Re: "Doctor Who" movie definitely happening, in five years

The Doctor

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 4:19:03 PM3/30/12

to

In article <4f75e729$0$49349$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>
>In article <tajbn7hoiv8ht9346...@4ax.com>,
>David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/03/30/david-yates-discusses-future-projects-including-doctor-who-and-your-voice-in-my-head/
>
>"It's weird because...what will the series be like in five or six years?"
>
>Well, probably by then, they will have had to deal with what happens
>after the 12th Doctor...
>
>Who has the final decision on whether this can happen? In other words,
>who owns the rights to the characters? BBC?
>
>
>Patty
>

BBC
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Alberta! Time to dump team extreme right
of either Allison or Danielle and vote for Raj the common man!

Your Name

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 5:11:34 PM3/30/12

to

In article <jl54fn$fb$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The

Doctor) wrote:
> In article <4f75e729$0$49349$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> >In article <tajbn7hoiv8ht9346...@4ax.com>,
> >David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/03/30/david-yates-discusses-future
> >> -projects-including-doctor-who-and-your-voice-in-my-head/
> >
> >"It's weird because...what will the series be like in five or six years?"
> >
> >Well, probably by then, they will have had to deal with what happens
> >after the 12th Doctor...
> >
> >Who has the final decision on whether this can happen? In other words,
> >who owns the rights to the characters? BBC?
>

> BBC

Sometimes (and I am NOT saying this is true for Doctor Who) different
companies/ people own different right and or different regions - one
company / person owns the rights for TV and another owns the rights for
movies, etc. or one owns the rights for the UK and one owns the right sfor
the US. Which in itself creates idiotic problems as one owner thinks they
know better than another, and both think they know better than the
original person who created the product.

The Doctor

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 6:36:10 PM3/30/12

to

In article <YourName-310...@203-118-187-121.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

IIRC BBC did play a role in getting the Cushing movies out.

Duggy

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 7:09:04 PM3/30/12

to

On Mar 31, 7:11 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <jl54fn$f...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Doctor) wrote:
> > In article <4f75e729$0$49349$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> > Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> > >In article <tajbn7hoiv8ht934621av8gj87j9jf4...@4ax.com>,

> > >David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/03/30/david-yates-discusses-future
> > >> -projects-including-doctor-who-and-your-voice-in-my-head/
>
> > >"It's weird because...what will the series be like in five or six years?"
>
> > >Well, probably by then, they will have had to deal with what happens
> > >after the 12th Doctor...
>
> > >Who has the final decision on whether this can happen? In other words,
> > >who owns the rights to the characters? BBC?
>
> > BBC
>
> Sometimes (and I am NOT saying this is true for Doctor Who) different
> companies/ people own different right and or different regions - one
> company / person owns the rights for TV and another owns the rights for
> movies, etc. or one owns the rights for the UK and one owns the right sfor
> the US. Which in itself creates idiotic problems as one owner thinks they
> know better than another, and both think they know better than the
> original person who created the product.

For example, EON owned most the James Bond movie rights, but got upset
when the TV rights were sold to someone else.
After Superman III and Supergirl, the Salkid's swapped the Superman
movie rights for TV rights and made a Superboy series.
Glen A Larson has always claimed ownership of movie rights to
Battlestar Galactica, Universal the TV rights.
Serenity was made because Fox only owns the TV rights to Firefly.
JMS tried to get a Babylon 5 movie made with Warner Bros who own the
TV rights.

A big issue with Doctor Who doesn't seem to be TV/Movie rights but a
lot of writers actual own the characters/aliens that they created for
the series.

===
= DUG.
===

Duggy

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 7:14:41 PM3/30/12

to

> >In article <tajbn7hoiv8ht934621av8gj87j9jf4...@4ax.com>,
> >David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/03/30/david-yates-discusses-future-p...

Five or six years is a long way off... but the way he's talking about
talking to Steve Moffatt it seems he's interested to talk to the
showrunner.

It may be the he's open to the possibility of tying into the series.

If the shows up to series 10, 11, or 12 perhaps a few years off for
movies would be a good thing.

