Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadians Miss Out On Doctor Who Season Finale

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the splicing-time-never-had-such-immediacy dept.

Sci-Fi 303

darthcamaro writes "Canadians were among the last people in the world to get the season 4 finale of Doctor Who which already aired in the UK and Australia. The Canadian public broadcaster — CBC — decided to cut out nearly 20 minutes from the episode, leaving fans wondering what was going on. Doctor Who isn't the easiest show to follow at the best of times — but Canadians are now up in arms (or at least hockey sticks) over their taxpayer-funded broadcaster's lack of respect for SciFi hosers."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Aboot froost psoot (-1, Troll)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112685)

CBC or CBCA? I bet they couldn't work out what it was all aboot, eh?

A new companion? (1, Flamebait)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112687)

I thought the Doctor's companion was an attractive black woman, but instead I see a redhead pictured in the article. Boy I've really fallen behind. What season is USA's Sci Fi Channel currently airing? 3?

Re:A new companion? (4, Informative)

mog007 (677810) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112749)

Martha Jones was The Doctor's companion in the third season, and the redhead is his fourth season companion, yes.

Re:A new companion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26113133)

Is the much faster turnover on Doctor Who an attempt to play to the Short Attention Span Theater crowd? I moved and lost cable after the second season aired in the U.S., but I'm hoping they let the companions develop and stay on much longer for when I catch up on the show later. It seems like they're setting themselves up for a series of forgettable characters; Rose was just starting to overcome her annoying habits and be likable towards the end of her last season. I never even got the chance to like Christopher Eccleston, and Tennant's Doctor - who was the one person on the show I found instantly charismatic - is already on his way out. It seems like kind of a mess.

Re:A new companion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26113265)

Rose was just starting to overcome her annoying habits

Nobody was expecting much from her. Shes been out of work since the Banana Splits was cancelled. btw here she is in playboy http://www.funnygarbage.com/flog/uploads/bingo7.jpg [funnygarbage.com]

Re:A new companion? (4, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113705)

The turnover is only "much faster" because A.) you're older; and B.) the seasons are shorter and the stories aren't episodic serials anymore.

David Tennant has already played the Doctor for three seasons. That's as long as William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton, or Peter Davidson, and longer than Colin Baker or Sylvester McCoy. Historically most of the Doctor's companions have only lasted one season, and the current show has actually made them all into recurring characters, so you can't exactly call it "turnover."

Re:A new companion? (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112753)

Apparently Season 3, the black woman left at the end of it. The redhead is Donna, who is there all through S4 (with some cameos from the others, naturally).

Re:A new companion? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112859)

Donna Noble - A loud, obnoxiously self-absorbed office worker who, one one Christmas special in 2006, ironically was saved on her wedding day by the Doctor from being fed to a giant alien spiderwoman by her fiance. The irony is that the character is 100% exactly like the actress performing the role, Catherine Tate. Since she's essentially playing herself, one must question whether this is is really acting. For some reason she is now slated to be a more permanent companion for the fourth year of the New Series. Gawd help us all.

Re:A new companion? (2, Informative)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112977)

Actually Catherine Tate is a rather talented character actress who has her own comedy show. I don't think she is especially like her character in Doctor Who, at least not in the interviews that I've seen.

Re:A new companion? (4, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113049)

Who actually watches Doctor Who on CBC? It's been available on isohunt.com for a year now...

Re:A new companion? (5, Interesting)

Zwicky (702757) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113467)

I'll admit that I wasn't very pleased with the decision to have 'the bride' return as a regular companion for the Doctor, precisely because she was portrayed by Catherine Tate. The only thing I found remotely humorous on the Catherine Tate Show was Lauren ("am I bovvered"); the rest was just unfunny (IMHO).

I stuck with it though. As the series progressed I got over the things that annoyed me (I think they toned her down a little as time went on too, which helped) and ultimately I think I'll miss her a little now that she had to have her memory wiped and leave the Doctor's side.

I'm with the other posters who mentioned this too: I think the rate at which Doctor Who is going through companions lately is too rapid and they're not really fully coming into their own.

I'm also going to miss Bernard "Diggin' a 'ole'" Cribbins, for entirely different reasons :)

As for TFA, that's quite appalling. Cutting 20 minutes nigh on halves the length of the episode. Tsk, tsk, CBC, and tsk again. It's little wonder people are downloading shows, it's possibly now the only way they can be sure it hasn't been ridiculously cut down to size.

Re:A new companion? (2, Funny)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113749)

The only thing I found remotely humorous on the Catherine Tate Show was Lauren ("am I bovvered"); the rest was just unfunny (IMHO).

