Review--The New "Doctor Who" Movie **SPOILERS!!**
R S Perski
This is the wrong time for this, maybe later when the Doctor's future
is secure.
Right now, Doctor Who needs all the support it can get.
Michael Hickerson
Warning: Major SPOILERS ahead for the FOX broadcast of the new "Doctor
Who" movie. Those who haven't seen it yet and don't want to be spoiled
are advised to turn back now!
In short: The Doctor and Grace's Excellent Adventure.
I really wanted to like this show. I really did. I've been
looking forward to it since the rumors about it started and dismissed
every spoiler I read that might have turned my heart against it. After
all, it couldn't be as bad as we all feared, now then could it? And even
poor quality "Doctor Who" was better than none at all, right?
Wrong.
From begining to end, this show was a travesty. And that's just
plain unfair because I feel that it's those of us who are loyal, faithful
fans of "Doctor Who" who have been put through a wringer. We were lured
in by the promise of high budget effects and an intelligent storyline
that would appease all of our fears and make us all happy that the good
Doctor was back on our screens.
Mr. Seagal, you lied!
Quite frankly, you promised that certain elements would NOT be
there (the Master being a snake, the Doctor and Grace's romance, etc) and
they still showed up. Hell, I think you would have promised a chorus
line of Daleks doing the conga if it would have made us watch! I feel
totally betrayed by this effort to bring the Doctor back to our small
screen. And yes, I am venting here, but it's got to be done. Otherwise,
the rest of this review is going to be me ranting on about how bad the
show was rather than looking at it objectively.
But why, you ask, do I feel betrayed by this effort? Let's start
at the very beginning.
The storyline (what little there was of it!) was so convulated
that it was almost embarassing. I mean, I've seen every episode of
"Doctor Who" I could get my hands on and I was STILL confused by this.
There was never any unity to the plotline as a whole until the very end
when the Master tries to steal the Doctor's body (gee, that's a new
one!). The first thirty minutes were pure hogwosh. The Master is
exterminated by the Daleks (since when did the Time Lords use them as
their personal executioners?) and the Doctor must return his remains to
Gallifrey. Huh? Gee, like the molecular disperser they used in "Arc of
Infinity" wouldn't have done this just as well and without the threat of
the Master escaping and running amok once again. For the supposedly
logical race the Time Lords are this seems incredibly silly to begin
with.
Couple with that that Skaro was apparently destroyed at the end
of "Remembrance of the Daleks" and the premise begins to fall apart. I
can dismiss the aspect of Skaro being in tact relatively easily because
this is a show about time travel and there's never been any definitive
time line set down for the Daleks and Skaro as a whole.
All right, so the Master escapes and takes over the TARDIS
causing it to crash land on Earth. The Doctor then steps out into the
middle of a gang war, gets shots and is forced to regenerate. OK, let's
step back here. Last time I checked, the TARDIS had a scanner. So it
doesn't make much sense for the Doctor to toodle on out like he did
virtually unaware. Also, the usually calm, level headed 7th Doctor is in
a such a state of panic about the Master's escape (and let's face it
while the two are adversaries neither of them are THAT fearful of each
other. If anything, "Survival" shows this! The Doctor and the Master
view each other with conempt not fear!) that I found myself wondering if
Mr. Jacobs had actually ever watched any Sylvester McCoy adventures to
begin with. (I have a lot of other questions about how much "Who" Mr.
Jacobs has seen, but we'll get to those in time.
But I think my biggest problem with this whole segment of the
show was that it took so blastedly long for the Doctor to regenerate!
Don't get me wrong--I was glad to see Sylvester McCoy get some serious
screen time on the show and would have liked to have seen more of him.
However, this segment jumped around from Grace to the other doctors to
the Master oozing around so that I felt like McCoy was hardly there. And
when he was, it was just him lying around dead. Not what I had in
mind. Then, finally after about three forevers, the re-generation
came. And I must give Mr. Jacobs some credit for actually explaining why
it took so long for the Doctor to regenerate in the script. I was
beginning to wonder why it was taking so long since on every other
occasion we've seen it, it's been a pretty much instantaneous process. I
will give him credit for that. However, the reason for his regeneration
was just as lame as the one in "Time and the Rani."
So, after thirty minutes, we finally have a story set in motion.
The Doctor has regenerated, the Master has a new body and events are
ready to start. Of course, we had to spend the obligatory amount of time
with the Doctor not remembering who is and what he's doing there.
However, this was at least dealt with relatively quickly and painlessly
(in comparison to such things as "Time and the Rani" and "The Twin
Dilemmia") and the Doctor is allowed to move forward and start fighting
the forces of evil once again. I liked that part.
And for the most part, I enjoyed watching Paul McGann as Doctor.
I admit I haven't seen him in anything else I can remember and that may
have sent me in fresh. However, about halfway through I found myself
thinking that he was quite a good choice for Doctor. He had the right
sense of penache and quirkiness that the good Doctor needs and I hope
that we continue to see this developed should a series come along.
As for the half-human part, I wasn't as bothered by this as I
thought I would be. It is an interesting twist to the show and one that
I think should be explored should it be picked up by FOX. Or, we could
examine it in the NA's as well as the MA's. I'm reserving too much harsh
judgement on this aspect of the storyline until I see how things turn
out. If it turns out to be one of those throw it out there lines and
then forget about it, I may be a little more distressed. However, for
now, I'm not as worried about it as I thought I would be.
