|
Cerv posted:it's more the reverse really. To be fair that's not the only dumb element added to the novels. Or need I remind you of the "Ace must always be having sex even when she doesn't want to" clause that apparently dominated most of the loving things.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:No he wasn't. Maybe some people seriously believed but anyone with the briefest understanding of the BBC, Doctor Who, acting or the entertainment industry in general laughed off that suggestion as being loving ludicrous on many levels. People laughed off Capaldi too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Idris Elba isn't a huge Doctor Who nerd though, as far as we know
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:No he wasn't. Maybe some people seriously believed but anyone with the briefest understanding of the BBC, Doctor Who, acting or the entertainment industry in general laughed off that suggestion as being loving ludicrous on many levels. PriorMarcus posted:I've heard rumours that they don't want to cancel it, but instead put it on an extended break when Moffat leaves, which is why we've heard no rumours of his successor. Clearly you are completely immune to wild speculation and rumors and know so much more about the industry than us. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
They do seem to put Doctor Who on hiatus if somebody sneezes, though, it's the weirdest thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Doctor Who is not ending when Moffat leaves. This show is more popular than ever and is making the BBC billions of dollars in merchandizing alone. It's like saying "Well Game of Thrones is going to end when GRRM dies," it's completely unrelated to the business. The network could give less of a poo poo who is running the show as long as it's making them money. That's how it works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Doctor Who is not ending when Moffat leaves. This show is more popular than ever and is making the BBC billions of dollars in merchandizing alone. It's like saying "Well Game of Thrones is going to end when GRRM dies," it's completely unrelated to the business. The network could give less of a poo poo who is running the show as long as it's making them money. That's how it works. Game of Thrones is going to end in a couple of series, what a strange comparison
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
I think I heard somewhere an undisclosed black actor was approached during the casting for 11 but ultimately turned it down. Is there any truth to that? I like Idris Elba, but I have no idea if he'd want to take the role, which if something most of his proponents didn't seem to consider. It could have been another Ecclestone (and I love 9 don't get me wrong). The enthusiasm of Capaldi for the role and the material comes across in spades, and that's what makes him a great choice to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:I've opined at length in the past on the subject of the Other, but the gist is this: The only way a person like the Other could work is as inspiration for the Doctor, not a past life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:19
|
|
wins.
|
GonSmithe posted:The network could give less of a poo poo who is running the show as long as it's making them money. That's how it works. They already wanted to end it when Tennant and Russel left, but Davis managed to convince them to give another show runner a chance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Game of Thrones is going to end in a couple of series, what a strange comparison Not really, because GoT is ending because the story will be over. Obviously it's not serialized, so it can't go on forever, and that makes it a bad comparison in essence. The reason I'm using it, however, is because (as a fan of GoT as well) fans of GoT, every single season, clamor about how it's going to get cancelled because of some stupid reason (like my example), without realizing how much loving money the network is making off the show. PriorMarcus posted:They already wanted to end it when Tennant and Russel left, but Davis managed to convince them to give another show runner a chance. Don't be dense. The show was not anywhere near as popular during Tennant's run as it is now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:The reason I'm using it, however, is because (as a fan of GoT as well) fans of GoT, every single season, clamor about how it's going to get cancelled because of some stupid reason (like my example), without realizing how much loving money the network is making off the show. The BBC doesn't really give a poo poo how much money it makes though. It's nice to have a big hit with the audience, but an extended hiatus after Moffat or Capaldi wouldn't be too unusual, it would basically be the Disney vaulting method to generate hype. Look, I'm not saying it will happen, just that it's not out of the question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Don't be dense. The show was not anywhere near as popular during Tennant's run as it is now. They also had no real proof that switching lead actor and showrunner simultaneously would work. Losing both at the same time would normally be a death sentence for most shows, and it's still been a big gamble even when it doesn't blow up in their faces.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Don't be dense. The show was not anywhere near as popular during Tennant's run as it is now. You're so angry about this dude. Are you American? Culturally it doesn't have as much reach here in the UK as it did during Tennant, or at least, it doesn't seem that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:The Doctor must never be "more than just a Time Lord" - he has to be a hero despite being a Time Lord.