Have you seen this bit [youtube.com] from one of the Comic Relief specials?

Re:A new companion? (1)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113841)

I'm with the other posters who mentioned this too: I think the rate at which Doctor Who is going through companions lately is too rapid and they're not really fully coming into their own.

<aol>
ME TOO!
</aol>

In fact there were two of the *best* potential companions that only lasted a single episode: Reinette and Jenny. It seems to me that they weren't kept around simply because they no longer fit the format (Companions are now always from contemporary Earth, and only show up at the beginning of a series, and stay to the end. Nobody is ever from the past/future/other planets, or joins midway through.)

On the plus side, the ending of "The Doctor's Daughter" seems to imply that Jenny might be getting a spin-off, but I'd love to have seen her join up with the Doctor.

Re:A new companion? (2)

cheftw (996831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113519)

I know I'm a troll but this is horrendously misinformative. Catherine Tate is awful. That is an undeniable fact. Check her out on youtube if you're bovva'd. - btw that is her only joke.

Re:A new companion? (0, Troll)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113649)

The great thing is that if her character ever remembers who she was, she'll die.

It was a great injustice when they failed to show her being hit by the truck
that killed her in the alternate universe... If she comes back for any reason
later on in the series, I wanna see that cunt's head explode.

Re:A new companion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26113019)

Donna Noble - A loud, obnoxiously self-absorbed office worker

Sounds like every other redhead I've ever met. Well, with one exception: not all of them were office workers.

Attractive? (0, Offtopic)

spineboy (22918) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113183)

Try smoking hot.

Re:A new companion? (1)

theillien2 (1426175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113781)

I don't know about Scifi but, If you get it, watch on BBC America. They run the current season.

BitTorrent (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112689)

The wife and I watched it months ago. The Internet is my TV station.

Re:BitTorrent (4, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112727)

The wife and I watched it months ago. The Internet is my TV station.

As you mention BitTorrent, I'm assuming there were no commercials in the version you received. Since you're paying a "tax" on things like blank media anyway, I'm surprised more Canadians don't do this.

Re:BitTorrent (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112789)

The internet is also my TV station.

Signed, another Canadian who has to bypass the CBC to watch shows shown on CBC.

Re:BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112841)

I don't even have cable...

--another Canadian

Re:BitTorrent (2, Informative)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112867)

I don't even have cable...

--another Canadian

Hulu [hulu.com] + Bittorrent [thepiratebay.org] + TVersity [tversity.com] + XBox 360 MCE [microsoft.com] = Call me when a la carte cable service hits the streets.

Re:BitTorrent (2, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112899)

Hulu.com = USA-only.

Re:BitTorrent (2, Funny)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113021)

Proxy Server + Hulu.com /= USA-only

Re:BitTorrent (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112869)

Me neither (except for the modem).

Re:BitTorrent (1)

Tragek (772040) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112845)

Well, I thought, hey, what's the hurry, I'll just watch on CBC.

Not any more; Screw it. I'll do what I've historically done with Torchwood: I'll watch it a day after the brits do.

Re:BitTorrent (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112929)

3 hours. It only takes a whole day if it has to be translated (which takes the pros about 2years maybe 3)

Re:BitTorrent (3, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113121)

no kidding - i've found fan subbed versions of things are generally superior to commercial subs and done the day after it airs not years after. in fact i've found the delievery of everything on bit torrent to be better that commercial, which really says something considering it's done by guys in their spare time.

Re:BitTorrent (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112995)

We pay for the CBC television station with our taxes as well. CBC has even begun hosting their own streaming and downloadable repeats on their website, like with the awesome and hilarious TV adaptation of Douglas Coupland's jPod [www.cbc.ca] .

Re:BitTorrent (1)

symes (835608) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112849)

As a UK license fee paying citizen (license fee pays for the BBC who produce Dr Who) I am happy that I have in some small way contributed towards your viewing pleasure. Here's hoping the BBC will make all their archives fully open to the viewing public - there's some fantastic stuff in there!

Re:BitTorrent (5, Interesting)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113007)

Actually, Doctor Who is produced in conjunction with another organisation. Amusingly enough, that organisation is the CBC. So Canadian taxpayers (who actually FUND the program) are more than entitled to download it, I reckon.

Spoiler alert! (5, Funny)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112699)

Doctor Who thwarts the Dalek invasion of Earth. Earth is not destroyed. None of the main characters die.

Re:Spoiler alert! (5, Funny)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112731)

Didn't I see that episode back in 1967?

Or maybe I'm thinking of 1973.

Or was it 1986?

