Slashdot Mirror


Canadians Miss Out On Doctor Who Season Finale

darthcamaro writes "Canadians were among the last people in the world to get the season 4 finale of Doctor Who which already aired in the UK and Australia. The Canadian public broadcaster — CBC — decided to cut out nearly 20 minutes from the episode, leaving fans wondering what was going on. Doctor Who isn't the easiest show to follow at the best of times — but Canadians are now up in arms (or at least hockey sticks) over their taxpayer-funded broadcaster's lack of respect for SciFi hosers."

303 comments

  1. A new companion? by theaveng · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I thought the Doctor's companion was an attractive black woman, but instead I see a redhead pictured in the article. Boy I've really fallen behind. What season is USA's Sci Fi Channel currently airing? 3?

    --
    FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    1. Re:A new companion? by mog007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Martha Jones was The Doctor's companion in the third season, and the redhead is his fourth season companion, yes.

    2. Re:A new companion? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Apparently Season 3, the black woman left at the end of it. The redhead is Donna, who is there all through S4 (with some cameos from the others, naturally).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    3. Re:A new companion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Donna Noble - A loud, obnoxiously self-absorbed office worker who, one one Christmas special in 2006, ironically was saved on her wedding day by the Doctor from being fed to a giant alien spiderwoman by her fiance. The irony is that the character is 100% exactly like the actress performing the role, Catherine Tate. Since she's essentially playing herself, one must question whether this is is really acting. For some reason she is now slated to be a more permanent companion for the fourth year of the New Series. Gawd help us all.

    4. Re:A new companion? by uglyduckling · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually Catherine Tate is a rather talented character actress who has her own comedy show. I don't think she is especially like her character in Doctor Who, at least not in the interviews that I've seen.

    5. Re:A new companion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donna Noble - A loud, obnoxiously self-absorbed office worker

      Sounds like every other redhead I've ever met. Well, with one exception: not all of them were office workers.

    6. Re:A new companion? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who actually watches Doctor Who on CBC? It's been available on isohunt.com for a year now...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    7. Re:A new companion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the much faster turnover on Doctor Who an attempt to play to the Short Attention Span Theater crowd? I moved and lost cable after the second season aired in the U.S., but I'm hoping they let the companions develop and stay on much longer for when I catch up on the show later. It seems like they're setting themselves up for a series of forgettable characters; Rose was just starting to overcome her annoying habits and be likable towards the end of her last season. I never even got the chance to like Christopher Eccleston, and Tennant's Doctor - who was the one person on the show I found instantly charismatic - is already on his way out. It seems like kind of a mess.

    8. Re:A new companion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rose was just starting to overcome her annoying habits

      Nobody was expecting much from her. Shes been out of work since the Banana Splits was cancelled. btw here she is in playboy http://www.funnygarbage.com/flog/uploads/bingo7.jpg

    9. Re:A new companion? by Zwicky · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'll admit that I wasn't very pleased with the decision to have 'the bride' return as a regular companion for the Doctor, precisely because she was portrayed by Catherine Tate. The only thing I found remotely humorous on the Catherine Tate Show was Lauren ("am I bovvered"); the rest was just unfunny (IMHO).

      I stuck with it though. As the series progressed I got over the things that annoyed me (I think they toned her down a little as time went on too, which helped) and ultimately I think I'll miss her a little now that she had to have her memory wiped and leave the Doctor's side.

      I'm with the other posters who mentioned this too: I think the rate at which Doctor Who is going through companions lately is too rapid and they're not really fully coming into their own.

      I'm also going to miss Bernard "Diggin' a 'ole'" Cribbins, for entirely different reasons :)

      As for TFA, that's quite appalling. Cutting 20 minutes nigh on halves the length of the episode. Tsk, tsk, CBC, and tsk again. It's little wonder people are downloading shows, it's possibly now the only way they can be sure it hasn't been ridiculously cut down to size.

      --
      "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
    10. Re:A new companion? by cheftw · · Score: 0

      I know I'm a troll but this is horrendously misinformative. Catherine Tate is awful. That is an undeniable fact. Check her out on youtube if you're bovva'd. - btw that is her only joke.

      --
      Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
    11. Re:A new companion? by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The turnover is only "much faster" because A.) you're older; and B.) the seasons are shorter and the stories aren't episodic serials anymore.

      David Tennant has already played the Doctor for three seasons. That's as long as William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton, or Peter Davidson, and longer than Colin Baker or Sylvester McCoy. Historically most of the Doctor's companions have only lasted one season, and the current show has actually made them all into recurring characters, so you can't exactly call it "turnover."

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    12. Re:A new companion? by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The only thing I found remotely humorous on the Catherine Tate Show was Lauren ("am I bovvered"); the rest was just unfunny (IMHO).

      Have you seen this bit from one of the Comic Relief specials?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    13. Re:A new companion? by theillien2 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Scifi but, If you get it, watch on BBC America. They run the current season.

      --
      If we don't protect the freedom of speech how will we know who the assholes are?
    14. Re:A new companion? by schon · · Score: 1

      I'm with the other posters who mentioned this too: I think the rate at which Doctor Who is going through companions lately is too rapid and they're not really fully coming into their own.

      <aol>
      ME TOO!
      </aol>

      In fact there were two of the *best* potential companions that only lasted a single episode: Reinette and Jenny. It seems to me that they weren't kept around simply because they no longer fit the format (Companions are now always from contemporary Earth, and only show up at the beginning of a series, and stay to the end. Nobody is ever from the past/future/other planets, or joins midway through.)

      On the plus side, the ending of "The Doctor's Daughter" seems to imply that Jenny might be getting a spin-off, but I'd love to have seen her join up with the Doctor.

    15. Re:A new companion? by Zwicky · · Score: 1

      I tend not to watch specials tied in with other things (Comic Relief, Children in Need etc) but this one I have seen. The "doctor who?" bit was an obvious setup but still very funny and actually quite welcome. (I probably find Lauren sketches funny more because I know people who talk that way.)

      In any case, I'm very glad Catherine didn't have Donna talk like Lauren (how would the Daleks react to that!) :)

      Innit, tho!

      --
      "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
    16. Re:A new companion? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I found her obnoxious in the christmas special. She manage to avoid being too annoying in the season, but she ranks only slightly below Adric in the 'companion you most wanted to see die' list. And Adric obviously made all of the characters feel the same way - when he was sent back in time on the Cyberman ship to crash into the Earth, they were obviously all thinking 'we could go back in the TARDIS and grab him from the ship before it crashes. I hope no one else works that out...'

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:A new companion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw my first episode of the Catherine Tate show on BBC America a few weeks back and I was amazed at how incredibly craaazy she is...not in a bad way either.

      I saw where some of her personality carried over into Doctor Who, but it was definitely not a 1:1 ratio.

      I've been hoping they'll play her show some more because I really enjoyed the energy she brought to Doctor Who and I now see where she got it initially.

    18. Re:A new companion? by Zwicky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wholeheartedly agree, if only to see more of the delectable Georgia Moffett lighting up the screen :)

      In my opinion having Jenny in the main Doctor Who series as opposed to a spin-off would work well; there would be that whole father-daughter dynamic that I thought worked really well. I guess the scriptwriters don't want to explore that and are perhaps wary of having the Doctor lose any of his mystique as a result. Hopefully later she will return for a longer, if not 'permanent', spell.

      Reinette however wasn't really setup to become a companion as far as I could see. If you hadn't mentioned her I wouldn't have considered her at all, but I can see how that could work, and work well.

      BTW I never noticed the 'contemporary Earth' thing before. I'd hazard a guess that it is the scriptwriters' aim of making them seem more familiar to the general audience. If that is the case, I would think that an extraterrestrial/'other-time' companion would open up the possibilities story-wise.

      As it happens, Jenny would be the perfect compromise here in my view.

      --
      "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
    19. Re:A new companion? by Zwicky · · Score: 1

      I didn't watch the Christmas special as it took me a little while to come around after the shock of her appearing in the Tardis. As soon as she snapped "Where am I?! Who are you?!" in the preview/end of previous episode, I chose to skip it.

      --
      "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
    20. Re:A new companion? by afidel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting factoid I just discovered, Georgia Moffett is the real life daughter of the fifth doctor Peter Davison! I guess it's kind of an in joke to have her portrayed as the doctor's daughter =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    21. Re:A new companion? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      there were two of the *best* potential companions that only lasted a single episode: Reinette and Jenny

      I agree that Reinette would have made a fantastic companion. Hard to do without doing violence to a rather wonderful (and Hugo-award winning) story, though.

      --
      -- Alastair
    22. Re:A new companion? by afidel · · Score: 1

      An interesting factoid I just discovered, Georgia Moffett is the real life daughter of the fifth doctor Peter Davison. I guess it was a bit of an in joke to have her portray the doctor's daughter =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    23. Re:A new companion? by Zwicky · · Score: 1

      I suspect that her opening line of "Hello Dad!" was no coincidence either ;)

      --
      "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
    24. Re:A new companion? by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1
    25. Re:A new companion? by tycage · · Score: 1

      That was awesome! Thanks for pointing it out!

    26. Re:A new companion? by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Since she's essentially playing herself, one must question whether this is is really acting.

      This could be argued about most primetime TV actors in the US.

    27. Re:A new companion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only mentioned Tennant's term coming to an end because he's so terrific; even only seeing most of his first season, he's one of my favorites, and - in that limited sense - his departure is too soon.

      Even including Tennant and counting his fourth season, although it's really four movies, the new incarnation is under par for all measures of longevity. The companions for the first seven doctors averaged 1.92 seasons per companion - and that's with most seasons having multiple companions instead of just one - and this new one is averaging 1.5. The Wikipedia numbers for # of series per Doctor don't match up with your contention concerning three seasons, but I'll accept that your version is more accurate - even so, Eccleston's one + Tennant's four(ish) seasons are still below average.

    28. Re:A new companion? by NoodleSlayer · · Score: 3, Informative

      The US's SciFi channel was no more then 2.5 weeks behind the UK airings of the fourth season. It aired quite a while back though in TV terms, April 5th - July 5th in the UK and not too far behind in the US. So the fact that the fourth season finale is only airing just now in Canada means that they're somewhat behind.

    29. Re:A new companion? by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 1

      I HATED Donna Noble in the Christmas special, "The Runaway Bride", and was shocked and saddened when I learned that Catherine Tate would be reprising the role for Season Four. She turned in a great performance for the season, though, and I really enjoyed it. I liked season four more than I did seasons two and three (though season three's "Blink" is still my favorite episode of the new Doctor Who adventures).

    30. Re:A new companion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    31. Re:A new companion? by genner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually Catherine Tate is a rather talented character actress who has her own comedy show. I don't think she is especially like her character in Doctor Who, at least not in the interviews that I've seen.

      TV is a horrible method of judging someones character. If I want to know what someone is really like I talk to their Black Jack dealer.

    32. Re:A new companion? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Since she's essentially playing herself, one must question whether this is is really acting.

      So, you know her in real life then?

      I thought not. Look at her other work (I somehow doubt you've seen any of it) and you'll see just how wide her range is. "Donna Noble" is not Catherine Tate.

      For some reason she is now slated to be a more permanent companion for the fourth year of the New Series.

      Obviously you're not much of a fan if this is news to you. She's not eyecandy like Billie Piper(Rose) or Freema Agyeman (Martha), but she certainly can act.

    33. Re:A new companion? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I downloaded the rest of the season after a time glitch cut out the end of "Doctor's Daughter".

      Luckily for my mom, she was over last Friday to babysit, so she got to watch the whole episode. (The power was out at her place, too, so it was doubly lucky.)

      I can download the shows and then watch them on my regular TV, which is very nice. I've got a $20,000 DVR - at least according to Bill C-61.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    34. Re:A new companion? by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      I loved Catherine Tate's Donna character. She was a bit obnoxious in the Christmas special but they toned that done for the regular series and it worked out some. Some people are like you and hated the character, but it seems (from comments made over the course of the series) that most people liked her. Adric, I felt, didn't work because the acting was so poor. With a stronger actor playing the part it might have worked, but not with the person they chose to play Adric.

    35. Re:A new companion? by davester666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have to say, the most notable example of this appears to be David Caruso on CSI Miami. He is the only person I have ever seen that ALWAYS stands in profile, no matter what is going on. Lying down after being shot, sitting in court, bending over collecting evidence, and especially standing and talking with anybody, he is ALWAYS in profile (body at an angle to the camera, head turned to face camera).