===
= DUG.
===

Your Name

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 8:22:04 PM3/30/12

to

In article <jl5cgq$74n$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The

They also played a role in making Top Gear Australia and Top Gear America
... and look at the hopeless mess those are. ;-)

Duggy

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 7:23:57 PM3/30/12

to

On Mar 31, 5:25 am, David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Why so long?

He's working on other things until 2015.

> It could be canceled before then.

Which would be better for the film.

> (I haven't been to David's url).

It shows.

===
= DUG.
====

Duggy

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 7:25:29 PM3/30/12

to

On Mar 31, 6:05 am, SoHillsGuy <jerryg...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I'd take the original article a little more seriously if the writer knew how to correctly spell Steven Moffat's name...

For a long time the BBC didn't know.

===
= DUG.
===

The Doctor

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 7:31:23 PM3/30/12

to

In article <YourName-310...@203-118-187-223.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

This is not Top Gear.

Your Name

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 9:16:54 PM3/30/12

to

In article <jl5fob$9tg$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca>, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The

It doesn't really matter what the franchise is. The BBC also played a role
in the Americanised "season" of Torchwood, which was also a horrible
mess. :-(

The Doctor

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 8:25:18 PM3/30/12

to

A BIG Mess!!

Duggy

unread,

Mar 30, 2012, 11:41:13 PM3/30/12

to

On Mar 31, 9:31 am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> This is not Top Gear.

Are you saying Doctor Who is crap?

===
= DUG.
===

Raymond Daley

unread,

Mar 31, 2012, 8:31:18 AM3/31/12

to

"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
news:YourName-310...@203-118-187-223.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...

> They also played a role in making Top Gear Australia and Top Gear America
> ... and look at the hopeless mess those are. ;-)

What? Both miles better and less inane than the UK original you mean?
The yanks have learnt the bad habit of crashing into each others cars like
Clarkson started (by the way UK Police & Insurance companies, I'd like to
see him finally getting penalised for every one of those he's ever done on a
UK road.) but apart from that they are not that bad.

The Doctor

unread,

Mar 31, 2012, 9:04:43 AM3/31/12

to

In article <JQCdr.109818$qj2....@fx14.am4>,

Sounds like Red Dwarf USA.

Reader in Invisible Writings

unread,

Mar 31, 2012, 12:26:58 PM3/31/12

to

On 30/03/2012 21:19, The Doctor wrote:
> In article<4f75e729$0$49349$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Patty Winter<pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>>
>> In article<tajbn7hoiv8ht9346...@4ax.com>,
>> David<diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/03/30/david-yates-discusses-future-projects-including-doctor-who-and-your-voice-in-my-head/
>>
>> "It's weird because...what will the series be like in five or six years?"
>>
>> Well, probably by then, they will have had to deal with what happens
>> after the 12th Doctor...
>>
>> Who has the final decision on whether this can happen? In other words,
>> who owns the rights to the characters? BBC?
>>
>>
>> Patty
>>
>
> BBC

What about the apparent movie being made for release this Christmas?
See...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMfRd0qxMSE&feature=relmfu
and seeing this (and the others) it appears to be a movie by "TNT
Films"* due for release in Christmas 2012, but IMDB don't seem to know
about it. "Classic"** Daleks for the traditionalists amongst you...
They even have Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Power-of-the-Daleks/134044440038752
This Doctor seems to be The Doctor like Peter Cushing being the Doctor.

*never heard of them - but never heard of The MOB who have done the
Discworld stuff for SKY.
**as in the start of the new series with the funny symbols on the
forehead rather than the "new paradigm" set, not any of the other half
dozen that went before.

--
Reader in Invisible Writings
Something to Ponder on!

Ignis Fatuus

unread,

Mar 31, 2012, 1:24:06 PM3/31/12

to

Sorry but it's still March 31st here in the real universe.

The Doctor

unread,

Mar 31, 2012, 3:49:02 PM3/31/12

to

In article <jl7b8j$pth$1...@dont-email.me>,

Reader in Invisible Writings <markfo...@aim.com> wrote:

Well time marches on.

The Doctor

unread,

Mar 31, 2012, 3:49:43 PM3/31/12

to

In article <bafen71ugnmqns53i...@4ax.com>,

Depends on GMT.

