speak
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by Tyler+Durden · 2003-09-26 03:34 · Score: 1

The Fox film was way too Americanized. The plot wasn't retchworthy, but it wasn't that good, either, and it didn't mesh well with the Dr. Who universe on a stylistic level.
The absolute worst thing about the Fox film was the "revelation" that the Doctor was part human. This is an unforgivable twist that should be removed from memory.
Also, if I remember correctly, the Master had some plot to destroy everything which he could have easily used in the "past" but for some reason just thought of it then. (When everybody is traveling through time, the past is a shaky concept.) And the Master sucking away all the the Doctor's lives seemed way overdone as well.
It seems that "Americanized" means having no concept of the word "subtelty".

--
Happy people make bad consumers.
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by GoneGaryT · 2003-09-26 03:43 · Score: 1

Eh, everyone likes whichever doctor they saw first, best.
Hmm. I saw it from the first episode, but I still have to say Patrick Troughton was my favourite. William Hartnell was a tad too grumpy to be popular with a child my age.
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by Blue+Stone · 2003-09-26 04:00 · Score: 1

" Eh, everyone likes whichever doctor they saw first, best."
That's not true for me. I saw Pertwee as a child, and I didn't like him at all - totally uncharasmatic, as far as I was concerned.
It was only when Tom came along, with his cheeky attitude, that I became a fan.
Don't understate the appeal of Mr. Baker, in his own right.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by Noren · 2003-09-26 04:14 · Score: 1

It seems that "Americanized" means having no concept of the word "subtelty".
That works in all directions, the "-izing" process includes a desubtlization step.
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by TomV · 2003-09-26 06:31 · Score: 1

Cushing wasn't a timelord called The Doctor, he was an eccentric human inventor called Dr. Who. But I rate him as a fab Doctor anyway. Bearing in mind these were kids films made in 1965 and 1966 on the tide of Dalekmania, with big-name casts and colour which the TV series wouldn't get until 1970, and considering Mary Poppins (1964) or "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" (1968) as reasonable benchmarks, they were pretty impressive IMHO. When I was the right age for them, I thought they were the best Doctor Who of all.

The TV Movie confuses me every time I try to watch it. It *looks* stunning, live Doctor Who never has. The lighting is gorgeous, the budget is there for the sets and effects. There's some very gorgeous camerawork and some fantastic cutting. McGann probably makes a bigger impression in the space of his first story than any of his predecessors since Hartnell in An Unearthly Child. He's got charisma, he's got humour, he's got energy and he's definitely alien. I can even enjoy Eric Roberts' version of the Master in the spirit in which it was intended - very suave, somewhat camp, a lot of Delgado under the stupid costume. The motorbike chase? Utterly run of the mill in the Pertwee era, could be taken as a nice bit of subtle continuity. The plot doesn't make much sense, but that's hardly unique in the 26-year TV run ;-)

But it doesn't have a soul, and I just *can't* watch it all the way through. Stylistically it was very different but I'm cool with that. spiritually it was a million miles and a million years out. It wasn't a story about a mysterious traveller who gets involved with something bad and defeats it, it was a story about Phil Segal trying to cram as much utterly pointless continuity into his Pilot as he could manage, to get an audience up to speed for his obsessively fanwanky series proposal described in his and Gary Russell's book "Doctor Who - Regeneration" (Harper-Collins, 2000). The trouble being that if you're going to build your new show almost entirely from 26 years of old-show continuity, you (a) box yourself in from the outset, and (b) had better get it 'right' (you can't, since it's massively self-contradictory) since the only audience you'll see is the core of the core of the fans.

McGann was wicked in the movie, and is very very good in the Big Finish audio plays he's been doing for the last few years.

tV
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:24 · Score: 0

The REAL Tom Baker Official Website. Tom answers questions here. He's a grumpy old man, but not a totally vulgar dirty old man. He doesn't talk much about Lalla Ward (for obvious reasons), and he always says that his favorite companion was Sarah-Jane Smith (like most of the viewing public for that matter).
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2003-09-26 13:50 · Score: 1

I have to agree. As a matter of fact, I'm torn between Davidson and Colin Baker as my favorite. The mess that was "Trial of a Timelord" and the abrupt end to Colin's tenure as The Doctor always bothered me. There was so much more to the character to be explored, from the botched regeneration that caused his "quirks" to what the hell actually happened as a result of the Trial.

Didn't dislike McCoy necessarily, but the local PBS station didn't air the last series, so I haven't seen them yet. I did buy them on VHS several years ago, but two of the 4 tapes (these were legal BBC produced tapes, mind you) had serious problems and noise that I didn't discover until far too late (in those days I was in habit of buying pretty much everything that it looked like I might like to watch... had quite a queue.)

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by Sabalon · 2003-09-26 15:40 · Score: 1

I was like that too...tons of DVD's lined up. The last season wasn't bad. It was a bit odd in some places, but some interesting stories - except for Survival, which was too much like The Greatest Show in the Galaxy..."We have the tardis and a rock quary - come up with a script."
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by Stu+Charlton · 2003-09-26 15:50 · Score: 1

The absolute worst thing about the Fox film was the "revelation" that the Doctor was part human. This is an unforgivable twist that should be removed from memory.

Really? I thought I quite liked that bit. I wonder if the new series will treat it as canon.

--
-Stu
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2003-09-26 16:12 · Score: 1

Having a fire destroy the interior set and leaving them without a method of having "in transit" sequences with the lovely console and time rotor didnt' help much, either...

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by MImeKillEr · 2003-09-27 09:59 · Score: 1

I don't get the Lalla Ward reference. What's the deal? Were they involved or something?

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by Gadget_Guy · 2003-09-28 17:29 · Score: 1

The absolute worst thing about the Fox film was the "revelation" that the Doctor was part human. This is an unforgivable twist that should be removed from memory.
In true Douglas Adams style, my first thought on hearing this was "Oh no, not again!"
I can never understand why they think that someone has to part human before the audience can identify with the character. Star Trek was the worst for this: half-Vulcan, half-Klingon, half-Romulan...
I can only assume it is because television producers are half-wits!
Re:Only ONE true Doctor by stewate4 · 2003-09-29 04:03 · Score: 1

I agree, shame most of his episodes have been lost. There was a really good one set in the London Underground with Yetis

At least it's not Fox producing the new series by andykuan · 2003-09-26 01:14 · Score: 1

Just as long as they pretend that the Fox TV Dr. Who special (from 7 years ago) never happened, I'll be happy. It was so painfully Hollywood. I think there's something to be said for the British sensibilities that came through in the original series.

I'm going to have to renew my membership with the Dr. Who Fan Club of America!

Re:Torygraph by splateagle · 2003-09-26 01:14 · Score: 1

indeed it is, but the Beeb are carrying the same story which means no salt pinches required

(incidentally what does the politics of a paper have to do with the veracity of its entertainment coverage?)

Second childhood by mccalli · 2003-09-26 01:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

We get older, get real lives, more responsibilities. Sigh.

Actually, I'm much more of a fan now than I was then. Don't get me wrong - I used to really enjoy it. It's just that I don't think I was old enough to really understand some of it.

I started watching the reruns on UK Gold and, courtesy of Tivo, I watched from the beginning of the Pertwee era right through to the (merciful) end. Changed my views too - as a kid I remember Tom Baker being the best, but I personally prefer Pertwee and Davison now.

Oh, and real life definitely caught up with me. I'm now working, married, have one kid and expecting another any day now, mortgage, two hungry cars to feed...all we need is a dog and we'd be the perfect TV advert family. I'm pretty hopeful about this - recent TV sci-fi has been very same'ish, and I'm looking forward to the different direction that Doctor Who took.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Second childhood by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:52 · Score: 0

Oh, and real life definitely caught up with me. I'm now working, married, have one kid and expecting another any day now, mortgage, two hungry cars to feed...all we need is a dog and we'd be the perfect TV advert family.

Sucker. I bet at the age of 20 if you could have looked forward and found that your life would be so boring that you'd look forward to a new series of doctor who, you;d have blown your brains out then and there.
Re:Second childhood by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:56 · Score: 0

A REAL Dr Who fan would have moved from his childhood bedroom to his parent's basement, grown a full unkempt beard, collect action figures and of course have the sex life of a Franciscan monk.

Face it ... you SOLD OUT !
Re:Second childhood by MagikSlinger · 2003-09-26 05:02 · Score: 1

... as a kid I remember Tom Baker being the best, but I personally prefer Pertwee and Davison now.

I feel vindicated. I kept saying Pertwee and Davison were better than Baker, but nooooo... All my friends in high school kept insisting Baker was better. Actually, what they said was: "What a pathetic loser!" but that's irrelevant now. :-)

--
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com

Re:Torygraph by Zemran · 2003-09-26 01:21 · Score: 1

Several actors have already been approached regarding who will play the new doctor. On TV last night someone said "why not have a female doctor" :) Although this may seem sacreligious, it would be a laugh.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.

Most rediculous show ever by 91degrees · 2003-09-26 01:22 · Score: 1, Funny

It was the least realistic show in history! I mean what was with the spaceship design? A Blue box? Rockets are meant to be streamlined. Something that shape wouldn't be able to get anywhere. And how is it that nobody noticed that the inside couldn't have possibly fitted inside the box. Clearly stuff inside the spaceship were filmed in a studio.

Worse that that though, the sense of history was daft. Sometimes he was in ancient Rome, other times he was on a different planet. How does that happen? The romans only had rudimentary space capability, that could barely manage a low earth orbit, let alone get to another planet.

Re:Most rediculous show ever by Zocalo · 2003-09-26 01:45 · Score: 1

A wizard did it
"Any sufficiently advanced science is indistiguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:Most rediculous show ever by cypherbob · 2003-09-26 02:01 · Score: 0

For the uninitiated among the readers here are a few factoids of doctor who: TARDIS is the name of the doctors ship and it stands for Time And Relative Dimensions In Space. The TARDIS is bigger on the inside than the outside because it is Dimensionaly Transcendental. This means that it transcends multiple dimensions hence providing more room - not to mention that it was developed by the Time Lords - a very technologicaly advanced race. After all how do you think they came up with the idea of the matrix. For those of you who followed the series like I did then you know all about the matrix and also Rassilon's tomb, etc.
Re:Most rediculous show ever by Neuron · 2003-09-26 02:01 · Score: 1

It's quite easy to fit a spaceship inside a small blue box. Haven't you heard of transcendental engineering?

Perhaps you should read the TARDIS Manual, as such these elementary concepts are quite clearly spelled out.

Your question is directly answered here. ;-)
Re:Most rediculous show ever by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 02:23 · Score: 0

Corrolary:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Most rediculous show ever by 91degrees · 2003-09-26 02:29 · Score: 1

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistiguishable from science." The Doctor (Battlefield)
Re:Most rediculous show ever by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 02:42 · Score: 0

Wait a minute... The Time Lords created the Matrix? Damn! Does Neo know??
Re:Most rediculous show ever by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 03:11 · Score: 0

Most ridiculous spelling ever!

Cheap cheap cheap by ianscot · 2003-09-26 01:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oh, God, I hope they don't go with smooth CGI effects. Five years ago Star Trek TNG was already much too glitzy for Dr. Who.

What this show is is a quick, enjoyably-written little Sci Fi serial thing. Everything should be done low-budget. The casting always was -- when someone got too pricey the Dr. got a new incarnation, right?

And costumes -- how could anyone ever get a cheap costume device that's as good as Tom Baker's scarf?

Cheap and fun. Concentrate on adapting decent little Sci Fi short story ideas for scripts. This could be a Simpsons, if you get the right mix.

--
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.

Re:Cheap cheap cheap by meringuoid · 2003-09-26 02:31 · Score: 1

They will use CG; they'll probably have the same guys doing it who did the last couple of series of Red Dwarf. Sad to say, the CG bits were the highlight of Red Dwarf VIII - the Blue Midget dance sequence was the _only_ bit I actually enjoyed :-(

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:Cheap cheap cheap by ayjay29 · 2003-09-26 02:43 · Score: 2, Funny

>>Everything should be done low-budget.

Come on, this is the BBC we are talking about.

When creating the first series:

Director: We want to do a space-sci-fi-time-traveling show. We need a big spaceship, with lots of flashing lights, and fins and things.

Props man: This is the BBC, scale it down a bit.

Director: OK, we need a cheep plastic model spaceship that hangs on wires that we can do cheesy fly-by shots with.

Props man: This is the BBC, scale it down a bit.

Director: Well, we need something. What have you got?

Props man: Well, we have this old police phone box from "Dixon of Dock Green.", it needs a lick of paint but...

--
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
Re:Cheap cheap cheap by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 02:59 · Score: 0

Bollocks. CG in Red Dwarf ruined the entire feel of the series. Starbug can only be done with model shots! Just look at the CG mangling of the remastered series 1 & 2...pure horror.
Re:Cheap cheap cheap by Jeremy+Erwin · 2003-09-26 03:01 · Score: 2, Informative

No, Hartnell wanted to leave the show for reasons of ill health. Troughton and Pertwee voluntarily retired from the role. Tom Baker got bored with the role. Peter Davidson was afraid of getting typecast. Colin Baker, on the other hand, was essentially fired, but the decision had little to do with saving money. And, of course, McCoy left after the show was canceled.Pity too, as McCoy played a great Doctor.

Doctor Who may have been a low budget show, but the good episodes weren't good because of the low budget. They were good in spite of the low budget, chiefly because the scripts were well written.
Re:Cheap cheap cheap by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 03:01 · Score: 0

If you're going to rip off Eddie Izzards "Career advisor" bit, at least credit the man!
Re:Cheap cheap cheap by pandrijeczko · 2003-09-26 03:15 · Score: 1

What really turned me off Star Trek in the latter years was the constant morality being forced down my throat in just about every episode - racial equality, child abuse, etc... not to mention the constant political correctness in having the token black, Asian, etc, in each show's cast...
I just watch a TV show for entertainment and who cares what race the lead actors are as long as they're GOOD actors with a good entertaining story to tell...
Dr Who never suffered from the morality issues and I hope the resurrection of it doesn't either...

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Re:Cheap cheap cheap by Razor+Blades+are+Not · 2003-09-26 05:13 · Score: 1

Strangely, I never once thought of the different skin colours in Star Trek. Unlike many contemporary shows (especially sit coms) which seem almost completely homogenous, Star Trek manages (to me) to integrate all these humans of many different colours without making any issue of it.
Humans (in Star Trek), being one of many species, don't seem to hilight their own internal differences all that much. One might even say that humans seem to treat other species in almost the same manner (which is pretty easy since they all look like humans with make up on).

A "token" representative of other races in a movie is really only there as a nod of the head to multi-culturalism and serves no other purpose.

Contrast this with the Star Trek universe where a characters rank (in star fleet) and importance to the story is completely unrelated to his race, gender, even species. Examples : A woman captains Voyager. Sisko commander of DS9, is black. There are others.

I do agree that ST has tried to tackle issues of racial bias within the context of the show (such as the episodes where Sisko dreamed he was a black sci-fi writer in the 50s, or the other numerous humans vs racially insensitive aliens etc). Furthermore, I also agree that this sort of moralizing can be heavy-handed and detract from otherwise enjoyable viewing.
But I disagree that the actors are chosen as "token" representatives of their race.
Re:Cheap cheap cheap by drwho · 2003-09-26 06:04 · Score: 1

Yes, I felt the same way about Star Trek, it was bad enough with the original but was amplified by later ones.
Re:Cheap cheap cheap by wass · 2003-09-26 06:25 · Score: 1

What really turned me off Star Trek in the latter years was the constant morality being forced down my throat in just about every episode - racial equality, child abuse, etc... not to mention the constant political correctness in having the token black, Asian, etc, in each show's cast...
Star Trek was always like that, not just in the latter years. Especially the old season, and I think it was actually really cool. Remember there was Chekov, and this was broadcast during the Cold War. And of course Uhura, and the first inter-racial kiss with Kirk. And just other random aliens to push the racial integration further, such as Spock. And Worf in TNG.
And there was morality too. Did you see that episode in the original series where there were a people whose faces were half-black and half-white? Their arch enemies were those people whose faces were mirror-imaged. That episode just took the racism card and turned it on it's head. It was utterly brilliant! To our untrained eyes, these two half-black half-white people looked the exact same, only when you look at the parity do you even notice a difference.
So yeah, morality and racial political correction were in Star Trek from day 1.

--
make world, not war
Re:Cheap cheap cheap by drox · 2003-09-26 07:29 · Score: 1

I think this article says it all and says it best WRT Doctor Who.

Cheap effects, cheap costumes (where you can see the zipper or the actor's feet sticking out from under the tentacles) etc. do not detract from the true fan's enjoyment of the show.
Re:Cheap cheap cheap by pavon · 2003-09-26 09:20 · Score: 1

hmm, thats true. In fact exploring moral and societal issue has always been a big part of SciFi in general. I think where it got annoying was where it changed from being less about morality and more about political correctness.

Which is why Jonathan Archer is the best captain ever! ;)

Re:So will Dr. Who be gay? by iainl · 2003-09-26 01:28 · Score: 2

Probably not, as he's proved himself perfectly capable of writing straight characters elsewhere.

The one real piece of importance about his having written QAF is the number of Dr. Who references in the series; its obvious that his statements about being a fan aren't just a new "I've got this job, and now the source material looks good" thing.

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"

Re:Torygraph by CALBIZ · 2003-09-26 01:29 · Score: 0

Just to put poeople into context, Tory may be hetrophobic. I saw QAF's once, WOW, sick and wrong is the nicest thing I can say. Hope the legendary Doc Who doesnt get preverted. Too bad Tom Baker couldn't make a come back, by far the best Doc Who.

His assistants weren't by Gordonjcp · 2003-09-26 01:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Mmmm, Leela... That really wasn't quite *enough* rabbit fur, was it?

Re:His assistants weren't by dustmote · 2003-09-26 01:34 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's true. I had a crush on the second Romona when I was a kid - enough to memorize a name like Veradnalundar, which I have no doubt misspelled and some Slashdot person will no doubt correct me on. But I can pronounce it, doggone it.

