Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Didn't sound Northern?.. as a Northern lass myself (and from further North than Mr Ecclestone,) i'd say he certainly did! 
Posted: 09:56 Mar 29 2005
Doctor Who
Hi folks, just been watching the first ep of the new Dr. Who - and I feel somewhat cheated.
Even though this is the same show that immortalised itself through killer dustbins, I never thought I'd see it reimagined as literally as this. Dear God, the whole thing just seemed so... cheesy!
I watched the occaisional bit of the occaisional episode of the old series many years ago and can barely remember it, but they never seemed as (intentionally) corny as this. Maybe except for the Daleks... but does anyone else remember it being, well, better?
Even though this is the same show that immortalised itself through killer dustbins, I never thought I'd see it reimagined as literally as this. Dear God, the whole thing just seemed so... cheesy!
I watched the occaisional bit of the occaisional episode of the old series many years ago and can barely remember it, but they never seemed as (intentionally) corny as this. Maybe except for the Daleks... but does anyone else remember it being, well, better?
Posted: 09:56 Mar 29 2005 
I certainly have mixed feelings about this, but after reading the above comments, particularly Maffrew and Callum's, I think that more interaction between the Doctor and other characters will enhance the series. He only gets to display the complexity of his personality by bouncing off diverse elements, and with this ish, it was a little too much Rose, and not enough evil monologuing (" You got me monologuing!", heh heh...).
'Course, the episode was called 'Rose', so... (but big mistake, IMO).
'Course, the episode was called 'Rose', so... (but big mistake, IMO).
Posted: 11:22 Mar 29 2005 Something which I only realised the morning after, as I had gone out on Saturday and set the video based on the times in a week-old TV guide. 35 minutes into playback (I always record 5 minutes over) and "phut", end of recording.
by Whistler
The only thing it has in common is the 45 minute episodes
Bugger.
Was really quite enjoying it up until that point too...
Posted: 11:53 Mar 29 2005
I loved it and so did my hubby, who is a true 'whovian'. He said it 'ticked all the boxes' as far as he was concerned! For me it was entertaining TV which had me gripped, made me jump and made me laugh. I got a tingle down my spine at the end when Rose ran to the Tardis! Roll on next week
Posted: 13:09 Mar 29 2005
So, I'm guessing these plastic people have been in previous Dr Who episodes?
When the Dr was trying to negociate with the big firey conciousness (sp) he mentioned something about a previous war that he was powerless to stop.
Can anyone fill me in on the backstory?
When the Dr was trying to negociate with the big firey conciousness (sp) he mentioned something about a previous war that he was powerless to stop.
Can anyone fill me in on the backstory?
Posted: 13:31 Mar 29 2005 
Not sure what the 'war' was they were referring to, but you can find out all about the Autons, and their place in Who history here
(Edited by Whistler 29/03/2005 14:37)
(Edited by Whistler 29/03/2005 14:37)
Posted: 14:34 Mar 29 2005
Well I came into this having never watched Dr Who before and I have to say I could really get into it.
OK it wasn't the best 45 minutes of telly I've ever watched but I'm willing to give it a chance as I enjoyed what I saw.
OK it wasn't the best 45 minutes of telly I've ever watched but I'm willing to give it a chance as I enjoyed what I saw.
Posted: 00:17 Mar 30 2005
Have to say I watched it with the kids and they loved it just as much as I loved Dr Who when I was their ages....I think people are reading far to much into what they expect Dr Who to be. Its aimed at younger viewers not adults that will sit and watch dark sci-fi programs.
I think judging from my kids reactions to it then Dr Who now will be just as popular with the younger generation as it was all those years back when I was a kid
I think judging from my kids reactions to it then Dr Who now will be just as popular with the younger generation as it was all those years back when I was a kid
Posted: 17:09 Mar 30 2005 
Ah the line that gets wheeled out when a programme is cobblers.
by Whistler
I think some of you are expecting too much from the show.
If it's a kiddies' show, fine, bung it on at 5 o'clock. If it's a primetime family show surely it's got to appeal to all the family, not just the junior members. Maff said it well, they haven't got the balance right. Whatever your age, the evil plastic plot was total crap. And the comparisons to Buffy seem fair enough when Russel T Davis references it in interviews.