What I am worried about in the Doctor's sudden romantic interest
in his female companion. What? I think the sexual tension between the
Doctor and Grace was built up just a bit too much. Indeed, it seemed
kind of corny at the end when the Doctor was saved and then gives Grace
that big goofy grin. Come on! Totally out of character for the Doctor.
He would be concerned, yes, but I don't think he would be ga-ga over
Grace in the way that Mr. Segal and Mr. Jacobs would have us believe.
However, this may be part of the new 8th persona that we don't know much
about yet!
And I think that statement boils down my biggest objection to the
movie. In other re-generation stories, I've felt like we at least know a
little bit about how the new Doctor's personality is going to develop.
Here, I feel like we have little or no clue as to how this is going to
go. We've seen him save Earth and save himself, but as for character
development, there seems to be none. In fact, the new Doctor seems more
like an amalgamation of the 3rd and 4th Doctors than his own separate
personality. Like I said before, a series can answer these questions
for me and I think that's what it's going to take.
I think the biggest problem with the script was that it could
never really decide what it wanted to do--tell an action adventure story
or have character development. We saw a lot of Pertweesque action
sequences (the motorcycle chase, the final confrontation in the TARDIS,
etc.) and we did have some moment for character development (though they
were few and far between!) but nothing that ever meshed. If Mr. Jacobs
was trying to find a good balance of these, he failed. There is not one
sequence or scene that really stands out as being great or well written.
In fact, the whole plot was rather contrived. From the fact that the
Doctor needs an atomic clock to the fact that there just happens to be
one and Grace just happens to be on the board, these little
"coincidences" began to drive me crazy. Gee, what if the Doctor hadn't
met Grace, you wonder. Then he'd have been screwed. And Earth would be
destroyed.
And the fact that Earth was about to be destroyed never put much
fear into me. It was just something else happening in an all ready too
busy storyline. It's not like other classic stories such as "EarthShock"
or "Pyramids of Mars" where I'm actually concerned about the fate of the
Earth as the story progresses. There was NO tension here as to Earth's
fate because our destruction seemed thrown in as kind of a sidebar.
I think that's the scripts main problem was a lack of foucs. We
had scenes with the Master, scenes with the Doctor, a chase, the threat,
the TARDIS, etc. but no one linking theme to put them all together. It
was very mish-mashed from the start. And I think the problem for me is
that I am too much of a "Who" fan. If I had only watched a smattering
of Pertwee and Tom Baker, I would have loved this. After all, look at
the homages to those two eras--the Doctor steals his clothes from the
hospital lockers ala "Spearhead From Space", they dash around on
motorcycles, the clothes are Pertwee like, the sonic screwdriver is
present (even though it was destroyed in "The Visitation" and the Doctor
has supposedly not built another!), the use of jelly babies and the old,
famous "Where is Gallifrey?" running gag. All of these would be
interesting if I hadn't watched the show through the Davison, C. Baker
and McCoy years. However, there's been a lot of additions and changes
over those years and they seemed ignored.
The biggest thing that ticked me off was the Doctor's knowledge
of the future. In the McCoy stories, the Doctor has knowledge of
specific events in time and space (the Daleks fighting for the hand of
Omega, the events in wW2 with Fenric, etc.) but is NOT a walking
encyclopedia of everyone who has and has not existed. Indeed, as he
tells Peri in "Revelation of the Daleks" he can take you to your
gravestone if you want, but he may not be able to tell your exact
future. I found the Doctor's running around and giving hints about the
future to everyone annoying. It was like "Bill and Ted's Excellent
Adventure" where they promise to go into the future later to fix the
past. It was just annoying and I don't think the Doctor's knowlege of
the future works like that. With a few specific exceptions (Ace, for
example) the Doctor may only be aware of specific events in the future as
they will affect his life. His future knowledge was a dark thing
throughout McCoy's era and I think should continue to do so. It's not
something to be used for comic affect!
Needless to say, I wasn't sold on the movie.
However, there was some good stuff.
The TARDIS interior was nice. I'm glad they spent the money on
it, though I have to admit I miss the rondels.
Eric Roberts as the Master was pretty good. He's no Roger
Delgado but he did a pretty good job. I did miss, however, the famous
line, "I am the Master, and you will obey me!" Too much fun, I guess.
And the fact that the Cheetah people still seem to have some affect on
him was one of the few good or correct continuity references I found.
On the whole, all the actors and actresses were good. There's
not one performance I can really find fault with. I think they did the
best they could with the material given. However, I am glad that Grace
was left behind because I think she would eventually suffer from the Liz
Shaw syndrome--either underwritten or dumbed down to make the Doctor look
good. I think she's too smart and too vital for that.
Now, on to the continuity stuff that drove me crazy. (And all of
this is nitpicky!)
--First of all, the Master HAS used up his lives and has stolen
another. Therefore, a lot of the claims here are incorrect or poorly
supported.
--The Eye of Harmony is the black hole that Rassilon harnassed
and powers Gallifrey. It is NOT at the center of the TARDIS! And why
did they need human eyes to open it? Odd, isn't it?