      Ignoring the fantastic, yet completely inappropriate technology they display on the show (hello, picking out fine details of a photograph, while it is displayed on a transparent screen with people talking behind it? And the picture itself displayed with some transparency as well), it's the most bizarre part of the whole show. He never stands up and faces anyone. Both discussing something with a co-worker and when getting in some baddies face, he's always at a stupid angle with his head turned to one side. This is what happens when an actor gets too big for his position (from the NYPD show, he got too big for TV, but couldn't make it on the big screen, so he went back to TV and they signed him to a contract that gave him way too much influence on the show).

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    36. Re:A new companion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, well, now add to that the fact that she's also the current girlfriend of the current (but not for long) Doctor - David Tennant.

      There was apparently quite the stir in the UK about The Doctor dating The Doctor's Daughter and ZOMG sci-fi incest...(and, at this point, it's all quite old news over there).

    37. Re:A new companion? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      She's not eyecandy like Billie Piper(Rose) or Freema Agyeman (Martha), but she certainly can act.

      Freema Agyeman is eye candy AND can act.

    38. Re:A new companion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but Dr. #10 was(is?) shagging Dr. #5's daughter...

      Doctor Who David Tennant dating on-screen daughter Georgia Moffett

      Now, that's just freaky.

    39. Re:A new companion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the redhead is his fourth season companion, yes.

      So wanna know who she is? I dunno. Am I bovverd? Does my face look bovvered? I ain't bovvered!

    40. Re:A new companion? by LordAlced · · Score: 1

      Why is your reply modded as "Flamebait?" That was a perfectly on-topic, acceptable question.

      --
      Error: this custom sig failed to load. Please update your user preferences. If this message still appears, please contac
    41. Re:A new companion? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      no sense extending the time slot for something everybody's already downloaded, or is a rerun. I know other episodes of shows that are "oversized" get cut in reruns also. Even big shows like ER or Law and Order, so it's not just sci-fi. What's sad is that they air a show without even knowing about what episode it is or why it's important.... to the 50 something engineers making programming decisions, it's "just a show"... and they have a schedule to keep!

      I've been getting episodes from iTunes anyway, so they're in the same order as the DVD issue. (I think)

    42. Re:A new companion? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      But Sci-Fi, at least Pop Sci-fi, is about humans interacting in crazy places and situations. The Doctor isn't human, so you always need one in the story to ground the viewers. Yes, it's a bit of a crutch, but that's why most sci-fi books don't make good movies. Also, putting real non-humans in is very hard as far as production costs. Unless you count robots like R2D2 or Daleks that are essentially props, doing stuff like Farscape where everybody is a creature is expensive, and non-sci-fi audiences don't connect well.. it doesn't pay money back.

    43. Re:A new companion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please look up factoid before attempting to use the word.

    44. Re:A new companion? by hachi-control · · Score: 1

      She's also pretty hot.

    45. Re:A new companion? by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And they wonder why TV shows are so popular on Torrent sites..

      You put people in the backseat not give them what they want and then wonder why they circumvent your revenue stream..

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    46. Re:A new companion? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Freema Agyeman is eye candy AND can act.

      I dunno... she comes across ridiculous when she's trying to be earnest. The scenes where she's involved with the Häagen-Dazs key are a perfect example...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    47. Re:A new companion? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Nobody was expecting much from her.

      Switching from singing to acting was a pretty good move on her part, though. I kinda liked Rose, and Billie Piper now has her own series in "Secret Diary of a Call Girl". No idea if that's any good, though.

    48. Re:A new companion? by mcvos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I only mentioned Tennant's term coming to an end because he's so terrific; even only seeing most of his first season, he's one of my favorites, and - in that limited sense - his departure is too soon.

      I agree. I wouldn't mind seeing Tennant rival Tom Baker's seven seasons.

      Eccleston's one + Tennant's four(ish) seasons are still below average.

      4 seasons is perfectly average for a Doctor. Ecclestone's one season was a disgrace, though. (In longevity, that it. He was a perfectly good Doctor.)

    49. Re:A new companion? by WeeLad · · Score: 1
      There are sometimes differences between Scifi and BBC America too. [Spoiler, if you're that far behind, or Canadian?]

      I have my DVR set to record episodes on both. "Voyage of the Damned", the Titanic episode with Kylie Minogue, recorded as 1.5 hours on BBCA and only an hour on Scifi (both with commercials). After watching the 1.5 hour version, I scanned through the 1 hour version. It ended shortly after they clipped Buckingham palace. The Doctor didn't leave the old man on Earth or say goodbye to Astrid's ghostly presence. They just went to credits after the Doctor made some comment about not everyone surviving.

      --
      Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
    50. Re:A new companion? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, now add to that the fact that she's also the current girlfriend of the current (but not for long) Doctor - David Tennant.

      There was apparently quite the stir in the UK about The Doctor dating The Doctor's Daughter and ZOMG sci-fi incest...(and, at this point, it's all quite old news over there).

      Actor who plays the Doctor is dating the real life daughter of actor who plays the Doctor? I wasn't aware of that bit of incest yet.

      However, it could explain why she's not going to be a regular. The new Doctor has a tendency to get a bit romantic with his companions, and I can see both the romance with his daughter and the romance with another companion while his daughter-but-actually-his-girlfriend is right there with them, not quite working out all that well. Or it could turn out to be brilliant TV.

    51. Re:A new companion? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Since she's essentially playing herself, one must question whether this is is really acting.

      This could be argued about most primetime TV actors in the US.

      For example, ever noticed how Charlie Sheen always plays a womanizer called Charlie? Not to mention the fact that all Tony Danza's characters are called Tony. I bet there's a million other examples like that.

    52. Re:A new companion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And my point was that their average is well below normal compared with with the first seven Doctors, just as the average for the companions is below normal.

    53. Re:A new companion? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > I thought the Doctor's companion was an attractive black woman, but instead I see a redhead pictured in the article. Boy I've really fallen behind. What season is USA's Sci Fi Channel currently airing? 3?

      Who the hell cares? Does anyone actually watch the hacked-up episodes on the sci-fi channel?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    54. Re:A new companion? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      And they wonder why TV shows are so popular on Torrent sites.. You put people in the backseat not give them what they want and then wonder why they circumvent your revenue stream..

      Nah... I wouldn't have watched anyways. Because of the commercials.

      If I had to wait a year to see it on a torrent commercial free, I'd watch it in a year. If I had to do without, I'd do without. You couldn't pay me by the hour to sit and watch commercials, I'm sure as hell not doing it during my leisure time.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    55. Re:A new companion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PLease read the whole of an article before linking to it, shitcock:

      "The word factoid is now sometimes also used to mean a small piece of true but valueless or insignificant information"

    56. Re:A new companion? by cm2500 · · Score: 1
      Oddly enough slashdot uses a different definition of troll:

      Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.

      --
      Terms
  2. BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The wife and I watched it months ago. The Internet is my TV station.

    1. Re:BitTorrent by causality · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The wife and I watched it months ago. The Internet is my TV station.

      As you mention BitTorrent, I'm assuming there were no commercials in the version you received. Since you're paying a "tax" on things like blank media anyway, I'm surprised more Canadians don't do this.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:BitTorrent by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The internet is also my TV station.

      Signed, another Canadian who has to bypass the CBC to watch shows shown on CBC.

    3. Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even have cable...

      --another Canadian

    4. Re:BitTorrent by Tragek · · Score: 1

      Well, I thought, hey, what's the hurry, I'll just watch on CBC.

      Not any more; Screw it. I'll do what I've historically done with Torchwood: I'll watch it a day after the brits do.

    5. Re:BitTorrent by symes · · Score: 1

      As a UK license fee paying citizen (license fee pays for the BBC who produce Dr Who) I am happy that I have in some small way contributed towards your viewing pleasure. Here's hoping the BBC will make all their archives fully open to the viewing public - there's some fantastic stuff in there!

    6. Re:BitTorrent by negRo_slim · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't even have cable...

      --another Canadian

      Hulu + Bittorrent + TVersity + XBox 360 MCE = Call me when a la carte cable service hits the streets.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    7. Re:BitTorrent by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Me neither (except for the modem).

    8. Re:BitTorrent by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hulu.com = USA-only.

    9. Re:BitTorrent by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      3 hours. It only takes a whole day if it has to be translated (which takes the pros about 2years maybe 3)

    10. Re:BitTorrent by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      We pay for the CBC television station with our taxes as well. CBC has even begun hosting their own streaming and downloadable repeats on their website, like with the awesome and hilarious TV adaptation of Douglas Coupland's jPod.

    11. Re:BitTorrent by Kalriath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, Doctor Who is produced in conjunction with another organisation. Amusingly enough, that organisation is the CBC. So Canadian taxpayers (who actually FUND the program) are more than entitled to download it, I reckon.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    12. Re:BitTorrent by gblackwo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Proxy Server + Hulu.com /= USA-only

    13. Re:BitTorrent by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      no kidding - i've found fan subbed versions of things are generally superior to commercial subs and done the day after it airs not years after. in fact i've found the delievery of everything on bit torrent to be better that commercial, which really says something considering it's done by guys in their spare time.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    14. Re:BitTorrent by NekoXP · · Score: 1

      I am fairly sure this will not work, because it uses Flash to detect your native IP address and then effectively denies your connection. BBC iPlayer and, even more on-topic, the CBC copy of the Doctor Who show do not work whatever proxy server you use even if you know for a fact it's hosted in said "legal" country.

    15. Re:BitTorrent by Adam+Hazzlebank · · Score: 1

      yea except they canceled jPod before it completed its run and left it with an appalling nonending.

    16. Re:BitTorrent by Joe+U · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am fairly sure this will not work, because it uses Flash to detect your native IP address and then effectively denies your connection. BBC iPlayer and, even more on-topic, the CBC copy of the Doctor Who show do not work whatever proxy server you use even if you know for a fact it's hosted in said "legal" country.

      Configure your firewall to transparently proxy, Flash won't have any idea what your real IP address is.

      You're on Slashdot and your UID is under 100,000... you REALLY should know these things.

    17. Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 hours you daft? I usually am done DL'n and watching them an hour after it finished airing.

    18. Re:BitTorrent by syousef · · Score: 1

      Actually, Doctor Who is produced in conjunction with another organisation. Amusingly enough, that organisation is the CBC. So Canadian taxpayers (who actually FUND the program) are more than entitled to download it, I reckon.

      Why do you hate the poor starving actors and want to steal from them?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    19. Re:BitTorrent by genner · · Score: 1

      I don't even have cable...

      --another Canadian

      Hulu + Bittorrent + TVersity + XBox 360 MCE = Call me when a la carte cable service hits the streets.

      Wait... when did Tversity start supporting Hulu?

    20. Re:BitTorrent by NekoXP · · Score: 1

      I'm running Windows XP, so I really don't deserve the low UID do I? :D

      Not without a plethora of Linux and BSD boxes around though, I will have to poke around at this and find a nice open proxy in the UK to give it a go. That doesn't help viewing stuff in Canada though.. and for instance if you wanted to watch shows from Hulu.com while in the UK, you'd lose access to iPlayer if you didn't reconfigure your firewall inbetween.

      Not ideal is it..

    21. Re:BitTorrent by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Even if the production wasn't funded in conjunction with the CBC, they would presumably have to pay to broadcast it. So I'd say people who fund a broadcaster that's showing it anyway (either through taxes, or because they pay to have that TV service directly) are entitled to download it to. (All of the stuff I download is either BBC programmes that I pay for via the licence fee, or they're showing on the cable channels that I pay money for - downloading simply means I don't have to worry about when it's on, but the producers still get the same amount of money from me.)

    22. Re:BitTorrent by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      I'm not a Canadian, unfortunately. Or is that fortunately. I can't quite justify me downloading it, I have to buy the DVD.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    23. Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proxy Server + Hulu.com == Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag

    24. Re:BitTorrent by syousef · · Score: 1

      That was meant to be sarcastic anyway. I find the idea that you can go to jail for downloading a movie ridiculous. (REASONABLE financial penalthy, perhaps. Criminal record and jail though? Come on!)

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    25. Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's hoping the BBC will make all their archives fully open to the viewing public - there's some fantastic stuff in there!

      Much new BBC content is made by independent production companies. Despite the BBC paying the production costs up front (work for hire?) the independent producers get to keep the copyright. Which prevents the BBC opening the archives to the public. The whole thing is a scam to channel money from the general public to the BBC's media chums, many of whom were trained by the BBC. Trebles all round!