Your Name

unread,

Mar 31, 2012, 6:04:35 PM3/31/12

to

In article <JQCdr.109818$qj2....@fx14.am4>, "Raymond Daley"
<raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Nope, they aren't "that bad" ... they're ABSYMALLY bad.

Most "other versions" make so many idiotic changes that they're barely
recognisable. Unfortuantely the Australian and American Top Gear shows
went the other way and tried to be excatly the same while using different
hosts who try way to hard to copy the original's hosts (either that or
they have no actual personality themselves).

The Doctor

unread,

Mar 31, 2012, 7:30:27 PM3/31/12

to

In article <YourName-010...@203-118-187-138.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

Come on!! The UK host could qualify as a rogue Time Lord.

Reader in Invisible Writings

unread,

Apr 1, 2012, 4:05:05 AM4/1/12

to

I would agree if it was first posted on 1st April, but this has been
floating around for over a month and I first saw it on TV, and not the BBC!

Reader in Invisible Writings

unread,

Apr 1, 2012, 4:06:45 AM4/1/12

to

Unless they this is a case like the Norweb translight fighters come to
get Dave Lister...

Ignis Fatuus

unread,

Apr 1, 2012, 5:08:07 AM4/1/12

to

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:06:45 +0100, Reader in Invisible Writings

I don't do Ubend or inyourfacebook, so I can't view the material, but
it seems highly unlikely. TNT is an American cable channel belonging
to Time-Warner. They don't do cinema, and they rarely do sf. They
produced Babylon 5, and they're currently producing Falling Skies.
They don't list DW among their upcoming projects, and it seems
unlikely that the Beeb would license an American TV Movie when the UK
series is still in production.

So it still looks like a hoax. Examine the clip carefully and it's
probably culled from broadcast episodes.

Jerry Brown

unread,

Apr 1, 2012, 5:34:15 AM4/1/12

to

No, it's got ninth/tenth Doctor daleks in first/second Doctor livery.
To me it looks like a fan film, like the many, many Star Trek ones.
I'm guessing they got the daleks cheap off the BBC after they switched
to the current (horrible) iDalek design.

--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 1, 2012, 8:31:31 AM4/1/12

to

In article <jl927i$49h$1...@dont-email.me>,

Not April Fool's joke that.

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 1, 2012, 8:32:39 AM4/1/12

to

In article <118gn7hb9e2iruti4...@jwbrown.co.uk>,

Never should have sold those Dalkes between 1996 and 2005.

Duggy

unread,

Apr 1, 2012, 8:02:18 PM4/1/12

to

On Apr 1, 10:32 pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> Never should have sold those Dalkes between 1996 and 2005.

The Daleks weren't sold.

===
= DUG.
===

Reader in Invisible Writings

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 3:48:40 PM4/2/12

to

OK... according to The (Portsmouth) News* "Lost Dr Who series is
recreated by film enthusiasts"**. It seems from this that it is a
'non-commercial' venture, but must have some sort of official BBC
sanction as IPR is being used all over the place. If it is, then I would
commend the open minds that have allowed this to happen, even if it is
not quite as polished as it might be with a bigger budget.

Also I would correct from "it's being made by TNT" to "it's being made
by TNTfilms" This is a UK company "TNT Film provides a full video
production service" with clients such as the BBC, C4, SKT, Disney
Channel. They are probably nothing to do with Fox TNT or a certain
courier company of the same initials.

*http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/lifestyle/tn2-saturday/tv-a-look-back/lost_dr_who_series_is_recreated_by_film_enthusiasts_1_3241913

**This would also answer some of my niggles about the acting being more
Blakes 7 than Babylon 5 let alone Hollywood.

Your Name

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 5:39:31 PM4/2/12

to

>
> "Doctor Who" movie definitely happening, in five years

Then thank goodness the world is "definitely" ending in December this year. ;-)

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 5:41:56 PM4/2/12

to

In article <504a413c-dd06-4cf1...@qc6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 1, 10:32=A0pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> Never should have sold those Dalkes between 1996 and 2005.
>
>The Daleks weren't sold.
>

>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

Check sold old papers.

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 6:12:01 PM4/2/12

to

In article <01a7804a-a47e-48c0...@sv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 31, 9:31=A0am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> This is not Top Gear.
>
>Are you saying Doctor Who is crap?
>

>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

No.