--I've mentioned the Daleks.
--Sonic screwdriver was destoyed in "The Visitation"
--The extra TARDIS key hidden up above the "p"? How does it not
come off in the turbulence in the vortex?
All in all, this effort was good only because it brought the good
Doctor back to our screens and created some buzz about the show. As a
show, it was bad and I feel that the next effort(s) need some other
people who have a deeper working knowledge of the show. (God help me, I
would even suggest JN-T as an executive producer or consultant simply
because he might know what the hell he was talking about when it came to
the Doctor's past and some continuity!) I really do hope that FOX gives
this show a whirl because I'm interested to see how this half-human thing
plays out. If not, I guess we'll be reading about it the NA's.
Speaking of which, I almost feel sorry for Gary Russell trying to
novelize this blessed thing and keep the contuinty correct. He said he
was going to try and expand on it and makek it of greater value to the
fans. God help you, sir.
Final Rating: 4.0 (out of 10)
"At least one of us is amused."
--The Master
Copyright 1996 by Michael T. Hickerson. All Rights Reserved.
***************************************************************************
*Michael T. Hickerson e-mail: *
*President, Society of Professional Journalists mhic...@utkvx.utk.edu*
*University of Tennessee Chapter tre...@utkux.utk.edu *
***************************************************************************
*"Please explain to me the exact, scientific definition of 'the whammy;" *
* --Dana Scully, "The X-Files": Pusher *
* *
*"People are always saying they want their newspaper to be truthful and *
* accurate, to which I reply, 'Hey, it only costs a quarter!'" *
* --Lewis Grizzard *
***************************************************************************
Rmgriffin
On May 18, Michael Hickerson wrote:
>The Master is
>exterminated by the Daleks (since when did the Time Lords use them as
>their personal executioners?) and the Doctor must return his remains to
>Gallifrey. . . For the supposedly
>logical race the Time Lords are this seems incredibly silly to begin
>with.
What makes you think the Timelords had anything to do with it? I assume
that the Master betrayed the Daleks (after a collaboration or some such,
as in Frontier in Space) and they caught him. The only problem is how the
Doctor managed to get the remains without being killed himself.
As for your complaint about the Eye of Harmnony: since the eye gives the
Timelords their power it presumably gives the Tardises their power as
well. I think the Eye in the Tardis is the very same one that is on
Gallifrey, or at least a reflection of it--the interior of the Tardis
exists, in a way, out of space and time, so part of it could be linked
with the Eye on Gallifrey, a black hole which also lacks a real spatial
and temporal location.
My biggest problem with the film was that the whole business about the Eye
didn't seem to make any sense. But I still enjoyed it all tremendously.
RM Griffin
Sig34romp
On May 18, 1996 12:08:44 in article <Review--The New "Doctor Who" Movie
>The storyline (what little there was of it!) was so convulated
>that it was almost embarassing.
It was a typical regeneration episode...compare the story line to "Robot"
or better yet "Castrovalva."
>There was never any unity to the plotline as a whole until the very end
>when the Master tries to steal the Doctor's body (gee, that's a new
>one!).
statement it seems you're saying it was too much like Dr. Who.
The first thirty minutes were pure hogwosh. The Master is
>their personal executioners?)
and the Doctor must return his remains to
>Infinity" wouldn't have done this just as well and without the threat of
>the Master escaping and running amok once again.
Daleks would not grant last requests, but too little is known of the
situation for it to be anything less than conjecture, but the Doctor was
not ordered by the Time Lords to do it.
<snip>
All right, so the Master escapes and takes over the TARDIS
>causing it to crash land on Earth. The Doctor then steps out into the
>middle of a gang war, gets shots and is forced to regenerate. OK, let's
>step back here. Last time I checked, the TARDIS had a scanner. So it
>doesn't make much sense for the Doctor to toodle on out like he did
>virtually unaware.
The TARDIS had emergency landed, and needed to be repaired, if you notice
the scanner was never used to see outside in this movie, mayhaps it was
damaged as well.
<snip>
> But I think my biggest problem with this whole segment of the
>show was that it took so blastedly long for the Doctor to regenerate!
It was neccessary to pace the show to appeal to non-fans. In my opinion it
was almost to canonical, I began to wonder if a non-fan would know what the
heck was going on.
<snip>
However, the reason for his regeneration
>was just as lame as the one in "Time and the Rani."
I thought this was a review of the FOX movie...so its a critical review of
the whole series now?
<snip>
the Doctor is allowed to move forward and start fighting
>the forces of evil once again. I liked that part.
Wow!
> And for the most part, I enjoyed watching Paul McGann as Doctor.
>I admit I haven't seen him in anything else I can remember and that may
>have sent me in fresh. However, about halfway through I found myself
>thinking that he was quite a good choice for Doctor. He had the right
>sense of penache and quirkiness that the good Doctor needs and I hope
>that we continue to see this developed should a series come along.
I am glad you at least admit that, I was beginning to think you had a
personal vendetta toward the show.
<snip>
the new Doctor seems more
>like an amalgamation of the 3rd and 4th Doctors than his own separate
>personality.
Now you have confused me again..
Are you saying you liked his portrayal or not? Or maybe you don't like the
3rd and 4th Doctors?