--

-1, "1337" speak
Re:His assistants weren't by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:59 · Score: 0

I believe you also neglected to make it all one word Romanadvoratrelundar, yeah I'm a freak. I didn't even like Romana II much, though apparently Tom Baker did.
Re:His assistants weren't by JimPooley · 2003-09-26 02:00 · Score: 2, Funny

One word. Adric. How gay was he?

--

"Information wants to be paid"
Re:His assistants weren't by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2003-09-26 02:15 · Score: 2, Informative

Romanadvoratrelundar, I believe was the full spelling.

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re:His assistants weren't by TomV · 2003-09-26 02:42 · Score: 2, Funny

About 7.3% as gay as Turlough.

But not since 1970 was there a regular companion running around in a skirt.

Oh, alright, kilt, if you insist ;-)
Re:His assistants weren't by Gordonjcp · 2003-09-26 03:45 · Score: 2, Informative

No, I insist it was a skirt. I wear a kilt, and that was *not* a kilt. Too short, for one thing. Should be just level with the knee, not right off the knee. In fact, that was a *mini-skirt*.
Re:His assistants weren't by randito · 2003-09-26 04:31 · Score: 1

They made up for her lack of clothes by piling them on double-time in the Talons of Weng-Chiang. Not that I cared, I am, after all, a gay Dr. Who fan.
Re:His assistants weren't by TomV · 2003-09-26 04:38 · Score: 1

In fact, that was a *mini-skirt*.

Well, it WAS the '60's, you know :-)

tV
Re:His assistants weren't by drwho · 2003-09-26 05:00 · Score: 3, Funny

OK Maybe I should clarify things:

Romana: never
Leela: Yes, often. She was great in the sack.
Teegin: once when we were drunk
Re:His assistants weren't by dustmote · 2003-09-26 05:10 · Score: 1

See? I knew it. Yeah, I have a thing for pale, thin, english girls to this day, but it's not to everyone's taste.

--

-1, "1337" speak
Re:His assistants weren't by dustmote · 2003-09-26 05:48 · Score: 1

Hahahaha! If you weren't a Timelord, I'd ask how long you've been waiting to use that nick for something like this, but I imagine it's just a matter of aiming the TARDIS properly....Hmmm, on second thought, maybe that's a valid question. :)

--

-1, "1337" speak
Re:His assistants weren't by drwho · 2003-09-26 06:08 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, I had some stuff to do in this timestream, so I thought I'd hang around a bit for this slashdot article to come by. Still, I am not sure I am in the correct time stream or not. If the Red Sox actually do win the world series, then I had better get ready to skip into a different timestream to avoid catastrophe.
Re:His assistants weren't by psykocrime · 2003-09-26 06:46 · Score: 1

See? I knew it. Yeah, I have a thing for pale, thin, english girls to this day, but it's not to everyone's taste.

Well, you're not alone... I had the hots for Romana II (Lalla Ward) also... Although Mary Tamm (the original Romana) wasn't bad either...

Speaking of the Doctor's female companions... How about Nyssa? Or Perpugilliam "Peri" Brown? The Doctor always had some damn hot companions... heh.

--
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Re:His assistants weren't by pcraven · 2003-09-26 08:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Which Romana? Romana I or Romana II? Number two was pretty hot. Click here for a good list of assistants and photos.
Re:His assistants weren't by Graspee_Leemoor · 2003-09-26 10:11 · Score: 1

"Talons of Weng-Chiang" had a classic line in it. I can't quite remember it accurately anymore but the evil one said something like:

"Bring me two young girls. And make sure they're fresh"

or something.

graspee
Re:His assistants weren't by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:41 · Score: 0

Both of them were pretty hot. The first one got
a bit boring after a while character-wise, though.
Re:His assistants weren't by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:48 · Score: 0

Adric wasn't gay. He was just a geeky kid who never fit in. But he wasn't a dunce (unlike Joe Grant, who wasn't all that attractive as all the other female companions before and afterwards) but Adric always meant well. I hated the goody-two-shoes Wesley character, but I liked Adric. The trouble is that during the Davison and C. Baker years, they included lots of pointless scenes with people whining and arguing with each other, and Adric was the person who frequently got stuck with those lines. Incidentally, the Doctor-Adric banter worked well in Logopolis, but wore thin very quickly afterwards.
Re:His assistants weren't by ralphclark · 2003-09-26 14:42 · Score: 1

had a crush on the second Romana when I was a kid
So did I. And so did Richard Dawkins. He married her, the lucky sod.
Re:His assistants weren't by ralphclark · 2003-09-26 14:44 · Score: 1

I had the hots for Romana II (Lalla Ward)
Now also known as Mrs Richard Dawkins. Yes, *that* Richard Dawkins.
Re:His assistants weren't by ralphclark · 2003-09-26 14:57 · Score: 1

The kilt as worn today (and ever since it's renaissance during Queen Victoria's reign) doesn't bear much resemblance to the belted plaid worn by Scots Highlanders in 1746. As you may guess, the earlier style of dress didn't really come with any strict rules about length, that sort of thing is pure English invention.
In fact the Scots often didn't bother covering their arses at all. In earlier times, a big leather bag of shot handily hung over their balls was all they needed, as William Sacheverell, Governor of the Isle of Man, noted in 1688.
Re:His assistants weren't by Wolfrider · 2003-09-26 15:07 · Score: 1

I always thought Tom Baker was still married to her, but IMDB for Lalla Ward says the marriage only lasted 16 months(!!) Darn.

--
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Re:His assistants weren't by Darby · 2003-09-26 17:07 · Score: 1

Yeah, I have a thing for pale, thin, english girls to this day,

I'm just a nutty Cali boy who married one.

W00t ;-)
Re:His assistants weren't by Darby · 2003-09-26 17:13 · Score: 1

If the Red Sox actually do win the world series, then I had better get ready to skip into a different timestream to avoid catastrophe.

I think you need to watch out for the Cubbies this year.
How Earth shattering would that be, goat or no goat?
Re:His assistants weren't by scottgfx · 2003-09-26 20:08 · Score: 1

Mmmmmmm, Romana. I think I was about 12 or 13 when WPBT in Miami broadcast Dr. Who in the early `80's. I was hooked. I remember Starlog magazine had a episode guide. I really miss those days.

--
It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
Re:His assistants weren't by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 06:04 · Score: 0

No, you wear a skirt. Everyone else in the world thinks Scottish men wear girlie-skirts... only Scots kid themselves that it ain't so.
Re:His assistants weren't by TPFH · 2003-09-29 11:04 · Score: 1

But it doesn't have any pics of Katy Manning nekkid.

--
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you

Re:Torygraph by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-09-26 01:33 · Score: 1

Sacrelige? Probably, and depending on which woman plays the good Doctor, they may have to add an "a" to the name....

(that's my juvenile joke for the day delt with...)

AWESOME by jkuester · 2003-09-26 01:36 · Score: 1

This is GREAT news. I get DVD episodes every 2 weeks of the old shows through columbia house. I just hope that the new shows are better then the movie. I was not thrilled with the movie. I hope they keep the low budget nature of Doctor Who. That is what made it so funny. That is what made things like Mystery Science Theater 3000 good (low budget).

Slashdot Poll by Waffle+Iron · 2003-09-26 01:36 · Score: 1

Back in the 80s, what was the dorkiest clothing item you could wear to school?

( ) Red zippered Michael Jackson jacket
( ) Star Trek shirt
( ) Loverboy style headband
( ) Pink knit Izod shirt
( ) 15-foot long Tom Baker scarf

Re:Slashdot Poll by lina_inverse · 2003-09-26 01:56 · Score: 1

I wasn't alive in the 80's, you insensitive clod!
Re:Slashdot Poll by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-09-26 02:27 · Score: 1

We had a school uniform you insensitive clod!
Re:Slashdot Poll by Tukla · 2003-09-26 02:35 · Score: 1

Wait. I was supposed to wear those separately?
Re:Slashdot Poll by Fantastic+Lad · 2003-09-26 03:22 · Score: 1

I wasn't alive in the 80's, you insensitive clod!

I'm not sure that anybody was.

-FL

Anyone care to point to a privacy-free version? by fleener · 2003-09-26 01:37 · Score: 1

Oh how I love cookied-required web sites.

"To see the report or section you have just selected, you need to login, or register if you have not previously done so. Registration takes a moment and gives you access to deeper levels of telegraph.co.uk content. We benefit from registration because we get a clearer view of our readership. You benefit because that view helps us to improve the site."

Can anyone point to a good version?

Re:Anyone care to point to a privacy-free version? by 3.5+stripes · 2003-09-26 01:45 · Score: 1

Privacy free?

What's that, where the webmaster comes and gets you to sign your name in person, then sits behind you and reads over your shoulder?

--

He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Re:Anyone care to point to a privacy-free version? by fleener · 2003-09-26 01:55 · Score: 1

Excuse me, a link to a web site that does not ask you for personal information to register before seeing the article, then asks you again for the same information, then asks you again for the same information, then asks you again for the same information, then asks you again for the same information. Get my point now?
Re:Anyone care to point to a privacy-free version? by ctid · 2003-09-26 03:33 · Score: 1

Theres a report about the return of Doctor Who on the BBC.

--
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room

Genius. Absolute genius. by Gordonjcp · 2003-09-26 01:37 · Score: 1

Oh yeah. He would be good.

New Dr. Who music? by that+_evil+_gleek · 2003-09-26 01:37 · Score: 1

New Dr. Who music or are using one of the older ones?

BBC America? by VernonNemitz · 2003-09-26 01:39 · Score: 1

Might it be simpler to bug the SciFi Channel to make a time slot available for Dr. Who, than to bug all those different cable companies to add a whole channel?

Trust the BBC...now?? by ader · 2003-09-26 01:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hmmm, considering how well the BBC have looked after the show in the past, I'd give this news only two cheers. Still, what next - the Goodies?

Ade_
/

--
Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck

Re:Trust the BBC...now?? by Sabalon · 2003-09-26 01:53 · Score: 1

Well, I'll take a planet where it rains all the time (ie. shooting in Wales) over the Voyager/Enterprise outside sets anyday. How many planets in the universe have little dwellings in the middle of a desert? A lot of them I guess. Then again, I remember the old days when the Doctor visited planets other than Earth on a regular basis.
Re:Trust the BBC...now?? by cypherbob · 2003-09-26 01:55 · Score: 0

Goodies...Goody Goody Yum Yum :)
Re:Trust the BBC...now?? by Cackmobile · 2003-09-26 02:54 · Score: 1

DO DO DO the Funky Gibbon!

I loved that show. Its a classic.

--
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George

The lost art of cheap sci fi effects by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:40 · Score: 0

In this day and age wher everything is computer generated effects, is there anyone left who still remembers how to make a space monster out of couch cushions, shredded garbage bags, and the hose of a vacuum cleaner?

Re:The lost art of cheap sci fi effects by trmcdougle · 2003-10-01 01:27 · Score: 1

Oh, You don't watch Red Dwarf then... http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/

Too busy by BenjyD · 2003-09-26 01:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Doctor Who is far too busy making prank phone calls to make a new TV series.

Oh dear by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:40 · Score: 0

I'm sorry old bean, but we still manage to at least teach some form of rudimentary English skills here in the United Kingdom. Perhaps you should pop over for some remedial lessons, eh old chap?

OMG how stupid can you be? by Gordonjcp · 2003-09-26 01:41 · Score: 1

No, dumbass. Space ships can be any shape you like. If they're in space, they're in a vacuum, so there's no air resistance. Sheesh, kids these days.

Excellent show, chaps! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:44 · Score: 0

During our summer vacation this year, my wife and I amused ourselves by taking leisurely drives in Ohio and photographing every diamond-shaped highway sign that we saw along the roadsides. (Well, not every sign; only the distinct ones.) For provenance, I also stood at the base of each sign and measured its GPS coordinates.

This turned out to be even more fun than a scavenger hunt, so we filled in some gaps when we returned to California, thereby proving my theorem of the re-introduction of the British TV program, Doctor Who, which can be found in LaTeX format on my website.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Knuth

Entire Dr Who currently on Air in Australia by the_proton · 2003-09-26 01:44 · Score: 2, Informative

The ABC in Australia is currently replaying the entire Dr Who. All of it. It's on Monday-Thursday at 6pm. It started playing on the 15th of September, and should continue for years :-)

- proton

Re:Entire Dr Who currently on Air in Australia by MrMickS · 2003-09-26 02:25 · Score: 1

Unfortunately they don't have all of it. Some was lost, some they only have partial episodes.

--
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
Re:Entire Dr Who currently on Air in Australia by SydShamino · 2003-09-26 02:48 · Score: 1

Well, if they are playing "all of it", be sure to record the episodes destroyed by the BBC in the 70s! I want to see them!

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:Entire Dr Who currently on Air in Australia by Cackmobile · 2003-09-26 02:50 · Score: 1

DOH!!!! and just when I am living in England. They show it here on Sky but at some ungodly hour of the morning!

--
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George

Ah, those Daleks by lgftsa · 2003-09-26 01:46 · Score: 1

They typified the computers of the age, and all those that followed stayed true to the design.

Big iron with a bug inside.

One-two-three-four-one-two break it down! by LittleGuy · 2003-09-26 01:48 · Score: 1

"This transmission is intended as a celebration of the Gallifreyan lifestyle..."

Thanks a lot. Now I have this image of Cybermen and Daleks dancing as psychodelic sillhouettes to 'Spunk' as played by the BBC Radiophonic Workshop.

Now all we need as Gale Harold as the Doctor and Randy Harrison as the newest Companion.

--
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.

Re:Torygraph by DroningDromedary · 2003-09-26 01:49 · Score: 1

Because of course the BBC are a completely unbiased, reliable organisation who never make ludicrous claims about anything, ever.

Right.

Don't Ruin The Cybermen... again! by pandrijeczko · 2003-09-26 01:50 · Score: 1

I remember tuning into the 25th Anniversary story of Dr. Who ("Silver Nemesis") and seeing the Cybermen (my favourite Who monsters) striding out of a silver spacecraft... YESSSSS! I thought... Imagine my disappointment when Ace took out the entire Cyberman invasion force with a catapult and a few gold coins! Leave it up to American writers to turn good monsters into pussies (i.e. The Borg), get a good British writing team and it'll be a winner...

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.

Re:Don't Ruin The Cybermen... again! by ElGuapoGolf · 2003-09-26 02:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Damn straight...

I really liked the Cybermen from the Troughton years... they acted like cyborgs, no emotion which creeped in to their later appearances, just business.

Actually, you could say the same about the Borg. But then again, the Borg always were cybermen with better costumes.
Re:Don't Ruin The Cybermen... again! by TomV · 2003-09-26 06:45 · Score: 1

the Borg always were cybermen with better costumes.

Have you heard Spare Parts, by Marc Platt (audio play on mail-order CD)? Wicked. Simply fab.

Before they turned into stock muscle-robots, the cybermen were the same thing as the borg: the walking undead. Dracula / Frankenstein hybrid zombies hunting for new brethren.

As a silver guy with handles on his head and a buzzy vocoder once said
You belong to us. You will be like us.
tV
Re:Don't Ruin The Cybermen... again! by ElGuapoGolf · 2003-09-27 03:54 · Score: 1

I haven't heard Spare Parts, but I seem to have read a long synopsis of it.

If you watch The Tenth Planet, you get that the idea that the cybermen are walking corpses as well. The blank stares behind the eyes, and the fact that they still have hands just highlights their lost humanity.

By the time we got to Silver Nemesis, things had just gotten silly. I never did like the allergic to gold bit.
Re:Don't Ruin The Cybermen... again! by TomV · 2003-09-27 04:35 · Score: 1

Buy, beg, borrow Spare Parts. It's fab. The Cybermen get their tragedy back. The poor bastards. They're the undead, as they ought to be.

tV
Re:Don't Ruin The Cybermen... again! by ElGuapoGolf · 2003-09-27 13:19 · Score: 1

Where can it be obtained? Feel free to email shops info.
Re:Don't Ruin The Cybermen... again! by TomV · 2003-09-27 19:17 · Score: 1

Here's the link to the relevant page at Big Finish Productions' website. GBP15.50 inc P&P for nonUK orders, GBP13.99 in the UK.

They also do a Dalek Empire range which resoteores the old pepperpots to their malevolent, manipulative best :-)
Re:Don't Ruin The Cybermen... again! by mink · 2003-09-30 08:59 · Score: 1

My fav bit of Cyber-goofyness was in "The Five Doctors" when they capture the Master. The leader of the group walks about 5 feet away from the master, calls his next in comman over and then in a loud voice explain how they will use the master and kill him when they are done.
A real MST3K moment, "I can still hear you you know".

--
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.

.. maybe Victor Lewis Smith will design the Daleks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:50 · Score: 0

TV Offal

Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:51 · Score: 0

I for one welcome our new timelord!

BBC America does not carry WHO! by zaphodbblx · 2003-09-26 01:53 · Score: 1

Sorry to tell fellow Who Nerds but BBC US no longer carries Who. Why (your gonna love this)Because the BBC wants too much for the rights! About 2 years ago BBC US carried the same 14 tom baker episodes for over a year, when I wrote to complain they sent me back an e-mail explaining these were the only episodes the bbc would licence and that they were going to drop Who because it was too expensive. There used to be a fyi about it but the site has undergon a major re-design and I could find no official mention of dr who.

--
"A towel is the most astounding Mind-boggleing useful thing in the universe, allways know where your towel is"

Re:BBC America does not carry WHO! by hornrimsylvia · 2003-09-26 02:48 · Score: 1

one more reason to not get bbc america and just download.
Re:BBC America does not carry WHO! by zaphodbblx · 2003-09-26 05:51 · Score: 1

AMEN brother/sister

--
"A towel is the most astounding Mind-boggleing useful thing in the universe, allways know where your towel is"
Re:BBC America does not carry WHO! by Tripster · 2003-09-26 07:08 · Score: 1

The funny thing is, up here in Canada we have BBC Canada and BBC Kids, BBC Kids carries WHO with up to 4 episodes back to back a few times a week, most of the time its complete 4 part story lines too.