    26. Re:BitTorrent by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The "tax" on blank media that Canadians pay is supposed to partially subsidize artists for the private copying of copyrighted works, nothing more and nothing less. Personal and private copying is explicitly exempt from copyright infringement in Canadian copyright law and was a privilege that Canadians freely enjoyed until the blank media tariff was introduced as copying works to blank media became common enough to longer be thought of as inconsequential.

    27. Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Doctor Who fan from the Baker/Davison years I watched on PBS (cable station in Canada), I was excited when they announced that they were going to start filiming Doctor Who again and that the CBC was providing funding. I naively thought this meant it would air on CBC at the same time.

      Then I discovered that it was airing on BBC but would have to wait months for it to air on CBC. That's when I discovered BitTorrent. There was no way I was waiting a year to watch the show, especially when my tax dollars help fund it.

      And I'm so glad I watched the BBC versions It's not just this episode that's been cut. I've caught a couple episodes on CBC from time to time and watched them again, but have always noticed a little cut here or there. Presumably to make it fit in the hour timeslot with commercials.

    28. Re:BitTorrent by isorox · · Score: 1

      As you mention BitTorrent, I'm assuming there were no commercials in the version you received.

      Commercials in Dr Who? Sure, the BBC puts on massive adverts between programs, squishes credits, and voice over the last few words, but commercials?

  3. Spoiler alert! by iYk6 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Doctor Who thwarts the Dalek invasion of Earth. Earth is not destroyed. None of the main characters die.

    1. Re:Spoiler alert! by theaveng · · Score: 5, Funny

      Didn't I see that episode back in 1967?

      Or maybe I'm thinking of 1973.

      Or was it 1986?

      Ahhh..... it's so hard to keep track of all these Dalek episodes. Almost as difficult as keeping track of how many times the Borg attacked a Federation vessel (and failed; pretty pathetic for an advanced race).

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    2. Re:Spoiler alert! by theaveng · · Score: 0, Troll

      Whoever labeled iYk6's post a "troll" is an idiot. It was a JOKE and it was *funny*. Loosen up. Turn on, tune in, drop out.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    3. Re:Spoiler alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A screw it... cover your eyes, Canadians...

      John Pertwee transmogrifies into Tom Baker! Don't worry, you'll become familiar enough with Tom in 20 years when you eventually see a show called Little Britain.

    4. Re:Spoiler alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Almost as difficult as keeping track of how many times the Borg attacked a Federation vessel (and failed; pretty pathetic for an advanced race).

      You know what I never got? There are what, trillions of borg drones? They probably outnumber the combined population of the Federation planets (and Klingon/Romulan/Cardassian Empires), and they obviously had superior firepower, so why did they pussyfoot around? If they just would have launched a full scale invasion of the Alpha quadrant, they could have assimilated everyone and been home by lunch.
       
      That always really bothered me.

    5. Re:Spoiler alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      and failed; pretty pathetic for an advanced race
      Actually, since they assimilate species that lost to them, they are an aggregate of failures.

    6. Re:Spoiler alert! by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Well originally they were 70 years away in terms of warpspeed, so we were still safe from a massive invasion, other than a few multigenerational ships/cubes.

      Unfortunately the writers took-away that vast "ocean" between Borgspace and Federation space when they created transwarp capable of jumping the entire stretch in just a few months. Dummies.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    7. Re:Spoiler alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah, in fact, that part of the plot in which the borg were first introduced. The borg ships seen in Next Gen had all been sent out long before from the Delta Quadrant, but Q sent the Enterprise into borg space and thereby demonstrated that a more full scale invasion would be profitable.

      The general implication as I understood it was that although the Federation could (barely) hold its own against what amounted to an advance scout party, a full scale invasion was only a few decades away, and unless they did something drastic, extinction was inevitable.

      Voyager not only castrated the borgs both as a concept and as believable episode-to-episode villains, it also essentially derailed a basic underlying facet of the universe.

      It's a pity, a series set, say, fifty years in the future could easily have done quite well focusing on desperate measures to unite everyone against the coming borg. ...of course, now that I think about it, it would have been an even more blatant knock-off of Babylon 5 than Deep Space 9 was.

    8. Re:Spoiler alert! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because - oh god, this will cost me karma! - Star Trek autors are pretty pathetic themselves. (The best example is that nearly all extraterrestrial life [not just "humanoids"] is like earth, just extremely different where you can't look at.)

      If they had invaded and won, the authors would have been unable to come up with a continuation. In Star Trek, everything has to be OK at the end of a show. Only Movies are allowed to change fundamental things. They would be forced to end the show.

      If there were more creative authors around, an won invasion by the Borg would be the greatest opportunity of all!
      Think of that invasion happening in a movie.... and the movie ending with the borg winning and dominating the whole federation. People would have thought: "What the fuck? Why did it not have a happy ending?" But they would never forget it!
      The following TV show would have a continuous storyline. Starting with everybody - and I mean everybody - being Borg!
      Then the magic would happen: Somehow, a child of a Human and one of the other major Species, would be able to resist in it's innermost Soul. Like i tiny flame in a storm, struggling to survive. You would experience this feeling with that child.

      No cheap tricks about a special race, a data disguising as a Borg, or some crap. No. Just the plain spirit of Humanity and the Federation... ...fighting, and growing... ...spreading to other humans on earth too... ...until the resistance would be so big, ...that the whole Borg collective would be assimilated by it!
      Assimilated by the spirit of individuality and freedom of the mind. By what we think is right an wrong.
      And the Borg would not know how to handle such a very strange weapon / enemy within. They would traverse all kinds of strange changes in their society, to cope with it, making the Borg something far from what they originally were. All their technology would be useless.

      The Borg would be assimilated themselves. It would be a very very hard war on so many and so strange fronts as the mind itself.
      Until just a small group of some thousand Borg would be caught... the last resistance against the new resurrected Federation. (Everything would still be very temporary, unstable in the background territory, and semi-Borg, using Borg technology.)

      But the surviving Borg were changed so much, that they were no enemy anymore, but a helpless race, struggling to survive... with right so survive on its own.
      So the Federation would let their old enemies live, and make a historic agreement with them, adding them *to* the federation, as the first advanced - and now good - race.

      This would also make for some very interesting inner conflicts in the later federation! (27th-31th century?)

      As a last plus, the Federation, together with Borg technology, and the new born power of the inner spirit (explained as some electromagnetic power of the brain),
      would make humanity a new advanced race themselves.

      And just as with the first warp flight, this would call for some other advanced - elder - races, who would ask them for contact, allowing inter-galaxy flights and contacting a ton of non-humanoid species (which is possible, now that CGI is good enough).

      Oh: If anyone important reads this and wants to contact me, to work on a realization: Bring some money with you! I have much, much more ideas! :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    9. Re:Spoiler alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was Hugh and the borg purged him when they found out what his thoughts were going to them. Well at least cut him off from the rest of the collective. You find out what happened to him in one of the lore episodes.

    10. Re:Spoiler alert! by Thiez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'We can win, we have the power of SOUL!'

      Seriously, your Star Trek idea totally sucks. And the borg would probably be even more dangerous to the federation when they adopted humanity's standards for what is right and what is wrong.

      In a way, the Borg have dealt with this crap already, if memory serves, there was this unimatrix zero thing in the voyager series. The borg queen found a way to detect the borg that were affected by it, and blew up their ships. Along with millions of unaffected borg, but she figured it was more important to be perfect.

      What's the fun of karma when you never lose it once you get to excellent?

    11. Re:Spoiler alert! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. You misunderstood me. I think the whole concept of the existence of a "soul" is horsecrap, just like religion.

      My idea was more like: We have something special. A will/power to survive, that outweighs even the Borg assimilation nanites.
      Of course, in reality, such a thing does not exist too. But it can be explained on a basis of physics in the movie.

      The whole experience of seeing that struggle of humanity to survive, when it's as close to dead as it possibly could be... is the point of it. The rest only exists to serve that purpose. That special power is just a tool. And a pretty good one, from the perspective of the transmission of feelings.

      But who am I arguing with. "totally sucks" is such a deep and good argument... ;)
      I wonder if you ever studied the psychology of movies/games in depth like I have? (It's my job.)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    12. Re:Spoiler alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh: If anyone important reads this and wants to contact me, to work on a realization

      Don't call us, kid, we'll call you.

    13. Re:Spoiler alert! by Thiez · · Score: 1

      > My idea was more like: We have something special. A will/power to survive, that outweighs even the Borg assimilation nanites.

      While it's nice to think about humans as 'awesome' and 'special', I bet our will and power to survive is nothing compared to that of a klingon/hirogen/romulan.

      > But who am I arguing with. "totally sucks" is such a deep and good argument... ;)

      Hehe, it's only a deep and good argument when I'm the one saying it :p

      > The whole experience of seeing that struggle of humanity to survive, when it's as close to dead as it possibly could be... is the point of it. The rest only exists to serve that purpose. That special power is just a tool. And a pretty good one, from the perspective of the transmission of feelings.

      It just feels too much like the matrix to me, and also a bit like Hugh, like another poster pointed out.

      > I wonder if you ever studied the psychology of movies/games in depth like I have? (It's my job.)

      I haven't. But I don't think that is really relevant since this is all about personal taste. I suppose a chef studies food for his job too, but his/her opinion about what I find delicious is no better than mine :)

    14. Re:Spoiler alert! by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      But Dona Noble gets mindwiped so her brain doesn't burn out with the Timelord knowledge from Dr. Who's brain. So technically the brilliant Donna died, and the bossy and ignorant one was taking her place as if she never met Dr. Who.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    15. Re:Spoiler alert! by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Almost but Mr. Spock saved everyone in Star Trek II and died. Mr. Data died in Star Trek Nemesis. Sometimes a major character dies to save the universe or ship from destruction or being taken over.

      Star Trek ending with the enemies winning would be a Shakespearean or Opera type ending where the bad guys win. but then they'd do a "Mirror Universe" episode where the bad guys are the Empire of Planets. Like they did in "Star Trek: Enterprise" just for ratings.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    16. Re:Spoiler alert! by Borg453b · · Score: 1

      Ah.. but if we were to assimilate everyone, we would render our favorite expressions obsolete.

      --

      - Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
    17. Re:Spoiler alert! by Daimanta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "My idea was more like: We have something special. A will/power to survive, that outweighs even the Borg assimilation nanites."

      Welcome to Star Trek, you must be new here.

      This is essentially the idea of Star Trek. Humans somehow have something special in them so they can do what other races cannot.

      Humans have:

      -Cured the phage(thought incurable)
      -Make piece between Vulcan and Andoria(thought impossible)
      -Prevent civil war on Vulcan
      -Travelled to the center of the universe(I, NEED, MY, PAIN!)
      -Beat the borg on multiple occasions
      -Prevented an invasion of species 8472
      -Winning the war against the dominion

      and so on. The whole idea of Star Trek is humans saving the day and doing the impossible and surving a multitude of dangerous situations by a matter of seconds.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    18. Re:Spoiler alert! by Borg453b · · Score: 1

      We were rooting for you at "the moving ending with the Borg winning"..


      .. but you lost us at "(...) the surviving Borg (...) but a helpless race"


      We, for one, don't applaud your idea.

      --

      - Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
    19. Re:Spoiler alert! by garbletext · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you ever studied the psychology of movies/games in depth like I have?

      Isn't that kind of like studying the nutritional content of Halloween candy?

    20. Re:Spoiler alert! by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      Isn't that kind of like studying the nutritional content of Halloween candy?

      Glycerol ester of wood rosin, well, it sounds nutritional...

    21. Re:Spoiler alert! by mgblst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then the magic would happen: Somehow, a child of a Human and one of the other major Species, would be able to resist in it's innermost Soul. Like i tiny flame in a storm, struggling to survive. You would experience this feeling with that child.

      It was all going well, then you had to ruin it with this cheesey shit. Yes, humans are so advanced, that not even the borg can hold down our amazing spirit. Fuck this shit, really.

      You want good sci-fi, you don't watch Star Trek.

    22. Re:Spoiler alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't he just describe the plot to the Matrix?

    23. Re:Spoiler alert! by Alcoholist · · Score: 1

      Isn't there already have a show like this, where the bad guys win, but the human spirit endures, even converting many of the baddies to the ways of goodness near the end.

      What do they call it, now... oh yeah!

      Battlestar Galactica.

      --
      Bibo Ergo Sum.
    24. Re:Spoiler alert! by Alcoholist · · Score: 1

      gosh my engrish sucks

      --
      Bibo Ergo Sum.
    25. Re:Spoiler alert! by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Almost but Mr. Spock saved everyone in Star Trek II and died.