<big snip of some nice stuff I agree with, I know that's unfair, but this
is not a fair world>
>
> Now, on to the continuity stuff that drove me crazy. (And all of
>this is nitpicky!)
> --First of all, the Master HAS used up his lives and has stolen
>another. Therefore, a lot of the claims here are incorrect or poorly
>supported.
> --The Eye of Harmony is the black hole that Rassilon harnassed
>and powers Gallifrey. It is NOT at the center of the TARDIS!
Who are we to say what the Eye is, it has been treated mysteriously at best
throughout the series. If we do not allow new writers to explore the
Whoniverse, then it will disentigrate into the same card board cut out show
that the Trek-franchise has become.
<snip>
> All in all, this effort was good only because it brought the good
>Doctor back to our screens and created some buzz about the show. As a
>show, it was bad and I feel that the next effort(s) need some other
>people who have a deeper working knowledge of the show.
You are certainly entitled to think that, but I can’t think of too many TV
producers that have a better working knowledge of Dr.Who than Philip Segal.
We need to thank him, without his input this could have been
unbareable...i.e. Highlander:The Series.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Hall
"No-One goes anywhere without a porpoise"
Lewis Carroll
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Macra Terror
Michael Hickerson <tre...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu> wrote:
>Warning: Major SPOILERS ahead for the FOX broadcast of the new "Doctor
>Who" movie. Those who haven't seen it yet and don't want to be spoiled
>are advised to turn back now!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Here, I feel like we have little or no clue as to how this is going to
>go. We've seen him save Earth and save himself, but as for character
>development, there seems to be none. In fact, the new Doctor seems more
>like an amalgamation of the 3rd and 4th Doctors than his own separate
>personality.
I can't really see that. Is he really that much like the 3rd just
because he rides a motorcycle, for instance? How much could we say
about any of the Doctors' "characters" after their first innings? Did
"Time and the Rani" say anything useful about the McCoy Doctor? If
anything, Colin Baker's era never recovered from taking its cue too much
from "The Twin Dilemma." Isn't the whole point of characteristics
that they're things revealed by responses and actions? How many of
those do we get in ninety minutes?
>In fact, the whole plot was rather contrived. From the fact that the
>Doctor needs an atomic clock to the fact that there just happens to be
>one and Grace just happens to be on the board, these little
>"coincidences" began to drive me crazy. Gee, what if the Doctor hadn't
>met Grace, you wonder. Then he'd have been screwed. And Earth would be
>destroyed.
If you give me a few minutes, I could probably give you a dozen Doctor
Whos that depend on coincidence for their resolutions. "Mawdryn Undead"
pops immediately to mind. (Or any of the "amazing identical twin"
stories.)
>the sonic screwdriver is
>present (even though it was destroyed in "The Visitation" and the Doctor
>has supposedly not built another!)
Obviously some time has passed since "Survival." Couldn't the Doctor
have built another one? Romana made one of her own. Can't the Doctor?
> --First of all, the Master HAS used up his lives and has stolen
>another. Therefore, a lot of the claims here are incorrect or poorly
>supported.
When did they say otherwise? The Master lied to Lee that the Doctor had
stolen most of his lives, but it was just that-- a lie. The only thing
I can think of was a reference or two to the Master's "last
incarnation," which isn't necessarily wrong. In "Keeper," the Master
apparently survived by combining his body with Tremas'... meaning that,
in a sense, he still was the Thirteenth Master when he was executed.
>(God help me, I
>would even suggest JN-T as an executive producer or consultant simply
>because he might know what the hell he was talking about when it came to
>the Doctor's past and some continuity!)
Oh, God, no!
Michael Hickerson
Please don't get me wrong here. I completely support any effort to bring
the good Doctor back to our screens. However, I also feel that open,
honest criticism from the fan base that loves and supports the show is
also needed. After all, how will TPTB know what we want WHEN the show
comes back in the near future. They won't. Indeed, I am thankful to
all the parties involved for putting this on the screen as it has got a
lot of interest and speculation going.
Also, I had hoped to get some discussion going on the group in
both a public and private forum about the movie.
Thanks!
Michael Hickerson
Martin Nike
R S Perski (per...@cris.com) wrote:
: This is the wrong time for this, maybe later when the Doctor's future
: is secure.
: Right now, Doctor Who needs all the support it can get.
Don't be so pathetic. If somsone doesn't like it, then
they don't like it.
--
Martin Nike
Correct Systems Research Group,
Dept. Of Computer Science, University Of Sheffield, England
christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8
In a previous article, tre...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Michael Hickerson) says:
>Warning: Major SPOILERS ahead for the FOX broadcast of the new "Doctor
>Who" movie. Those who haven't seen it yet and don't want to be spoiled
>are advised to turn back now!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Seagal, you lied!
Did he?
> Quite frankly, you promised that certain elements would NOT be
>there (the Master being a snake, the Doctor and Grace's romance, etc) and
>they still showed up. Hell, I think you would have promised a chorus
>line of Daleks doing the conga if it would have made us watch! I feel
>totally betrayed by this effort to bring the Doctor back to our small
>screen. And yes, I am venting here, but it's got to be done. Otherwise,
>the rest of this review is going to be me ranting on about how bad the
>show was rather than looking at it objectively.
I don't remember Segal promising us *anything* about the snake or the
romance. Did I just miss it?