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Not really, because GoT is ending because the story will be over. Obviously it's not serialized, Yes it is? Are you saying that all the episodes are standalone? GonSmithe posted:The reason I'm using it, however, is because (as a fan of GoT as well) fans of GoT, every single season, clamor about how it's going to get cancelled because of some stupid reason (like my example), without realizing how much loving money the network is making off the show. Game of Thrones has never been cancelled, Doctor Who has. GoT has never been under recent threat of being cancelled, Doctor Who has. GonSmithe posted:Don't be dense. The show was not anywhere near as popular during Tennant's run as it is now. In America maybe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:You're so angry about this dude. Are you American? Culturally it doesn't have as much reach here in the UK as it did during Tennant, or at least, it doesn't seem that way. Yeah, I agree with this. You couldn't get away from Doctor Who when Tennant was in the role, it was everywhere. Media interest in the UK has cooled significantly, and I think (I might be wrong, ask Trin) that the ratings nowadays just don't match up to the 2006-2009 heyday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:The BBC doesn't really give a poo poo how much money it makes though. lmao yeah okay, I'm sure the heads at BBC keep the show around because of their deep connection to the story. PriorMarcus posted:You're so angry about this dude. MrL_JaKiri posted:Yes it is? Are you saying that all the episodes are standalone? I agree, though. Doctor Who was cancelled. When it was not popular and not making them billions of dollars. MrL_JaKiri posted:In America maybe. PriorMarcus posted:Are you American? Culturally it doesn't have as much reach here in the UK as it did during Tennant, or at least, it doesn't seem that way. The reasons television shows exist, are cancelled, or continue running is money. There is no other reason. The networks do not care about the fans. GonSmithe fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Well I don't know dude, you seem pretty angry about it. What qualifies you to know so much about TV and the BBC?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
One of my favourite Tom Baker things is that often when he's unconscious he rambles strange fragments that aren't relevant to the serial at hand. Does anyone know why he does this? Were they scripted, or was it a Baker flourish like sniffing water? e: the UK mainly spends money on Who due to a TV licence. I'm not sure the everyman is giving the BBC too much sweet, sweet merchandise money, even if they enjoy the show. PoshAlligator fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Well I don't know dude, you seem pretty angry about it. What qualifies you to know so much about TV and the BBC? Understanding basic economics? Like, I totally understand where you guys are coming from. I do. I know it's been cancelled before and there's always a threat looming above the head of the show because of that. But the fact is is that no network, BBC or otherwise, is going to cancel a show making them billions of dollars until it stops that. That's all there is to it. vvvv For real, though. GonSmithe fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Sanity check time. Overnight for Into the Dalek: 5.2 million, 24.7% share. That's a small-but-noticeable drop over last week's number. However. It still won most of its timeslot against a celebrity special of The Chase (4.2 million) and was 2nd for Saturday behind the return of The X Factor on ITV, an established ratings juggernaut that sweeps all before it. Even more interestingly, during the overlap between Doctor Who and The X Factor, Doctor Who maintained its audience. There are about 2 million people interested in watching both shows on original broadcast, but they stuck with Who to the end, when they could have switched. We also have an AI of 84, which is two points higher than last week. And we also have final consolidated numbers for last week. We're looking at 9.14 million viewers watching within a week of transmission, which is the highest final number since The Eleventh Hour, and the second-highest programme of any kind on any channel for the entire week, beaten only by the bad fortune of competing with an unlikely scandal on The Great British Bake-Off (9.28 million, and no, I am not making any of that up). And then we have the cinema showing, which took £522,908 at the box office, the 8th highest-grossing cinema show of the week, despite competing against films that are showing multiple times a day all week. I know that we like to imagine that the sky's falling and everything, but this is kind of like if you were in London in 1944, and you were terrified that they're ringing the church bells because clearly it means Zee Germans are invading. Settle down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