With BBC Kids being one of our newer digital stations the subscriber count is likely less than 10,000 too. Some of our Canadian digital stations number per minute viewers in the LOW hundreds.

http://www.bbckids.ca/ has the full schedule, looks like 2 eps most days repeated twice, I think it's weekends where they'll show the 4 episode blocks.
Re:BBC America does not carry WHO! by zaphodbblx · 2003-09-26 08:51 · Score: 1

Oh sure dude...rub it in! Luckily Canada still does a few things for its citizens!

--
"A towel is the most astounding Mind-boggleing useful thing in the universe, allways know where your towel is"
Re:BBC America does not carry WHO! by Tripster · 2003-09-26 11:11 · Score: 1

Don't be too envious, we also have very low budget versions of the good US services. For example, our TV Land buys one or two seasons of each show at a time and airs those for 12 months straight.

Our MTV couldn't afford the rights to The New Tom Green Show, Tom's parents in Ottawa couldn't legally watch his show (it's illegal for us to subscribe to DirecTV/Dish).

We get Stargate SG1 a full year behind the US airing, and it's filmed here!

Witchblade was filmed in Toronto, it is just appearing on a domestic channel here.

Oh, and the most brilliant part, there's supposed to be a good percentage of Canadian content on our channels, so BBC Canada in a few years will be 50% made-in-Canada stuff rather than solely BBC material, and believe me, most made-in-Canada programming is little more than filler to remain within quotas. This filler usually airs across every channel owned by the same corporation.

Needless to say, I subscribe to US and Canadian services. I use a BUD for the US services and that is still quasi-legit or at least we aren't being targeted as bad guys rather folks who enjoy better picture quality.
Re:BBC America does not carry WHO! by zaphodbblx · 2003-09-26 23:19 · Score: 1

I guess the grass is allways greener....thanks for the heads up!

--
"A towel is the most astounding Mind-boggleing useful thing in the universe, allways know where your towel is"

Scared of Daleks? by Sabalon · 2003-09-26 01:55 · Score: 1

I always hear the Daleks refered to like that - watching behind the couch.

Has anyone here ever been scared of the daleks? I think I was more scarred of some of the fuzzy CSO from the Pertwee era.

(CSO - Color Serpation Overlay - ie blue-screen)

Re:Scared of Daleks? by I+don't+want+to+spen · 2003-09-26 02:13 · Score: 1

I've been reading too much Slashdot, I read CSO as SCO!

--
Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
Re:Scared of Daleks? by calethix · 2003-09-26 02:41 · Score: 1

I only remember being scared by 1 episode. It seems like it was a Tom Baker episode and there was some monster that lived in a jungle like habitat. It entered a lab through some kind of portal thing, attacked people and then went back into hiding.

As for the Daleks, I don't know. As a kid, I think they were one of the least scary foes the Dr. dealt with. They can't sneak up on you because they're noisy and always saying 'Exterminate'. They're fairly slow so you can run circles around them. If all else fails, you can just throw something over their eyes and trick them into shooting each other. What's scary about that?
Re:Scared of Daleks? by Cackmobile · 2003-09-26 02:48 · Score: 1

Yeah I was but then I thought I'd just run up some stairs!

--
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Re:Scared of Daleks? by ab762 · 2003-09-26 03:36 · Score: 1

Has anyone here ever been scared of the daleks?
Yes, in 1964 or so, when they first appeared (and I was around five years old) they were pretty scary. YMMV
Re:Scared of Daleks? by N7DR · 2003-09-26 04:08 · Score: 1

I always hear the Daleks refered to like that - watching behind the couch. Has anyone here ever been scared of the daleks?
Not only did I indeed watch them from behind the sofa, but I also had nightmares about them.
FWIW, this was during their very first appearance. Those early years were pretty terrifying to young kids. There certainly wasn't anything else remotely as scary as Dr. Who broadcast during children's TV. (Which I suppose invites responders to reply with comments along the lines of: "Oh yes there was, Zebedee from The Magic Roundabout was just as scary, and what about John Noakes trying to make something -- anything -- on Blue Peter?".)
Re:Scared of Daleks? by cruachan · 2003-09-26 04:27 · Score: 1

Definatly. I was about 5 or 6 at the time and I remember running out of the house and right to the top of our garden when I heard the Dr Who music come on.
Re:Scared of Daleks? by Tripster · 2003-09-26 07:14 · Score: 1

Heck ya! When I was a youngster (and living in the UK) a family trip to Blackpool included a visit to the Doctor Who exhibit which you entered via a blue call box like the tardis.

I REFUSED to enter it, too scared of the Daleks that awaited me at the bottom I think.

Yeah now that I'm older I realize how stupid it was to be scared of some plastic/cardboard prop but hey, I was young then and that toilet plunger at the top looked deadly to me! :)

Then again my dad almost fainted at the wax museums surgery display too. Funny part is now he's working in a hospital (mechanic) and has at time had to enter the mortuary and labs.
Re:Scared of Daleks? by Sabalon · 2003-09-26 07:53 · Score: 1

Guess I forgot it was a "childrens" show to begin with. I see where a 5 year old could be frightened...though my kids would probably love them. Hmmm...something to try this weekend.
Re:Scared of Daleks? by CaptainAvatar · 2003-09-28 14:12 · Score: 1

I only remember being scared by 1 episode. It seems like it was a Tom Baker episode and there was some monster that lived in a jungle like habitat. It entered a lab through some kind of portal thing, attacked people and then went back into hiding.
Planet of Evil ?
I was much the same, I never really understood the "hiding behind the couch" thing. But Planet of Evil was one of the few Who stories that scared the bejeezus out of me as a kid ...

--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.

You sad, sad, ignorant fool... by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-09-26 01:57 · Score: 1

Yes it is possible for gay people to have interests outside of gayness, buy who would give a damn about the interests of a f#*ked up, morally devoid group of people anyway.

You have to take everything that comes out of their mouth or brain with a grain of salt and be on the defense to protect the morality of our society (that is rapidly declining because of people like them).

Two words for you: Alan Turing.

And if you don't know who he was, or what he acheived, then you're even less intelligent than I'm giving you credit for.

It's people like you, the people say they want to "protect the morality of our society", that it actually need protecting against.

If it's suddenly revealed tomorrow that Einstein was gay would that make relativity any less of an acheivement? If Mahatma Ghandi was reavealed to have been gay would that make his peaceful struggle for democracy any less valid? If a gay man or woman discovers the cure for cancer would it be any less momentous because of his/her sexuality?

You are an ignorant, homophobic, neanderthal. You even know that you're an ignorant, homophobic, neanderthal because you chose to hide your identity by posting as an AC. You're pathetic on so many levels - pathetic for your opinions and pathetic for not even having the courage of your convictions and posting under your real account.

Grow some balls and a brain, you sad, sad, ignorant fool.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Re:You sad, sad, ignorant fool... by Jaysyn · 2003-09-26 02:07 · Score: 1

100% correct, it's people like that idiot who are ruining America for the rest of us.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:You sad, sad, ignorant fool... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 03:31 · Score: 0

The previous AC is homophobic, maybe ignorant ... maybe just strongly opinionated, and certainly NOT a Neaderthal (they've been gone awhile).

If you're going to flame someone, at least stick to plausibility, Hey AC, this goes for you too.

Someone old... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 01:57 · Score: 0

We need an intellectual hero not some obnoxious thug. All the doctors upto and including Tom Baker were great. Personally I'd like something akin to the original 1963 series but you know they are going to completely ruin it.

Now the big question: Does the tardis run linux?

Sad News -- Robert Palmer dead at 54 by orthogonal · 2003-09-26 01:57 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I was just listening to talk radio and heard that rock singer Robert Palmer has died of a heart attack at age 54. His suave image and slick videos helped define the MTV image in the 80's, and I'm sure he'll be missed by many music fans around the world.

Please, please. Get with the program! It's supposed to go like this:

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Brit Rock singer/composer Robert Palmer was found dead in Paris this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly a British icon.

Here's an example; here's another; and this is a third. I suppose you can paraphrase a little, as in this example.

But the format must follow the traditions of Slashdot:

start with "I just heard some sad news on talk radio"; "listening" doesn't scan corectly
follow with the 'no details' bit, even if there were details
then the 'contributions' sentence, qualified with the "even if you didn't enjoy" (possibly with "agree" substituting for "enjoy")
and ending with the "Truly a(n) _______ icon.

Just as a sonnet's not an Italian sonnet unless an eight line octet precedes a six line sestet, it's just not Slashdot poetry unless you follow the traditional format.

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?

Re:Sad News -- Robert Palmer dead at 54 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:38 · Score: 0

Sad because this means radios everywhere will be playing "Addicted to Love". Man, the listenable stuff from '82-'83-'84 was really and truly gone when "Addicted to Love" came out. After that, it was Bobby Brown/Paula Abdul type crap followed by two decades of awful grunge.

No cookie-required version of the news article by fleener · 2003-09-26 01:59 · Score: 1

Google's list, or just the BBC version. How could the BBC version not be linked to in the first place?!?

(For those of us who reject persistent cookies and don't like being shown a registration screen over and over and over and over and over again.)

Re:No cookie-required version of the news article by TomV · 2003-09-26 06:52 · Score: 1

How could the BBC version not be linked to in the first place?!?

The Telegraph broke the story on their site just before midnight UK time, the BBC site didn't confirm the story until 4am.

tV
Re:No cookie-required version of the news article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:44 · Score: 0

And yet they locked out all privacy-conscious users from reading their breaking news. Smart move. Real smooth.

Hopeful! by Quixadhal · 2003-09-26 02:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is great news, as it gives us the chance to have some science fiction on TV that doesn't have to be Yet Another T&A Star Trek Series (TM).

Anyways, good writing will make or break this show. If they're smart (and since it's the BBC instead of some American marketing firm, they might be!) they'll continue the tradition of having DIFFERENT WRITERS do episodes, rather than locking in a team for a whole season and ending up with another Pip and Jane Baker travesty.

Heh, I can't forgive them for what they did to my favorite Doctor (Colin Baker), who is quite a good actor, but had to work with things like "The Happiness Patrol". Perhaps they can go to work writing for Brenan and Braga's new series... Star Trek: Teen Bikini Force!

Re:Hopeful! by w00master · 2003-09-26 02:07 · Score: 1

Sorry to get my Whovian nerd hat on... BUT....

"I can't forgive them for what they did to my favorite Doctor (Colin Baker), who is quite a good actor, but had to work with things like 'The Happiness Patrol.'"

The sixth Doctor (Colin Baker) never dealt with "The Happniess Patrol" that was the seventh Doctor (Sylvester McCoy) who had to deal w/ them.

(Just to clear things up) ;)

w00t
Re:Hopeful! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 02:08 · Score: 0

"The Happiness Patrol" was McCoy. C.Baker's first story was the "The Twin Dillema" and his last story was in the Trial of a Timelord series (Watch the regeneration scene in "Time and the Rani" - it's McCoy in a wig).
Re:Hopeful! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 05:49 · Score: 0

I seem to recall that "The Happiness Patrol" was actually damn scary. But I'm not a huge Who fan, so I only saw it when it was originally broadcast. I've forgotten all of it now..
Re:Hopeful! by metamatic · 2003-09-26 08:41 · Score: 1

Ah, so *you're* the other Colin Baker fan.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:Hopeful! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:31 · Score: 0

Ermmm....Syl McCuoy was in the Happiness Patrol, but your point is valid. I wasn't wild about Colin Baker's acting (not to mention the shockingly bad scripts), but perhaps he could have done a better job with better material (and a less retarded constume).
Re:Hopeful! by mink · 2003-09-30 09:05 · Score: 1

Three sir.

--
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.

Re:Genius. Absolute genius. by Elian · 2003-09-26 02:00 · Score: 1

Would be? Was. Bring him back, that's my opinion, though Hugh Grant wasn't bad either.

*Don't* bring back the Daleks! by alien_blueprint · 2003-09-26 02:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

I would rather not see all the "classic" monsters recycled. These were very much a product of their times, exaggerations of then-current fears. Nuclear war/radiation/mutation --> Daleks. The new field of cybernetics and artificial limbs/organs --> Cybermen. And so on.

I'd much prefer to see *new* stories with inventive new villians. It doesn't have to be "mystery science bogeyman" *every* week, but there are certainly some more topical lurking fears that could be put to good use. Quantum mechanics, nanomachines, genetic engineering, viruses, various forms of computing and communication technology taken to pathological extremes, and so on.

Let's *really* scare the living crap out of people, eh? A pepper-pot with a plunger just won't cut it any more.

I also think that if you take away the crutch of recycling old monsters and plots, you will get *much* better stories.

As for the truth of the "return", I'll believe it when I see it. I've seen this kind of story turn out to be false too many times. I want it to be true, I really do, but the cynical side of me fears that the BBC just want to drive up DVD sales ... again.

Re:*Don't* bring back the Daleks! by slambo · 2003-09-26 03:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would rather not see all the "classic" monsters recycled. These were very much a product of their times, exaggerations of then-current fears.
Well, just think of the potential for updated characters. It's like in ST. Originally, the Klingons were just black guys or, more often, white guys in (poor) blackface. When ST:TNG revamped them, their makeup and costumes (and the continuing backstories) made them much more believable, and far improved their characters.
New villains are great, but don't throw away the story history.
Re:*Don't* bring back the Daleks! by 0123456 · 2003-09-26 04:33 · Score: 1

Bah, in the grand tradition of ST:TNG's treatment of the bad guys from the original series, they'll be bringing in the Gay Daleks :).
Re:*Don't* bring back the Daleks! by RedA$$edMonkey · 2003-09-26 04:59 · Score: 1

I'm a Dalek, You insensitive clod!

Eliminate! Eliminate! Oops, I Eliminated on the rug.
Re:*Don't* bring back the Daleks! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 05:52 · Score: 0

What do you suggest? Desert dwelling alien terrorists? Flying insects who spread terror and SARS over Asia? A mole like race of computer virus writers? Ohhh, terrorfying!
Re:*Don't* bring back the Daleks! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 06:04 · Score: 0

Well, I still fear radiation, mutation, cybertization and all that, and you absolutely have to have the classic villains. I'd rather see a new plot vector, instead of the same old poor, ignorant population being unfairly dominated by the techno elite...oh wait...that's still relevant too.

Never mind, don't change a thing about Dr. Who, and especially not the theme music!
Re:*Don't* bring back the Daleks! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 07:11 · Score: 0

"When ST:TNG revamped them, their makeup and costumes (and the continuing backstories)"

I'm not a geek but the Klingons were "revamped" for
ST:TMP, not ST:TNG.

I expect someone with such a low slashdot ID to know stuff like that.

Re:Torygraph by gbjbaanb · 2003-09-26 02:06 · Score: 1

Doctor Who will be reappearing on the television screens, said a spokesperson. The storylines shall continue to have The Doctor fighting evil in all its forms and protecting the innocent population at large, unlike the current government whose policies and track record for dealing with the Dalek menace are woefully inadequate.

For your entertainment, may I also suggest you go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/deadringers/ . It may not be serious doctor who stuff, but it is brilliant.

Oh come ON! by JimPooley · 2003-09-26 02:07 · Score: 2, Redundant

Look. Just because Russell T. Davies is best known for Queer As Folk this does NOT mean Dr. Who is going to be gay all of a sudden. Well, any more gay than before. (An awful lot of Dr. Who fans are gay, and there's nothing wrong with that.)

What this does mean is that Dr. Who is going to be written by someone who is not just an excellent writer of TV drama, but also by someone who is a long-term fan of Dr. Who, and so has a a love of his material!

Give the man a chance, people! Wait and see....

--

"Information wants to be paid"

Re:Oh come ON! by doc_traig · 2003-09-26 03:22 · Score: 2, Funny

this does NOT mean Dr. Who is going to be gay all of a sudden.

Too bad. I'd like to see how a suddenly gay incarnation of the Doctor would gussy-up the Tardis. Can you imagine a Doctor dressed head-to-toe in Ralph Lauren's latest, sipping cosmopolitans after two hours in the gym? Queer Eye for that Timelord Guy...

--
So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
Re:Oh come ON! by hornrimsylvia · 2003-09-26 03:37 · Score: 1

i've always remembered dr. who as being completely oblivious to his own sexuality. except for that one after tom baker. he wanted to be a lovah, not a fighter.
Re:Oh come ON! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 04:39 · Score: 0

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with woman kind; it is an abomination." -- Leviticus 18:22
Re:Oh come ON! by isorox · 2003-09-26 05:23 · Score: 1

We had a sugestion on breakfast this morning - howabout the next doctor being a woman?
Re:Oh come ON! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 05:33 · Score: 0

What if Dr. Who comes back as a big busted lesbian? Perhaps a mishap with his/her y chromosones?
Re:Oh come ON! by alexq · 2003-09-26 05:47 · Score: 1

there are a lot of people out there who thought that allowing the fans who grew up with the series to start writing it (when john nathan-turner took over as producer) was one of the worse moves the series made.
it's up for debate, but it definitely changed the feel of it.
of course, also up for debate is whether those particular fans could write.. :)
Re:Oh come ON! by jay95 · 2003-09-26 05:56 · Score: 1

Guess you boycott Red Lobster too?

Leviticus 11:10 - And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.
Re:Oh come ON! by nanodik · 2003-09-26 06:30 · Score: 1

I don't think the real worry here should be whether Dr. Who will end up gay, but whether the tech factor will trump the writing. For a while I was a big Dr. Who addict and never missed a show but back then the special effects were decidedly low-budget (a notch below the original Star Trek). It was the great story lines and fascinating characters that really made the series. Like all great fiction, it made you use your imagination to picture the things they could not possibly display using the technology of the time and the budget they had. I think the big threat here is that the new Dr. Who will be all CGI and no real story.
Re:Oh come ON! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 10:06 · Score: 0

Crustaceans are for fags.

Does this mean... by psyconaut · 2003-09-26 02:09 · Score: 1

That the Darleks will all have effeminate voices and run around suggesting to the Doctor that he "chase them big boy"? ;-)

-psy

I thought by pkp_gl211 · 2003-09-26 02:10 · Score: 1

most people called to get rid of BBC on their local cable?

New on showcase by Cruciform · 2003-09-26 02:13 · Score: 1

Queer as Who?