> The first thirty minutes were pure hogwosh. The Master is
>exterminated by the Daleks (since when did the Time Lords use them as
>their personal executioners?) and the Doctor must return his remains to
>Gallifrey.
The Time-Lords "granted" the Masters final request to get the Doctor to
pick up his body. They didn't execute him. And given the fact that he
wasn't killed tends to support the idea that this was a *plot* against
the Doctor [as, I believe he later points out as well]
> Couple with that that Skaro was apparently destroyed at the end
>of "Remembrance of the Daleks" and the premise begins to fall apart. I
>can dismiss the aspect of Skaro being in tact relatively easily because
>this is a show about time travel and there's never been any definitive
>time line set down for the Daleks and Skaro as a whole.
In "Rememberence" the hand goes into "Skaro's Time Zone" Meaning there is
no way of knowing when it was destroyed.
> All right, so the Master escapes and takes over the TARDIS
>causing it to crash land on Earth. The Doctor then steps out into the
>middle of a gang war, gets shots and is forced to regenerate. OK, let's
>step back here. Last time I checked, the TARDIS had a scanner. So it
>doesn't make much sense for the Doctor to toodle on out like he did
>virtually unaware. Also, the usually calm, level headed 7th Doctor is in
>a such a state of panic about the Master's escape (and let's face it
>while the two are adversaries neither of them are THAT fearful of each
>other. If anything, "Survival" shows this! The Doctor and the Master
>view each other with conempt not fear!) that I found myself wondering if
>Mr. Jacobs had actually ever watched any Sylvester McCoy adventures to
>begin with. (I have a lot of other questions about how much "Who" Mr.
>Jacobs has seen, but we'll get to those in time.
If the Master has escaped inside your time machine, is some unknown form
and your time machine was experiencing serious difficulties, wouldn't you
be a little bit panicked? And besides the fact that the scanner may have
been effected by the troubles, he could have been panicked enough to not
check it.
> But I think my biggest problem with this whole segment of the
>show was that it took so blastedly long for the Doctor to regenerate!
>Don't get me wrong--I was glad to see Sylvester McCoy get some serious
>screen time on the show and would have liked to have seen more of him.
>However, this segment jumped around from Grace to the other doctors to
>the Master oozing around so that I felt like McCoy was hardly there. And
>when he was, it was just him lying around dead. Not what I had in
>mind. Then, finally after about three forevers, the re-generation
>came. And I must give Mr. Jacobs some credit for actually explaining why
>it took so long for the Doctor to regenerate in the script. I was
>beginning to wonder why it was taking so long since on every other
>occasion we've seen it, it's been a pretty much instantaneous process. I
>will give him credit for that. However, the reason for his regeneration
>was just as lame as the one in "Time and the Rani."
First off, all that jumping around was to add to the suspence and counter
point the Doctor's regeneration with the Master's. And how can the
reason be lamer than TatR, since it is never explained there *why* he
regenerated.
> What I am worried about in the Doctor's sudden romantic interest
>in his female companion. What? I think the sexual tension between the
>Doctor and Grace was built up just a bit too much. Indeed, it seemed
>kind of corny at the end when the Doctor was saved and then gives Grace
>that big goofy grin. Come on! Totally out of character for the Doctor.
>He would be concerned, yes, but I don't think he would be ga-ga over
>Grace in the way that Mr. Segal and Mr. Jacobs would have us believe.
>However, this may be part of the new 8th persona that we don't know much
>about yet!
You know, its strange, but I never found any sexual tension between the
characters. An interest in one another, but not really any tension...
> --First of all, the Master HAS used up his lives and has stolen
>another. Therefore, a lot of the claims here are incorrect or poorly
>supported.
Umm, he's a liar.
> --The Eye of Harmony is the black hole that Rassilon harnassed
>and powers Gallifrey. It is NOT at the center of the TARDIS! And why
>did they need human eyes to open it? Odd, isn't it?
Well, it is conceivable that there is a link between the ones on the
TARDIS and the "real" one. THey have to get power from somewhere. And
should the Doctor need to open it, it would be nice if he could [since
his retina's are human]
> --Sonic screwdriver was destoyed in "The Visitation"
He built another. Or can I complain about K-9 now?
> --The extra TARDIS key hidden up above the "p"? How does it not
>come off in the turbulence in the vortex?
Luck? How come that little placard never flew off into outer space, or
the paint got stripped? Because its not a police box, but a time machine.
-Chris
--
==================Ibis the Invincible=================================
?
----------...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu--------------------------
R.J. Smith
Chris Rednour:
>In a previous article, tre...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Michael Hickerson)
>says:
>Warning: Major SPOILERS ahead for the FOX broadcast of the new "Doctor
>Who" movie. Those who haven't seen it yet and don't want to be spoiled
>are advised to turn back now!
>> Mr. Seagal, you lied!
> Did he?
The name's "Segal" BTW...
>> Quite frankly, you promised that certain elements would NOT be
>>there (the Master being a snake, the Doctor and Grace's romance, etc) and
>>they still showed up. Hell, I think you would have promised a chorus
>>line of Daleks doing the conga if it would have made us watch! I feel
>>totally betrayed by this effort to bring the Doctor back to our small
>>screen. And yes, I am venting here, but it's got to be done. Otherwise,
>>the rest of this review is going to be me ranting on about how bad the
>>show was rather than looking at it objectively.