Duggy

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 7:45:51 PM4/2/12

to

On Apr 3, 7:41 am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <504a413c-dd06-4cf1-91e3-17a566c2d...@qc6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

>
> Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 1, 10:32=A0pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> >> Never should have sold those Dalkes between 1996 and 2005.
>
> >The Daleks weren't sold.

> Check sold old papers.

Nation owned the Daleks. They weren't sold between 1996 & 2005.

Nation's estate still owns them.

===
= DUG.
===

Ignis Fatuus

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 8:10:16 PM4/2/12

to

The Daleks are (and always were) Jointly owned by Nation (now his
estate) and the BBC. Use of them (in any context) is subject to
agreement on both sides. The matter is further complicated because the
Beeb hold copyright on the Dalek design (by Raymond Cusick).

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 8:26:45 PM4/2/12

to

In article <0a0c70d8-c6d2-4f1d...@9g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 3, 7:41=A0am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> In article <504a413c-dd06-4cf1-91e3-17a566c2d...@qc6g2000pbc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>>
>> Duggy =A0<p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >On Apr 1, 10:32=3DA0pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> >> Never should have sold those Dalkes between 1996 and 2005.
>>
>> >The Daleks weren't sold.
>
>> Check sold old papers.
>
>Nation owned the Daleks. They weren't sold between 1996 & 2005.
>
>Nation's estate still owns them.
>

>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

The casings then.

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 8:27:33 PM4/2/12

to

In article <2nfkn79tr5thhsid5...@4ax.com>,

Interesting mess.

john smith

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 10:52:21 PM4/2/12

to

"Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message
news:036gn754sturp3riu...@4ax.com...

Hasn't that been cancelled?

Duggy

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 11:16:30 PM4/2/12

to

Exactly. They weren't "sold between 1996 and 2005" like was claimed.

===
= DUG.
===

Ignis Fatuus

unread,

Apr 2, 2012, 11:30:24 PM4/2/12

to

Season 2 premiers in the US on June 17th.

Alcatraz and The River haven't been officially axed yet. Fox dropped
Terra Nova but it's still being considered by other networks.

Duggy

unread,

Apr 3, 2012, 12:22:12 AM4/3/12

to

On Apr 3, 1:30 pm, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
> Fox dropped
> Terra Nova but it's still being considered by other networks.

Name one.

===
= DUG.
===

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 3, 2012, 9:48:37 AM4/3/12

to

In article <FBter.148379$qj2....@fx14.am4>,

Well Google's April Fools must have delayed a lot.

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 3, 2012, 9:50:14 AM4/3/12

to

In article <ce4a67ea-0a58-43ba...@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 3, 10:10=A0am, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 16:45:51 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >On Apr 3, 7:41=A0am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> >> In article <504a413c-dd06-4cf1-91e3-17a566c2d...@qc6g2000pbc.googlegro=
>ups.com>,
>>
>> >> Duggy =A0<p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> >On Apr 1, 10:32=3DA0pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> >> >> Never should have sold those Dalkes between 1996 and 2005.
>>
>> >> >The Daleks weren't sold.
>>
>> >> Check sold old papers.
>>

>> >Nation owned the Daleks. =A0They weren't sold between 1996 & 2005.

>>
>> >Nation's estate still owns them.
>>
>> The Daleks are (and always were) Jointly owned by Nation (now his
>> estate) and the BBC. Use of them (in any context) is subject to
>> agreement on both sides. The matter is further complicated because the

>> Beeb hold copyright on =A0the Dalek design (by Raymond Cusick).

>
>Exactly. They weren't "sold between 1996 and 2005" like was claimed.
>

Not the rights. The props.

>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 3, 2012, 9:50:55 AM4/3/12

to

In article <tfrkn79r7ibmn3qvf...@4ax.com>,

Fox/BBC productions do not impress me.

