Quote: Pingl @ February 17 2013, 7:58 PM GMTNo, No, No
No, I really did.
Doctor Who... Page 930
Excellent!
It's so going to be better than the actual show.
Quote: sootyj @ February 17 2013, 4:55 PM GMTI thought that was quite a reasonable review of the robots of bored to death
I know from an earlier post that you only watched two episodes. And that was probably while you were doing something else.
TV from the seventies can seem very slow today. Robots is a bad example to criticise though as it has an inventive plot and zips along and there is more than enough to take in.
It also has a great villain with a great backstory who you don't even know about because you've only watched half of it.
ok when does the villains back story come in?
albeit I suspect it goes;
"...I was playing the genie in Aladin in the Cliftonville hippodrome when I got a telegram from my agent.
"Darling the BBC want to hire you! To play a Dr Who villain! Please bring your own costume.
Sigh this is what you get for not fellating Jimmy Saville on Clunk Click."
Quote: Matthew Stott @ February 18 2013, 9:02 AM GMThttp://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-02-18/doctor-who---reece-shearsmith-cast-as-patrick-troughton
Keep it in the family, eh?
Here' my choice to play Patrick Troughton - Ryan Pope. (He's in the current McDonalds ad - the 'No, you're alright', one).
He looks like Troughton and - unlike Reece Shearsmith - he can act!
Quote: Matthew Stott @ February 18 2013, 9:02 AM GMThttp://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-02-18/doctor-who---reece-shearsmith-cast-as-patrick-troughton
I see. Jobs for the boys is it. 
Quote: john lucas 101 @ February 18 2013, 1:32 PM GMTI see. Jobs for the boys is it.
Still waiting to find out what part Gatiss is giving himself!
Stemroach as William Hartnell? Wow.
http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/moffat-on-50th-series-8-master-more-45573.htm
Moffat's not leaving and is planning series 8. 
"I've just started planning the next series and I'm going to swing [the arc] a slightly different way again."
Yet another year of substandard storytelling then.
So Mark Gatiss is writing a drama series (or a one-off special?) about the inception and making of Doctor Who? Why? What's the point? There's already loads of behind-the-scenes footage and interviews out there. All the 'Special Features' on the classic Who DVDs and various biographies and other books. Will we be getting anything new with a dramatisation? Why not just cobble together a 'making of' story from all existing footage and interviews? Or is this series going to be wonderful and shed new light on hitherto unknown stuff?
Quote: Kenneth @ February 23 2013, 4:59 PM GMTSo Mark Gatiss is writing a drama series (or a one-off special?) about the inception and making of Doctor Who? Why? What's the point? There's already loads of behind-the-scenes footage and interviews out there.
Using that logic, why make a film or TV show about any historical event? As you say, there are docs and interviews aplenty, this is something new for the 50th; something that no doubt many, many more people will actually watch.
I'm running a dr who evening for an Asperger's social group.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ February 23 2013, 5:13 PM GMTUsing that logic, why make a film or TV show about any historical event?
Because there are many historical subjects on which there's a lack of archives and interviews, let alone behind-the-scenes footage. For example, we don't have any old footage from the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius. So we got I Claudius, which was superb, although not entirely historically accurate, what with Robert Graves making Livia a bigger villain and playing down the nastiness of Augustus.
Another example, Walking With Dinosaurs needed to be made because we don't have hundreds of hours of archives of dinosaurs being filmed and interviewed.
In the case of Doctor Who's 50th anniversary, why not make a brand new documentary telling the whole Who story by utilizing existing archives as well as some new interviews? Why make a ruddy series "based on a true story" with actors? I adore good documentaries, but modern-day "historical re-enactments" tend to piss me off, unless done really well. I hope Gattis's extravaganza is wonderful and filled with fascinating new insights and information.
In the case of John Lennon, the movie Imagine was great, as it was made entirely from archival footage. Lennon biopics paled in comparison to the real thing. Likewise with Who, there is such a treasure trove of amazing archives, which could be superbly presented over a mini-series. So why the dooce make a series with actors? Unless it is somehow more amazing than the real thing.