>I don't remember Segal promising us *anything* about the
>snake or the romance. Did I just miss it?
Well, yes, you did. On an AOL chat someone specifically asked if the new
Doctor was going to be more romantic than the old ones. Segal's response?
"I think he'll have to"
Now whether you *agree* with that or not is another story, but jumping up
and calling him an outright liar when he *wasn't* is slanderous at least.
The snake stuff was reported quite early on and the Lofficiers (then fan
liaisons) took great pains to point out that what we were hearing was a
distortion of the facts; that what was actually the case might not turn
out to be as bad as what we were imagining.
More importantly they *didn't* lie to us.
I think some people in this newsgroup should be very careful about what
they want to post before doing so.
- Robert Smith?
Pat1974
In article <4nq6i7$5...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu>,
cred...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu (christopher j rednour,sa120a
cd,244-5012,8) writes:
>I have a lot of other questions about how much "Who" Mr.
>Jacobs has seen, but we'll get to those in time.
Matthew Jacobs has seen nearly every episode of DOCTOR WHO, and is a big
fan, to boot. He didn't do this as a job, he did it because he loved the
show.
Pat90210
E.T. Products
in my opinion, the show was un-dr.who-like because of all the money they had to play with.
and also because they had to make it look so much like a movie.
not something us long time fans are use to..
yes, i do agree they tried to fit too many things in that did not make much common sense to us fans, as to appeal to non-fans (new-comers).
i did not like the fact that he got romantic with the girl, and then cut-out at the end..
i also thought that the ending scene was far to dramatic, kinda like that had too much money to play with..
If i had to really sum my it up, i would say it was too american!
i cant stand it.. looks like everything else on tv..
but i gess they felt that if it was too technical (like us fans enjoy), and not have enough of this hollywood style stuff, all the new-comers would'nt like it..
i like my dr.who the old fashion style!
although i could like with a few new fresh ideas..
christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8
In a previous article, g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) says:
>
>Chris Rednour:
>>In a previous article, tre...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Michael Hickerson)
>>says:
>
>>Warning: Major SPOILERS ahead for the FOX broadcast of the new "Doctor
>>Who" movie. Those who haven't seen it yet and don't want to be spoiled
>>are advised to turn back now!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> Quite frankly, you promised that certain elements would NOT be
>>>there (the Master being a snake, the Doctor and Grace's romance, etc) and
>>>they still showed up. Hell, I think you would have promised a chorus
>>>line of Daleks doing the conga if it would have made us watch! I feel
>>>totally betrayed by this effort to bring the Doctor back to our small
>>>screen. And yes, I am venting here, but it's got to be done. Otherwise,
>>>the rest of this review is going to be me ranting on about how bad the
>>>show was rather than looking at it objectively.
>
>>I don't remember Segal promising us *anything* about the
>>snake or the romance. Did I just miss it?
>
>Well, yes, you did. On an AOL chat someone specifically asked if the new
>Doctor was going to be more romantic than the old ones. Segal's response?
>
>"I think he'll have to"
>
>Now whether you *agree* with that or not is another story, but jumping up
>and calling him an outright liar when he *wasn't* is slanderous at least.
Which was my point. Mr. Hickerson wrote that Segal lied, but I thought
he had more or less confirmed those things that he says Segal explicitly
said wouldn't be in there. I was wondering if I had missed [maybe an
earlier] message.
>
>The snake stuff was reported quite early on and the Lofficiers (then fan
>liaisons) took great pains to point out that what we were hearing was a
>distortion of the facts; that what was actually the case might not turn
>out to be as bad as what we were imagining.
I remembered the Lofficers posts on the subject. Didn't know if anything
came from Segal or not.
>
>More importantly they *didn't* lie to us.
That was what I was thinking. I'm glad someone with a better memory than
I have came on to clear things up with Mr. Hickerson, because I realized
my post wasn't really much help.
>
>I think some people in this newsgroup should be very careful about what
>they want to post before doing so.
>
I think so. I was hoping with my post to attract someone who knew
the facts better than I for Mr. Hickerson's benifit. I didn't want
this post to get lost in the masses without [in my opinion] a
correction/collaboration of what I had tried to get across. Thanks!
Pat1974
In article <4nsgn8$2b...@news.gate.net>, "E.T. Products"
<etpr...@gate.net> writes:
>
>in my opinion, the show was un-dr.who-like because of all the money they
had
>to play with.
This is when I suspect a poster is an idiot but keep my mouth shut.
>If i had to really sum my it up, i would say it was too american!
This is when I *know* a poster is an idiot, and don't care if it's
braodcast.
Pat90210
R.J. Smith
In article <4ntoeb$k...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu>,
christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8 <cred...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, g952...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (R.J. Smith) says:
>
>>
>>Chris Rednour:
>>>In a previous article, tre...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Michael Hickerson)
>>>says:
>>
>>>Who" movie. Those who haven't seen it yet and don't want to be spoiled
>>>are advised to turn back now!