PoshAlligator posted:One of my favourite Tom Baker things is that often when he's unconscious he rambles strange fragments that aren't relevant to the serial at hand. Does anyone know why he does this? Were they scripted, or was it a Baker flourish like sniffing water? I think it was the writers for his serials, although it's definitely a very Baker/Four thing. Payndz posted:I always liked the very clear implications from the Tom Baker era that the Doctor was actually a rather mediocre Time Lord by their standards, barely scraping through academically and not fitting in with their staid and stuffy society, but that was exactly why he ran away in the first place. The only trouble is that the Doctor then turns out to be, after all, more clever than all of them, which always made Time Lord serials feel a bit silly to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:The only trouble is that the Doctor then turns out to be, after all, more clever than all of them, which always made Time Lord serials feel a bit silly to me. I always liked the idea with the Four stuff that he was a medically Time Lord academically, but with all of his practical experience he managed to tack together ideas and theories that worked anyway. Even the way he flies the TARDIS is often referenced like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I always liked the very clear implications from the Tom Baker era that the Doctor was actually a rather mediocre Time Lord by their standards, barely scraping through academically and not fitting in with their staid and stuffy society, but that was exactly why he ran away in the first place. Oh yes! That's the brilliance of the Doctor! Hold on, let me see if I can dig up a conversation I had with Jack Graham (proprietor of ShaboganGraffiti, a remarkably great blog about leftism in Doctor Who) about this subject. Me, on Tumblr last month posted:Let me try this again. Jack Graham, in response posted:I have a lot of agreement with this. Sorry for the Bigpost but hey!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Barry Foster posted:I think (I might be wrong, ask Trin) that the ratings nowadays just don't match up to the 2006-2009 heyday. I literally just made a graph, dude.  Seasonal average ratings have been nailed to the 7-8 million range- the show is remarkably consistent. It has declined over Smith's run, but the change has been microscopic; 7.73 for his first season and 7.44 for his third, even with the half-season fuckery. e: And it looks like 5.2 is a perfectly average overnight by the standard of Season 7. It's alright folks, we are shipshape and Bristol fashion. KOGAHAZAN!! fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Yeah, sorry, it is serialized. It was going to be cancelled fairly recently and RTD had to persuade them otherwise, obviously this was the correct decision but it still happened. Now strictly speaking the BBC does not directly make money from Doctor Who in America or from merchandising, BBC Worldwide (which is a wholly owned subsidiary) does. GonSmithe posted:The reasons television shows exist, are cancelled, or continue running is money. There is no other reason. The networks do not care about the fans. This is not actually true for the BBC Mister "I understand basic economics  ".Also a very very very important fact is that you are overestimating the amount of money that Doctor Who brings the BBC dramatically. You claimed it makes "billions and billions of dollars" for the Beeb. This is just not true. The aforementioned BBC Worldwide has a total turnover of £1.1 billion. It makes a profit of the order of a hundred million pounds for all BBC worldwide commercial operations. Even if Doctor Who was 10% of the Beeb's worldwide profit (which it isn't) you're still overstating its profitability by a factor of a hundred. When you got your understanding of basic economics it obviously pushed your understanding of "how to check if things are true rather than make random assumptions" out of your head. MrL_JaKiri fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:I literally just made a graph, dude. He was asking for the comparison of Smith + Capaldi to Tennant, not Capaldi to Smith. And as your graph shows the steady climb that happened during Tennant's era stopped and dropped away rather sharply. It's a lot more stable now, but lower and not increasing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:He was asking for the comparison of Smith + Capaldi to Tennant, not Capaldi to Smith. And as your graph shows the steady climb that happened during Tennant's era stopped and dropped away rather sharply. It's a lot more stable now, but lower and not increasing. That's relative to the population, mind. The UK has been growing rather rapidly in the past 15 years or so; we had close to exactly 60 million people in 2005 but it's likely to be more than 64 this year. (The population was static for nearly the entire classic run) In terms of the raw figures, it goes: Eccelstone 1 - 7.31 Tennant 1 - 7.64 Tennant 2 - 7.54 Tennant 3 - 8.04 Smith 1 - 7.73 Smith 2 - 7.51 Smith 3 - 7.44
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:It was going to be cancelled fairly recently and RTD had to persuade them otherwise, obviously this was the correct decision but it still happened. Okay, you're right. It's not billions. BBC Worldwide doesn't release exact numbers. HOWEVER, last year they made £300 from their TV shows. An episode of Doctor Who costs around £1 million to make. Their profits are much. much higher than what they are spending, just not as out of this world as I was saying. Sorry. edit- Wait, gently caress, this article is from 3 years ago. So it's gone up, then. GonSmithe fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Okay, you're right. It's not billions. BBC Worldwide doesn't release exact numbers. HOWEVER, last year they made £300 from their TV shows. An episode of Doctor Who costs around £1 million to make. Their profits are much. much higher than what they are spending, just not as out of this world as I was saying. Sorry. Because of the unique way the BBC is funded, they aren't supposed to care about profits, is the main point. And BBC worldwide is a completely separate thing from BBC Wales, who actually make the show. More profits for BBC Worldwide does not mean higher budgets for BBC Wales. As shown when the show was more popular than it is now at the start of Matt Smith's era, and got its budget cut.