How to bug? by stm2 · 2003-09-26 02:15 · Score: 1

Regarding asking a cable company to carry one specific channel. In my hometown (Bahia Blanca, Argentina) my mother used to ask the local cable company to carry one of the brazil network during carnival season. It was possible because it was a very small cable operator. Now it was bought by a national wide cable network and now she can't even make this request since there is no local phone support (there is one toll free number, but to the headquarters in Buenos Aires where they won't change a channel for a user in a small city).
So the question is: What is the way to "bug" a cable company for one channel?

--
DNA in your Linux: DNALinux

100 Tacos??? by TimeForGuinness · 2003-09-26 02:17 · Score: 1

Yes, this should provide adequate sustainance for the Dr. Who marathon. -- Comic Book Guy

Doctor Who Comeback... by Metal_Demon · 2003-09-26 02:20 · Score: 2, Informative

That should really be Doctor Who's Comeback. I had to read it like five times before I figured it out, then again I'm dumb.

Anyways I remember the first time I watched Doctor Who, which is still on sci fi night on PBS btw, I was like WTF?!, but after watching a whole episode I thought it was the tre magnifique. One of these days I need to find it on DVD as well as the Red Dwarf series.

--
Trust Your Technolust

All of it? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 02:25 · Score: 0

Even the lost episodes?

Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 02:26 · Score: 0

Doctor who comeback from what?

Not again... by xA40D · 2003-09-26 02:44 · Score: 1

The actor who will follow in the footsteps of such popular Dr Whos as Tom Baker, has not yet been considered, she said. Possible candidates include Richard E Grant, who is appearing in a BBC internet version of Doctor Who, Paul McGann, who starred in the 1996 version, and Alan Davies, who has been linked to the role in the past.

Oh god, Withnail, Marwood, or Jonathan Creek....

Bit like an election really. Three candidates, none of whom grab me as worthwhile. As with elections, it looks like the apathetic have it.

Still, this:

The BBC hopes that Doctor Who... will once more become a fixture of Saturday early evening viewing.

Doesn't exacly strike me with much confidence that this comeback is a sure thing.

--
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.

Re:Not again... by Hittite+Creosote · 2003-09-26 03:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, the BBC have failed dismally in the last few years to find anything that could count as a fixture of Saturday early evening viewing. So this might be a case of the Beeb thinking 'this used to work, and people keep saying they want it back, so let's give it a go.' So they are hoping it will become a successful programme, rather than just hoping they'll make it this time.
Re:Not again... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 05:55 · Score: 0

Bring back Noels House Party!

Blobby Blobby Blobby!

Re:Torygraph by splateagle · 2003-09-26 02:45 · Score: 1

not my reason but by all means if you think so.

I was going with the fact that this is the news arm of the self same organisation the article is about, I realise this doesn't make it a cast-iron certainty, but I figure it's a safe enough bet not to need seasoning ;)

Whoa! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 02:51 · Score: 0

start bugging your cable company

For a second, I read that as buggering! OK, I'm better now...

Nah by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 02:53 · Score: 0

Baker was good, but I'm partial to Patrick Troughton, the second doctor. I'd rank him up there with Baker...pity so many of his adventures were "purged" by the BBC...

BBC America by cybermage · 2003-09-26 02:55 · Score: 1

I've watched BBC America since it premiered, and I can tell you that having it doesn't assure you Doctor Who will be shown.

They have, on occasion, used Doctor Who as filler in the middle of the night; it has never been featured prominently. When it was shown, the episode selection was both random and repetitive.

I suspect the BBC makes a great deal of money licensing their shows to PBS stations, and I suspect this is the reason for their eratic behavior regarding Doctor Who on BBC America. Given the long history of Doctor Who on PBS, I'd expect to see the new episodes from your local PBS station first. Once it starts airing in England, start requesting it during pledge drives.

--
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.

Oh come on... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 02:56 · Score: 0

...after all Ace did take out several Daleks with just a baseball bat.

Quite a remarkable girl she was!

Time and Time Again by Channard · 2003-09-26 02:57 · Score: 2, Informative

My god, I think I just had a nerdgasm. I've been waiting to hear this for years. :)

We have been hearing this for years. There've been stories of a Dr Who revival cropping up every few months or so. There have been rumours about Stephen Fry, Alan Rickman and others appearing in a new movie/series etc, and nothing has ever come of it. Don't count your chickens till they've hit the small screen. Or something.

Re:Time and Time Again by TomV · 2003-09-26 03:31 · Score: 1

BBC News
BBC Cult

My chickens have yet to hatch but I'm preparing estimates right now!

tomV
Re:Time and Time Again by dustmote · 2003-09-26 03:46 · Score: 1

Yes, but not endorsed by the BBC, I don't think.

--

-1, "1337" speak
Re:Time and Time Again by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 05:48 · Score: 0

Check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/

Money has been given to a writer. Press release was given by BBC. It is legit!

Praise Rassilon, it's coming back!

Re:Sad News by JLyle · 2003-09-26 03:05 · Score: 1

... rock singer Robert Palmer has died of a heart attack at age 54.

Good grief, I saw this before I had checked any of the "real" news sites and assumed it was your basic AC gag. Granted, the post is still offtopic, but Robert Palmer did in fact die of a heart attack early Friday morning.

I have to admit by Aggrazel · 2003-09-26 03:14 · Score: 1

Well, I sold my soul to the devil to get doctor who back on the air.

Of course, that includes having to buy RIAA approved CDs, Install Windows ME on all my computers, and put my name on the telemarketer please call me list.

But hey, its worth it!

Re:I have to admit by Little+Brother · 2003-09-26 04:47 · Score: 1

Now that it is back on the air:
Take back the CD's, Format c:\, change phone numbers.
Lo the devil is hoist upon his own pitard!

--

Little Brother, watching the watchers

James Bond by presidentnixon · 2003-09-26 03:17 · Score: 1

The David Niven/Peter Sellers Casino Royale addresses this. Niven played Bond, and became head of the service and promptly renamed all employees "James Bond, Agent 007", to confuse assination attempts.

Thanks Slashdot by macguiguru · 2003-09-26 03:25 · Score: 0

Now >>THAT'S "News for Nerds. Stuff that MATTERS!" Made me bloomin Froyday ye did!

Gallifrey here I come! by P1 · 2003-09-26 03:34 · Score: 1

Maybe now I can return to Gallifrey and hang out with the High Council.

...What happened to Anthony Head.... by haplo21112 · 2003-09-26 03:36 · Score: 1

I seem to rememeber about a year ago or so hearing that Anthony Stewart Head (aka Giles, of Buffy Fame) was being considered as a possible new doctor, which I thought was an excellect choice for the role.....

--
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.

Re:...What happened to Anthony Head.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 03:54 · Score: 0

His association was that he played a recurring role (Lord Grayvorn?) in the Excelis series of Doctor Who audio plays with Doctors 5,6, and 7 (his participation was all recorded in one day: the other actors were not even there!) and the news got misreported that he was playing the Doctor.

VERNE TROYER AS DOCTOR WHO!!! by artemis67 · 2003-09-26 03:37 · Score: 1

It just makes sense when you think about it...

Might be okay. . . by Fantastic+Lad · 2003-09-26 03:50 · Score: 1

I watched a few episodes of, Queer as Folk. (Chick roommate dumped by asshole boyfriend; apparently, girl-power dictates that you can get back at the opposite sex by watching guys fuck each other. Who knew? So I got to watch male actors fake orgasms for the camera while I ate dinner. I am now able to digest food under battle field conditions.)

Anyway. . . Billed as something arty and deep, the show was actually pretty silly. -Oh, but they really, really tried to make it arty and deep! Unfortunately, the show came off like an over-dramatic film school project; Campy dialogue, over-dramatic performances, and stereotypical plot lines. Imagine Six Feet Under or Northern Exposure but done by 19 year olds who were never cool for five seconds in their lives, whose idea of 'daring adventure' was to skip class and go to the movies, and whose only exposure to literature were the cruddy books they throw at you in high school English, (plus maybe a Stephen King novel or two. I don't know what kids read in England).

Anyway. . . That being said, I think the series chief will probably do a good job with Doctor Who. --Russell T. Davies is an uncool dork with lots of conventional, high school science class wisdom, no doubt. --None of it questioned, because that's how things are done when you're a timid, light-weight trying as hard as you can to ape intensity and depth.

Hint: Coolness is individuality, and individuality only begins to grow when you stop trying to earn gold stars from authority figures, be they teachers, or the Alphas in the gay community. (Though, come to think of it, I don't imagine that Alpha males would exactly show up very often in the massage parlors. Hmm.)

Doctor Who was, for some reason, perfect fodder for kids struggling like this. Campy dialogue, over-dramatic performances. Strict adherence to orthodox reality. . . It'll probably work out really well.

-FL

Au contraire... by titzandkunt · 2003-09-26 03:52 · Score: 1

Rickman has played the camp baddie for so long he'd be a shoe-in for The Master.

T&K.

--
Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable...

Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-09-26 04:47 · Score: 1

Yeah but that's been done...nobody can ever fill Roger Delgado's shoes, so it's probably wrong to try.

Instead think how much more exciting it would be to have a Doctor with a streak of cynicism in him, rather than a goody-goody stereotype.

Of course they tried that already with Colin Baker but unfortunately the actor just didn't have the screen presence required for such a portrayal to be credible. Instead he came across more like a superannuated teenage nerd.

Another candidate who was suggested last time around was Peter Cook, another famously credible cynic. Now that really would have been something. Sadly no longer possible!

Hope they don't dumb the concept down too much. It would be nice to see a more adult version. I'm thinking more along the lines of the "seventh doctor" (i.e. Sylvester McCoy era) novelizations published by Virgin a few years ago. Those were stories that really deepened the genre, they gave the Doctor a dark side and really presented him as somebody totally alien who just liked pretending to be human, for our sake.

Yes all right, what a fanboy. Guilty as charged.

On the other hand...so long as they don't make the Doctor gay. Anything but that.

For the Master, the evil one who always wanted to own the entire universe...how about Darl McBride? I'm pretty sure he'll be looking for a job by then.
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-09-26 05:38 · Score: 1

On the other hand...so long as they don't make the Doctor gay. Anything but that.

Why ANYTHING but that? Would this be the most horrible thing possible?!? Homophobic much?

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by bolthole · 2003-09-26 08:58 · Score: 1

The Dr was always asexual, as far as any "preference" went. It would be just as much a travesty to make him gay, as it was for him to get involved with a female, in that dumb US-tv-movie schlock.
Re:Au contraire... by dmiller · 2003-09-26 10:05 · Score: 1

asexual? Then why he had an unending stream of cute, scantily-clad sidekicks?
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-09-26 10:42 · Score: 1

See the other comment poster's reply regarding the Doctor's essential asexuality.

And also: yes, if you or anyone else is gay then that's fine but I don't see why I should have to be informed about it. I'm just plain sick to death of everything gay. It's just so "in your face" now, every day, all the time, from *all* the media. I'm sick to death of the incessant preaching, brainwashing, social engineering or what ever you want to call it. Enough already.
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-09-26 12:54 · Score: 1

If you or anyone else is straight, I don't see why I should have to be informed about it. I'm just plain sick to death of everything straight. It's just so "in your face" now, every day, all the time, from *all* the media. I'm sick to death of the incessant preaching, brainwashing, social engineering or whatever you want to call it. Enough already.

Tell you what. You get every straight person to keep their sexual orientation to themselves, and I'll get very gay person to do the same.

Or are you starting to realize how utterly ridiculous and unrealistic your inane and bigoted request is?? Or not... most people that promote gross double-standards seem to be utterly inable to comprehend the problem.

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-09-26 16:56 · Score: 1

That is precisely why I'm so fed up with it. I'm sick to the back teeth of having your sort ramming your lifestyle down my throat and insisting loudly that I should agree that your way is equal to my way and "it's all good".

Well it's not and it never will be. And tolerance aside, to a parent like myself the gay subculture will always seem an unlikely but terrible danger that my children must be steered around carefully. However, I still don't go around shouting in your face or the faces of your gay buddies that You Must Accept Our Way.

I'm a libertarian by nature and I've even had some openly gay friends. But now I don't know, maybe in our enthusiasm we have let things go too far. You're too dangerous, too selfish, too vocal and powerful with your disproportionate over-representation in the media; too determined to grab control and command the direction of our culture. It looks like a Bad Thing to me, and to say that it makes me uncomfortable would be something of an understatement.

You accused me of bigotry and double standards. Bigotry? Ha, no! I have always tried to be tolerant and respect the rights and sensibilities of others (an attitude which your community sadly does not seem to share). As for double standards: perhaps, perhaps. But of that, I fear we are all guilty, and it is not even always wrong. Everything is *not* the same as everything else, despite the ludicrous pronouncements of cultural relativism.
Re:Au contraire... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 17:07 · Score: 0

You sir, are an idiot. A gay idiot at that, but still an idiot.
Re:Au contraire... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 03:47 · Score: 0

God, you're such an ignorant bigot. You sound just like one of those bigots back in the 50's ranting on about niggers... and you don't even realize it.

You have no right to a gay-free (or nigger-free) environment. Get over it. Gay people are allowed to acknowledge their lives and loves without living in the closet. Black people can marry white people. Gay people SHOULD be allowed to get married. There is no "gay lifestyle" any more than there is one single "striaght lifestyle". Gays aren't inherently bad, evil, or immoral any more than straights are inherently good and moral. Grow the fuck up. For a parent, you sure are an ignorant bigot and I really hope you're not passing his hateful stupidity on to your kids.

Having everyone be free to live their lives is not "going too far", and I'd think a libertarian would realize that. Get over yourself.
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-09-27 13:09 · Score: 1

(wipes spittle from eye)

Protecting your karma by becoming an AC in order to stick the boot in? I would have thought it's a bit late for that.

I see that the term "reasoned debate" is for you equivalent to "torrent of invective". Not much point continuing with this under the circumstances. Let's just agree to disagree.

PS. I'm no racist; among my closest and dearest friends are an Indian, a Pakistani, an ethnic Chinese, a Ghanaian, two Jews and an Islamic Slav. I just don't like my society's culture being hijacked and perverted to serve the social agenda of a deviant minority cult. That's a long way from bigotry, by any reasonable definition.
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-09-28 18:01 · Score: 1

I just don't like my society's culture being hijacked and perverted to serve the social agenda of a deviant minority cult.

Aren't you grossly over-reacting? Are you even remotely being rational here? Excuse me?

Can you even remotely defend such an absurd statement?

You don't want to see your "culture" hijacked? I wonder if you're ranting against all blacks because of Rap/Hip-hop/Gansta culture being forced down your throat?? Or do you not get that not all gays (not even a majority) partake in what you must feel is the 'stereotypical gay lifestyle'.

Take my friends Steve and Victor. They've been together ten years. They work, take care of their pets, and live in a nice home. Or my other gay friends who are, among other things, architects, software developers, ER nurses, and military officers. What is it about these people's "culture" that you find so offensive, pray tell??

Sorry, but it's exactly bigotry, because you ASSume that a few traits or habits of a small minority of gay people is all being gay is about. You're ignorant and hateful. That's bigotry to a tee. Even your statement that you had some "openly gay" friends sounded an awful lot like "some of my best friends are black" to my ears. There is no single "gay subculture" any more than there's a single "straight culture". Get that through your thick head.

What, pray-tell, do you ASSume "my sort of lifestyle" is, exactly? I'd love to hear this.

Over-representation in the media? I'd love to see your statistics on this. Gay people represent anywhere between 4 and 10 percent of the population (depending on how the question is phrased in the survey), which is a significant portion of the population. Yet I doubt one in ten characters on TV is gay, by any stretch. In fact, I know for a fact the "representation" on TV and in other media is not only well below real life percentages, but is also more of the "Amos and Andy" type of representation, rather than reality. You probabably, in your ignorant bigotry, mistake Will & Grace for fact. Am I right?

You don't have a right to a 'gay free' existence. I'm sorry, you just don't. Your posts actually drip with the most literal form of homophobia I can imagine. The problem is yours, not mine. Not gay people's. Yours. Stop being so terrified of nothing. Educate yourself a bit. You obviously need it.

Back on topic, my point was that being gay is hardly the WORST thing that could happen to Dr. WHO. After all, how would you know? Dr. WHO isn't much of a sexual creature. He might make a side comment about an attrative man or be oblivious to an attractive woman... what were you thinking? That he'd be a mincing fairy in pink chiffon?? Yup, you're a bigot.