>>>> Quite frankly, you promised that certain elements would NOT be
>>>>there (the Master being a snake, the Doctor and Grace's romance, etc) and
>>>>they still showed up. Hell, I think you would have promised a chorus
>>>>line of Daleks doing the conga if it would have made us watch! I feel
>>>>totally betrayed by this effort to bring the Doctor back to our small
>>>>screen. And yes, I am venting here, but it's got to be done. Otherwise,
>>>>the rest of this review is going to be me ranting on about how bad the
>>>>show was rather than looking at it objectively.
>>>I don't remember Segal promising us *anything* about the
>>>snake or the romance. Did I just miss it?
>>Well, yes, you did. On an AOL chat someone specifically asked if the new
>>Doctor was going to be more romantic than the old ones. Segal's response?
>>"I think he'll have to"
>>Now whether you *agree* with that or not is another story, but jumping up
>>and calling him an outright liar when he *wasn't* is slanderous at least.
>Which was my point. Mr. Hickerson wrote that Segal lied, but I thought
>he had more or less confirmed those things that he says Segal explicitly
>said wouldn't be in there. I was wondering if I had missed [maybe an
>earlier] message.
Oh, sorry, most of my comments *were* directed at the original poster. I
wasn't having a go at you, by any means! :-)
Actually, all i was really answering from your post was that yes, he
*had* specifically mentioned that there would be romance - meaning that
the original poster was dead wrong.
>>The snake stuff was reported quite early on and the Lofficiers (then fan
>>liaisons) took great pains to point out that what we were hearing was a
>>distortion of the facts; that what was actually the case might not turn
>>out to be as bad as what we were imagining.
>I remembered the Lofficers posts on the subject. Didn't know if anything
>came from Segal or not.
Well, since the Lofficiers were fan liaisons at the time, what they said
was pretty much official.
>>More importantly they *didn't* lie to us.
>That was what I was thinking. I'm glad someone with a better memory than
>I have came on to clear things up with Mr. Hickerson, because I realized
>my post wasn't really much help.
Heh. That's certainly no crime around here :-)
>>I think some people in this newsgroup should be very careful about what
>>they want to post before doing so.
(Gosh, don't I sound stern!)
>I think so. I was hoping with my post to attract someone who knew
>the facts better than I for Mr. Hickerson's benifit. I didn't want
>this post to get lost in the masses without [in my opinion] a
>correction/collaboration of what I had tried to get across. Thanks!
You're welcome. Sorry if there was any confusion...
- Robert Smith?
Brigitte Darcel
In article <4nsgn8$2b...@news.gate.net>,
"E.T. Products" <etpr...@gate.net> writes:
>in my opinion, the show was un-dr.who-like because of all the money they had to play with.
>not something us long time fans are use to..
>yes, i do agree they tried to fit too many things in that did not make much common sense to us fans, as to appeal to non-fans (new-comers).
>i did not like the fact that he got romantic with the girl, and then cut-out at the end..
>i also thought that the ending scene was far to dramatic, kinda like that had too much money to play with..
>but i gess they felt that if it was too technical (like us fans enjoy), and not have enough of this hollywood style stuff, all the new-comers would'nt like it..
>
>i like my dr.who the old fashion style!
>although i could like with a few new fresh ideas..
>
--
===========================================
"A yawn may be defined as a silent yell"
- G. K. Chesterton
Brigitte Darcel __
LMPS Motorola )o (--o EXTERMINATE!
Schaumburg, IL """"===-( EXTERMINATE!
|::|:\ EXTERMINATE!
|::|::\
=======
===========================================
Pat Wigfull
Pat1974 (pat...@aol.com) wrote:
> In article <4nsgn8$2b...@news.gate.net>, "E.T. Products"
> <etpr...@gate.net> writes:
> >in my opinion, the show was un-dr.who-like because of all the money they
> had
> >to play with.
> braodcast.
But I think you shouldn't overlook the poster's first three words "in my
opinion". I wouldn't go so far as to call him an "idiot". He had the
sense to state it all as an opinion, and everyone's entitled...
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Wigfull, Dept. of Biology, Carleton University
Visit my homepage! http://superior.carleton.ca/~pwigfull
---------------------------------------------------------
The Robinsons
The Macra Terror (eng...@pop.wwa.com) wrote:
: Michael Hickerson <tre...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu> wrote:
: >Warning: Major SPOILERS ahead for the FOX broadcast of the new "Doctor
: >are advised to turn back now!
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
Michael Hickerson:
: > --First of all, the Master HAS used up his lives and has stolen
: >supported.
The Macra Terror:
: When did they say otherwise? The Master lied to Lee that the Doctor had
: stolen most of his lives, but it was just that-- a lie. The only thing
: I can think of was a reference or two to the Master's "last
: incarnation," which isn't necessarily wrong. In "Keeper," the Master
: apparently survived by combining his body with Tremas'... meaning that,
: in a sense, he still was the Thirteenth Master when he was executed.
I'm not sure I understand the argument here. Which claims are "incorrect
or poorly supported"?
But as for the "last incarnation" bit, there IS no contradiction. Incarnation
is not the same as regeneration. The Ainley Master was the Master's 14th
*incarnation*. Roberts' Master was the 15th *incarnation*. This doesn't mean
the Master had more than 12 regenerations. He got extra lives by stealing
them.
Does that clear anything up?