      But he'd put a backup of his soul in Dr McCoy and he got better in the next film.

      Mr. Data died in Star Trek Nemesis.

      But he'd probably put a backup of his mind in B-4 and if they had done another TNG film and Brent Spiner still needed the money, you know damned well that he'd have been back.

      Nothing not wearing a red jersey dies permanently in Trek. Its almost as bad as Heroes in that respect...

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    26. Re:Spoiler alert! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Because - oh god, this will cost me karma! - Star Trek autors are pretty pathetic themselves. (The best example is that nearly all extraterrestrial life [not just "humanoids"] is like earth, just extremely different where you can't look at.)

      To be fair, they did explain why every race looks similar and are genetically compatible with each other. All of the major races were created by a single race.

      I guess that just supports your hypothesis that the writers suck, huh?

    27. Re:Spoiler alert! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      The whole idea of Star Trek is humans saving the day and doing the impossible and surving a multitude of dangerous situations by a matter of seconds.

      As is any movie with a hero or heroes ever made.

      I fail to see, how this makes such a proven method bad?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    28. Re:Spoiler alert! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I did it, because I already have the praxis, and wanted so see if I can find out some of the more fundamental concepts behind it.
      I would never have imagined how much it helped me. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    29. Re:Spoiler alert! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      No. They did try to explain it (in a very poor way) for humanoids.

      What's with all animals plants and shit being the same with some irrelevant change here and there?
      Oh, and of course that forest that looks exactly like a forest on earth trough a bad camera filter has crazy alien things in it that you never will see in front of the camera. What you will see are those "alien" trees, that also look exactly like trees on earth... but they have some dangerous whatnot shit inside or their odor kills you...

      Yeah right... BULLSHIT!

      That's what I call "lack of fantasy".

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    30. Re:Spoiler alert! by Darkk · · Score: 1

      It's not. Problem is the story writers who are making them bad.

      There are plenty of talent in special effects, directors, actors and so on but the story writers?

      Alot of them stick to the usual routine and it's all they know. They don't look at the long term of story writing. All they know is that the hero towards the end of the story must 99% of the time win.

      Hell, alot of times I want the hero to lose on that episode to make me wonder what he'll do next in the next few episodes to fix the problem.

      We do know ultimately at the end the hero usually wins. That's the way story telling been for thousands of years.

    31. Re:Spoiler alert! by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      What's with all animals plants and shit being the same with some irrelevant change here and there?

      I believe that's actually covered in the same episode where they explained the humanoids.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    32. Re:Spoiler alert! by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      A bit like Star Trek meets Matrix meets Stargate?

    33. Re:Spoiler alert! by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      If I may nitpick:

      -Humans never cured the phage. In the end some group called the "Think Tank" claimed to have cured it though. Group had zero humans btw.

      -Humanity was merely yet another player in the Dominion War. Hell, with only the Klingons they were losing badly. It took a literal Deux Ex Machina from the wormhole aliens to even survive, then an alliance with the Romulans that gave them a fighting chance.

      But you're totally correct. Hell the first episode of TNG where Q orders humanity to go home cements our specialness. We're either too dangerous/eager, or we can really fuck up the universe. Way to stoke ego Q...

    34. Re:Spoiler alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      URGS. Read it from my lips:

      No more "elder" races.
      No more ascending by becoming an advanced race (with some stupid dematerialization effect where a person is transformed into a ball of light and exists only as mind) (Stargate I am looking at you)

      oh and no more time travel at least not for the basic story line. I still cannot believe how they managed to fuck up the retro Enterprise series with it.

    35. Re:Spoiler alert! by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      Totally noncanon guessing on my part, but I always figured they were pussyfooting around simply because the Federation was some bizzare thing that was out of their calculation. I mean hell they attacked with overwhelming force, but then lost due to a security hole out of nowhere. I'd say the wtf nature of their defeat, plus their arrogant nature about their perfection made them unwilling to attack with greater force. They don't seem like the type to admit to making mistakes.: )

      Course things got weird in the Voyager episode "Dark Frontier" when they attack a weaker almost defeated race with a dozen ships plus the Queen, yet decided to us a plague on the Federation since again we're special, and require a more subtle touch, or something. Course instead of making it themselves, they required the ex-Bord 7 of 9 to do all the work. That episode made zero sense...

    36. Re:Spoiler alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, the main principle behind that one was in fact a couple of episodes of ST Voyager.

      Not a very good episode, I might add.

    37. Re:Spoiler alert! by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Voyager was okay since they were *in* Borgspace and had to deal with that problem, but when the final season introduced the idea of jumping 40,000 lightyears in just 5 minutes, that's when it became ridiculous. If the Borg really can travel that fast, then Earth should already be defeated.

      One thing I'd like to see is a Dominion versus Borg war - that could explain why the Federation is momentarily safe.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    38. Re:Spoiler alert! by houghi · · Score: 1

      This is the people of the Matrix and we want our story back.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    39. Re:Spoiler alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans == Americans ??

    40. Re:Spoiler alert! by cerelib · · Score: 1

      If by "invasion of Earth", you mean "wiping out of all matter in this and every parallel universe"[1], then yeah that's about it.

    41. Re:Spoiler alert! by chrysrobyn · · Score: 1

      Didn't Hugh and Lore do this already?

    42. Re:Spoiler alert! by LocutusMIT · · Score: 1

      Only until we move on to another species.

    43. Re:Spoiler alert! by Mutant321 · · Score: 1

      That always really bothered me.

      Dude. It's a TV show. ;)

    44. Re:Spoiler alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Lexx is the opposite the main characters basically fsck over the universe

    45. Re:Spoiler alert! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Wow, that was painful to, being reading on so many level.

    46. Re:Spoiler alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'We can win, we have the power of SOUL!'

      Seriously, your Star Trek idea totally sucks.

      So they'll start shooting it this summer?

  4. lolwat? by gazbo · · Score: 5, Funny
    Doctor Who isn't the easiest show to follow at the best of times

    Do you also need to buy CliffsNotes for Teletubbies?

    1. Re:lolwat? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Doctor Who is difficult to follow if you actually watch a significant amount of it. There are so many continuity errors that you end up either tying your brain in a knot trying to resolve them, or sitting back and not expecting it to make sense. I'd guess the original poster falls into the first category.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:lolwat? by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's a program for children too, how hard is it to follow?

    3. Re:lolwat? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      In general, children haven't watched 40 years of back episodes, and so miss out on the continuity errors and trying to keep track of all of the back story that keeps changing.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:lolwat? by genner · · Score: 1

      Do you also need to buy CliffsNotes for Teletubbies?

      Hwere can you find those? That show is impossible to follow.

    5. Re:lolwat? by genner · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Most people assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey....stuff"

      That's why your not making sense of it.

    6. Re:lolwat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psh, no one in Canada buys CliffsNotes for Teletubbies.

      They're called Coles Notes for Teletubbies here. :)

    7. Re:lolwat? by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      Do you also need to buy CliffsNotes for Teletubbies?

      Yes, but after I read them, I have to read them AGAIN!

    8. Re:lolwat? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      In general, children haven't watched 40 years of back episodes, and so miss out on the continuity errors and trying to keep track of all of the back story that keeps changing.

      I don't think Doctor Who was ever meant to be consistent. Particularly not over such a long time span. Usually I'm happy when a single episode doesn't have any glaring holes in its internal consistency. Comparing with seasons of past decades is just asking for trouble.

  5. Hey, hosehead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Protip: The number of Canadians that have watched SCTV and/or recognize "hoser" as a reference to another Canadian is likely now in the minority.

    Signed,
    Anonymous Hoser

  6. Re:Stuff that matters? by larry+bagina · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    News for canadians, eh? Stuff that goes with your gravy fries.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  7. You've got to love the idiots who run TV stations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You've got to love the idiots who run TV stations. Why? Because they're simply perfect idiots. Cutting 20 minutes from an episode? Such amazing idiocy.

    Reminds me of a couple of years ago when I set my VCR to tape the weekly episode of 24. Yes I said VCR. Now get off my lawn.

    There was a football game before 24. No problem right? Game will be over. I'll still be able to get all of 24 taped and watch it when I get home.

    I get home. VCR is going. Great. I'll just let it finish taping 24 and then sit down and watch it from the beginning. No problem.

    Problem. The football game was over before 24 was set to air. But someone decided that it was imperative to air commentary and discussion of the football game that was just played and this ran 15 minutes or so into 24. Was there really a need for this? I mean, come on, you just watched the fucking game so you know what happened.

    Did they decide to delay 24 so people could see all of it? Nope. Just cut right on into 24 minus the first portions that they'd blotted out with football commentary.

  8. Take off eh by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    And hand me another Elisnore!

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Take off eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry. I'm an Anonymous Hosehead, not an Anonymous Meathead, Archie.

  9. The Internet is my DVR. by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 3, Informative

    For the truly lazy, this article describes how to use Miro, the open source media player and download app to find and download TV series from the Internet via BitTorrent.

    Be aware, in the article one VITAL step in the set up process is left out, but IS covered in the comments.

    Set it up and let it run in the background. No more compulsively checking trackers, Miro does it all for you.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    1. Re:The Internet is my DVR. by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      I prefer using uTorrent, RSS feeds, and Vista Media Center. It really isn't that hard to configure and VMC "just works".

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  10. 18 minutes out of . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmmm ... was this a 12+ hour "War and Peace," watch-until-you-drop mini-series episode? Or a normal 2 hour special, or what? 18 minutes sounds like an awfully lot of footage.

    I know that one of the "C's" in CBC stands for Canadian, but it sounds like the other one stands for circumcision: "Hell, you can cut 18 minutes off the top of *anything*."

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:18 minutes out of . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hmmm ... was this a 12+ hour "War and Peace," watch-until-you-drop mini-series episode? Or a normal 2 hour special, or what? 18 minutes sounds like an awfully lot of footage.

      Uncut, it was 65 minutes (excluding any commercials, which obviously don't feature in the original BBC broadcasts), which is ten minutes longer than a regular episode.

    2. Re:18 minutes out of . . . ? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      It was 62 minutes, I think it depends how they edited it. I felt the episode could have been cut down a bit, maybe 18 minutes is pushing it, but if they cut off the crappy ending and some of the filler they probably got a good deal.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    3. Re:18 minutes out of . . . ? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Can I buy an edited, Canadian edition, DVD of Season 4 with all of Donna Noble deleted?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:18 minutes out of . . . ? by wylderide · · Score: 1

      The Canadian Broadcorping Castration, as it were.

      --
      This is the best restaurant I ever eat in
  11. CBC on strike! by FelixNZ · · Score: 1

    CBC is on strike, guy! and will continue to strike untill we get some of that internet moneh!

  12. Plot/Series Branching by Phoenix666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doctor Who really seems to make the most sense if you watch it in the UK in sequence with its spin-offs such as Torchwood or the Sarah Jane Adventures, because in the Season 4 finale there are tie-ins to the spin-offs as well as some earlier episodes in the season that refer to story lines happening on the spin-offs. In other words, watching Doctor Who in America on the 1 season delay sans spin-offs leads to confusion because you don't know what's going on.

    I applaud the BBC folks for thinking so creatively about spin-offs playing off against Doctor Who, and vice-versa, but it falls apart against the reality of the region-segregation that they still like to practice.

    It's a pity, because many BBC shows are more cutting-edge than Hollywood fare these days and they would play really well here as-is. Except, Hollywood likes to re-produce and re-package them as watered-down, lamer versions. A couple examples are "Coupling," a Friends-like show written by Steven Moffat that was hilarious, that Hollywood tried to Americanize and which was done so poorly that it was DOA; "Top Gear," which is an entertaining auto program and which would do just great here, but which Hollywood has again felt the need to destroy by Americanizing it. "The Office" and "What Not to Wear" are two other examples.

    Accordingly, maybe Bit Torrent is the only real way to go in the end.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:Plot/Series Branching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general I agree with you, and we Americans usually screw up when we reproduce your TV shows. However, I never got the original British "The Office".
      It was probably just British humor I didn't get (even though the first episode was basically line by line the same), but I just didn't enjoy it anywhere near as much as the American version.

      I guess I'm just saying I can see where American TV is coming from, seeing as our cultures have different interests.

    2. Re:Plot/Series Branching by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Eh, you really didn't need to watch Torchwood or the Sarah Jane Adeventures to follow the finale. Thank God, because Torchwood was horrifically awful and Sarah Jane looks even more juvenile than some of the most childish Doctor Who.