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-28 18:07 · Score: 0

Nah, revering to gays as a 'deviant minority cult' isn't bigoted at all! Nah! Never mind that homosexuality isn't a choice, like any sort of cultish religion is. Homosexuality just is. Like left-handedness. You know, they used to burn left-handed people at the stake for being a 'deviant minority' that was associated with dangerous 'evil' (Satan has its roots in latin for "Left"). You're not really winning the argument here, as you undermine every insistence you're not a bigot with a very bigoted comment. Talk about torrent of invective. If your baseless assertions are your idea of "reasoned debate" then you have some issues with hypocracy to deal with, as well as homophobia.
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-09-28 21:25 · Score: 1

I wonder if you're ranting against all blacks because of Rap/Hip-hop/Gansta culture being forced down your throat??
A somewhat extreme image. This is inoffensive to me because nobody is legislating for positive images of urban poor black culture in schools and in the media.
Perhaps more to the point, while my children may go through an unfortunate phase of putting their pants on backwards, adopting ebonics in their speech patterns etc, this won't prevent them from marrying and raising children in a home with two loving and committed biological parents present.
It's a simple dream, and a common one.
There is no single "gay subculture" any more than there's a single "straight culture".
Okay then let me be more specific.
I object to the loud promotion of that gay subculture defined by sexual promiscuity. That's quite widespread in the gay community, and I've seen it for myself. If they kept it to themselves I'd have no reason to object to it.
I object to the "activist" gay subculture which insists ever more loudly that they should be able to parade their deviant sexual practices (and associated lifestyles) in public view; that campaigns for "positive images" of gays in schools and in the media.
I also object to that element which sponsors, creates and promotes trashy science papers claiming that homosexuality is biologically determined. This has been taken as fact by many vocal gays, but the science behind it is poor and these conclusions are not universally accepted, to put it mildly. This propaganda has two purposes: to convince other gays that they have no choice and lock them into that lifestyle; and to convince confused, wavering adolescents that any signs of sexual ambiguity means they are gay, there is nothing they can do about it, and really ought to join the gang.
I have a lesser objection to the promotion of that gay subculture defined by affected "camp" behaviour. I didn't used to object to it at all, but I do now, given the way it is used by gays to advertise their status to others. It's not as if there is anything natural about it.
If you don't participate in any of the subcultures characterized here then I've no objection to you. But I think you do or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.
They work, take care of their pets, and live in a nice home [...] architects, software developers, ER nurses, and military officers. What is it about these people's "culture" that you find so offensive, pray tell??
Obvious straw man argument. I've no objection to any of those things.
You probabably, in your ignorant bigotry, mistake Will & Grace for fact.
I've never even seen it.
You don't have a right to a 'gay free' existence.
As the law is currently framed, that statement seems to be at least partly correct. But it's still controversial, and I do have hopes that these new laws will be struck down. Worried parents don't want laws that make it easier for predatory gays to recruit their sons and daughters.
Stop being so terrified of nothing. Educate yourself a bit. You obviously need it.
I don't think I do need to, and I don't want to. In fact that is what this is all about: your loud insistence that we (the straight majority) should have to "educate" ourselves through your propaganda. Well, some of us straights are quite happy with our world view as it is and while open to change in the normal way through a process of personal experience, some of us have no intention of being brainwashed or argued into submission.
I'm beginning to suspect I've been drawn into a troll so I really am going to end my participation in this thread here and now.
Re:Au contraire... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-28 21:45 · Score: 0

Never mind that homosexuality isn't a choice, like any sort of cultish religion is. Homosexuality just is. Like left-handedness.
Sorry to disabuse you of what is obviously a deeply cherished notion, but I've seen no convincing evidence to support this assertion.
What little work has been published about differences in brain structures between heterosexuals and homosexuals falls into either of two categories.
(i) openly biased papers by gay scientists working to establish a social concept along the lines of the statement you made. In these the current consensus among the general scientific community is that the science is poor and the conclusions unjustified. (ii) more rigorous papers which still show differences in brain structure, but don't attempt to draw unwarranted conclusions from the data. It is just as likely (and I think much, much *more* likely) that these differences appear later during postnatal development as a result of learned behaviour patterns.
In other words you become queer because of environmental influences, and this alters the structure of your brain.
It's possible (even likely) that some factors increasing an individual's predisposition towards homosexuality are indeed genetically determined, but in only the tiniest minority (a fraction of a percent) could this ever be overwhelming. Sexual behaviour in humans is so deeply influenced by social factors and learned behaviour, that impaired heterosexuality doesn't need to result in deviant behaviour. It could easily be suppressed by educational means.
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-09-29 03:03 · Score: 1

Worried parents don't want laws that make it easier for predatory gays to recruit their sons and daughters.

More homophobia. Gays do not "recruit". Gays are not "predatory". Gays are not PEDOPHILES. You've got your wires crossed. Your ignorance here is almost painful. Please get help.

Homosexuality isn't a choice, period. That isn't propaganda, that's fact. Propaganda is what you get from right-wing pundits and religious leaders.

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-29 03:12 · Score: 0

Sorry to disabuse you of what is obviously a deeply cherished notion, but I've seen no convincing evidence to support this assertion.

It is not assertion, but fact. There is no evidence to support it otherwise. Why would anyone CHOOSE it? They wouldn't. I knew I was gay from the age of 10, and I had never heard the word before (i had no word for it, i just know I liked boys not girls). Upon realizing this, it made many events in my life back to age three suddenly make sense. There is plenty of evidence to support that gays just are. Not just from science, but from everyday life. You simply CHOOSE not to see it or to discount it, because it doesn't fit your prejudice.

Oh, and before you assume anything, I was never molested or anything. My mother was not overly dominate, nor was my father weak and distant. That's all bullshit too.

Homosexuality is not a disease. It is natural. It exists in nature, in every animal species in which it has been looked for. Check out the book "Biological Exuberance". And get over your irrational hatred.

More proof? There's no such thing as an ex-gay. There are gays that are forced back into the closet with tons of behavioral conditioning, but it NEVER sticks. Time and time again, "Ex-gays" come forward and say it's all a lie, they never stop being gay. The whole process of trying to convert gay people into straight people has proven to be very damanging to the individual, and has NEVER proven to work.

You know, people used to rant against the left-handed the way you did. Teachers and nuns rapping children with rulers when they tried to do what came naturally to them: write with their left hands. The same is true of gay people here, and the way you're treating them.

You know, maybe they wouldn't be so loud in demanding their rights as equal citizens if it weren't for ignorant bigots like you ranting your bullshit against them. But I don't recall that the struggle for black equality and rights was all that polite either... so I'll just make myself happy with the fact that bigots like you are on the wrong side of history and are destined to lose. And you know what? Your loss won't actually ever affect you negatively, other than you'll end up treating gay people like human beings sometime in the distant future. So why are you fighting so hard against the inevitable?

Homosexuality isn't "catching". There's nothing to fear there.
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-09-29 11:58 · Score: 1

Gays are not PEDOPHILES.
I never said they were. It's nothing to do with pedophilia. It's everything to do with wrong-headed people recruiting confused adolescents into a relatively closed subculture based on an alternative lifestyle which would deny them the chance of a normal life. The recruiters may not even be very different in age from the recruits. I have personally seen this happen twice so it's fruitless for you to deny that it happens.
Homosexuality isn't a choice, period. That isn't propaganda, that's fact.
It is rather arrogant of you to assert this as fact. And also wrong.
As to whether homosexuality is or is not a choice, I happen to believe it *is* mostly, although probably not entirely. That is to say I believe there are some predisposing neurochemical and/or neuroanatomical factors but they no more absolutely determine one's ultimate destiny than any other non-pathological innate brain structure variation.
The truth is, insufficient research has yet been done to establish the causes of homosexuality, but the gay community have been consistently guilty of selective bias when determining which scientific papers to accept. My reading of the anatomical brain studies done so far indicates that those gender-orientation related brain differences which exist are probably developmental in nature, as are the enlarged brain regions concerned with spatial mapping found in experienced taxi drivers.
What a sorry lot the human race would be if everything we were destined to become were already stamped into our brains from before birth. I prefer to believe that we possess at least the capability of free will. And it is well established that environment is critical in determining the development of the mind, anyway. I accept that congenital factors and prenatal development factors can be significant, but only fascists believe that one's character is solely determined by genetics.
Propaganda is what you get from right-wing pundits and religious leaders.
By the way, I have no interest in the ideological rantings of either "right-wing pundits" or "religious leaders". Nor political correctness nazis for that matter, nor gay activists. My opinions are based upon my personal experiences, my knowledge of psychology, neuroscience and my own reflection. I don't believe in ideologies of any kind because they place limits upon what thoughts can be spoken, and eventually upon what thoughts can be conceived. The Orwellian Newspeak of Political Correctness is the most striking example of this today. In some legislative jurisdictions, to speak out against gay values is even characterized as "Hatecrime". That's scary.
Before you go any further I'd ask you to review this thread from start to finish and see if you can determine which of us is trying to be balanced and rational and which of us simply ranting ideology and shouting in all caps (the email equivalent of foaming at the mouth, BTW). It's important that you learn the difference if you truly want to live in peace. But then again, maybe you actually prefer aggressive confrontation.
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-09-29 18:00 · Score: 1

I'm not the one ranting here. If you look back over this thread and see notice just who it is that keeps shouting in capitals I think you'll see what I mean.

As to the points you raised, I've answered them elsewhere.

It's clear that you know far less about this than you think you do. Every actual point you made (in between shouting and spewing insults) is nothing but quotes from the book of gay propaganda - either fundamentally misunderstood or just plain wrong.

I'm sorry but I don't have the time to educate you.

With regard to "fighting against the inevitable", that's just wishful thinking. There's no law of physics underlying your point of view to ensure you will get your own way; and I rather think if you keep on the way you are then when the anti-gay backlash comes (and that's the only thing that really is inevitable, because no human historical trend progresses uniformly over time) it will probably turn out to be more violent and draconian than any of us would wish.
Re:Au contraire... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 07:50 · Score: 0

some of them were boys.
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-09-30 15:50 · Score: 1

Homosexuality is not a choice, period. This is experienced, lived, and KNOWN by me. How arrogant of you to sit out there, clueless as to anything about homosexuality, what a homosexual person goes through, making high-and-mighty ivory tower pronunciations of what you think about the origins of homosexuality. Sorry, but my experience puts your assertion that homosexuality is a CHOICE to shame, and exposes it for the ignorant ranting that it is.

It's not pathological. It's not a disease. No reputable scientist, psychologist, or psychiatrist believes homosexuality is either an illness or a choice. It just is. Like left-handedness. Nobody is SURE what "causes" homosexaulity, but it seems to be a mixture of biology and very early developmental environment.

Gays do NOT recruit. Never have and never will, and I have no idea why you keep blithely asserting this as if it were a fact, or even a remote possibility. Nobody who is not gay can "become" gay, just as no gay person can "become" straight. You are what you are.

I hope to god your kids AREN'T gay, because I've seen first hand what kind of damage parents like you, why try to 'guide' their kids like that, can do to a gay child. You know those promiscuous gays you rant on about? Almost all of them had parents who rejected them or taught them to hate gays (thus themselves)... knowingly or unknowingly. Self-loathing is a real problem among homosexuals, drilled into them by their parents and society as a whole. And it's more proof that people do NOT choose to be gay... why would anyone want to? Who is it that wakes up one day and says "Hey, I want to turn into a homosexual so I can be ostracised, denied employment, denied equal rights, be thought of as a sick pervert, be rejected by friends and family, be denied marriage, and have all of society bent on destroying my happiness and relationships!"... are you kidding me??

And you're not being 'balanced', regardless of thinking you are. Sorry, but I have no tolerance for prejudice or for bigotry, and you've shown both. Not to mention ignorance. You think you know a lot more than you do. Trust me, I'm way more knowledgable and experience on this topic than you ever will be.

I don't have patience or tolerance for people who think blacks are inferior and who sit and calmly try to talk and 'reason' that this is true. It's not. Ditto people who try to paint homosexuals as diseased, perverted, or people who recruit young children into their evil lifestyle. Your bigotry is stamped all over your message, exposed by your very word choices.

I never said that homosexuality was determined solely by genetics (that's your strawman, you putting words in my mouth). I said it's not a CHOICE. Like being left-handed, it's not a choice.

I don't understand your homophobia here, other than it stems from almost pure ignorance. But it's a very literal homphobia... you're afraid. Why? I have no idea. But why you think you have the right to oppress people, prevent them from expressing themselves, I have no idea. Why you think gay people all lead the same "lifestyle", I have no idea. Why you cannot see that gay people are every bit as diverse as straight people, I have no idea. There is almost NOTHING you can say about all homosexuals that is true, other than "homosexuals are sexually and emotionally attracted to members of the same sex". Beyond that, homosexuals come in all sizes, shapes, intellects, personalities, classes, colors, and creeds.

If you truely want to live in peace, you'll stop advocating the oppression of people like me and my friends. You too would get hot under the collar if a whole group of people who were obviously clueless about you, judging you based on superficial ideas of a small minority of "people like you", and people who wish you would just disappear so they wouldn't have to acknowledge your existence. I don't LIKE agressive confrontation. Ignorant and arrogant bigotry and prejudice makes aggressive confrontation necessary.

I

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-09-30 16:01 · Score: 1

I'm not the one ranting here. If you look back over this thread and see notice just who it is that keeps shouting in capitals I think you'll see what I mean

There is more than one kind of 'ranting'.

It's clear that you know far less about this than you think you do.

No, what's clear is that YOU know far less about this than you think you do.

Every actual point you made (in between shouting and spewing insults) is nothing but quotes from the book of gay propaganda - either fundamentally misunderstood or just plain wrong

Bullshit. That's just bullshit and you know it. An assertion, not a fact. I'm not speaking from any propaganda book (no such book exists). I'm talking about facts as I've lived them. As I KNOW them. In my every day experience. You have not refuted even one of them, yet. Certainly not successfully. The only think you've refuted is that homosexuality is purely genetically determined, which I never asserted anyway.

With regard to "fighting against the inevitable", that's just wishful thinking.

I'm sure the whites of separatist Alabama thought the same thing back in the 1950's.

Just as blacks have progressed over time, so to will gays. Setbacks will be occasional but temporary speed bumps, just as for blacks. Over time, humanity is moving towards accepting diversity and granting more and more rights to more people, rather than reserving rights for just a few elite by birthright. It's been the progress of history for a long time now. Gay people, who have always existed, and always will exist, will continue to benefit from more and more equal rights. As more people know gay people personally, it makes any violent or draconian backlash less and less likely. It can happen, certainly (as it did in Berlin in the 1930's), but outside the puritanical US, gays already are moving quickly into being considered equal citizens with equal rights. The majority of NATO allows gays to serve in the military without having to be closeted or lie about who they are or who their partners are. The majority of EU nations and Canada provide some form of domestic partnership that confers most of the civil rights, benefits, and responsibiltiies of marriage, with several nations granting out-right equal marriage rights.

It will happen here, eventually, as well. Progress marches on. And this is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. It is nothing to fear, and I can't imagine why you fear it.

Just as opression of blacks gave rise to the militant "Black Panthers", so too has opression of gays given rise to the like of "Act-Up". The agressive in-your-face reaction is a response to bigoted opression. If you don't like it, don't oppress. The agressive response disappears when there is no oppression, or bigotry, for it to fight against.

Stop thinking of gay people as some monolithic community. They are not. They are anything but. There are gay people at all points of the political and intellectual spectrums, on all sides of every issue. The assertion that there is some unified set of 'gay propaganda' is laughable. That there is somehow "recruitment" is laughable. Gay people don't create gay people... straight people do. Think about that for a while.

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-09-30 20:55 · Score: 1

I don't have time to read all of this but from just the first couple of paras I can see it isn't going anywhere new. You just keep repeating dogma that I know has no basis in fact. Also you need to realize that outside of your own head, your own personal experience is just a single data point and therefore as evidence to back up your assertions it is virtually useless, by itself.
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-09-30 20:58 · Score: 1

There is more than one kind of 'ranting'.

I see. Well if you are going to redefine words on the fly, then it's going to be kind of difficult to communicate isn't it!

Sorry but you're just not a credible witness and this is going nowhere but round in circles. I'm outta here.
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-10-01 02:43 · Score: 1

I am not repeating dogma, I am repeating fact. YOU are repeating dogma, straight from the religious right anti-gay talking points, that has no basis in fact.

I'd love to see you actually justify any of your statments, but I doubt you will (because they're not justifiable). Oh ye of closed mind and bigoted heart, I'd love to hear you detail just what has gone "too far", exactly how and when gay's "recruit", and in what way it is a "choice".

And for the record, yes, I did get to what I consider to be new stuff at the end, and you should read it all.

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-10-01 02:48 · Score: 1

Look, if you sit a Nazi in front of a jew and have them discuss, the Nazi can calmly express how dirty and sub-human jews are, causing the jew to get indignant at the ignorance and hatred being displayed, and that doesn't make the Nazi cooly rational or the Jew "ranting".

Ranting against ignorant bigotry and hatred isn't a bad thing. You inspired it with your ignorant bigotry and hated. My "ranting" isn't unbalanced or ignorant, but is based on a frustration with you and your ignorantly bigoted point of view that you not only cannot seem to defend at all, but that has no basis in reality.

I am a far more credible "witness" than you are, and your dismissal of me (again, with no grounds or identifiable justification) is mind-boggling.

You drop the most offensively bigoted remarks and then never ever defend them... and when called on them simply accuse the other of "ranting". Your argument, such as it is, is full of strawmen and is completely disingeneous and intellectually dishonest.

I'd love for you even once to give specifics. But of course, your mind is made up, closed, and locked into its ignorant bigotry, and no amount of real life experience, real life facts, or logcal reasoning seem to be able to budge you one inch.

I guess I'll have to be satisfied knowing that you're on the wrong side of history, are or soon will be in an increasingly irrelevent minority, and leave you to stew in your own hatred and intolerance.

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-10-02 09:54 · Score: 1

Look, if you sit a Nazi in front of a jew
Bzzt! Sorry, I invoke Godwin's Law. I win! Heh heh!
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-10-02 19:07 · Score: 1

Very funny. I made valid points, and you admited you didn't even read them. Whatever.

I hope you enjoy Eddie Izzard as Dr. Who! :-)

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-10-02 21:43 · Score: 1

LOL! Eddie Izzard rules.
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-10-02 21:46 · Score: 1

BTW I don't think your points were valid, they sucked. I just got tired running round in circles.

You're entitled to your opinion anyway.
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-10-03 17:20 · Score: 1

Eh, whatever. My points were valid, whether you liked them or not. That's your problem. You never really refuted any of my points, you merely dismissed them as 'propaganda' (which they weren't, they were mostly living experience which you seem to think doesn't count, and only your ivory-tower pontificating counts). Besides, how can you know of my points sucked if you never bothered to read them?? Hrm?

And Eddie Izzard is a transvestite. Are you sure you want to expose your kids (or yourself!)to such a deviant perverse cult like him? He accepts gay people too! The horrors! Dear god, it might be CATCHING! Aren't you affraid he'll try and RECRUIT you??

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-10-03 23:31 · Score: 1

Transvestites aren't trying to take over the world and remodel it in their own image.

They don't appear to actively recruit young people the way that some gays do.

They don't rely routinely on invective as a means of discourse.

They're not inimical to the nuclear family and are perfectly capable of marrying and raising children. With a person of the opposite gender.

They don't use the words "ignorant bigot" in every other sentence and they don't shout in all caps.

The increasing acceptance of transvestitism in society has not led to increased incidence of references to deviant sexual practices in the mainstream media.

***

Don't you get it yet? Are you so steeped in your own preconceptions that you are incapable of listening? You have done everything in your power to drain your argument of any credibility; you must be the least convincing apologist for gay ideals that I have ever encountered.

Stop spraying spittle in people's faces, eliminate the bitter sarcasm, drop the "ignorant bigot" invective and maybe then people will listen to you. If, indeed, you have anything left to say at all.