--
Becky
_n_
.- ===== --------------------------------------------------------------.
| |#|#| Robinson Family < infi...@wasatch.com > Lynn, Becky, & Chris |
| |L|L| http://www.wasatch.com/~infinity/ |
| |L|L| This is a family account, please specify who replies are for. |
`- ===== --------------------------------------------------------------'
christopher j rednour,sa120a cd,244-5012,8
In a previous article, pat...@aol.com (Pat1974) says:
>In article <4nq6i7$5...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu>,
>cred...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu (christopher j rednour,sa120a
>cd,244-5012,8) writes:
>
>>I have a lot of other questions about how much "Who" Mr.
>>Jacobs has seen, but we'll get to those in time.
>
>Matthew Jacobs has seen nearly every episode of DOCTOR WHO, and is a big
>fan, to boot. He didn't do this as a job, he did it because he loved the
>show.
>
I remembered that. I didn't write the above. Wasn't Mr. Jacobs father
in an episode as well? Or am I honestly confused?
-Chris
--
==================Ibis the Invincible=================================
----------...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu--------------------------
Tre Hellman
In article <4nq6i7$5...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu>,
cred...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu (christopher j rednour,sa120a
>You know, its strange, but I never found any sexual tension between the
>characters. An interest in one another, but not really any tension...
>
That's because tension requires.... well, tension.
Provided the Doctor wasn't blabbering on about TimeLords and Eyes and
Masters, I suspect Grace would have been very happy to trip him and hit
the ground first.
A willingness that appears to be lamentably shared by a number of young
woman (and men) with lax morals in this very newsgroup.
Tre.
Pat1974
In article <4o05d4$9...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
pwig...@superior.carleton.ca (Pat Wigfull) writes:
>
>Pat1974 (pat...@aol.com) wrote:
>> In article <4nsgn8$2b...@news.gate.net>, "E.T. Products"
>> <etpr...@gate.net> writes:
>> >in my opinion, the show was un-dr.who-like because of all the money
they
>> >had
>> >to play with.
>> This is when I suspect a poster is an idiot but keep my mouth shut.
>> >If i had to really sum my it up, i would say it was too american!
>> This is when I *know* a poster is an idiot, and don't care if it's
>> braodcast.
>But I think you shouldn't overlook the poster's first three words "in my
>opinion". I wouldn't go so far as to call him an "idiot". He had the
>sense to state it all as an opinion, and everyone's entitled...
Yes, but that entitlement isn't idiot-proof.
I can say, "David Yadallee is a really intelligent commentator on all
matters," and that's valid as my opinion.
But it also means I'm an idiot. "Too much money" and "American" are the
equivalent to my Yads example above.
Pat90210
Pat1974
In article <4o2l3d$d...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu>,
cred...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu (christopher j rednour,sa120a
>>cred...@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu (christopher j rednour,sa120a
>>>I have a lot of other questions about how much "Who" Mr.
>>>Jacobs has seen, but we'll get to those in time.
>>Matthew Jacobs has seen nearly every episode of DOCTOR WHO, and is a big
>>fan, to boot. He didn't do this as a job, he did it because he loved
the
>>show.
>I remembered that. I didn't write the above. Wasn't Mr. Jacobs father
>in an episode as well? Or am I honestly confused?
Great, I'm extremely embarrassed and sorry, and yes, in that order.
Pat90210
The Macra Terror
infi...@wasatch.com (The Robinsons) wrote:
>The Macra Terror:
>: When did they say otherwise? The Master lied to Lee that the Doctor had
>: stolen most of his lives, but it was just that-- a lie. The only thing
>: I can think of was a reference or two to the Master's "last
>: incarnation," which isn't necessarily wrong. In "Keeper," the Master
>: apparently survived by combining his body with Tremas'... meaning that,
>: in a sense, he still was the Thirteenth Master when he was executed.
>Me:
>I'm not sure I understand the argument here. Which claims are "incorrect
>or poorly supported"?
Beats me! That's what I was asking him!
>But as for the "last incarnation" bit, there IS no contradiction. Incarnation
>is not the same as regeneration. The Ainley Master was the Master's 14th
>*incarnation*. Roberts' Master was the 15th *incarnation*. This doesn't mean
>the Master had more than 12 regenerations. He got extra lives by stealing
>them.
>
>Does that clear anything up?
I think we have to accept that the Doctor means "last incarnation" in a
Time Lord sense, or else it would be redundant. I mean, wouldn't
execution make whatever incarnation you're in your "last"?
That being the case, I prefer the idea that the Master/Tremas bond
counts as a sustaining of the Master's thirteenth incarnation, and not
a fourteenth in a Time Lord sense. He's been on his "last incarnation,"
in the sense that he's out of regenerations, since at least "The Deadly
Assassin" (and possibly as long as we've known him, but we don't know
that for sure).
Randy/Jean-Marc Lofficier
: >> In article <4nsgn8$2b...@news.gate.net>, "E.T. Products"
: >> <etpr...@gate.net> writes:
: >> >in my opinion, the show was un-dr.who-like because of all the money
: they
: >> >had
: >> >to play with.
There's currently a DW series being produced for a budget of about a
couple of thousands pounds an episode.
It's called the NAs.
They don't work on TV, but you can't have everything.
--
Jean-Marc Lofficier
rjm...@haven.ios.com