Ahhh..... it's so hard to keep track of all these Dalek episodes. Almost as difficult as keeping track of how many times the Borg attacked a Federation vessel (and failed; pretty pathetic for an advanced race).

Re:Spoiler alert! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112851)

Almost as difficult as keeping track of how many times the Borg attacked a Federation vessel (and failed; pretty pathetic for an advanced race).

You know what I never got? There are what, trillions of borg drones? They probably outnumber the combined population of the Federation planets (and Klingon/Romulan/Cardassian Empires), and they obviously had superior firepower, so why did they pussyfoot around? If they just would have launched a full scale invasion of the Alpha quadrant, they could have assimilated everyone and been home by lunch.
 
That always really bothered me.

Re:Spoiler alert! (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112955)

Well originally they were 70 years away in terms of warpspeed, so we were still safe from a massive invasion, other than a few multigenerational ships/cubes.

Unfortunately the writers took-away that vast "ocean" between Borgspace and Federation space when they created transwarp capable of jumping the entire stretch in just a few months. Dummies.

Re:Spoiler alert! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26113003)

Yeah, in fact, that part of the plot in which the borg were first introduced. The borg ships seen in Next Gen had all been sent out long before from the Delta Quadrant, but Q sent the Enterprise into borg space and thereby demonstrated that a more full scale invasion would be profitable.

The general implication as I understood it was that although the Federation could (barely) hold its own against what amounted to an advance scout party, a full scale invasion was only a few decades away, and unless they did something drastic, extinction was inevitable.

Voyager not only castrated the borgs both as a concept and as believable episode-to-episode villains, it also essentially derailed a basic underlying facet of the universe.

It's a pity, a series set, say, fifty years in the future could easily have done quite well focusing on desperate measures to unite everyone against the coming borg. ...of course, now that I think about it, it would have been an even more blatant knock-off of Babylon 5 than Deep Space 9 was.

Re:Spoiler alert! (5, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113151)

Because - oh god, this will cost me karma! - Star Trek autors are pretty pathetic themselves. (The best example is that nearly all extraterrestrial life [not just "humanoids"] is like earth, just extremely different where you can't look at.)

If they had invaded and won, the authors would have been unable to come up with a continuation. In Star Trek, everything has to be OK at the end of a show. Only Movies are allowed to change fundamental things. They would be forced to end the show.

If there were more creative authors around, an won invasion by the Borg would be the greatest opportunity of all!
Think of that invasion happening in a movie.... and the movie ending with the borg winning and dominating the whole federation. People would have thought: "What the fuck? Why did it not have a happy ending?" But they would never forget it!
The following TV show would have a continuous storyline. Starting with everybody - and I mean everybody - being Borg!
Then the magic would happen: Somehow, a child of a Human and one of the other major Species, would be able to resist in it's innermost Soul. Like i tiny flame in a storm, struggling to survive. You would experience this feeling with that child.

No cheap tricks about a special race, a data disguising as a Borg, or some crap. No. Just the plain spirit of Humanity and the Federation... ...fighting, and growing... ...spreading to other humans on earth too... ...until the resistance would be so big, ...that the whole Borg collective would be assimilated by it!
Assimilated by the spirit of individuality and freedom of the mind. By what we think is right an wrong.
And the Borg would not know how to handle such a very strange weapon / enemy within. They would traverse all kinds of strange changes in their society, to cope with it, making the Borg something far from what they originally were. All their technology would be useless.

The Borg would be assimilated themselves. It would be a very very hard war on so many and so strange fronts as the mind itself.
Until just a small group of some thousand Borg would be caught... the last resistance against the new resurrected Federation. (Everything would still be very temporary, unstable in the background territory, and semi-Borg, using Borg technology.)

But the surviving Borg were changed so much, that they were no enemy anymore, but a helpless race, struggling to survive... with right so survive on its own.
So the Federation would let their old enemies live, and make a historic agreement with them, adding them *to* the federation, as the first advanced - and now good - race.

This would also make for some very interesting inner conflicts in the later federation! (27th-31th century?)

As a last plus, the Federation, together with Borg technology, and the new born power of the inner spirit (explained as some electromagnetic power of the brain),
would make humanity a new advanced race themselves.

And just as with the first warp flight, this would call for some other advanced - elder - races, who would ask them for contact, allowing inter-galaxy flights and contacting a ton of non-humanoid species (which is possible, now that CGI is good enough).

Oh: If anyone important reads this and wants to contact me, to work on a realization: Bring some money with you! I have much, much more ideas! :)

Quick note: (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113215)

Oh, and: I know that I'm exceptionally bad at English when I'm still dead from a party last night (it lasted until 10 am today, and I slept until 7 pm).