Try appealing to reason, rather than wishful thinking. Seek support from established, properly peer-reviewed, objective evidence (if you can find any) rather than the ideology of political correctness or your own meaningless navel gazing.

***

How is it that my expression of my views is "pontificating"? I'm preaching to no-one; you challenged me, remember. I've already tried to end this conversation with "let's agree to disagree" but you keep coming back for more.

In what sense is it is "ivory tower"? My own views are based on practical knowledge *and* personal experience, mainly of other people's behaviour. In my youth, I held the opposite point of view. It took me many years to arrive at the conclusions I now hold to be evident.

Whereas the personal experience that you refer to is only internal reflection and counts only for you even if you're right about it and not simply deluding yourself as you really do seem to be.

And your interpretation of the available evidence seems to have confirmed only what you wanted to believe in the first place. Which raises serious questions about your ability to see things objectively. That has by itself been a critical factor in undermining the credibility of your argument.

***

By the way, you insisting that your points were valid doesn't actually lend them any validity. Duh.
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-10-05 07:00 · Score: 1

Transvestites aren't trying to take over the world and remodel it in their own image.

Neither are gays. What a bizzare assertion. Since when is wanting equal rights (not special rights) and a place at the table "trying to take over the world". Get over it. Gays are part of society and will always remain so.

They don't appear to actively recruit young people the way that some gays do.

That is such a lie. Sexual orientation is relatively fixed, either at birth or by a very young age (two or so). That there are a few pedophiles out there (which, by the way, the majority of are STRAIGHT) and preditors out there (again, most sexual predators are STRAIGHT) is not relevent. You don't hold ALL straight people responsibile for a few straight sex criminals, do you? Then why do you hold ALL gay people responsible for the few gay sex criminals out there?!? Trust me, RECRUITING doesn't happen. It can't happen. You can't turn a straight person gay, and vice-versa.

They're not inimical to the nuclear family and are perfectly capable of marrying and raising children.

The "nuclear family" is an invention of the last century, and there is nothing inherently superior about it. (In fact, it was the 'nuclear family' of the 40's/50's that gave rise to the generation of rebelion in the 60's/70's, right?). Most succesfull families in human history have been multigenerational. But beyond the 'nuclear family' myth, most gay people I know of live in stable couples, and many raising children just fine. After all, who ELSE is going to raise all those massive numbers of unwanted children that straights manage to thoughtlessly produce? Gay couples adopt, and raise perfectly fine kids.

They don't use the words "ignorant bigot" in every other sentence and they don't shout in all caps.

Heh! They certainly do when addressing ignorant bigots. Especially ignorant bigots who are in denial and have frustrated them to no end with their constant counter-factual nonsense.

The increasing acceptance of transvestitism in society has not led to increased incidence of references to deviant sexual practices in the mainstream media

Wow, you're making a lot of tenuous connections here. I'd say one of the events that increased the incidence of references to "deviant sexual practices" the MOST in this country was Bill Clinton's affair (thanks to Republican partisan Ken Starr). Gays had nothing to do with it. And beyond that, you're assuming "the closet" is the proper place for people who are different from you (your attitude seems to be "I don't care if you're different, just MAKE SURE I don't know about it"). Which is very elitist, narrow-minded, and yes bigoted. It certainly isn't very realistic either.

Don't you get it yet? Are you so steeped in your own preconceptions that you are incapable of listening? You have done everything in your power to drain your argument of any credibility; you must be the least convincing apologist for gay ideals that I have ever encountered.

Substitute "gay" with "anti-gay", and I could turn that sentence around right back at you. You *clearly* don't get it.

Whereas the personal experience that you refer to is only internal reflection and counts only for you...

You must not comprehend what you read well... what I describe is not just personal experience, but is the experience I've witnessed in the gay community as near-universal. I've talked with hundreds of gay people and bisexuals, and nobody (NOBODY) has even the slightest feeling that they "chose" to be gay, and all report first realizing they were gay during puberty, or the standard 'sexual awakening'. Almost all of them can cite examples prior to puberty that only make sense if you knew they were a gay kid. And most of them never wanted to be gay, and fought it long and hard (up to and including contemplating suicide because they had such disapproving parents who were teaching th

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-10-05 07:05 · Score: 1

...oh, one last thing. It won't change your mind at all (I'm not convinced your mind can be changed), but here's an article on the latest study out of the UK:

U.K. study: Sexuality is set before birth

I'm sure you'll just dismiss it out of hand (as it doesn't fit your newly found preconceived stereotypes), but hopefully you'll instead add it to the list of data available. Between this, and the studies that show that "ex-gay" repairative therapy simply doesn't work, maybe you might become convinced that it's not a "choice" (in what is typically meant by that word).

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-10-05 10:25 · Score: 1

I promise it'll be worth your while to read this comment all the way through. I can't promise that you'll like it though.

I saw a report on this earlier today in the Times. Heh! I immediately though about you. What a gift! You must have been dancing in circles.

It's interesting all right. But to say that it proves what you say it proves would at least be premature at this stage. The researchers themselves probably aren't making such a bold claim; we've been down this route before with other similar research and those who did were eventually shot down in flames - so jumping the gun like that would look like a classic Career Limiting Manoeuvre.

Hold your fire and wait. Maybe it'll turn out to be relevant but it will take more research before we know *how* relevant.

Perhaps more importantly though, if there does prove to be some correlation between prenatal brain development and gender disorientation that's still a long way from saying that gender disorientation is universally determined by this one factor.

If you re-read my earlier comments in this thread you'll see where I already admitted that congenital brain factors could be *partly* responsible. But in general these things only influence predisposition to some degree which varies betwen individuals. They don't set an obligatory template for your life.

It would be very worrying if they did. Not only because of the ramifications for free will but also because of the ethical ramifications of society's probably reaction.

Already in some parts of the world it is possible (I say possible, not laudable) to have a pregnancy terminated on the basis of a crude genetic assay - eg on detection of various common birth defects or even simply the "wrong" sex.

If some parents think it's OK to abort because the foetus is a girl rather than a boy, do you think they would be more or less likely to terminate a foetus that was predestined to be gay?

Perhaps this isn't so likely to happen in a modern, Western, liberal (nominally Christian) country. I don't know. Think of the awful dilemma faced by right-wing conservative anti-gay anti-abortionists! Maybe the real winners would turn out to be the "pro-choice" lobby.

On the other hand, if the extravagant claims made by the newspapers today in reporting this research paper *do* turn out to be correct, then given time the "problem" could be simply made to go away by developing hormone treatments to give to pregnant mothers. Just like Folic acid supplements.

Either way, an established prenatal cause for homosexuality would be likely to result in a "cure" sooner or later. A cure that would be applied before birth. Or even instead of birth.

I doubt this is what the gay community wanted. I wonder if gays will soon start claming that their gender disorientation is not predetermined after all, but a matter of personal choice?

In fact I think you can pretty much count on that.
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-10-05 10:32 · Score: 1

Please accept my apologies for misusing the term "gender disorientation" - this is used almost exclusively to describe transsexuality. I should have said "sexual disorientation".
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-10-06 18:59 · Score: 1

Trust me, it's sexual ORIENTATION, not "disorientation". There ain't nothing wrong with me.

Homosexuals have existed throughout history, and even exist in most other animal species. It's a part of nature. It just is. Do you term left-handedness as "disfunctional handedness"?? I doubt it.

It's just different. I have no idea why it bothers you so much. I really don't. Nobody's trying to convert you. Nobody *wants* to convert you.

Even if you did consider it a dysfunction, why show such disrespect and distaste? Do you show as much to people who are blind or otherwise diabled? (and no, I don't think you can equate homosexuality with being disabled, but some people seem to... yet still treat it with a special reserve of contempt and/or venom). Even if you did consider it a "choice" (which it emphatically is not), do you show such contempt for people of different religions than you? Are they "dysfunctionally religious"?

Sigh. I wish I could comprehend what you're so afraid of, and what you're so up in arms about, and why you hold such contempt for people not like you.

If you re-read my comments, you'll see I never ever claimed it was *solely* genetic. In fact, I repeated the twins study, which shows that in twins, if one is gay, the other is twice as likely to be gay as in fraternal twins. I think this clearly shows that there's a genetic predisposition, but obviously not a genetic certainty.

But again, this doesn't mean it's a "choice", nor does it mean it's a "disease" to be "cured".

As for your concern about free will, other twin studies show more cause for your concern (twins raised apart from birth tend to dress very similarlly, use the same brands and products, have the same tastes, etc., to a statistically significant degree). And as for the genetic screening to terminate gay fetuses, of course it's a concern (Ever see the movie "Twilight of the Golds"? It's pretty decent, if not, and touches on this exact subject. It stars Brendan Fraser).

Additional studies show that the more older brothers you have, the greater the chances of you being gay are. It's an interesting study. Additionally, homosexuality seems to 'run' in some families... but not in others. I know one family where all three children are gay (one gay man, two lesbians). Even more interestingly, the parents are very straight, very religious, VERY right-wing conservative Republicans. Two of the children are in the closet to their parents. The third (one of the lesbians) is essentially cut out of the Parent's lives (their insistence). Wouldn't it be ironic if anti-gay upbringings caused homosexuality?? ROFL! (just kidding)

And while it isn't a choice in any sense of the word that matters (i.e. I can only really choose to be closeted or to be honest and open... I can't choose what makes my dick hard, or who I fall in love with)... even if it were, should it matter? If two people love each other, why try and keep them apart? In past decades, interracial relationships were *illegal*. In past decades inter-faith relationships were scandalous, if not illegal. Now, most people don't even bat an eye at either. Someday, the same will be true of same-sex relationships. It's already that way in a great many European countries, and Canada is following quickly behind. Gays serve openly in virtually every military in NATO except in the US. The direction of time and progress is clear.

The US is just a little backwards in this regard. But not endlessly so. This too shall pass.

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-10-06 22:08 · Score: 1

I can't choose [...] who I fall in love with
Leaving homosexuality aside for the moment...
Falling in love is indeed a voluntary phenomenon. Not only that, it requires active and willing mental participation. (I speak as someone who fell very, very hard for a girl a long time ago, and the experience is stamped into my soul so deeply I can never forget even the tiniest detail).
I know some people claim they have no choice and maybe it is different for them, but if so I believe the difference is only that they so much don't want to turn back, that they are so afraid of bursting the bubble, that they deny the very possibility.
Recent research showed that the brain mechanisms (neuroanatomical and neurochemical pathways) involved in falling in love are the same ones implicated in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. There is nothing really mysterious about it after all.
The fact is that no matter how attracted you are to someone it is always possible to make yourself turn away (though admittedly easier in the beginning than later when the obsession is fully-fledged).
Once you have put some distance between you the pain lessens somewhat, and the obsession fades over time, if not the memory.
It's clear from all this that "falling in love" is nothing more than a legacy from evolutionary psychology, intended to encourage humans to pair bond.
Other research shows that humans also "imprint" somehow for a certain type (for males the type is usually based on either their mother or the first person with whom an intimate bond of some sort was established) and this type forms a rough template which will bias preferences in a particular direction when seeking mates.
I don't think this is insignificant in the case of gays. Sexual preference and sexual behaviour are not nearly so hard wired in humans as they are in other mammals. Most sexually aware people know by experience that the response to a sexual stimulus becomes stronger when exposure to that stimulus is repeatedly associated with sexual stimulation.
This is exactly how fetishes are formed. It is also why sexual preferences in humans diverge so widely and become so ingrained. Human sexuality is exceedingly plastic, especially in the young. The process of training it to identify mates, which receives only a few rough cues from biology, is especially prone to being derailed. Hence, ex-public schoolboys with fetishes for caning or spanking. Hence, also, the higher incidence of homosexuality among alumni of such single-sex schools.
In other words, our sexual orientation is heavily influenced by experiences formed during childhood and puberty.
I haven't seen any complete theory of why exactly human sexuality should be so malleable compared to, say, ducks. But it is surely linked with the fact that physical morphology of male and female primates of the same species is essentially similar, and secondary sexual characteristics vary so widely that morphologies actually overlap. At the same time, racial and individual differences can be striking so that physical sexual cues are almost lost in the noise.
Also, for humans, the appearance of males and females varies so drastically between different cultures that human sexuality *must* be culturally programmable or else these cultural differences could not have arisen and would not work. Sexual ornamentation (lipstick, neck rings, penis sheaths) exists in order to guide potential mates through the morphological noise and help to identify the wearer as a potential mate. By the time one is "programmed" with the right cultural sexual cues, it is possible to provoke a sexual response with the ornamentation alone. Just the same as the school biology experiment with sticklebacks, where a red plastic blob is enough to make the male begin his courtship "dance".
Anyway, this is why I believe that societal and personal experiential influences are of primary importance in determining sexual orientation and why, therefore, care should be taken to polic
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-10-07 12:42 · Score: 1

Disasterous?? No offence, but not having grandkid is hardly disasterous. Your children's lives are not All About You. Besides, as the incidence of homosexuality goes up the more older siblings you have, it's likely you'll have plenty of grandchildren through other offspring. Are you completley closed to the concept that there may be evolutionary benefit to having gay siblings? To individuals whose energy isn't totally devoted to the raising of their own offspring? Do you wonder why gays are so prevalent in the arts? Do you think Alan Turing could have done all he did, from establishing computer science to winning WW2 if he had four kids demanding all his time? And do you conceed no evolutionary advantage to the woman with several children, who has a gay brother who can help her from time to time to provide for those kids?

I only ask that they avoid influencing our young in their sexual preferences.

You keep making vague claims like this, with no concrete evidence of what you MEAN. Do you mean simply existing? Being visible like any other citizen? And you speak of "gay culture" as if it were a single, monolithic concept. Which only proves to me how ignorant you are of gay people.

The vast majority of gay people do NOT participate in the "stereotypical gay lifestyle" and more than all straight people go to raves and have kids as teens out of wedlock. Gays are just not monolithic. They're republicans, democrats, and everything else. They're religious, they're atheist. They're wild and crazy, and they're shy and reserved.

And removing the presence of gay people from media? Are you KIDDING me? You want all media to conspire to show the world as it is not? There was ZERO gay presence in the media in the 50's (well, not zero, what what little there was was certainly not understandable by kids, and was exteremely negative), and it did not in any way supress the number of gay people in existence. All such things do is drive people into closets (a VERY mentally unhealthy place to be), breed resentment, and exactly the kind of Act-Up in-your-faceness that you abhor so much. Your "solution" is indeed the biggest problem.

Gays are on TV all over Europe, and it's no big thing. Nothing special. No "special episodes", no massive drama, no major outcries. And you know what? There's no greater incidence of homosexuality there, and in fact, there's markedly less "in your face" reactionaries. There's no NEED for such fighting for rights or organizing, because they simply have their rights and can simply live their lives just like anyone else.

The age of consent for homosexuality shouldn't be any different for heterosexuality (you do know that the vast, vast majority of sexual abuse is by heterosexuals on opposite sex children, mostly uncles and fathers on their own neices and daughters), right? And you've heard of the "equal protection" clause of the consititution, right?

You've not established that any real "recruitment" occurs, scientifically. You haven't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what form this alleged "recruitment" takes, so I think legislating against an ENTIRE group of people is a bit premature, don't you think?

And any association of homosexuality to paedophilia on any level is just repugnant. There's a major difference: one of consent. I know you understand this concept since you're always going on about free will.

(on a side-note, you might want to read "Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern" by Douglas R. Hofstadter for some interesting discussions on the illusion of 'free will' ;-)

The fact is that no matter how attracted you are to someone it is always possible to make yourself turn away

And there's where we differ. When I say one doesn't choose to fall in love, you don't really refute that fact. I don't CHOOSE who I subconsciously react to. What I CAN do is choose to not act on my feelings. That's the only "choice" involved.

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-10-07 14:55 · Score: 1

SpryGuy, I never meant to insinuate any special connection between paedophilia and homosexuality. I think we are talking at crossed purposes here. The recruiting of young people I was talking about - I have only witnessed this taking place in teenagers of the age of 16 or over. So leaving aside the issue of local variations in age of consent laws, and regardless of my personal distaste for the type of recruitment taking place, I do not consider it to be like paedophilia. It's a different category of thing altogether.
With regard to evidence about this recruitment, it would be ludicrous to expect me to name names here.
As to what form it takes, use your imagination: this is about sexual seduction of course. Also and just as important there is a seduction of social inclusion which is very tempting for those who are lonely, disturbed or otherwise emotionally vulnerable. And you might ask what is the harm in that, but it is a steep price to pay when the price is exclusion from what most of us consider a "normal" life, and exclusion from the gene pool.
I've seen both types of seduction employed upon friends of mine on two separate occasions when I was at college, and I've also seen how current gay friends of mine behave around impressionable youngsters, again employing both types of seduction. There's just no room for argument about this. I have seen it over and over again. Perhaps you and your friends don't behave this way: well if so, then that's really good. But I've seen it and it really does happen.
You've repeatedly made the point that there is no single gay lifestyle, that most gays don't participate in the sterotypical gay lifestle, and implied that I'm therefore railing against something that doesn't exist. Look, I'm well aware that there are many gay people who choose to keep their affairs relatively private. But I'm not complaining about them at all. I *am* complaining about the promiscuous gays. I *am* complaining about the recruiting gays. I *am* complaining about the militant gays necking in the street and campaigning for "positive images" of gays in young children's books, in school curricula and all over TV etc. so as to make it impossible for us ever to protect our children from their propaganda. Each of these types of gay person has a common subculture associated with them, places they hang out, things they say, things they promote. I think in fact that you do know exactly what I mean, given your reference to "Act-Up-in-your-faceness".
Good points about evolutionary benefit of gay siblings etc, BTW. This kind of stuff makes me sit up and listen. I'm really glad we're done with the name-calling.
All the same, a parent's anxieties might not be assuaged by this. Your argument presupposes that there are anough kids around in the first place for busy parents to benefit from extra assistance.
But suppose they only have one or two kids? The prospect of grandchildren is far from certain. Let's face it: like your straight friends, just as in the educated and affluent in general: birth rates are already falling rapidly. Marriage is less popular than ever, and those who do marry are more likely to divorce. In the current culture of the primacy of self-gratification, fewer people seem to able to face the responsibility of a truly lifelong commitment to a relationship, let alone children.
So those who do become parents and who are serious about it might well distrust any additional influences which could influence their offspring to drop out of the gene pool. As do I.
I don't consider adoption and two parents of the same sex to be an acceptable substitute and though this is an arrangement that is likely to become legal in the near future, it is not something I would personally want to encourage any more than I would encourage single parent families. A child needs a mum and a dad.
Falling in love, the issue of choice etc: I doubt it is possible to even have a conversation about this anymore. The Newspeak of the political correctness lobby has mov
Re:Au contraire... by SpryGuy · 2003-10-09 13:26 · Score: 1

There's just no room for argument about this.

