Sea Devils And Die: GeroniMoffat's Doctor Who In The 2010s

The NYC shots spent a large percentage of their budget this year, which is why the dalek one didn't do it and why the dinosaur mattes were reused from Walking With Dinosaurs.

They also used the trip to the US to do a bunch of promo.

Would have been nice to get a couple more episodes without as exotic locations?

It doesn't work like this, they were commissioned for 14 episodes.

Would have been nice to get a couple more episodes decent scripts without as exotic locations?

I've been hoping they're saving all the good scripts for next year

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XWU6XL9xI4k

The Angels Take Manhattan didn't make me cry, but this made me tear up a little.

Aw, yeah, that's nice.

Oh, this came out. I've not read it.

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2012/09/27/doctor-whos-first-e-book-exclusive-inspired-by-the-angels-take-manhattan/

Does anybody know where the snow scene in the dalek episode was shot? Just been wondering since seeing it. Was it the U.K. somewhere? Wasn't aware there was now around with nice weather when it did snow.

Almeria in Spain.

Anyway, I wasn't taken with the Ponds thing but you probably all guessed that. It does raise the question of how they became well enough established in 1946 to adopt without Rory drawing enough attention to himself and get drafted.

Maybe the US army has a policy against recruiting those with too much residual time energy.

Actually, how did Chris Chibnall write this? Was it, in fact, supposed to be at the end of The Power Of Three and spoiler Angels which is why it wasn't filmed?

Was it, in fact, supposed to be at the end of The Power Of Three and spoiler Angels which is why it wasn't filmed?

no, that is highly unlikely. it was more likely written as a potential coda to the final episode.

Why would Steven Moffatt ask Chris Chibnall to write a coda to his (Moffatt's) conclusion to a story? That makes less sense.

bcz moffat has this thing where each writer has a kind of writerly ownership for the original character they introduced?

i don't think this was written with the intent of getting it filmed, i think it is basically fanfic - a bit from moffat's first weeping angels episode, played out with chibnall's 'brian williams' character.

"Fifty Shades Of Pond"

ugh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtG5dK_HaGg

That's kind of great. Love the one from Invasion of Time when Tom and Andred say it at the same time.

I saw this the other day and found it relevant to my interests

Tom Baker Releasing Audio Book Reading of Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol

if you find the compilation of Baker T's "What??!"s plz to post

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2012/11/watch-a-trailer-for-the-doctor-who-christmas-speci.html?utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Paste+Lifeline+11%2F19%2F12

Christmas special then... prequel has that awful expository voiceover thing that has become one of the most annoying elements of the Moffat era. Maybe he thinks it's like being read a bed time story, but the magical elements shouldn't need to be tacked on like that. And another Victorian Christmas episode? C'mon Moff, isn't that a bit easy? I know the Christmas one is just a bit of fun, but as an introduction to the new companion it's important it's not a complete shiter. Richard E Grant hamming it up with killer snowmen? Hmmm. One criticism I've seen of Moffat's era is that the Doctor's characterisation is all over the place, and it's something I've come round to. In this prequel he starts off all dark and moody and retired, but in the trailer he's back to his wacky self.

I feel the worst for Matt Smith, he does very well with what he's given, which is sometimes very terrible.

yes. yes. too true.

One criticism I've seen of Moffat's era is that the Doctor's characterisation is all over the place, and it's something I've come round to. In this prequel he starts off all dark and moody and retired, but in the trailer he's back to his wacky self.

Dunno if this is an entirely fair criticism; Eleven has always been portrayed as particularly mercurial.

but as an introduction to the new companion it's important it's not a complete shiter

at least it means (i think) we're getting a companion not from the present day. huzzah!

oh man I carefully watched the minisode but not the trailer to avoid spoilering myself but that is very very promising you're right

chap otm, also lol as though it's new for a Doctor to be mercurial

Mercurial yes, but then there's mercurial and there's spotty characterisation. I'd generally give them the benefit of the doubt, but it's as if they've been leading the Doctor in one direction then not really following it through - ie the dark Doctor, his big moment of messianic hubris was never really THAT big or dark. Then all of a sudden he's jolly again.

Anyway, return of Tenant? Dunno how they'll work it, but it'd be nice to have him back...

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/11/19/david-tennant-back-for-doctor-whos-50th-anniversary/

I just assumed he'd be back for the anniversary tbh

I don't know how it would work. I don't have much confidence in Moffat's ability to write a big 50th anniversary story now. I wish someone else was writing it, but I don't really have any suggestions as to who that would be.

Have none of you watched The Three Doctors, The Five Doctors or The Two Doctors? This is maybe the least surprising surprise tied to the 50th anniversary possible.

otm

I thought they would probably get him back, I just doubt it's going to be any good. Getting Eccleston back would be the real surprise, given how much he talks about never wanting anything to do with Doctor Who ever again.

Yeah, that would be a massive coup

of course, they could just cobble together old footage and build a performance for him like they did for Tom Baker in The Five Doctors

'starring Sean Penn as Christopher Eccleston'

I feel the worst for Matt Smith, he does very well with what he's given, which is sometimes very terrible.

One could say this of all Doctors!

except McCoy

otm

polishing turds is a key job requirement of playing the doctor

McCoy had to work with shit a good third of the time - most of his first year, that Cyberman story

The only times McCoy actually worked for me were when the story was as intentionally ridiculous and campy as he was, which is why I think his most effective story was "Paradise Towers". Most of his "omnipotent manipulator" stuff is undercut by McCoy's idea of playing stony gravitas tends to come across as an annoying dude shouting at you to distract you from the giant fart he just let rip.

otm

there's a moment in ghost light when you can practically see him thinking 'I AM ANGRY I AM ANGRY' and just sort of hissing like the world's most pissweak cobra

I mean, I get that "Time and the Rani" is objectively terrible, but it's also incredibly hilarious in spots, particularly the Rani's ultra-mean, teeth-grinding imitation of Mel

the nub of the problem is that they chose to cast someone whose great talent was ~playing spoons~ as a powerful and dynamic lord of all space and time

xp yeah, there are definitely some inspired moments in that story (at least on paper)

I will say, though, that the racism reveal in "Remembrance of the Daleks" and the way Sophie Aldred played Ace's reaction was great, possibly the best moment in the 7th Doctor's televised tenure

That Doctor worked so much better in print.

yeah, mccoy was so incredibly great when he wasn't there

hahaha

McCoy onscreen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baker, C. onscreen*


* Colin is fantastic with a good audio script (and Ridgway/Colin was basically my era of DWM)

That only makes sense to me if you judge CBaker solely by "The Twin Dilemma" and "Timelash"

I've never rewatched a Colin episode, but I remember my slow-dawning, relieved enjoyment of Sylvester on his arrival (and then my outright delight that the whole show was GOOD again with the first episode of Remembrance)

^^^