Next week's does look much better from the endless plugging the BBC treat it to. The first epp got 10 million viewers thanks to brand recognition: the crummy TV movie from 1996 got the same. Be interesting to see how many it keeps.
Posted: 19:04 Mar 30 2005
Christopher Eccleston quits news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4395849.stm
Posted: 00:30 Mar 31 2005
Christ, they're going to run out of regenerations at this rate!
Surprised the Beeb didn't tie Ecclestone into a 2-season contract at least. Obviously the lure of a big star rather blinded them to the practicalities. Loosing your lead after one year, not promising.
As I'm surprised the BBC management didn't give it a few more episodes to test the waters before renewal. Coming on the same day I discover they've cancelled the superb Outlaws after running the show into the ground with lousy scheduling, it's more than a little annoying. Feels like we're getting closer to the yanks in all the wrong ways.
Surprised the Beeb didn't tie Ecclestone into a 2-season contract at least. Obviously the lure of a big star rather blinded them to the practicalities. Loosing your lead after one year, not promising.
As I'm surprised the BBC management didn't give it a few more episodes to test the waters before renewal. Coming on the same day I discover they've cancelled the superb Outlaws after running the show into the ground with lousy scheduling, it's more than a little annoying. Feels like we're getting closer to the yanks in all the wrong ways.
Posted: 01:24 Mar 31 2005 
How on earth can someone of his calibre and history be typecast in what would be 1 series (two of the beebs rather pathetic 13 episode series) anywhere else?
Posted: 08:00 Mar 31 2005 He will forever be the guy who quit Dr Who after one series now
by Stoo
How on earth can someone of his calibre and history be typecast in what would be 1 series (two of the beebs rather pathetic 13 episode series) anywhere else?
Id rather have a regular income than worry about being typecast. Do you think lots of film actors who have got regular roles in tv shows are worring about that.
Posted: 19:02 Mar 31 2005 
The typecasting thing is just something nice he can tell the press. Truth is he is a bit of a 'luvvie' who gives heart and sould to a role, and once creatively 'spent' needs to move on.
He admited himelf that last year he was doing a play, and after 3 months of that (much less than what hes done on who) mentally he was not in a good place, and needed to do something else.
Incidentally he also asked to be written out of Cracker after 1 season (blaming other reasons)
I think the truth is that Eccleston just isnt made for series television.
Having said that the schedule they shot on was extremely tough, more so than even full 26 epsiode american shows.
Personally I think the BBC forwent a contract to get someone of Ecclestons calibre, as at the time there was no real certainty the show could be returned with even an ounce of 'legitimacy'. Its like getting DeNiro for your risky film, and turning him down because he wouldnt commit to sequels, I think not....
The only remaining question is, whats David Tennant like, Ive only seen a bit of Casanova, and he seemed a bit annoying, whats more, even thought hes 33, he looks about 14!
He admited himelf that last year he was doing a play, and after 3 months of that (much less than what hes done on who) mentally he was not in a good place, and needed to do something else.
Incidentally he also asked to be written out of Cracker after 1 season (blaming other reasons)
I think the truth is that Eccleston just isnt made for series television.
Having said that the schedule they shot on was extremely tough, more so than even full 26 epsiode american shows.
Personally I think the BBC forwent a contract to get someone of Ecclestons calibre, as at the time there was no real certainty the show could be returned with even an ounce of 'legitimacy'. Its like getting DeNiro for your risky film, and turning him down because he wouldnt commit to sequels, I think not....
The only remaining question is, whats David Tennant like, Ive only seen a bit of Casanova, and he seemed a bit annoying, whats more, even thought hes 33, he looks about 14!
Posted: 23:01 Mar 31 2005 Not seen Gone in Sixty seconds then
by Wobag
Truth is he is a bit of a 'luvvie' who gives heart and sould to a role
Posted: 23:56 Mar 31 2005
Maybe it's a ploy to get more dough.
Funny how it was announced AFTER the ratings came out.
Funny how it was announced AFTER the ratings came out.
Posted: 12:11 Apr 01 2005 Sorry By but your wrong...unless you actually sat and watched the first ep with one 12 year old a 9 year old a 7 year old and a 4 year old then how can you possibly know what them and their ages would think?
by Byron
(quotes)
Whatever your age, the evil plastic plot was total crap.
My boys loved it and no they def didn't think the plastic plot was crap.
Posted: 15:06 Apr 01 2005