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Okay, you're right. It's not billions. BBC Worldwide doesn't release exact numbers. HOWEVER, last year they made £300 from their TV shows. An episode of Doctor Who costs around £1 million to make. Their profits are much. much higher than what they are spending, just not as out of this world as I was saying. Sorry. A sweet £300 after selling all about 10 box sets down the market.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Okay, you're right. It's not billions. BBC Worldwide doesn't release exact numbers. HOWEVER, last year they made £300 from their TV shows. An episode of Doctor Who costs around £1 million to make. Their profits are much. much higher than what they are spending, just not as out of this world as I was saying. Sorry. BBC Worldwide's profitability is of the order of 11% from the latest financial reports, with £122m profit from £1042m revenue. Do you realise the £300 (million) figure is gross income and not profit? From the figures available I would severely doubt if Doctor Who was making much more than £20m profit when production costs are taken into account. A lot of money, certainly, and definitely not a money sink , but "Much much higher" is overstating things fairly dramatically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
The fact that there was so much of a gap and all these half seasons should probably indicate that the show has some problems on the back-end somewhere. I don't think it's going to get canceled anytime soon because of its fairly remarkable success, but it drat well could go on a mysterious two year hiatus at the drop of a hat and I don't think it's safe forever by any means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
IIRC the half seasons were caused by some major budget fuckery in series 5 that they were only just now able to recover from. Rumblings about debts unpaid for location shooting, and the production team in general being incompetent which resulted in a lot of "resignations" and transfers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
HD DAD posted:IIRC the half seasons were caused by some major budget fuckery in series 5 that they were only just now able to recover from. This is correct.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Don't worry, if it gets cancelled maybe we'll get an extensive grimdrak novel range starring the 12th Doctor and Clara where it's revealed the Doctor is a minor deity and Clara becomes some sort of space mercenary. And Rusty as a gritty K-9 reboot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:I’m a white male myself, I don’t notice these kinds of things. But I landed pretty firmly in the camp of "would've been nice, but Peter Capaldi's awesome  " when I found out.I have this experience a lot, really. When something that I feel is damaging happens on television, or a cool opportunity is missed, my reaction is to groan at it, then move on and enjoy what comes next, but if I even mention it to anybody, or somebody's around to hear me groan, they feel compelled to argue the point with me as if I feel that one missed opportunity or misstep ruined the rest of it for me. As if one sexist, racist, or even ableist moment that I noticed, or one opportunity to make a cool statement being ignored made me hate everything else I saw. It speaks to a moral absolutism that makes people think of things like racism as a disease you have. Something you are, or aren't. And that's not really how these things work. A show that spent so much of its fifty-year run arguing for equal treatment does not become a racist show after one misstep. Doctor Who has had its fair share of moments where something potentially damaging happened, or a bad message could be interpreted, as is evidenced by our continuing discussion of Journey to the Center of the Tardis, but the proper reaction, in my opinion, to this is not, "DOCTOR WHO IS A RACIST SHOW AND I'M NEVER WATCHING IT AGAIN!" in all caps, obviously. It's "That episode was a bit racist." "Sure was. But the rest of it was also pretty great/crap." Then, if you're put in the position to create this kind of damaging content, don't. That's it. But again, every time I mention it I get Doctor What's favorite clip regurgitated back to me. "Oh, here we go," followed by a justification for why it's perfectly okay that the black guys were carjackers because some black guys are carjackers, and it becomes a whole argument. It would've been very nice to have a nonwhite or female doctor, but, y'know, Peter Capaldi.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
It comes up occasionally in Doctor Who, as with some of the discussion regarding Journey to the Center of the TARDIS. For some reason, people groan whenever "that was a bit racist/sexist" stuff comes up, but it's just a comment. It doesn't mean the show or writers are suddenly evil bigots and the discussion would always be shorter if not for the four people who have to take up part of the conversation saying "Not this again, SJW tumblr nerds!" If that particular brand of discussion isn't your cup of tea, you can always wait a few pages at the most until the talk shifts to which person fits better into the Davros rubber mask they had to recycle and/or whether Moffat is the devil incarnate and who is buying a new Doctor Who coat. It's okay to talk about racism sometimes and sometimes Doctor Who has has depictions that suffer from racist writing. It's okay that people post about it, here in the thread devoted to discussion regarding Doctor Who. Peter Capaldi is great though, both in his depiction of the character and in the graciousness he's shown toward the hordes of fans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
Doctor Who has never been racist ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 19:38
|
|