    3. Re:Plot/Series Branching by mqsoh · · Score: 1

      They play all those shows on BBC America, except that I'm not sure about "What Not to Wear". So just tell people to tune-in to that channel instead. Except...I think they cut Doctor Who a little, which is wierd. I watched Voyage of the Damned on Sci-Fi and then again recently on BBC America and there were a couple scenes missing. The tour group going down to the surface of Earth for the Christmas experience and the Doctor leaving that Earth historian on Earth with his savings.

    4. Re:Plot/Series Branching by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 1

      Sarah Jane Adventures is a childrens programme.

    5. Re:Plot/Series Branching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how I watch the Doctor. I downloaded every episode last season. It just makes life easier. That and I can get my Who fix sooner! ;)

    6. Re:Plot/Series Branching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      BBC America butchers everything they show in the names of getting the standard 10 minutes of US advertising for every 20 minutes of show. Then if the time constraints weren't enough, they further cut out material to placate the FCC or something. I have no idea why since FCC regulations don't apply to cable TV stations, but they do anyway.

      Then there's the PAL to NTSC conversion, which loses even more quality.

      In short, you get the same edited crap on BBC America that you do on any other US station that shows BBC shows. Your only legal way to get BBC originals in the US is iTunes. The only other option is piracy, since the US DVDs have the same NTSC issues that BBC America does.

    7. Re:Plot/Series Branching by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      I disagree, one of them was just a kids tv program and Tourchwood is not worth watching IMHO. Maybe watching one or two tourchwoods helped me no the characters but i didnt feal id missed anything by not watching more, hell id hoped that the finale was a Lone guns style ending to that.

      I applaud the BBC folks for thinking so creatively about spin-offs playing off against Doctor Who, and vice-versa,

      And I think that Lucas should never of made the original trilogy, i find the BBC are milking dr who for all they can get. They are completely stomping over old dr.who stories, I mean its had some good episodes in this last series but only a few have lived up to the old series.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    8. Re:Plot/Series Branching by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 1

      I'm in the UK, I'm a fan of Doctor Who and Torchwood, and have set my DVR thingy to record The Sarah Jane Adventures too, although I tend to fall behind with watching that.

      I'm really puzzled by your assertion that the three series are inter-linked, and that one needs to watch all three in order to understand Doctor Who.

      There have been thematic cross-overs between the series, but generally this has been a flowing out from Doctor Who to the other two. In the case of the Sarah Jane Adventures, this has been the appearance of a couple of particular alien races (and a few specific individuals) that had earlier featured in Doctor Who. These stories may be considered as continuations of the Doctor Who stories, but are essentially still stand-alone, and have had no implications or repercussions in the opposite direction. So, yes, watching Doctor Who can give you a head-start in understanding some Sarah Jane stories, but that's about it.

      As for Torchwood, whilst the Doctor Who season preceding the start of that series did have several episodes dealing with the Torchwood Institude. Since then Torchwood itself has been mostly independent of it's parent. About the only reminder of the two being linked has been the presence of Captain Jack. I guess the hand in the jar is about the only other link, but everything one needs to know about that is revealed in Doctor Who itself, not in Torchwood.

      I cannot think of a single circumstance in Doctor Who where one has been left in the dark (or even in the shade) if one has not watched Torchwood and/or Sarah Jane. Not one.

      Finally the three series generally have not run concurrently here in the UK. As a result, there are usually no story lines happening on the spin-offs whilst Doctor Who is running.

    9. Re:Plot/Series Branching by WeirdJohn · · Score: 1, Troll

      I believe you forgot to mention that "Three's Company" was a very poor copy of "Man about the House" and the terrible adaptations of "The Office" and "Kath and Kim". I suspect that the American networks have a very poor opinion of their customer's intelligence, and remake these shows to cater for the crowd that cannot tie their own shoelaces.

    10. Re:Plot/Series Branching by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 1

      So is/was Doctor Who.

      Whilst these days it's produced by BBC Wales, it was originally a production of the BBC children's TV department...

    11. Re:Plot/Series Branching by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      Not exactly a new thing. Sanford and Son, Three's Company / Three's a Crowd, and quite a few others come to mind. But sometimes these can be quite successful too.

    12. Re:Plot/Series Branching by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Doctor Who really seems to make the most sense if you watch it in the UK in sequence with its spin-offs such as Torchwood or the Sarah Jane Adventures, because in the Season 4 finale there are tie-ins to the spin-offs as well as some earlier episodes in the season that refer to story lines happening on the spin-offs. In other words, watching Doctor Who in America on the 1 season delay sans spin-offs leads to confusion because you don't know what's going on.

      To which I say "Thank Xod for the interwebs." I'm watching them the day after they air and quite enjoying myself, thank you.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    13. Re:Plot/Series Branching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never saw the US version of The Office, but the characters of the Brit version were too unsympathetic for me to enjoy it. The show relied too much on discomfort as a source of comedy. The movie reel of self loathing I have running continually in my head gives me enough of that in real life.

    14. Re:Plot/Series Branching by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Torchwood got a lot better after the first season (when they realised that 'adult' doesn't just mean sex). The Sarah Jane Adventures are surprisingly good, considering their intended audience. They remind me a lot of the very early Doctor Who, which aimed to be much more educational. Simplistic and often overly moralising plot lines, but quite entertaining nonetheless.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Plot/Series Branching by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      I'm British and I didn't get it. If you want to see something actually funny by the same guy, check out Extras.

    16. Re:Plot/Series Branching by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

      So even though Top Gear USA isn't on yet you know it was "destroyed" by Americanizing it? Has Top Gear Australia also been destroyed by Australianizing it?

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    17. Re:Plot/Series Branching by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      If you can find it, check out the US pilot episode of Red Dwarf.
      Just remembering that makes me cringe.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    18. Re:Plot/Series Branching by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I cannot think of a single circumstance in Doctor Who where one has been left in the dark (or even in the shade) if one has not watched Torchwood and/or Sarah Jane. Not one.

      True, by design. However the scenes in the Torchwood Hub, the Rift; and Sarah Jane's attic and Mr Smith would have been a bit mysterious if you hadn't been following them, I think. And it also helped to have seen the Jon Pertwee (with young Sarah Jane) and Tom Baker encounters with Davros.

      Apparently (I've heard, but not seen stated by the BBC) the Doctor will never appear on Torchwood, as that's an "adult" programme and they don't want to encourage kids to tune into the kinky sex and violence (Captain John, Jack and Ianto....) So in the finale of Torchwood, we HEARD the Tardis, Jack disappeared, but that's as much as we will see in that show.

    19. Re:Plot/Series Branching by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I'll give TG USA the benefit of the doubt, mostly because I know as rude as Adam Carolla is, he's pretty smart and insightful. Yet, I'm sad that Jay Leno wasn't chosen for the show. I mean, he makes THE most sense for it. He was even on Sunday's ep of the UK TG.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    20. Re:Plot/Series Branching by richardablitt · · Score: 1

      Jay Leno wrote a column on it a while ago, he was asked but turned it down. Partly because he didn't have time, and also because he expected it to be not as good as the UK version.

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/features/article3638037.ece

    21. Re:Plot/Series Branching by dangitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The Office" and "What Not to Wear" are two other examples.

      The Office? WTF? It's on par with the British version. In some ways it exceeds it, because it has managed to sustain itself with many more episodes, while the British version was a very short run - it's much easier to reach heights when you can pack it all into a short series.

      The US version of The Office is also great because it doesn't just mimic the British show - it is well translated to the American paradigm. America has its own unique business culture, which The Office reflects very well.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    22. Re:Plot/Series Branching by drspliff · · Score: 1

      You mean this?

      http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KwymOX6ey_g the red dwarf us pilot

    23. Re:Plot/Series Branching by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      No idea, can't watch youtube at work.
      I downloaded the episode, it was horrible.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    24. Re:Plot/Series Branching by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Don't they shoot it on film? PAL to NTSC should not be an issue.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    25. Re:Plot/Series Branching by cerelib · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I [in the USA] had never even heard of Torchwood before that episode. Was it ever aired here? It's on my Netflix queue now.

    26. Re:Plot/Series Branching by cerelib · · Score: 1

      In some ways it exceeds it, because it has managed to sustain itself with many more episodes

      I really hate this idea. If there is a story to tell, then it should get told. Keeping a show going for so long is a purely profit driven paradigm. Two good examples. "Heroes" should have ended and the end of the first season. Instead they refused to really resolve anything so they could keep the same thing going for more seasons. "Lost" completely jumped the shark and played out more like Ad-Libs: TV Drama Edition the last time I watched it(which was quite a while ago). "The Office"(USA) did copy a good deal from the original series, but then decided to go in a different direction. It is now more like a sketch comedy/improv show than a real story driven series. I still watch it because I happen to like sketch comedy/improv, but the story and characters are getting a bit absurd. One funny thing is that "The Office"(UK) actually involved the fact that the cameras were filming a show, but the fact that the cameras in "The Office"(USA) have been there so long without any story involvement is almost comical.

    27. Re:Plot/Series Branching by thesolo · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the NBC is trying to make a US version of Top Gear with Adam F-ing Carolla as the host.

      No. Just stop. I don't want Adam Carolla reviewing shitty American cars. I want Jeremy Clarkson reviewing Lambos, Bugattis, and Alfas.

    28. Re:Plot/Series Branching by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      I am not british but i love most of the british sitcoms, but the office, neither was funny nor was it interesting...
      The same goes for the US version which in this rare case is not watered down the entire show is pointless.

    29. Re:Plot/Series Branching by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I really hate this idea. If there is a story to tell, then it should get told. Keeping a show going for so long is a purely profit driven paradigm.

      Regardless of profit motive, the show is still entertaining, and better than most things on TV. I'd rather have it around than not. On the flip-side of the coin, it's annoying when a series is cut short when it has plenty of life in it. The UK Office was a good example of this - as is Arrested Development, which I crave the remaining episodes of (it was written to have another season, but the network demanded it be wrapped up).

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    30. Re:Plot/Series Branching by cerelib · · Score: 1
      Don't get me wrong. I know television is a profit driven business and even the most profit driven shows can still be entertaining. I was ranting about the notion that the longer a series is on the air, the better it must be. In that same line of thinking, people seem to view the end of a series as some sort of failure. To this end, many shows seem to prefer drawn out, slow story arcs that in some cases just keep branching and never come to any clear resolutions.

      cut short when it has plenty of life in it

      That phrase, I believe, illustrates my point. People view these shows in terms of how long people could be interested and not as a story with a beginning, middle, and end. Sure, some shows are meant to be "monster of the week" episodic content. It just frustrates me that people find it unacceptable for a show with great ratings to write an end and move on to new projects.

    31. Re:Plot/Series Branching by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Torchwood got a lot better after the first season (when they realised that 'adult' doesn't just mean sex).

      Lost cause, I'm afraid. I was really looking forward to Torchwood, and now I hate it. Captain Jack is still awesome in Dr Who, but in Torchwood he was so boring and stupid that I just can't get myself to watch it anymore.

    32. Re:Plot/Series Branching by mcvos · · Score: 1

      You mean this?

      http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KwymOX6ey_g the red dwarf us pilot

      That's impressively bad. But it gets a lot better if you imagine Craig Charles saying those same lines. And then you have to imagine everything else the way it should have been.

    33. Re:Plot/Series Branching by aldwin · · Score: 1

      So even though Top Gear USA isn't on yet you know it was "destroyed" by Americanizing it? Has Top Gear Australia also been destroyed by Australianizing it?

      Yes

      - An Australian

    34. Re:Plot/Series Branching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's due to aspect ratio. The BBC shoots in the widescreen PAL format. In order to fit it into NTSC, they shrink the video down.

      So you're already losing definition by moving to NTSC, and you're losing even more of it by shrinking the video. Instead of using all 480 visible scanlines, you're down to something like 380 scanlines. It's sort of like those stations that show their HD shows letterboxed on SD - it takes an already poor picture and moves it into YouTube quality territory.

  13. What was cut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Sarah Jane Adventures showing in Canada? If not, I could see the CBC editing out the Sarah Jane & Luke parts out of fear the viewers will have no clue why she is there and who Luke is.

  14. Even worse by smartin · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you watch the credits I believe it mentions the Canadian Film Board which has always made me believe that it is partially funded by Canadian tax payer dollars.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    1. Re:Even worse by Kalriath · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is indeed (partially) Canadian taxpayer funded.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  15. Well played by ciaohound · · Score: 1

    You managed to get a laugh without revealing that the doctor regenerates -- very sporting of you.