Duggy

unread,

Apr 3, 2012, 5:28:04 PM4/3/12

to

On Apr 3, 11:50 pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <ce4a67ea-0a58-43ba-8f89-95780fd3a...@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 3, 10:10=A0am, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 16:45:51 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
> >> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 3, 7:41=A0am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> >> >> In article <504a413c-dd06-4cf1-91e3-17a566c2d...@qc6g2000pbc.googlegro=
> >ups.com>,
>
> >> >> Duggy =A0<p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 1, 10:32=3DA0pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> >> >> >> Never should have sold those Dalkes between 1996 and 2005.
>
> >> >> >The Daleks weren't sold.
>
> >> >> Check sold old papers.
>
> >> >Nation owned the Daleks. =A0They weren't sold between 1996 & 2005.
>
> >> >Nation's estate still owns them.
>
> >> The Daleks are (and always were) Jointly owned by Nation (now his
> >> estate) and the BBC. Use of them (in any context) is subject to
> >> agreement on both sides. The matter is further complicated because the
> >> Beeb hold copyright on =A0the Dalek design (by Raymond Cusick).
>
> >Exactly. They weren't "sold between 1996 and 2005" like was claimed.
>
> Not the rights. The props.

Eh.

===
= DUG.
===

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 3, 2012, 6:55:28 PM4/3/12

to

In article <f3302702-9b8d-4add...@8g2000pbm.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 3, 11:50=A0pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> In article <ce4a67ea-0a58-43ba-8f89-95780fd3a...@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.=

>com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Duggy =A0<p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >On Apr 3, 10:10=3DA0am, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 16:45:51 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>>
>> >> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> >On Apr 3, 7:41=3DA0am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> >> >> In article <504a413c-dd06-4cf1-91e3-17a566c2d...@qc6g2000pbc.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups.com>,
>>
>> >> >> Duggy =3DA0<p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Apr 1, 10:32=3D3DA0pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wr=

>ote:
>> >> >> >> Never should have sold those Dalkes between 1996 and 2005.
>>
>> >> >> >The Daleks weren't sold.
>>
>> >> >> Check sold old papers.
>>

>> >> >Nation owned the Daleks. =3DA0They weren't sold between 1996 & 2005.

>>
>> >> >Nation's estate still owns them.
>>
>> >> The Daleks are (and always were) Jointly owned by Nation (now his
>> >> estate) and the BBC. Use of them (in any context) is subject to
>> >> agreement on both sides. The matter is further complicated because the

>> >> Beeb hold copyright on =3DA0the Dalek design (by Raymond Cusick).
>>
>> >Exactly. =A0They weren't "sold between 1996 and 2005" like was claimed.
>>
>> Not the rights. =A0The props.
>
>Eh.
>
>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

I siad not the copyrights.

Duggy

unread,

Apr 3, 2012, 8:10:28 PM4/3/12

to

On Apr 4, 8:55 am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> I siad not the copyrights.

You siad?

===
= DUG.
===

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 4, 2012, 5:19:48 PM4/4/12

to

In article <854226be-3183-412c...@js1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 4, 8:55=A0am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> I siad not the copyrights.
>
>You siad?
>

>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

You cannot sell the copyrgiths of DW nor the affiliates
unless you run into Pandora's Box.

john smith

unread,

Apr 4, 2012, 6:33:18 PM4/4/12

to

"Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message

news:tfrkn79r7ibmn3qvf...@4ax.com...

Alcatraz, I can leave or take (colloidal silver, indeed!); but I really
enjoyed The River. Nifty premise, interesting not-your-typical city-set
location, and quite a gripping and creepy storyline. That final shot was
brilliant! (Although I think I remember reading it hadn't been renewed,
so...)

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 4, 2012, 6:38:41 PM4/4/12

to

In article <N_3fr.53206$4z7....@fx08.am4>,

Such is tastes.

Ignis Fatuus

unread,

Apr 4, 2012, 6:58:54 PM4/4/12

to

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 23:33:18 +0100, "john smith"

I enjoyed it with reservations (which given my attitude towards horror
is quite something). I'd be quite happy to see some of the juvenile
cast, and the wife, fed to the crocodiles.

Netflix were looking to pick it up. They were also looking at Terra
Nova but that deal seems to have gone cold.

I think it's a pity about Alcatraz. Intriguing premise delivered as an
exercise in stereotypes (but I'm still hoping for a second series).

