And Smith has been nominated for a BAFTA. But its a bit of a Moff fest. Sorry, but hope it goes to Cumberbatch instead. Sherlock was streets ahead of Who last year.
Quote: Nogget @ April 26 2011, 9:17 AM BSTAgreed. She's there for her looks.
And how many 'assistants' have been there for the quality of their acting?
Louise Jameson for instance.
Quote: KLRiley @ April 26 2011, 9:47 AM BSTAnd how many 'assistants' have been there for the quality of their acting?
Louise Jameson for instance.
Absolutely, it's often been that way in the past, and half-naked Leela was a particularly good example.
Quote: Nogget @ April 26 2011, 9:55 AM BSTAbsolutely, it's often been that way in the past, and half-naked Leela was a particularly good example.
Duh! 
Quote: chipolata @ April 26 2011, 9:34 AM BSTThe ratings were down on last years opener. They blamed the sunshine but New Who has always gone out in the sunshine.
Those were only the overnights, which yes were down on last year, but the consolodated ratings will rise by a few million, and that won't count the many people who will have chosen to watch on IPlayer, on which Who is wildly popular.
The very hot weather and early timeslot most certainly did affect it though. If you look at the show before, it got one and a half mill in the overnights, so a huge amount of people chose to come in and watch TV specifically for Who, not just because they were channel flipping.
Look at the consolodated figures that will be out in a week, plus the iPlayer number which isn't counted, and it will give a truer figure of how many people actually want to watch the show. Audience share-wise, Who still pulled in almost 40% of all the people choosing to watch TV at that time.
A lot of people I know, even those who claim to be huge fans, didn't bother watching it as it went out, they went on to iPlayer later. I think it's indicitive of how the way people watch TV is changing, now they have other options than having to watch at the time of broadcast.
Obviously this will be a problem for commercial channels, but hopefully shouldn't matter as much to the BBC.
Quote: KLRiley @ April 26 2011, 9:47 AM BSTAnd Smith has been nominated for a BAFTA. But its a bit of a Moff fest. Sorry, but hope it goes to Cumberbatch instead. Sherlock was streets ahead of Who last year.
You can appear in a poorer show and still give a better performance. Not that I'm saying Smith did, Cumberpatch was brilliant as Sherlock.
And Cumberbatch was ahead of Smith in Moff's choices for Who..
Quote: KLRiley @ April 26 2011, 10:17 AM BSTAnd Cumberbatch was ahead of Smith in Moff's choices for Who..
No he wasn't. Moffat is widely quoted as saying Smith was the second or third person he saw for the role, that he didn't want a young actor, but from the moment Smith came in he knew he'd found his Doctor.
Smith was, however, passed over by Moffat for the role of Watson opposite Cumberpatch.
I just heard that Smith is the first actor to be nominated for a Bafta for playing the role. Is that right? Tennant was up for so many awards I think I assumed he'd won one for it!
Looks like Who broke viewing figure records for BBC America.
Matt Smith would have made an aces Moriarty
I'm not sure I've ever posted here before but a genuine DW but I am a little flabbergasted at the amount of people have trouble with the whole River Song and the Doctors timelines crossing in essentially the opposite order.
I don't get the confusion (albiet I've skim read a few pages). I'm with Matt seems perfectly understandable and follows it's own logic, maybe watch Groundhog Day as a primer?
Quote: dannyjb1 @ April 26 2011, 10:48 AM BSTmaybe watch Groundhog Day as a primer?
Except Groundhog Day is utterly dissimilar to what's going on here.
The Time Travellers Wife is closer.
Quote: dannyjb1 @ April 26 2011, 10:48 AM BSTI'm not sure I've ever posted here before but a genuine DW but I am a little flabbergasted at the amount of people have trouble with the whole River Song and the Doctors timelines crossing in essentially the opposite order.
I don't get the confusion (albiet I've skim read a few pages). I'm with Matt seems perfectly understandable and follows it's own logic, maybe watch Groundhog Day as a primer?
It's only because it doesn't make sense Danny, much like Merlin aging backwards. Apart from that it is fine. They state this is happening - but why and how does she know? Maybe it has happened in that order for a number of times but where is the logical explanation that it will happen the next time they met or the time after? I suspect a DEM explanation at the end somehow which is never really satisfactory.
Quote: Marc P @ April 26 2011, 10:54 AM BSTIt's only because it doesn't make sense Danny,
Morning!
It makes sense. it is contrived, but it makes sense.
The main problem with the River Song thing, is that it's getting bloody tedious. Cue one massive anti-climax!
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ April 26 2011, 10:51 AM BSTExcept Groundhog Day is utterly dissimilar to what's going on here. The Time Travellers Wife is closer.
In the Time Travellers Wife Eric Bana slips through time involuntarily. Is it the same with River?
Quote: chipolata @ April 26 2011, 10:57 AM BSTIn the Time Travellers Wife Eric Bana slips through time involuntarily. Is it the same with River?
I don't think so, no. It's the Doctor who is entering her life in a none chronological order.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 26 2011, 10:56 AM BSTMorning! It makes sense. it is contrived, but it makes sense.
It genuinely doesn't, Stott. And I say that as a bit of a SF geek.