    --
    Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
  16. Re:Stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please feel free to turn in all your documentation at your leisure; I'd convince you to stay but I don't want to share a ghetto with someone who's never seen Dr. Who!

  17. Unwatchable? by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 5, Funny

    I watched the CBC broadcast version and didn't notice anything odd. It was fast-paced toward the end, but then a lot of them are like that. Am watching the full-length version on their site now to see what difference I can see.

    Maybe the CBC could get the same editor to cut the Pirates of the Caribbean movies down to a reasonable length. That would be sweet.

    1. Re:Unwatchable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the CBC could get the same editor to cut the Pirates of the Caribbean movies down to a reasonable length.

      Hell I could do that. Zero is a reasonable length, right?

    2. Re:Unwatchable? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Maybe the CBC could get the same editor to cut the Pirates of the Caribbean movies down to a reasonable length. That would be sweet.

      Why is it that I get the feeling that this version would focus on Kiera Knightly and not be work safe?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:Unwatchable? by genner · · Score: 1

      Why is it that I get the feeling that this version would focus on Kiera Knightly and not be work safe?

      Because that's the only way you could redeem that movie.

  18. Re:Stuff that matters? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Flaimbiat? ive been thinking there was a troll using mod points to disagree with people, this proves it. Canadians missing some new dr.who (maybe if it was one from the original series it would be geek worthy), is not news, its 2008 they have the internet.

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  19. mised 20 minutes, eh? by aunt+edna · · Score: 1, Funny

    even Canadians get lucky sometimes.

    1. Re:mised 20 minutes, eh? by sunami · · Score: 1

      Yea, thankfully Moffat's taking over, Davies' episodes have been quite bad.

    2. Re:mised 20 minutes, eh? by JRootabega · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But now every episode is just going to be some ironic staggering zombie with a mask on their face repeating a creepy phrase. Let's see what I can come up with... a...milkman with a...welding mask saying..."Give us a kiss!" a...zoologist with a...riot helmet saying..."Spare some change?" Bang, money in the bank.

  20. Life on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Life on Mars is another example of this.

    1. Re:Life on Mars by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      Brilliant! Did you also spot that the main actor playing Sam Tylor was John Simm (fantastic) who also played the Dr's nemesis (the Master) at the end of the previous series - so a time traveler in both series.

    2. Re:Life on Mars by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      ... And to complete the loop: Life on Mars' Sam Tyler was named for Doctor Who's Rose Tyler.

      My name is The MASTER. I had an accident, and I woke up in the year 100 trillion. Am I mad, in a coma, or back in time? Now to take over the world...

  21. Canadian create problem, and offer solution! by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    www.isohunt.com

    1. Re:Canadian create problem, and offer solution! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The internet. The other companion to us up here in the frozen white north. Especially in the winter where the west has blizzards, the east has freezing rain and when they meet in the middle it's a giant slushee party.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Canadian create problem, and offer solution! by Seumas · · Score: 1

      No kidding. If you hadn't already watched Doctor Who before it aired in the US or Canada (via bit torrent from fantastic people like MadMartha at Demonoid) then you probably aren't much of a fan. I download episodes as soon as they air in the UK rather than waiting an entire year to watch the crappy Sci-Fi TV standard-def, commercial-filled, cable TV broadcasts.

      Plus, you can get all the content you do NOT get in America via torrent. Like the Confidentials and Xmas stuff.

  22. Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's why.

    Be honest, what would you want to face as your adversary as a program planner? An angry mob of beer filled football fans or a bunch of geeks? I mean, let's be reasonable. One group will show up at your doorstep and crush a beer can on your head, the other one might write you an angry email. IN RED.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. Re:CBC on strike... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...and nobody noticed.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Attractive? by spineboy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Try smoking hot.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  25. Quick note: by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Oh, and: I know that I'm exceptionally bad at English when I'm still dead from a party last night (it lasted until 10 am today, and I slept until 7 pm).

    Luckily tough, going outside also gives me shitloads of creative output time. :)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  26. Blame Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blame Canada! Oh wait...

  27. Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio by Cylix · · Score: 1

    Your local television station merely serves as a redistribution point. Local affiliates have little right to tape delay or re-schedule network block programming. To do this requires paper work and authorization. (To double broadcast a show requires additional fees because the actors were only paid for one airing!).

    So yes, football seasons suck and the networks don't make it easy to work around.

    Contracts vary from production to production, but in most cases it's always been possible to drop the commentary (if provided) to end on time. Sports productions units usually try their best to to wrap up cleanly or at least assist.

    For overages, sometimes it's been possible to stop broadcasting and flip to network. The problem with that is normally commercial time for sporting events was a higher revenue earner then prime time.

    So it may or may not be their fault, but rather contractual obligation.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
  28. Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio by schon · · Score: 1

    Umm, no.

    Please re-read the post you replied to. The poster said quite emphatically that the game was over. As in, they finished it, and everybody knew the final score.

    This is nothing like cutting off a game that hadn't finished yet.

  29. So that's what happened... by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I watched the final episode on the "Ceeb" and thought it was disjointed and incoherent. Now I know why.

    Changing the topic a bit, I find the new Dr. Who series to be overly sentimental, even maudlin. I prefer good ol' space opera without all the tears. Give me "Annihilate them!" over "I'll miss you, Doctor." any day.

    1. Re:So that's what happened... by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a long time fan of The Doctor, I dislike some of the over-wraught sentimentality, but I the somewhat darker, desolate, lonlier tones of the doctor recently to be welcome.

    2. Re:So that's what happened... by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I the somewhat darker, desolate, lonlier tones of the doctor recently to be welcome.

      I it too!

      However, I think it is perhaps over-wrought in general. any 'positive' feelings equally overblown. The Doctor (and companion) seem to transition from maudlin to flippant within a fraction of a second.

      For lack of a better term springing to mind the show seems bi-polar. Week in week out I find that a bit tiring to watch.

      I wouldn't mind the next incarnation of The Doctor being a bit more enigmatic, I don't think we need every emotion thrown at us in such an amplified fashion.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  30. 'citation require' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll presume by "Canadian Film Board" you mean the NFB, and I can't find any reference to their involvement online.

    It wouldn't fit the NFB's purpose to simply support the show, but they may have had resources that were licensed by it. And it may have been some other organization entirely -- can anyone back up the parent posts with detail?

    tardis.wikia has this:

    In 2008 it was announced that the CBC would no longer be funding Torchwood and would not air the second series (it was subsequently aired by a competing network, Space, about five months after its UK broadcast). It was rumored that the CBC had also dropped its funding for Series 4 of Doctor Who, which was supported by the fact the CBC no longer received screen credit on Series 4 episodes, but the CBC later said it was still supporting the series.

    http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation

    Funding in that sense would typically be investment in production in exchange for broadcasting rights. Partnership deals like that are normal for the CBC, which is not the same type of organization as the NFB.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Film_Board_of_Canada

    If you'll check the credits for more shows, you'll notice the CBC, BBC, and other similar organizations often turn up in each other's credits. There's a long history of combining resources, and more elaborate partnerships ultimately involving the trading of shows rather than outright purchases of licenses.

    1. Re:'citation require' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes - we owe the Australians one for Blackadder.

  31. Hold on... by CRiyl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The American "The Office" is terrible? Do you know what fans of "Pushing Daisies" would give to have their show last five seasons? "Three's Company" a "poor copy"; granted, Three's Company was never about being sophisticated but is a guilty favorite and almost always seems to a pillar of the Nick-at-Nite lineup. What's next, deriding "Sandford and Son"?

    1. Re:Hold on... by CRiyl · · Score: 1

      Whoops, I forgot a question mark and a "be".

    2. Re:Hold on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pushing Daisies has a wonderful premise and great writing, but they relied on that Burton "twisted fairytale" vibe way more than a regular series can handle. The writers can only carry that whole tragic isolation in a relationship story so far before it becomes a complete parody of itself, or it's magically resolved and the show doesn't have a story any more. Much as I like the show I'd rather see two good seasons than have them spread resolution too thin and ruin the second and third seasons and then limp along for a couple more.

    3. Re:Hold on... by deniable · · Score: 1

      What's next, deriding "Sandford and Son"?

      Which is a poor ripoff of Steptoe and Son.

    4. Re:Hold on... by burgundysizzle · · Score: 1

      The American "The Office" is terrible?

      Terrible does not do justice to the American version of the "The Office". Utterly and profoundly terrible as well as completely unfunny come to mind as a equally valid descriptions of the US version (based on the 3 episodes I forced myself to watch).

    5. Re:Hold on... by dangitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Utterly and profoundly terrible as well as completely unfunny come to mind as a equally valid descriptions of the US version

      On what basis? If you don't find the US Office funny, then I doubt you have much of a sense of humor.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    6. Re:Hold on... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Which is a poor ripoff of Steptoe and Son.

      I think that's the point, genius. (Except for the "poor" part. It's just different.)

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:Hold on... by WeirdJohn · · Score: 1

      The British original was one of the few "Oh God I've pissed myself" funny shows. The funniest part was being at a business meeting the next day and seeing the same things in real life, and nearly soiling more clothes realising that there were other people also seeing exactly the same things.

    8. Re:Hold on... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      The American "The Office" is terrible?

      Terrible does not do justice to the American version of the "The Office". Utterly and profoundly terrible as well as completely unfunny come to mind as a equally valid descriptions of the US version (based on the 3 episodes I forced myself to watch).

      Actually you just described the british original as well. There are many excellent Britcoms which did not make it due to being watered down. The geniously written Coupling comes to mind, one of the best if not the best sitcom ever. But that does apply to the office. The original is also unfunny and pointless, and just replacing the actors (which is exactly what happened) does not make the show any better the show also stank in its british version!

    9. Re:Hold on... by burgundysizzle · · Score: 1

      On what basis?

      Errm, on the basis of personal opinion? How else are you going to quantify if something is funny? It is subjective and in the eye of the beholder.

  32. This is Why I download by icelator · · Score: 1

    This is why I download. I live in Canada and we constantly have to wait for shows or not get them at all. Global one of the networks here would buy exclusive rights to Stargate SG1 and then never show it so we would not get the new episodes until a year later. I try to watch stuff legally and I even go to the websites that now play full tv shows, but they never work for people in Canada. I download shows because I refuse to wait a year to watch them.

  33. Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when has Canada mattered? Seriously, is Canada important in entertainment, or anything else for that matter? Sure you have Moosehead and hockey sticks. That hardly makes you a first world nation.

    1. Re:Umm... by Seumas · · Score: 2, Informative

      [quote]is canada important in entertainment[/qoute]

      Wow. How naive. You do know that most of our most popular entertainers come from Canada, right? I know I'm leaving off an insanely huge number of people, too.

      Fay Wray, Dan Aykroyd, James Doohan (Scotty), David Foley, Biff Naked, Kevin McDonald, Howie Mandel, Pam Anderson, John Candy, Jim Carrey, Tommy Chong, Hayden Christenson, Hume Cronyn, Celine Dion (blech), Michael J. Fox, Ryan Gosling, Lorne Greene, Phil Hartman, Avril Lavigne (blech), Evangeline Lilly, Art Linkletter, Dean McDermott, Joni Mitchell, Lee Montgomery, Alanis Morissette, Mike Myers, Leslie Nielsen, Ryan Reynolds, Caroline Rhea, Seth Rogen, Paul Shaffer, Martin Short, Donald Sutherland, Alan Thicke, Alex Trebek, Neil Young, Rick Moranis, Jason Priestley, Christopher Plummer, Mathew Perry, Dave Thompas, Scott Thompson, Robert Goulet, The Tragically Hip, Kim Cattrall, Margot Kidder, Catherine O'Hara, Shannon Teen, Jennifer Tilly, Rush, Shania Twain, Meg Tilly, Kurt Browning, Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe, Our Lady Peace, Rage Against The Machine, Ben Johnson, James Naismith (INVENTOR OF BASKETBALL), Paul Anka, Artificial Joy Club, Cowboy Junkies, Crash Test Dummies (once... there was this girl... whoooo... blah blah), KD Lang, Sarah McLachlan, Alanis Morissette, Anne Murray, Barenaked Ladies

      In addition to basketball, they also invented some stuff. Like the Alkaline battery, the dump truck, cream soda, Trivial Pursuit, the "walkie-talkie", the lithium battery, IMAX, the hydrofoil, the rechargeable battery...