Look out for Lilyhammer (if you haven't seen it already). Lugubrious
Mafia boss (Steve Van Zandt) turns informant and takes refuge in
Norway. Norwegian-US co-production. Northern Exposure meets The
Sopranos. Hilarious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilyhammer

john smith

unread,

Apr 5, 2012, 1:17:07 PM4/5/12

to

"Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message

news:7ljpn75ljqmvn8t3f...@4ax.com...

I've heard conflicting opinions about this, but since you've recommended it
I'll bump it up my 'Things to watch' list. Cheers, Iggy!

Ignis Fatuus

unread,

Apr 5, 2012, 1:56:05 PM4/5/12

to

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 18:17:07 +0100, "john smith"

Just grab episode 1 and let me know if you manage to stop before the
end of the series. Can't wait for season 2.

If you fancy slumming it, I've been watching Ringer... a sort of Soap
Noir based on an old Bette Davis movie. The cliches come thick and
fast, and it takes itself oooh sooo seriously... but with the right
blood alcohol level it's hilarious. Features Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Borb Mey

unread,

Apr 5, 2012, 4:17:32 PM4/5/12

to

On 05/04/2012 1:17 PM, john smith wrote:
> "Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message
> news:7ljpn75ljqmvn8t3f...@4ax.com...
>
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 23:33:18 +0100, "john smith"
> <the_jo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Shouldn't the second of those last two attributions be indented more?

> Look out for Lilyhammer (if you haven't seen it already). Lugubrious
> Mafia boss (Steve Van Zandt) turns informant and takes refuge in
> Norway. Norwegian-US co-production. Northern Exposure meets The
> Sopranos. Hilarious.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilyhammer

That paragraph was in Ignis Fatuus's post. Shouldn't it be indented more?

> I've heard conflicting opinions about this, but since you've recommended
> it I'll bump it up my 'Things to watch' list. Cheers, Iggy!

This is at the same level as Ignis Fatuus's post. Shouldn't it be
indented less?

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 5, 2012, 4:18:57 PM4/5/12

to

In article <nskfr.141913$jE5.1...@fx15.am4>,

There you go.

Ignis Fatuus

unread,

Apr 5, 2012, 4:56:23 PM4/5/12

to

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:17:32 -0400, Borb Mey <b0r...@b0rbm3y.b0rbm3y>
wrote:

It's to confuse the enemy. Like the signposts in Dublin.

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 5, 2012, 6:46:58 PM4/5/12

to

In article <hj1sn7tliqh8e3kp3...@4ax.com>,

Keep up the good work.

Duggy

unread,

Apr 5, 2012, 7:51:02 PM4/5/12

to

On Apr 6, 6:56 am, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:17:32 -0400, Borb Mey <b0rb...@b0rbm3y.b0rbm3y>
> wrote:
> >This is at the same level as Ignis Fatuus's post. Shouldn't it be
> >indented less?

> It's to confuse the enemy. Like the signposts in Dublin.

I've never been to Dublin so I don't know whether I like the
signposts.

===
= DUG.
===

Ignis Fatuus

unread,

Apr 5, 2012, 8:27:51 PM4/5/12

to

The trick is being able to find one.

Duggy

unread,

Apr 5, 2012, 8:44:29 PM4/5/12

to

On Apr 6, 10:27 am, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:51:02 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

> >> It's to confuse the enemy. Like the signposts in Dublin.
> >I've never been to Dublin so I don't know whether I like the
> >signposts.

> The trick is being able to find one.

An enemy?

===
= DUG.
===

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 5, 2012, 10:06:12 PM4/5/12

to

In article <c0esn7lfit1fi4k3v...@4ax.com>,

Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:51:02 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
><p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 6, 6:56 am, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:17:32 -0400, Borb Mey <b0rb...@b0rbm3y.b0rbm3y>
>>> wrote:
>>> >This is at the same level as Ignis Fatuus's post. Shouldn't it be
>>> >indented less?
>>
>>> It's to confuse the enemy. Like the signposts in Dublin.
>>
>>I've never been to Dublin so I don't know whether I like the
>>signposts.
>>
>
>The trick is being able to find one.

Eyes wipe open.

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 5, 2012, 10:06:29 PM4/5/12

to

In article <d497c7c5-1134-4a36...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

A signpost.