You're right, there isn't. You're just plain wrong and your imagination is working over time. There's no such thing as "recruitment". It's not possible. It's like recruiting people to become left-handed. It ain't gonna work.

Seduction? Sure. But at 16, if some woman or girl had tried to seduce me, she NEVER would have been successful. Because I'm not heterosexual. Or even bisexual. The same is true in reverse. A gay guy can hit on a guy all he wants, but unless that guy is gay or bisexual to begin with, he's not going to have any sort of success.

I know what you're talking about, and I know what you mean, but what you're thinking and saying is just wrong. You're missing the forest for the trees. There will always be individuals that "prey" on the weak, the lonely, the disenfranchized. And it's not at all a straight/gay thing. It's always wrong, but to advocate that all homosexuals everywhere should be denied equal rights because, just like straights, some of them have questionable moral character, is just not rational.

All the same, a parent's anxieties might not be assuaged by this.

A parent's irrational anxieties should never be the basis for disenfranchising and denying equal rights to entire segments of the population. You're anxieties are ill-founded, bordering on ridiculous. You focus all on the anti-gay side, while never seeming to acknowledge that even if you wiped out gays, the same issues will still exist. A friend of mine has two kids. One is infertile, the other has no interest in kids. My friend will never have grandchildren and both her kids are straight.

Look, deal with what life gives you and stop trying to change everything to meet your idealistic wishing. You go on and on about how you hate gays allegedly trying to pervert your world, yet you think you have the right to pervert theirs and force them in the closet or advocate eradicating them? Hypocritical is the word that comes to mind. Irrational. Maybe even "control freak".

And as for a child needing a mum and a dad, try and get a little perspective. Divorce is MUCH more damaging to children than having loving gay parents. Why aren't you advocating the elimination of divorce? It's definitely a choice, and is definitely a *heterosexual* problem. Why continue to scape-goat gay people for problems that are not their fault at all? Besides, gay couples help raise all those unwanted, abandoned, and given-up-for-adoption children that heterosexuals are always producing. If you're really interested in helping children, I can think of dozens of far more relevent and immediate issues to address than gay parents, gay couples, or gays in general. Perspective.

As for your dreams and hopes for the future, I find them beyond chilling. You are essentially advocating eugenics and genocide. You sit there calmly and cooly advocating the elimination of a whole group of people as a 'problem', using questionable pseudo-scientific reasoning and incredibly warped perspectives, even though you yourself admit it's not everyone in the group that's a problem. You even managed to identify the real problem you have ("promiscuity") without seemingly realizing it. It's fine if you want to curb promiscuity, but promiscuity is not the sole posession of homosexuals. Yet you demonize an entire group based on your perceptions on this one issue.

You can say I automatically "lose" the argument, but it is seriously no different than Germans in 1930 discussing the "Jewish Problem" and their disgust at any positive images of jewish people... or people in Idaho discusing the "black" problem, talking about how they're all lazy and on welfare. Selective perception, twisted by a bizzarely hateful ideology, and some bizzare fear or insecurity that isn't based on anything real or rational.

Heterosexuality IS considered normal, and nothing will ever change that, so why you phrase your argument so that it implies that t

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Au contraire... by ralphclark · 2003-10-10 12:42 · Score: 1

Assuming for the sake of argument that sexual orientation is congenital as you suppose: with regard to your remark about "eugenics", regardless of whatever *I* might want, if it were to become possible for parents to maximize heterosexuality in their offspring through antenatal care consisting of dietary supplements or hormone treatment or whatever, don't you think they would?

Given that parents in some parts of the world routinely practise abortion to ensure more boys, don't you think they would just as quickly abort a foetus destined to be gay?

This is all about parental aspirations. Yes, divorce is a problem (and incidentally the increasing divorce rate is something I do speak out against very frequently) but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand and regardless of a parent's views on divorce they will still usually seek to avoid having homosexual offspring. This will happen no matter what you or I say.

You're just plain wrong and your imagination is working over time. There's no such thing as "recruitment". It's not possible. It's like recruiting people to become left-handed. It ain't gonna work.

Who do you think you are telling *me* what *I* have or have not witnessed? You are in denial. Get over it or don't get over it, but don't call me a liar. I have seen recruitment attempted many times. I have seen it succeed a few. In between I have seen normally heterosexual men tempted in a moment of weakness, lubricated by drink or drugs, to do something that they later regretted, but by which were forever changed. If you deny this out of ignorance then it is you who are misdirected.

If you deny it in the face of my honest testimony then your belief system is based on denial of the truth and it is you who are the bigot.

I am only moderately anti-gay in that I only want to not have your crap shoved in my face, invading my home and my kids' school, but you have consistently attempted to paint me as some sort of reactionary KKK-like figure. If you must insist on polarizing everything so that any attempt to get you to keep the more intimate and unsightly aspects of your personal life out of sight results in you characterizing me as a Nazi, then it is you who are hateful.

But I don't expect you to understand that; I think you are past all understanding and can't be reached. So I give up on this conversation. You want what you want and you are clearly incapable of taking on board anything that doesn't fit with the belief that you are right. I might as well talk to a lump of wood. I really am out of here now.

Why would we be ineterested in a gay dr who by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 03:53 · Score: 0

Go back into the closet you faggots.

Wait, I don't understand. Doctor 'who' comes back? by Phat_Tony · 2003-09-26 03:53 · Score: 1

Sorry, had to say it.

Couldn't resist the "Dr 'who''s on first? Potential. mmm, Daleks. For some reason, I can't find a version of that game for OS X.

--
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?

Robert Llewellyn for the new Doctor! by Picass0 · 2003-09-26 03:57 · Score: 1

Kryten from Red Dwarf. Also funny on Junkyard Wars.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-09-26 03:59 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Dr Poo by slimdave · 2003-09-26 04:01 · Score: 0

Dr Who fans should rush to http://www.viz.co.uk/games/downloads.htm to watch the Dr Poo cartoon. Daleks, those-things-that-came-out-of-the-water, etc.

Wow... by slasher999 · 2003-09-26 04:03 · Score: 1

Finally a good reason to pay the extra $5 a month for BBCA, DIY, Fine Living, and all those alternate Discovery channels. Actually, all those were reason enough, but I was PO'd at the cable company for taking them away from me when I didn't want to pay another $5 a month. Now I just may have to bite.

Good sfx != good stories? by fiannaFailMan · 2003-09-26 04:08 · Score: 1

I disagree. Good CGI effects and good, intellectual, long-term story-telling can co-exist. Just look at Babylon 5. And they had a pretty tight budget too. The use of CGI and innovative use of movable sets helped them to keep the costs down. Model shots can cost more than CGI and aren't necessarily as good.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

Re:SCO acquires a new business partner by Blue+Stone · 2003-09-26 04:08 · Score: 0

Darl-eks, The new poisoned sco-linux driven hegemony threatening the universe. Controlled by the evil Darlross, a vile and shrivelled evil "genius", and sent into the world to destroy all that is good and pure and beneficial to mankind; spreading FUD with their battle-cry:

EXTORTION-ATE... EXTORTION-ATE... EXTORTION-ATE

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce

Effects on BBC Download Project? by nurb432 · 2003-09-26 04:12 · Score: 1

Will the return effect the planned offering of older BBC stuff to be downloadable in the near future?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Not Tom Baker! by DrMorpheus · 2003-09-26 04:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Although he's definitely my favorite. I propose Rowan Atkins!

--
Debunking the "59 Deceits"

Re:Not Tom Baker! by SomeoneGotMyNick · 2003-09-26 04:49 · Score: 1

If Rowan does get the part, would we expect to see that funny blue car show up in every episode?
Re:Not Tom Baker! by revividus · 2003-09-26 06:29 · Score: 1

Uh...
You mean Rowan Atkinson?

--
philcrissman.com.
Re:Not Tom Baker! by DrMorpheus · 2003-09-26 09:06 · Score: 1

D'oh! Yes, and I also forgot that he did play the Doctor in a short spoof called, "The Curse of the Fatal Death" which also ended with a female Doctor.
Still, I'd like to see him do it on a regular basis anyway.

--
Debunking the "59 Deceits"

Not unless it's not Dr. Who by demo9orgon · 2003-09-26 04:22 · Score: 1

Whoo-hoo!
I've been TV-free since the start of summer, and even that bastard Bergman's "Ms. Blalock Vulcan Barbie Sexual-Tension Hour" (No offense to Ms. Blalock, Avatar of Circe, but after Bergman and co. basically performed a "bitchslap by proxy" on everything Gene Rodenberry did with "Enterprise" it's the only thing that drew me) couldn't bring me back.

And from the write-up on the front the first thing that came to mind was "We welcome our Queer-Eye Time Overlords".

Personally, I don't want another Dr. Who.
The stream is never the same twice, but humanity still can't stand new stories. Really.
How many countless variations of "Hercules 'this'" and "Gilgamesh 'that'" on the "Clever humans thwart the all-powerful, ooh we're such clever monkeys when we have a powerful fifth-column owner" pap. On the bright side, at least they're not all musicals.

Such diversions as "Dr. Who" take root when the people are ready to stomach better "Dawkins" meme-stuff. However, like the damming treatment of StarTrek under Bergman, we shouldn't stretch old-luck too far. The last time I watched Trek, I could have swore I saw them jump an ocean...no, planet of sharks. Stupid buggers.

--
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento

Oops by Tyler+Durden · 2003-09-26 04:30 · Score: 1

Before anyone else points it out, nobody has a concept of the word "subtelty" because "subtelty" isn't a word.

Subtlety.

There. Much better.

--
Happy people make bad consumers.

DEFINITE cartoon :-) by TomV · 2003-09-26 04:35 · Score: 1

There have been a few animated stories so far.

Death Comes to Time had McCoy and still pictures, it was followed by the slightly more mobile Real Time with Colin Baker and the slightly-more-mobile again Shada with McGann.

The one i think you're referencing is Scream Of The Shalka, by Paul Cornell, starring Richard E Grant, webcast from www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho starting on the 40th Anniversary, 23rd November 2003 with DVD for the christmas market and novelisation in Feb 2003.

tomV

Re:DEFINITE cartoon :-) by mlush · 2003-09-26 05:14 · Score: 1

There have been a few animated stories so far.
I don't think they were talking about 'web animations' They were quite clear about them being made for TV

Re:Torygraph by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 04:36 · Score: 0

Just what is your defintion of homophobic? Most people don't FEAR homosexuals, they are just disgusted and sickened by them. If every time you see a queer, you just think to yourself, "He sucks cocks", you'll see how they disgust the rest of us. But you're probably not disgusted because you're one of them.

Doctor Who Comeback... by wirelessbuzzers · 2003-09-26 04:45 · Score: 1

... didn't do good enough job first time.

--
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.

Re:Who's this doctor? by d2t7m · 2003-09-26 04:46 · Score: 1

The Doctor - "Hello, im the Doctor" Stranger - "the doctor? Doctor who?" The Doctor - "Precisly"

--
-Keys pressed randomly, any words that actually make sense are entirely a coincidence-

BBC America won't show it by BluedemonX · 2003-09-26 04:59 · Score: 1

BBC America is basically "The Gardening and Changing Rooms channel." Just check out the freakin schedule already: Changing Rooms, Ground Force, Ground Force, Changing Rooms, Changing Rooms, Ground Force, Ground Force America, Keeping Up Appearances, Graham Norton, Ground Force, Changing Rooms, coming up soon, the Changing Rooms marathon...

They've stopped showing the cool shows, like "The League of Gentlemen" or any comedy other than "My Hero" (Starring "Father Dougal" Ardal "Me? Toipecast? Never" O'Hanlon) and "Keeping Up Appearances".

--

--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix

Re:BBC America won't show it by Arcturax · 2003-09-26 05:18 · Score: 1

You are probably right... the best way to get it on American TV is to go through PBS. That is how we get it here in Cincinnati and have for over 20 years. Channel 48 shows it saturday nights here, for the longest time they would show the entire episode at once but now they just show two half hour sections each week instead. Of course some episodes are so long, I would often fall asleep trying to stay up to watch all of them so in some ways, the half hour segments isn't so bad.

But anyway, look for my main post to this article where I posted the address of the local Dr. Who fanclub near me. They are the ones who are responsible for keeping it on the air here, so they would be a good source of advice on how to convince your local PBS station to pick it up.

--

--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs

Great news! by Arcturax · 2003-09-26 05:14 · Score: 1

We still get Dr. Who shown here in Cincinnati on PBS, though they don't show whole episodes on Saturday nights anymore, they instead show two half hour segments instead.

Interestingly, Cincinnati has one of the biggest Dr. Who fanbases I've ever seen.

A local group: Friends of the Time Lords has helped keep it on TV here for oh about 20 years or more. So if you want advice on how to get it on TV in your area, you might check with them.

Here is their information since their web site seems to be down at the moment...

Friends of the Time Lord
Dr. Who Fan Club
2741 Faber Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45211-7908
http://welcome.to/fotl

Hmm as for the article, I couldn't help but laugh at the picture of the Dalek emerging from the Tardis... my first thought was "Well, the Doctor certainly has picked up a strange companion this time!".

Anyway, great to know that this is going back on the air. I'll be looking for it on PBS here :)

--

--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs

Rowan Atkins?!?!! (was Not Tom Baker) by AbsalomDaak · 2003-09-26 05:18 · Score: 1

It would certainly be a different doctor. Kind of a scary thought. :)

How about the actor who played Rimmer on Red Dwarf? I know he's pretty busy though.

Re:Who's this doctor? by InfoVore · 2003-09-26 05:36 · Score: 1

Will someone mention just once the frigging name of Who this doctor is??

I don't know, but I bet he plays First Base.

--
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon

of course by tabby · 2003-09-26 05:40 · Score: 1

Now I'm seeing Tom Baker's giant scarf and thinking feather boa ;-)

--
I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.

Re:So will Dr. Who be gay? by stwrtpj · 2003-09-26 05:41 · Score: 1

Probably not, as he's proved himself perfectly capable of writing straight characters elsewhere.

If the new episodes remain faithful to the old series, this becomes a moot point.

Other than the pure visual pleasantries of seeing some of the Doctor's female companions (insert obligatory complimentary remark about Leela here), the old Doctor Who was virtually devoid of romance or sex, save for some minor characters that we saw only once or twice. The main characters never truly had any sexual tension whatsoever, either gay or straight.

I, for one, was grateful for this. Doctor Who was pure, hard sci fi. A bit campy, yes, but still good. Excessive romantic entanglements with the main characters would just get in the way of the story and cramp the Doctor's style.

--
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)

My god! by flogger · 2003-09-26 05:41 · Score: 1

ALl you need to do to look at my signature to understand why I an jizzed about this as well.

Hopefully the our neighbors across the pond will but up some Bit Torrents. :-)

--
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor

Well then by geekoid · 2003-09-26 05:48 · Score: 1

use the Tardis and submit it first again. repeat until accepted.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Life is good... by Shamanin · 2003-09-26 06:03 · Score: 1

again.

--
come on fhqwhgads

This reminds me of... by Ed+Avis · 2003-09-26 06:08 · Score: 1

Reading that article I can't help but be reminded of Victor Lewis-Smith's Gay Daleks.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com

Speaking of stupid by revividus · 2003-09-26 06:26 · Score: 1

The parent was joking. YHBT. YHL. HAND.

--

philcrissman.com.

Not a Grammar Nazi by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 06:32 · Score: 0

Normally I'm not a grammar Nazi, but in a headline! It should be The Doctor Who Cameback\

Or maybe Doctor's Whom Come Back. Or possibly ... I dont' know, but that shit was all fscked up!

sheesh

PS: what's that?

DR WHO needs to be made into a MOVIE ! by zymano · 2003-09-26 06:33 · Score: 1

Can someone tell me why the BBC has not made this incredible series into a movie ?

And if they do they need to keep it out of AMERICAN producers hands since they would have TOBEY MCGUIRE or LEO cast as the DOCTOR.

Re:DR WHO needs to be made into a MOVIE ! by Fishstick · 2003-09-26 08:38 · Score: 1

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116118/

well, mase for TV, anyway

--
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Re:DR WHO needs to be made into a MOVIE ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:58 · Score: 0

Tobey Mcguire? No, but not too far off. A bit too young looking, even for a newly regenerated timelord. Ben Kingsley/Anthony Hopkins/John Neville/Ken Branagh/some good not-so-well-known British character or highly versatile American actor? Hell yes.
Re:DR WHO needs to be made into a MOVIE ! by zymano · 2003-09-26 14:51 · Score: 1

patrick stewart, actor wizard lord of the rings. Both capable English actors.
Re:DR WHO needs to be made into a MOVIE ! by Darby · 2003-09-26 17:27 · Score: 1

they would have TOBEY MCGUIRE or LEO cast as the DOCTOR.

Tobey is too young to be the doctor, but he might do ok as a companion.

He might actually do well as the Master, but prolly too young for that as well.
Re:DR WHO needs to be made into a MOVIE ! by crataegus · 2003-09-27 13:09 · Score: 1

Paul McGann made a good Doctor, I thought. Except for Tom, the doctor's alternated between having it all together and shrilly losing their minds.

--
DISCLAIMER: Use of this advanced computing technology does not imply an endorsement of Western industrial civilization.

Grim reaper Mal Young is the good news here by tyroneking · 2003-09-26 06:34 · Score: 1

I think that the BBC story includes mention of Mal Young overseeing the project - he has had a number of successes (Brookside - all those shaking heads and murders; Doctors - almost Dr Who in a suburban setting - the characters deal with life and death over their tea breaks; Holby City - almost as thrilling and violent as the first series of Casualty; In Deep - laddish violence sanctioned by the govt) and could be seen as a 'series fixer'; usually achieved by upping the amount of effective violence and death.