    2. Re:Umm... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Wow. How naive. You do know that most of our most popular entertainers come from Canada, right? I know I'm leaving off an insanely huge number of people, too.

      you had me up until here:

      Hayden Christenson,

      hoser.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Umm... by Megane · · Score: 1

      How could you forget The Shatner? That's unforgivable, eh?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:Umm... by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      [SUPER NITPICK]

      Doh! You listed Alanis Morisette twice.

      Also there should be a (blech) next to Alex Trebek.
      Yeah, he has all the pronunciations down better than anyone in humankind,
      but he doesn't have to be so smug about it.

       

    5. Re:Umm... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Fay Wray, Dan Aykroyd, James Doohan (Scotty), David Foley, Biff Naked, Kevin McDonald, Howie Mandel, Pam Anderson, John Candy, Jim Carrey, Tommy Chong, Hayden Christenson, Hume Cronyn, Celine Dion (blech), Michael J. Fox, Ryan Gosling, Lorne Greene, Phil Hartman, Avril Lavigne (blech), Evangeline Lilly, Art Linkletter, Dean McDermott, Joni Mitchell, Lee Montgomery, Alanis Morissette, Mike Myers, Leslie Nielsen, Ryan Reynolds, Caroline Rhea, Seth Rogen, Paul Shaffer, Martin Short, Donald Sutherland, Alan Thicke, Alex Trebek, Neil Young, Rick Moranis, Jason Priestley, Christopher Plummer, Mathew Perry, Dave Thompas, Scott Thompson, Robert Goulet, The Tragically Hip, Kim Cattrall, Margot Kidder, Catherine O'Hara, Shannon Teen, Jennifer Tilly, Rush, Shania Twain, Meg Tilly, Kurt Browning, Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe, Our Lady Peace, Rage Against The Machine, Ben Johnson, James Naismith (INVENTOR OF BASKETBALL), Paul Anka, Artificial Joy Club, Cowboy Junkies, Crash Test Dummies (once... there was this girl... whoooo... blah blah), KD Lang, Sarah McLachlan, Alanis Morissette, Anne Murray, Barenaked Ladies

      To save people the trouble I've highlighted the ones they might have heard of in a good way.

      PS You appear to have counted Alanis Morrissette twice, thus artificially boosting the length of your list.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  34. All Depends What You are On by qazwart · · Score: 4, Funny

    My sister had broken her arm. It was so bad, they put some sort of metal bar through her arm to hold her arm in a single position. Because of the pain, she was on some powerful medication. To put it mildly, she was not her normal self. Many hippies have spent decades attempting the mental state those drugs put my sister in.

    She was watching TV late one night and called me up and told me about this great science fiction show. It was witty, the writing was wonderful. She laughed, She cried. She was on the edge of her seat. But she couldn't remember the name. She remembered that there was a doctor or surgeon on it and they were in a phone booth...

    Dr. Who?, I suggested.

    That's it!

    Dr. Who? I replied again. Are you sure it was Dr. Who?

    Yes, she told me, it was wonderful.

    The next week, she saw the show again. This time, not enwrapped in her druggy little fog. She called me up the next day and told me she changed her mind about the show.

    I've watched the show many times since then, and as far as I am concerned, being sober doesn't help improve the coherence of the plot. Frankly, I would find it hard to tell if our local station cut out vital scenes which hurt the clarity of the overall plot.

  35. Re:Best media money can buy! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    >For example, smoking in your car with a kid in California is ATTEMPTED MURDER.

    [citation needed]

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  36. Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but imagine what if they cut off the game or even the commentary about the game you just saw.

    Imgaine, viewers might realize how utterly stupid they are if nobody told them how to interpret all the funny statistics.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  37. CBC did them a favour by jassa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Given the episode in question, this is more of a blessing than a curse. The Season 4 finale is almost worse than the Season 3 finale.

    I'm looking forward to Stephen Moffat taking over from Russel T Davies in 2010. Hopefully he'll be able to bring some intelligence (or just plots that make sense) back to the show.

    1. Re:CBC did them a favour by mail2345 · · Score: 1

      Still, that won't protect CBC from the hockey stick blows.

  38. Canadians and US citizens are getting screwed. by TavisJohn · · Score: 1

    When Doctor Who first came out, Season 1, I could catch it a week later than the UK on a Canadian channel. However during Season 2 they suddenly stopped airing it. And never properly carried it after that. Then SciFi channel in the US started carrying it... But they did not air it at a normal fixed time and day. They kept jumping it around, AND were playing it out of order also!

    I got fed up and started getting it off Torrent sites. I am a HUGE Doctor Who fan, and I live in the US, and I am really REALLY disappointed with how Doctor Who is being presented to the US and Canadian audiences! I have watched every episode of the classic series from Doctor #1 through Doctor #6.

    1. Re:Canadians and US citizens are getting screwed. by ferrgle · · Score: 1

      Great. Poor you!!!
      Now reverse that for almost every US show for us in the UK

    2. Re:Canadians and US citizens are getting screwed. by TavisJohn · · Score: 1

      Yes you in the UK get screwed when it comes to US shows also. You would think that they would want to capture the "global" market a little better...

      I wish the BBC would release a REAL BBC channel in the US. There are many other BBC programs that I love to watch.

    3. Re:Canadians and US citizens are getting screwed. by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      Just so you don't feel that bad.

      In France, we don't have the season 4 yet, and the christmass special episodes are never released on DVD, and the season 3 DVD only proposed french dubbing, yes, no kidding, the original audio track was gone!

    4. Re:Canadians and US citizens are getting screwed. by TavisJohn · · Score: 1

      That is why region codes on DVD's is wrong! If you want to import the Xmas specials, or import the seasons from another country so you can have the original audio track, than you should be able to! The money all goes to the same place anyway!

  39. Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

    So it may or may not be their fault, but rather contractual obligation.

    Contracts don't just spring spontaneously out of the freshly-plowed Earth. If the contract obliges them to do something, then it's because they agreed to said contract with said obligations in place, and it is still therefore their fault.

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  40. USA network in the US is up to 50% commercials by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Or it feels like it. I think it's GOT to be something approaching 50%. Every 4 minutes there's a 4 minute commercial break. It's unwatchable.

    SciFi network is just as bad, so is TBS. Comedy Central is getting to that point. When they start running interludes DURING a stream of commercials to remind you what channel you're on, because you probably zoned out around commercial #20, it's all going in the crapper, isn't it?

    1. Re:USA network in the US is up to 50% commercials by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      The great thing is, you can switch the station! No, really, switch the station! Don't like your kids watching boobies, change the channel. Don't like commercials, change the channel.

      Or get a DVR. Or only watch stuff from netflix. Or stop watching television altogether. You'll probably gain three IQ points off that last one.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    2. Re:USA network in the US is up to 50% commercials by hort_wort · · Score: 0

      I'm with you on this one. Have you ever pulled out an old recording, and there was a single commercial break mid-show? There was actually a sequence saying "We're going to commercials now, pause your VCR." Robotech had these, usually with a drainpipe sounding alien voice too :) I bet the extra commercial breaks are causing ADD in kids. If the darn show would stay on for more than 4 minutes, maybe they could focus on it!

  41. Not unusual behaviour by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

    This isn't the first time the CBC has pulled a stunt like this, and once a similar non-event, it pulled the plug on a CFL game during a lightening delay in Saskatchewan and switched to a lame movie instead because they couldn't find the executive producer's phone number, was likely a contributing factor in the CBC losing the broadcast rights to one of the most popular sports in the country.

    --
    The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  42. Re:Stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, didn't even realize they cut anything until I saw this story.

  43. It's the gub'ment, stupid by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    You let the government handle your television broadcasting, you end up with government quality television broadcasting. No surprise at all. Letting the government provide your television is like hiring the mafia to babysit your kids: it's not what they're best at.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  44. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that should read loltwat, cause you're just a big CUNT!!

  45. Re:Stuff that matters? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Science fiction TV show gets chopped up by the powers that be so they could fit in more commercials in a government sponsored programming?
    That is SF, fanboy factor, freedom of speech violation and possible misuse of authority by TV media.

    Don't bother turning your decoder ring.
    Just stick your hand in the fing.. I mean ring remover box. It is quite painless. Honest.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  46. Not a CBC edit, obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's a shorter edit made by the producers of Dr Who themselves, of course, for American broadcast or re-runs in 1h. The CBC doesn't have the time or means to create seamless removal of the scenes and bits of dialogs and story, with all the music and everything, as the edit was.

    The biggest thing that was removed was the eventually moot effort by Martha Jones to destroy the earth. There was some dialog by the half-human Doctor during his first and last appearance. Nothing that helps clarify the story.

  47. Don't worry... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    You didn't miss much.

    Jack Bauer beats up or kills everyone in the end.
    Unless they manage to squeeze in Chuck Norris as well.

    But then you also have nothing to worry about, cause having both Jack Bauer and Chuck Norris in the same show would cause universe to implode.
    The fact that you would feel just fine while watching the awesomest "24" episode EVAR! would be a clear indicator that we are all dead already and that you are in heaven.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  48. "Sci-Fi Hosers"..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    "Sci-Fi Hosers".

    Best. Label. Ever.

    Aside from the horrible camera quality and even worse acting, Doctor Who has been somewhat entertaining for me. If the taxpayers don't like what their tax dollars are going to, can't they just pull the funding and put it somewhere else?

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  49. Doctor Who fan-boy here. . ! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    TeeVee is a hideous, brain-sucking monster. But in a very selfish way, I'm semi-glad it exists. The sheep, (oh, dear lord, who will think of the SHEEP??), will actually spend time abusing themselves with advertising and television-imposed life schedules and all the other crap TeeVee inflicts, and through their doing this, they ensure that there's a market big enough to justify the existence of shows like Doctor Who. --Which is available world-wide on the internet, ad-free, like minutes after the credits roll on television sets all across Britain.

    Of course, internet media entertainment isn't a whole lot less brain-sucking. My last great sin a couple of months back was to download and watch every $#&@(@# episode of that retarded island show, "Lost". My ears and eyes were bleeding and I was practically shouting at the screen through most of it, but that's my monkey to deal with. --And it's like every second episode of Doctor Who was written by chimps. What a shame. But the episodes which shine, SHINE! --I mean, yes, Doctor Who feels maybe one or two steps removed from Muppets In Space, but you know, I loved the Muppets as well.

    As Neil Gaiman put it; "Doctor Who is one of those rare shows I can watch with my daughter and we can both enjoy!" (That's me quoting from memory, but the sentiment is accurate.)

    And Right-On, you know? Positive, smart, encouraging messages through SciFi? We haven't had that since. . . Geez, TNG? Has it really been that long? And I love the new emotionally-aware angle to the Doctor. Man, I went back and rented some old Tom Baker episodes, and was stunned at how flat they were. When I was a kid, I thought that man was the coolest dude in the universe, but it was positively missing huge chunks of humanity. "Just-the-facts" Sci-Fi doesn't cut it for me anymore, apparently.

    -FL

    1. Re:Doctor Who fan-boy here. . ! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      My last great sin a couple of months back was to download and watch every $#&@(@# episode of that retarded island show, "Lost".

      You're allowed to stop if you're not enjoying it, you know, it's not like volunteering for the Marines.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Doctor Who fan-boy here. . ! by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      Isn't it available ad-free starting from about an hour BEFORE the closing credits roll on television sets all across Britain?

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    3. Re:Doctor Who fan-boy here. . ! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Isn't it available ad-free starting from about an hour BEFORE the closing credits roll on television sets all across Britain?

      I guess so. Must be nice for the Brits, eh? Of course, they don't get to press pause when they go to the 'loo'.

      -FL

    4. Re:Doctor Who fan-boy here. . ! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      You're allowed to stop if you're not enjoying it, you know, it's not like volunteering for the Marines.

      Have you never endured something you didn't like out of morbid fascination and complained bitterly afterwards just for the fun of it? --Sometimes being able to pick apart and understand why something which should be brilliant but is instead broken. . , sometimes the disaster is just as enjoyable as experiencing something which is flawless. (Different types of enjoyment, naturally.)

      -FL

    5. Re:Doctor Who fan-boy here. . ! by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      ...yes we do. We have DVRs just like the rest of the 1st world

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  50. List of the cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    List of what was cut from the episode
    http://www.dwin.org/article.php?sid=262

  51. Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TV station managers of today were the pimply, mouth-breathing projectionists of yesteryear. Focus! Focus!