Duggy

unread,

Apr 5, 2012, 11:37:07 PM4/5/12

to

On Apr 6, 12:06 pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
> In article <d497c7c5-1134-4a36-8390-023fe959a...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,

>
> Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 6, 10:27=A0am, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:51:02 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
> >> >> It's to confuse the enemy. Like the signposts in Dublin.
> >> >I've never been to Dublin so I don't know whether I like the
> >> >signposts.
>
> >> The trick is being able to find one.
>
> >An enemy?

> A signpost.

What if signposts are your enemies?

===
= DUG.
===

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 6, 2012, 9:54:57 AM4/6/12

to

In article <a325eafc-6080-42d6...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 6, 12:06=A0pm, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>> In article <d497c7c5-1134-4a36-8390-023fe959a...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>>
>> Duggy =A0<p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >On Apr 6, 10:27=3DA0am, Ignis Fatuus <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:51:02 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>>
>> >> >> It's to confuse the enemy. Like the signposts in Dublin.
>> >> >I've never been to Dublin so I don't know whether I like the
>> >> >signposts.
>>
>> >> The trick is being able to find one.
>>
>> >An enemy?
>
>> A signpost.
>
>What if signposts are your enemies?
>

>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

That is a fight a la Catholics / Protestants.

john smith

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 11:33:28 PM4/8/12

to

"Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message

news:hj1sn7tliqh8e3kp3...@4ax.com...

Hah! Are they anything like the signposts in Wales?

Ignis Fatuus

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 12:19:35 AM4/9/12

to

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 04:33:28 +0100, "john smith"

<the_jo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message
>news:hj1sn7tliqh8e3kp3...@4ax.com...
>
>On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:17:32 -0400, Borb Mey <b0r...@b0rbm3y.b0rbm3y>
>wrote:
>
>>On 05/04/2012 1:17 PM, john smith wrote:
>>> "Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message
>>> news:7ljpn75ljqmvn8t3f...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 23:33:18 +0100, "john smith"
>>> <the_jo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>Shouldn't the second of those last two attributions be indented more?
>>
>>> Look out for Lilyhammer (if you haven't seen it already). Lugubrious
>>> Mafia boss (Steve Van Zandt) turns informant and takes refuge in
>>> Norway. Norwegian-US co-production. Northern Exposure meets The
>>> Sopranos. Hilarious.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilyhammer
>>
>>That paragraph was in Ignis Fatuus's post. Shouldn't it be indented more?
>>
>>> I've heard conflicting opinions about this, but since you've recommended
>>> it I'll bump it up my 'Things to watch' list. Cheers, Iggy!
>>
>>This is at the same level as Ignis Fatuus's post. Shouldn't it be
>>indented less?
>
>It's to confuse the enemy. Like the signposts in Dublin.
>
>
>
>Hah! Are they anything like the signposts in Wales?

Your average Dubliner believes that if you don't know where a place is
you've no business going there. It's been a few years since my last
visit, and I hear reports of a move afoot to erect a few signs under
EU directives... but there doesn't appear to be a clause about making
them informative.

Duggy

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 7:48:17 PM4/9/12

to

On Apr 9, 1:33 pm, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Hah! Are they anything like the signposts in Wales?

Left by Jonah?

Wait... Wales, not Whales.

===
= DUG.
===

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 7:55:59 PM4/9/12

to

In article <43fc98c5-fb7a-414a...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 9, 1:33=A0pm, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Hah! =A0Are they anything like the signposts in Wales?

>
>Left by Jonah?
>
>Wait... Wales, not Whales.
>

>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D

LOL!

Your Name

unread,

Apr 10, 2012, 1:18:06 AM4/10/12

to

In article
<43fc98c5-fb7a-414a...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 9, 1:33=A0pm, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Hah! =A0Are they anything like the signposts in Wales?

>
> Left by Jonah?
>
> Wait... Wales, not Whales.

You should see the signposts in Wails, they put the ones in Wales to
shame. Two of the shorter examples are:
"AAaaaaaararrrrgggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!"
and
"Wwwwaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!"

;-)

The Doctor

unread,

Apr 10, 2012, 9:58:38 AM4/10/12

to

In article <YourName-100...@203-118-187-226.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

Quotefile.