So good news for the series - it will be successful - and if it isn't, Mal will inject a healthy dose of violence and death (but of course, the Dr won't ever die - so Mal will have a field day ...)

Why hasn't DR. WHO been made into a MOVIE ???????? by zymano · 2003-09-26 06:39 · Score: 1

I think it would be perfect for the big screen.

Patrick Stewart or the actor that played the wizard in lord of the rings would be an excellent Dr. Who.

What do you all think ?

Dr. Who cares?!? by MysticGlyph · 2003-09-26 06:56 · Score: 1

I'm more of a battlestar galactica guy myself. I never could get into the Dr. Who show. They might have been wonderfully written but I would'nt know. I watched a few episodes with my brother (who loved the show) but I could never get passed the terrible acting and set designs, costumes etc. ...Dr. Who was by far the hardest to watch show on t.v. as I was growing up and I LOV/ED science fiction, all of it, everything on tv that was sci-fi related I would devour and waste my life watching. As soon as I saw Dr. Who come on I could'nt leave the room fast enough.

--
Try my new smokable Sig, ...Sig-erette.

MacGyver by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 06:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

Please. Don't peddle your BS here. The intellectual hero has always been appreciated and cheered. MacGyver was a perfect example of that in the 1980s. Today the hero has even branched out into non-action shows where intelligence is the key factor that catches the bad guy, like CSI.

Re:MacGyver by nomadic · 2003-09-27 04:33 · Score: 1

Use your own name, coward, if you want to debate me. MacGyver was a physical hero as well as a mental one; it was essentially an action-adventure series. The purely intellectual hero a la the Doctor is very hard to find.
Re:MacGyver by mink · 2003-09-30 06:41 · Score: 1

I am not the above poster, but how is the doctor "purely intellectual"?
He was not above kicking someones ass from time to time. I remember him fighting people with swords on a number of occasions, and making some fairly hefty weapons.
Was it the deadly assassin where they went into the matrix and were fighting?

--
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.

SILENCE by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 07:14 · Score: 0

Unless of course the series was called "Doctor Who" mr. petty attempt at humor. Why not include some soviet russia or welcome the new overlords while your trying to be funny

Is it time for a female Doctor? by Clith · 2003-09-26 07:20 · Score: 1

The Doctor is not human, so what's to prevent a female incarnation? How about Catherine Zeta Jones? Or perhaps... Angelina Jolie? And why does the Doctor have to be caucasian? Surely there are other races on Gallifrey?

--
[ReidNews]

Re:Is it time for a female Doctor? by disc0rdian · 2003-09-26 10:52 · Score: 1

Ahhh my thought's exactly, I just submitted a post saying that before I read yours. A female doctor would be great. As for Catherine Zeta Jones or Angelina Jolie, I doubt they could afford to pay them based on how much they make just for one movie! Though Angelina Jolie would make a great doctor I reckon

South Park crossover... by doubleyou · 2003-09-26 07:20 · Score: 1

"Don't be gay K9. Don't be gay..."

I'm looking for a way to morph Big Gay Al into Big Gay Doctor, but I'm coming up blank. Colin Baker was "big" (so they say) and wore a flashy outfit...

I guess it's official by dokhebi · 2003-09-26 07:29 · Score: 1

I've always relied on Outpost Gallifrey for confirmation on Doctor Who news. If it doesn't appear there then it's just another rumor. But now that site has a banner confirming this news. Hurrah!!!

Welcome back, Doctor! Don't mess it up, BBC!

Oooh Matron! by kentrel · 2003-09-26 07:35 · Score: 1

According to the article, it's going to be written by the same guy who created the series 'Queer As Folk' So does that mean Doctor Who will have sex with a 15 year old boy and other perverted\pornographic storylines that this writer comes up with.

Clearly the Doctor must be RADA trained by Rogerborg · 2003-09-26 07:57 · Score: 1

But why should he be regenerated as yet another pasty white guy? How about Don Warrington or Art Malik? I was going to suggest Sanjeev Bhaskar, but then I remembered that he can't actually act worth a damn.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

Philip Oakley as the new Doctor? by 32bitwonder · 2003-09-26 08:02 · Score: 1

Could it be? Lead singer of The Human League - Philip Oakley as potential candidate for the new Doctor?
I "Dare" to imagine! cough cough choke....

--
www.brownsauce.org

New Doctor Who to be filmed in Wales, not England by evilandi · 2003-09-26 08:05 · Score: 1

The new Dr Who series is to be filmed in Wales, instead of around the London area as per the old series.

Presumably this is because all the gravel pits in the south of England have been filled with landfill refuse or been turned into windsurfing lakes for yuppie scum.

It was either filming in Welsh coal tips or:

Golfcourse of the Daleks
Yachtting with Cybermen
The Great Methane Gas Explosion of Galifrey

ps. air date is 2005

--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com

How about Rowan Atkinson as Dr Who! by rdewalt · 2003-09-26 08:13 · Score: 1

Has anyone seen Mr Bean play the part of The Doctor in the two part "Charity" short "Curse of the Fatal Death"?

While I may get occasionally tired of him as his Mr Bean persona, Rowan -definitely- can pull off the suave groovitude of The Doctor. I'd probably preferr him second only to Tom Baker.

dont bother... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 08:20 · Score: 0

.... unless you plan to get Tom Baker back

the best.... dr who... ever...

also the only one worth watching

this DR. Who fan wishs it would not come back by frovingslosh · 2003-09-26 08:26 · Score: 1

by the same guy who created the series 'Queer As Folk'

It has been written that Tom Baker (my choice for the best doctor) left the show because the BBC management queers (seems to be the currently acceptable term that shouldn't attract flamebait ratings) kept making passes at him. It always struck me that they hated the show after that (they made several public statements against the show even while it was still in production, couldn't can it because it was so popular). It struck me that their last choice of Doctors in the 80's was perfectly designed by their point of view to kill the serise by introducing a Doctor that struck most viewers as overtly queer. The public pressure that kept the show on the air lessened and they were able to do what they stated they wanted, kill it.

I doubt if they really want to do Dr. Who any more now then they wanted to then. They certainly have even more freedom to express their queer philosphy in current shows, and it seems that when the doctor does come back the "gay" influence will be stronger than ever.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

Re:this DR. Who fan wishs it would not come back by The+Spie · 2003-09-26 10:39 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, it was really one BBC management queer. That was John Nathan-Turner, the show's producer from Baker's final season until the 1989 cancellation. Admittedly, the three Doctors he cast were all straight, but it's been a pretty solid assumption among Whovians for a long time now that Matthew Waterhouse and Mark Strickson got cast as Adric and Turlough, respectively, due to casting couch skills rather than acting skills (Strickson was married but bi, so the story goes).

Nathan-Turner completely wrecked the show, but the gay situation was only a minor contributory factor. The fact is that the guy had no sense of what made for good Doctor Who and ended up imposing his own sensibilities at the cost of the show's credibility and creativity. Add to this the fact that certain members of the Beeb's senior management had a hard-on for the show and let him do his crap for eleven years is what killed it, not the fact that he was gay.

--
If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?

He can't be female, but he can be non-caucasian by evilandi · 2003-09-26 08:30 · Score: 1

howabout the next doctor being a woman?

According to canon, Timelords can only regenerate into their same sex. This was demonstrated in the Romana regeneration scene (which also hinted that some Time Lords have virtually unlimited regenerations- maybe only females or aristocracy).

The "Doctor Who as female" thing was a charity comedy parody, it was not canon.

However, Time Lords can regenerate as different humanoid races (the scene shows Romana regenerating as various different creeds).

There was also an unofficial "afro-carribean Doctor Who" sketch done by black comedian Lenny Henry in his self-titled 1980's BBC comedy series. Official Doctor Who lore does allow for a non-caucasian Doctor Who.

There have also been several hints in the official series that the Doctor had already had previous regenerations before the William Hartnell incarnation that we presumed was number one. If so, this would mean either that the next official regeneration would be his penultimate or last, or that the Doctor, like the Master, is cheating death (this would explain why he ran away from his society).

--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com

Re:He can't be female, but he can be non-caucasian by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2003-09-26 13:57 · Score: 1

I thought The Valeyard was The Doctor's penultimate regeneration? Or was it the 13th? It's been quite a while...

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump

Very lonely in space by Walt+Dismal · 2003-09-26 08:37 · Score: 1

Actually, the BBC did not want to publicize the Doctor's sexual relationship with his dog, K9. But it really got lonely in space sometimes.

Re:Very lonely in space by NanoGator · 2003-09-26 08:47 · Score: 1

"Actually, the BBC did not want to publicize the Doctor's sexual relationship with his dog, K9. But it really got lonely in space sometimes."

That didn't bother me until I remembered K-9's waggy antenna tail. Ick.

--
"Derp de derp."

$#doctors by metamatic · 2003-09-26 08:38 · Score: 1

Interesting that even the BBC miss Michael Jayston from the list of Doctors in that article.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak

Dr. What? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 09:02 · Score: 0

Why? How? Where?

Re:So will Dr. Who be gay? by OddRob · 2003-09-26 09:41 · Score: 1

Indeed.. I believe the Telegraph article has a quote by some big-or-little-wig at BBC1 stating that the Dr. will not be gay. Of course, he certainly couldn;t be any more gay than the third doctor. I mean, lace cravats and velvet jackets? He did have a great little car, though.

Something new by disc0rdian · 2003-09-26 10:49 · Score: 1

How bout a female doctor? I admit not having watched all the episodes since I was quite young the last time they were shown over here (thank god for the daily episodes) but is there any reason why the new doctor can't be female? Could make for some interesting episodes anyway

new actor = regeneration = creative death by mcheu · 2003-09-26 11:19 · Score: 1

As previously mentioned, Atkinson has already played DW before.

If they go with him, it will be very cool, but I doubt BBC could afford him anymore. He's a bit of an international star these days. Though very nice if they had him as a DW in the official timeline -- he's got just the right amount of quirk for a memorable DW.

Of course, if they do go with a new actor, they'll have to kill off the old DW in the first few minutes to kick off the regeneration and keep the continuity straight. Might be interesting to see how they kill him off. I'm hoping for something comedic like dropping a piano on him, or something creative like in the Final Destination movies.

Re:new actor = regeneration = creative death by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 12:12 · Score: 0

Au contraire, I prefer an unearthy-child type approach where the Doctor pops in from nowhere and you go straight into the action. The best doctor who shows were the ones that totally boggled your mind within the first 10 minutes.

Get a friend in Oz who is Dr Who fan by tqft · 2003-09-26 11:25 · Score: 1

I just wish I was not still at work every night at 6pm.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/
Doctor Who returns
Monday to Thursday at 6.00pm from September 15.

http://www.abc.net.au/brisbane/stories/s918989.h tm
While some episodes have been lost over the years, the ABC will screen every story available, starting with "An Unearthly Child", starring William Hartnell as the Doctor.

--
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant

Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-26 11:34 · Score: 0

The thought of a producer who wants to introduce Doctor Who to a "modern audience" makes me sick to my stomach. The best Doctor Who episodes were timeless, like any good scriptwriting. The show took a huge turn for the worse when they put Colin Baker in a costume out of Elton John's old wardrobe, gave him boring scripts with mind-numbingly stupid dialogue and gratuitous, tasteless violence, and made him constantly argue with his so-called "companion" in order to fill up the 1-hr time slots. Then Syl McCuoy's doctor improved things ever-so-slightly despite the increasingly awful incidental music, retarded "social commentary", and the compulsion to make everything "rad" and "cool" including that sodded old Doctor person. The "Ace" character was an improvement over the previous two, but it's notable that the most important thing about her character was that she was good at blowing things up. It was abundantly clear by that time that JNT had gone from slightly rejuvenating the series to taking it down into the sewer, but they cancelled the show before JNT and his crowd could quit.

The people responsible for Doctor Who during Baker's time and many of the high points of his predecessors' runs knew how to keep viewers interested despite the fact that the Doctor and his companions often spent so much time running around in circles in small sets or the same old rock quarries. The garbage they show on the "sci fi" channel falls under the category of mindless horror flicks, soap operas, or soft porn.
That isn't Doctor Who. This "Queer as Folk"dude could surprise me (assuming the project doesn't fall through yet again) and possibly make a Hinchcliffe-quality series with big-budget effects and good-looking sets/costumes, but I doubt it.

Stupid stereotypes by Decaff · 2003-09-26 12:16 · Score: 1

But if it's written by a gay guy, then we could have a camp Doctor, who dresses is really stupid clothes and doesn't seem particularly interested in women . . .

This isn't funny, its stupid and offensive stereotyping. Grow up and get a life.

Re:Stupid stereotypes by doubleyou · 2003-09-26 16:23 · Score: 1

You really need to get a sense of humour, because you totally missed the punchline (which you conveniently left out of your response). He was making a subtle reference to the fact that Doctor Who in the 80s was produced and directed by John Nathan Turner.

Whoops! by TinheadNed · 2003-09-27 00:52 · Score: 1

Wow.

I have to confess I actually had no idea that JNT was gay. But I still think Dr Who rocks, and I don't care about who writes it as long as they're good, and I'm sure Queer As Folk won some awards.

Roll on 2005!

Re:Whoops! by doubleyou · 2003-09-27 03:21 · Score: 1

Well, I was never sure. But he sort-of fit the stereotype (yeah, shame on me). Still, that other commenter needs to loosen up.

My Concerns by The+Lynxpro · 2003-09-27 04:56 · Score: 1

I am a big Doctor Who fan and have been since I was in the 5th grade. I have met both Peter Davison and Colin Baker and I have both of their autographs. Yet, I have mixed feelings about this Doctor Who revival.

1. The BBC has now contradicted itself. For the longest time, the Beeb has claimed it needed a partnership with another company to make Doctor Who cost-effective so that it could have modern special effects and production values. That's why they turned the reigns over to BBC Worldwide which is a commercial company whereas the Beeb itself is in charge of offering unpatriotic news and broadcasting dart championships on television in time periods that would be considered *Prime Time* in the States. The BBC itself cannot afford to make *Who* itself and look like a modern show.

2. BBC Worldwide has been greedy about rights and merchadise residuals. That is why there hasn't been a successful launching of *Who* since the 1996 Telemovie which was botched by Fox here in the States.

3. The so-called *Fox Who* was British regardless of criticism. Paul McGann was British. The screenwriter (or telewriter) was Matthew Jacobs, who was also British. The producer, Philip Segal, was British. Just because there was a car chase and McGann was more sexual than any other Doctor incarnation does not make it an American bastardization of a British institution. The 1996 Telefilm is canon, unlike the books.

4. Fox botched the launching of the telefilm, which was a back-door pilot for an ongoing series. They put the movie on a Tuesday up against NBA Basketball and some baseball programming, not to mention a cliffhanger episode of "Roseanne" which was one of the most popular television shows at the time. Yet, according to the Nielsen ratings, Doctor Who was the most recorded television show that week. Had Fox shown the telefilm the week before when they broadcast the "Twister" ripoff telefilm called "Tornado" (starring fanboy favorite Bruce Campbell) -which received stellar ratings - Doctor Who would've become a big-budget series on Fox. And back in 1996, Fox was very receptive to sci-fi, unlike today (witness what happened to "Firefly").

5. Paul McGann was a great Doctor. Paul has often stated he doesn't want to be *the George Lazenby of Doctor Who.* He needs another shot. His portrayal was a cross between the strengths of Tom Baker's portrayal mixed with a wee bit of Peter Davison. It was great.

6. The Doctor is not a homosexual. He is a Time Lord, not a Catholic priest. Just because he historically has not had romantic relationships with his female companions does not indicate a taste for the male sex. He is a different species than humans. After all, just because humans have pets as companions does not mean they have sex with them. Even in one of the McCoy era episodes, the Doctor mentioned he wasn't fond of inter-species relationships, unlike the cavaleer (sic) attitudes of that in Star Trek. The Eighth Doctor (McGann) had a romantic interest with Dr. Grace Holloway. Big deal. She was hot. It was also revealed that the Doctor was half-human in that telefilm. I know if I was the Doctor, I also would've had "relations" with Peri, because to paraphrase the lyrical poetry of the great Sir Mix-A-Lot, "even gay guy's gotta shout, baby got back!" She also had quite a rack. There was, after all, a reason why Jonathan Frakes (Will Riker) wanted to bring Nicola Bryant Stateside to be on TNG after he met her at a sci-fi convention. Leela the Savage was also another hottie. And well, the Doctor had to have relations with both incarnations of Romana since there was a spark between them and they were both Time Lords (not to mention Tom Baker married the second Romana, however brief).

7. Returning to budget issues, to do Doctor Who properly, it would require a $1 million budget. Look how much Star Trek episodes cost, and they have fixed sets for the majority of the episodes. The cost would be the same in the U.K., if not more, and you'd still be confined to the

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*

1996 Telefilm rebroadcast on SciFi 10/9 at 3am by The+Lynxpro · 2003-09-27 14:40 · Score: 1

My TiVo just detected that the 1996 Fox/Universal/BBC Worldwide "Doctor Who" telefilm starring Paul McGann will be broadcast on Sci-Fi Network (in the U.S.) at 3am on October 9th.

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*

Re:Speaking of stupid, so was I by Gordonjcp · 2003-09-29 20:39 · Score: 1

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Morality "issues"? by ianscot · 2003-09-30 03:45 · Score: 1

Yeah, what i want to see is a bunch of people not trying to do the right thing, but rather acting out a series of stereotypical characters like every other lame sci-fi series. Lots of space battles, too, 'cause that hasn't been done before.

Oh, and they should all be white... because it distracts me, otherwise.

Yeesh.

--
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.

Re:Why hasn't DR. WHO been made into a MOVIE ????? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-30 09:28 · Score: 0

There was more then one wizard in LOTR.

Eddie Izzard to be new Doctor Who by gfreeman · 2003-10-01 05:55 · Score: 1

Tom Baker just let slip live on BBC TV here that Eddie Izzard is to be the new Doctor Who.

Woo!

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.

538 comments