  52. Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio by piltdownman84 · · Score: 1

    I agree about the extra commentary, but I have rather strong feelings about cutting of the end of sports programming ... or I guess the end of any programming I guess for that matter. Just this week I was watching Champions League Soccer on TSN2 (Canadian ESPN), and they just cut off the last twenty minutes to go into hockey pregame. I was livid, and called their number and left a long rant about how dumb their programming was. The match didn't run late or go into extra time, and soccer game lengths are extremely predictable, but they still decided to cut off the end to do pregame.

  53. Here's how they can make it up to us -- I mean, me by wylderide · · Score: 1
    --
    This is the best restaurant I ever eat in
  54. Let this be a lesson by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    That's what you get for being Canadian. :)

  55. Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

    A better question is when there are tons of channels on cable devoted solely to sports why are sports interrupting regular programming in the first place?

    If you want to watch football, baseball, basketball, or hockey or whatever that is great but why does it have to be on when something else I want to watch is on at that same time every other week?

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  56. Camp as a row of tents by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As usual, it was a Russell T Davies campy almost-but-not-quite musical cheesefest. Just about any fact about Doctor Who that you thought was canonical was blatantly ignored. The greatest sin of all was throwing away a regeneration. For god's sake. Regenerations are probably the most precious thing in the Doctor Who universe and Davies thought he'd end his Who career (after all, he doesn't have to fix the plot holes he made) by simply throwing one away for a completely dumb plot twist. Of course it doesn't matter now that no rules are followed any more. And could anything have been more sickly that seeing all of the Doctor's wannabe lovers (and their pathetic families) fawning after him? The whole finally was nothing but laughable. The scene of the Tardis towing the Earth was beyond laughable. The faster Stephen Moffat takes over, the better.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:Camp as a row of tents by Stereoface · · Score: 0

      The whole finally was nothing but laughable. The scene of the Tardis towing the Earth was beyond laughable.

      It's classified as a kids show- I mean yeah some of the themes are intense at moments, but you rarely see blood and graphic violence. That's a hard standard to uphold when dealing with a show of it's magnitude. Yeah some of the plot ideas are ridiculous, but just as ridiculous as Jack Bower doing all that stuff in 24, and even the plot in Lost. Some stuff has to be way over the top- it gives the illusion that the main character is modest in his use of infinite power. I already assumed the Tardis could move the earth. They're doing something right if the show has gone on this long. Same with coronation street... 48th anniversary? My god.

    2. Re:Camp as a row of tents by JoeRandomHacker · · Score: 1

      It wasn't the first time they did something like that with a regeneration. See Mardryn Undead. That sets a precedent for a regeneration where the energy comes from outside and so doesn't count against a Time Lord's quota.

    3. Re:Camp as a row of tents by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      > They're doing something right if the show has gone on this long

      Davies is responsible only for 4 years of that success. Note that I'm not criticising the series as a whole, but the finale (and other Davies writing). The best episodes of each series are almost universally recognised as not being those written by Davies. I have to credit Davies with resurrecting the series, but the best thing Davies did was hire Moffat and others as writers.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    4. Re:Camp as a row of tents by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      We are talking about dr. who, so throwing away one regeneration is not that important, you always can make a plot twist to give the doctor another 100 regenerations! I never watch dr. who for coherence and logic, because I know there is none.
      Just have a look at how many times the daleks have been killed off entirely, yet they make it to almost every season finale :-)

    5. Re:Camp as a row of tents by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Oh dear. You must be one of those people they call "young". Everything you say about Doctor Who applies only to the last four seasons. It always used to have at least a hint of coherence and logic (not too much admittedly), we always used to worry about the Doctor running out of regenerations (this added a certain tension to the story) and you know what? The daleks never used to appear in the season finale because there was no such thing as a season finale. What you've been watching isn't Doctor Who, it's more like "Carry On Up The Doctor - the Musical". (But you'll be too young to remember the Carry On movies.)

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    6. Re:Camp as a row of tents by aldwin · · Score: 1

      If I hadn't already commented above, I'd mod you funny (intentional or not).

      The limit on regenerations only came in part-way through Tom Baker's time, as a motivation for the Master in "The Deadly Assassin". Prior to that, the second Doctor made a comment about being able to live "practically forever".

      Also, in "The Five Doctors" the Time Lord Council offered the Master a new set of regenerations - and in season 3 of the new stuff, it implies that he accepted in exchange for fighting in the time war.

      The original series was a mass of contradictions, incontinuities, and general scar-tissue in the fabric of space-time. And it was great.

    7. Re:Camp as a row of tents by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      The original series had *some* contradictions and *some* discontinuities. But it was consistent enough that there were stories. Without any shred of consistency there is no possibility of dramatic tension because at any moment anything can happen. Almost all good storytelling requires some kind of internal logic, some reason why B follows A and why X chose to do Y. In Russell T Davies finales anything can happen at any moment. They are simply random sequences of events with no connection. They are pure spectacle, worse than even the trashiest movies produced by Hollywood. This is acceptable in a musical, but then the musical is the lowest form of art, something that Davies seems to aspire to writing, except that he probably can't write the music or the words.

      Consider Moffat's "Blink". It was one of the best Doctor Who stories of all time. In fact, one of the best short horror/science fiction shows I've seen. It laid down some rules (you gotta keep looking) and as a result the audience knew what horrible outcome seemed inevitable and was drawn into the story. By comparison, Davies' writing is just brown sludge, the science fiction/horror equivalent of mixing all the paints of the palette until you get something indistinguishable from the color of a turd.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    8. Re:Camp as a row of tents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fully agree. Russell T has been lucky to have not derailed Doctor Who. He consistently ignores the history of the show, and carelessly introduces plot holes.
      Moffat will bring the doctor back, though I wish he was already directing.

    9. Re:Camp as a row of tents by aldwin · · Score: 1

      You know, I agree completely. I absolutely cannot wait for Moffat to take over, his stuff has been some of the best TV I have seen ... ever. Davies on the other hand ... his stories have been piles of sentimental, unsubtle mess. I do give him credit though for resurrecting the series, and for making good decisions on casting and on choosing writers/producers etc ...

      I guess my original point is while the individual stories of the old series may have had internal continuity (and not all of them had that, there were enough crap ones through the series run), overall there was very little continuity, and each season's writers rewrote the backstory to suit their own needs. I actually think the format of the revival suits the new Doctor Who - (deliberately) based on the Buffy model of stand alone episodes leading to a season big bad. It's just that Davies is no Joss Whedon, and he wrote far too many of the episodes himself.

    10. Re:Camp as a row of tents by Medgur · · Score: 1

      I stopped watching because of RTD. He can burn in hell.

    11. Re:Camp as a row of tents by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      The cool thing about Moffat is that he can straddle genre and non-genre writing. He knows how to write a (very entertaining) sitcom and yet knows science fiction. He can appeal to the geeks and the non-geeks. What's good about Russell is that he got non-geeks interested using a bunch of methods from family drama to guest stars like Kylie Minogue, but at the cost of losing the geeks to some extent. I think Moffat might be able to keep *everyone* interested.

      (We're talking Doctor Who here. By geek I mean people vaguely interested in space, aliens, monsters, time travel and so on, not just hard core nerds.)

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  57. Show bumping, Canadian cable providers suck! by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    That's nothing, my cable provider uses US feeds for certain shows and Canadian feeds for others but sometimes they use a Canadian feed of the same show.

      For example on CBS they may be showing a Canadian feed of CSI but if you live in the US you also see CSI but there may be a difference of a minute and usually the next show coming on will bump the last minute of the Canadian feed! It happens all the time and the time difference probably due to the difference in commercials shown, means you may miss the last minute or two of a show, yeah CSI and oh I don't know a little thing like, oh I don't know, let's say for example who the fuck killed who!!

      At least with Canadian shows they don't censor most stuff, the US stations are terrible, I mean what is it with the word ass that is so offensive? They can actually say ass and show a person's ass on Canadian TV.

      We've come a long way though, I remember when cable TV stations would show 'interludes' of nature scenes between shows when they didn't have enough video to put on the air. Talk about nutty.

  58. Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio by Darkk · · Score: 1

    You are NOT alone in this gripe. But the station figures football is paying them more airtime so they see it in their eyes to say, "fuck the rest of the non-paying tv watchers of their regularly scheduled shows."

    Bottom line is whoever pays the most money wins.

  59. Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio by Darkk · · Score: 1

    Easy... plenty of cheap bastards who rather watch it on local tv or cable than go to PPV or pay extra for sports channels.

  60. Canadians do get Chicago WGN not WGN America that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canadians do get Chicago WGN not WGN America that has more black outs.

  61. Bastards! by solios · · Score: 1

    With networks - CBC, sci-fi, BBC America's ass-raping of oldschool Doctor Who, etceteras - acting like this..... is it any wonder that the computer-savvy types are getting their TV through bittorrent?

    Seriously. First Run, shortly after it airs, no commercials, usually 480i but often 720p, UNEDITED Show You Like, down your pipe........ or wait months or even YEARS to get the same thing, often censored, heavily edited, or in this case, missing HUGE CHUNKS?

    Does the CBC really think anyone's going to watch their shat-upon Who when better, more complete alternatives are available?

    In this day and age, you'd think second-run countries (Canada, USA, Australia, etc) would be jamming in out-takes or following up an episode with the accompanying Doctor Who Confidential in order to give their audience more bang-for-the-buck than they can get through other means.

    Alas.

    Imagine my reaction - I saw the classic Doctor Who episode Robot on BBCA and Robots of Death on PBS... I downloaded both years later and - SHOCK! - HOLY CRAP! - Robot was nearly DOUBLE the length and SO MUCH BETTER.... and Robots of Death... well, the local PBS affiliate had seen fit to effectively disembowel it.

    How can i possibly support such corporations, when the BBC gives me the whole product ?

  62. Errr stupid... by MosesJones · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You do know who makes Dr Who don't you? Its the BBC which is pretty much quasi-government (its independent in terms of editorial control but its budget gets set by the government).

    So your argument that a government controlled entity can't possibly show decent quality TV produced by another government controlled entity really doesn't make sense. The BBC is probably the finest global broadcaster in terms of overall content, originality and political coverage. HBO will have a shot from a quality perspective but politics?

    Government control can indeed be a very bad thing (look at Italy or Venezuela) but one thing you can't do is complain about it in a thread talking about Dr Who.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  63. They should be thankful by dugeen · · Score: 0

    I'd be pleased if I could get back 20 minutes of the time I spent watching the first series of New Who. It's a nothing but a spiteful parody of the original show.

  64. Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    here here. There be some truth in those words.

  65. Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio by thesolo · · Score: 1

    Program preempting aside, my current favorite station to hate is BBC America. After years of begging and pleading, they finally decided to carry Top Gear in the US, starting in 2007.

    In England, Top Gear is presented on BBC Two in an hour-long format, with no commercial breaks. The entire hour is filled from opening to ending credits, and each segment segues into the next. However, here in the US, it's presented into an hour-long block with commercials, which means that it's now pared down to roughly 39-41 minutes of content.

    So for each episode, you lose the entire "News" segment they do in the middle (which usually segues into another bit), but that only makes up for about 8 minutes or so. Which means they also cut parts from car reviews, interactions with the audience, "the Cool Wall", and other bits & pieces (including chunks of power laps), plus they splice in these awful cut sequences made by BBCA. And if all of that weren't bad enough, the US airing is several seasons behind. The episodes they were airing in late 2007 I had seen back in the summer of 2005 while vacationing in Prague!

    If TV stations don't want people turning to Bittorrent, then stop ruining our favorite programs! I'd forgo BBCA all together, if they simply offered the show on R1 DVDs uncut, but they don't do that either. So I download each & every episode instead, it's the only way I can stay current and discuss it with friends back in England. I'm literally sitting here, money in hand, ready to purchase box series of the show, and they won't offer them. Congrats, BBC, you made a downloader out of me.

  66. Re:Stuff that matters? by Grendel70 · · Score: 1

    News for canadians, eh? Stuff that goes with your gravy fries.

    That would be cheese curds.

    --
    Perhaps you mean a different thing than I do when you say "science."
  67. You know, we don't *all* play hockey. by penguinstorm · · Score: 1

    I mean, it just aggravates me when have to put my Tim Horton's coffee and doughnut to point out that some of us don't even own a hockey stick.

    I'm so steaming mad, I'm taking my toque off, and putting down my Margaret Atwood novel to listen to the Tragically Hip sing Fireworks.

    Not every igloo comes with a shed to store the stuff in, you know.

    I'm gonna snowmobile home now.

    --
    Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
  68. I think I speak for all Americans when I say.. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Boowho.