Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 12 2011, 1:10 PM BSTIf he constantly expects the worst then nothing can hurt Chip. Nothing can hurt him. It is, yes.
Sometimes having standards can be a terrible burden, Stott. 
Doctor Who... Page 702
Quote: chipolata @ May 12 2011, 1:22 PM BSTSometimes having standards can be a terrible burden, Stott.
Expecting the worst is not the same thing as having standards, Chip.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 9 2011, 9:29 AM BSTToo many assistants-There's currently only two, with an extra person popping up a couple of times a year. I don't agree that it's automatically a problem. It was in the original run, I'm thinking Davison era, as there was no point to the characters. Most were badly written and badly performed, such as Adric and Nyssa. That was the problem for me there, the writing, intention and performances. The only problem with too many regular characters now is that there isn't enough time to give lots of regulars stuff to do each episode, so having too many could be a mistake. But as I say, we only currently have two regular companions.
If you think about it, there's only one reason Rory exists and that Amy got married - to enable this extended story arc with the pregnancy/child. He clearly holds no interest to Moffat as a character and he actually is fouling up Amy's relationship with the Doctor. But he needs to be there otherwise it looks like the doctor f**ked her.
Maybe he has enough sense to remember how dire the Dr Rose relationship was.
If there's one thing the old Who got back on the nail was no f**king sex in the TARDIS.
Besides Time Lords don't have genitals everyone knows that duh!
Quote: sootyj @ May 12 2011, 1:27 PM BSTIf there's one thing the old Who got back on the nail was no f**king sex in the TARDIS.
I always assumed the Doctor was f**king Sarah Jane's brains out but that since it was of no relevance to the story they did not mention it.
No he was a stepdad/mad uncle type.
There's more sexual tension in an autopsy.
Quote: sootyj @ May 12 2011, 1:36 PM BSTNo he was a stepdad/mad uncle type.
That rules out sex?!
Yes Timbo and the social worker told you the very same thing!
Quote: sootyj @ May 12 2011, 1:36 PM BSTThere's more sexual tension in an autopsy.
Mmm...corpses...
Quote: Timbo @ May 12 2011, 2:32 PM BSTMmm...corpses...
Mate a cadaver would still tell you it was washing it's hair.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13353367
"It's heartbreaking in a way because you're trying to tell stories, and stories depend on surprise," said Moffat. Trying being the operative word.
And I don't know what Moffat's getting so worked up about. I don't even understand the plot points after I've watched the show.
Quote: Griff @ May 12 2011, 5:48 PM BSTI think I might agree with him. I'd probably enjoy Doctor Who a lot more if I hadn't read half of what was going to be in the episode in endless BBC press releases (telling me what an amazing and thrilling journey I was going to be going on etc).
Oh yeah, they want their cake and they want to eat it to. And the whole Doctor Who dying turned out to be the biggest damp squib ever anyway. He's not actually going to die so why make such a fuss about it?
Quote: chipolata @ May 12 2011, 5:39 PM BSTAnd I don't know what Moffat's getting so worked up about. I don't even understand the plot points after I've watched the show.
*Pats poor Chip on head and gives him a lolly*
Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 12 2011, 6:05 PM BST*Pats poor Chip on head and gives him a lolly*
I was being lighthearted, Stott. But the resolution of last year's Pandorica nonsense didn't make a jot of sense. And already in this series we've seen a blatant disrregard for good storytelling, in which characters do things for no apparent reason or the narrative splutters off...oh, forget it.
Quote: chipolata @ May 12 2011, 6:12 PM BSTI was being lighthearted, Stott.
I totally didn't get that, and wasn't replying in a jokey manner. 
Quote: chipolata @ May 12 2011, 6:12 PM BST...oh, forget it.