Luckily tough, going outside also gives me shitloads of creative output time. :)

Re:Spoiler alert! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26113387)

That was Hugh and the borg purged him when they found out what his thoughts were going to them. Well at least cut him off from the rest of the collective. You find out what happened to him in one of the lore episodes.

Re:Spoiler alert! (3, Insightful)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113429)

'We can win, we have the power of SOUL!'

Seriously, your Star Trek idea totally sucks. And the borg would probably be even more dangerous to the federation when they adopted humanity's standards for what is right and what is wrong.

In a way, the Borg have dealt with this crap already, if memory serves, there was this unimatrix zero thing in the voyager series. The borg queen found a way to detect the borg that were affected by it, and blew up their ships. Along with millions of unaffected borg, but she figured it was more important to be perfect.

What's the fun of karma when you never lose it once you get to excellent?

Re:Spoiler alert! (2, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113741)

No. You misunderstood me. I think the whole concept of the existence of a "soul" is horsecrap, just like religion.

My idea was more like: We have something special. A will/power to survive, that outweighs even the Borg assimilation nanites.
Of course, in reality, such a thing does not exist too. But it can be explained on a basis of physics in the movie.

The whole experience of seeing that struggle of humanity to survive, when it's as close to dead as it possibly could be... is the point of it. The rest only exists to serve that purpose. That special power is just a tool. And a pretty good one, from the perspective of the transmission of feelings.

But who am I arguing with. "totally sucks" is such a deep and good argument... ;)
I wonder if you ever studied the psychology of movies/games in depth like I have? (It's my job.)

Re:Spoiler alert! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112939)

and failed; pretty pathetic for an advanced race
Actually, since they assimilate species that lost to them, they are an aggregate of failures.

Re:Spoiler alert! (0, Troll)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112779)

Whoever labeled iYk6's post a "troll" is an idiot. It was a JOKE and it was *funny*. Loosen up. Turn on, tune in, drop out.

Re:Spoiler alert! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112827)

A screw it... cover your eyes, Canadians...

John Pertwee transmogrifies into Tom Baker! Don't worry, you'll become familiar enough with Tom in 20 years when you eventually see a show called Little Britain.

Well played (1)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112919)

You managed to get a laugh without revealing that the doctor regenerates -- very sporting of you.

lolwat? (5, Funny)

gazbo (517111) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112747)

Doctor Who isn't the easiest show to follow at the best of times

Do you also need to buy CliffsNotes for Teletubbies?

Stuff that matters? (-1, Offtopic)

TheKingAdrock (834418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112763)

As usual I fail to see how this is "stuff that matters." I guess it's time to turn in my /. decoder ring.

Re:Stuff that matters? (0, Flamebait)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112791)

News for canadians, eh? Stuff that goes with your gravy fries.

Re:Stuff that matters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112957)

Please feel free to turn in all your documentation at your leisure; I'd convince you to stay but I don't want to share a ghetto with someone who's never seen Dr. Who!

Re:Stuff that matters? (1, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112987)

Flaimbiat? ive been thinking there was a troll using mod points to disagree with people, this proves it. Canadians missing some new dr.who (maybe if it was one from the original series it would be geek worthy), is not news, its 2008 they have the internet.

who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112767)

people still watch that shit?

time to move on folks.

Hey, hosehead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112773)

Protip: The number of Canadians that have watched SCTV and/or recognize "hoser" as a reference to another Canadian is likely now in the minority.

Signed,
Anonymous Hoser

Take off eh (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112811)

And hand me another Elisnore!

Re:Take off eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112853)

I'm sorry. I'm an Anonymous Hosehead, not an Anonymous Meathead, Archie.

You've got to love the idiots who run TV stations. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112809)

You've got to love the idiots who run TV stations. Why? Because they're simply perfect idiots. Cutting 20 minutes from an episode? Such amazing idiocy.

Reminds me of a couple of years ago when I set my VCR to tape the weekly episode of 24. Yes I said VCR. Now get off my lawn.

There was a football game before 24. No problem right? Game will be over. I'll still be able to get all of 24 taped and watch it when I get home.

I get home. VCR is going. Great. I'll just let it finish taping 24 and then sit down and watch it from the beginning. No problem.

Problem. The football game was over before 24 was set to air. But someone decided that it was imperative to air commentary and discussion of the football game that was just played and this ran 15 minutes or so into 24. Was there really a need for this? I mean, come on, you just watched the fucking game so you know what happened.

Did they decide to delay 24 so people could see all of it? Nope. Just cut right on into 24 minus the first portions that they'd blotted out with football commentary.

Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio (2, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113111)

Here's why. [wikipedia.org]

Be honest, what would you want to face as your adversary as a program planner? An angry mob of beer filled football fans or a bunch of geeks? I mean, let's be reasonable. One group will show up at your doorstep and crush a beer can on your head, the other one might write you an angry email. IN RED.

Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio (1)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113293)

Umm, no.

Please re-read the post you replied to. The poster said quite emphatically that the game was over. As in, they finished it, and everybody knew the final score.

This is nothing like cutting off a game that hadn't finished yet.

Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113717)

Yeah, but imagine what if they cut off the game or even the commentary about the game you just saw.

Imgaine, viewers might realize how utterly stupid they are if nobody told them how to interpret all the funny statistics.

Re:You've got to love the idiots who run TV statio (1)

Cylix (55374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113249)

Your local television station merely serves as a redistribution point. Local affiliates have little right to tape delay or re-schedule network block programming. To do this requires paper work and authorization. (To double broadcast a show requires additional fees because the actors were only paid for one airing!).

So yes, football seasons suck and the networks don't make it easy to work around.

Contracts vary from production to production, but in most cases it's always been possible to drop the commentary (if provided) to end on time. Sports productions units usually try their best to to wrap up cleanly or at least assist.

For overages, sometimes it's been possible to stop broadcasting and flip to network. The problem with that is normally commercial time for sporting events was a higher revenue earner then prime time.

So it may or may not be their fault, but rather contractual obligation.

The Internet is my DVR. (3, Informative)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112817)

For the truly lazy, this article [cnet.com] describes how to use Miro, the open source media player and download app [getmiro.com] to find and download TV series from the Internet via BitTorrent.

Be aware, in the article one VITAL step in the set up process is left out, but IS covered in the comments.

Set it up and let it run in the background. No more compulsively checking trackers, Miro does it all for you.

18 minutes out of . . . ? (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112855)

Hmmm ... was this a 12+ hour "War and Peace," watch-until-you-drop mini-series episode? Or a normal 2 hour special, or what? 18 minutes sounds like an awfully lot of footage.

I know that one of the "C's" in CBC stands for Canadian, but it sounds like the other one stands for circumcision: "Hell, you can cut 18 minutes off the top of *anything*."

Re:18 minutes out of . . . ? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112903)

Hmmm ... was this a 12+ hour "War and Peace," watch-until-you-drop mini-series episode? Or a normal 2 hour special, or what? 18 minutes sounds like an awfully lot of footage.

Uncut, it was 65 minutes (excluding any commercials, which obviously don't feature in the original BBC broadcasts), which is ten minutes longer than a regular episode.

Re:18 minutes out of . . . ? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113037)

It was 62 minutes, I think it depends how they edited it. I felt the episode could have been cut down a bit, maybe 18 minutes is pushing it, but if they cut off the crappy ending and some of the filler they probably got a good deal.

CBC on strike! (1)

FelixNZ (1426093) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112877)

CBC is on strike, guy! and will continue to strike untill we get some of that internet moneh!

Re:CBC on strike... (2, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113153)

...and nobody noticed.

Plot/Series Branching (5, Interesting)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112891)

Doctor Who really seems to make the most sense if you watch it in the UK in sequence with its spin-offs such as Torchwood or the Sarah Jane Adventures, because in the Season 4 finale there are tie-ins to the spin-offs as well as some earlier episodes in the season that refer to story lines happening on the spin-offs. In other words, watching Doctor Who in America on the 1 season delay sans spin-offs leads to confusion because you don't know what's going on.

I applaud the BBC folks for thinking so creatively about spin-offs playing off against Doctor Who, and vice-versa, but it falls apart against the reality of the region-segregation that they still like to practice.

It's a pity, because many BBC shows are more cutting-edge than Hollywood fare these days and they would play really well here as-is. Except, Hollywood likes to re-produce and re-package them as watered-down, lamer versions. A couple examples are "Coupling," a Friends-like show written by Steven Moffat that was hilarious, that Hollywood tried to Americanize and which was done so poorly that it was DOA; "Top Gear," which is an entertaining auto program and which would do just great here, but which Hollywood has again felt the need to destroy by Americanizing it. "The Office" and "What Not to Wear" are two other examples.

Accordingly, maybe Bit Torrent is the only real way to go in the end.

Re:Plot/Series Branching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112993)

In general I agree with you, and we Americans usually screw up when we reproduce your TV shows. However, I never got the original British "The Office".
It was probably just British humor I didn't get (even though the first episode was basically line by line the same), but I just didn't enjoy it anywhere near as much as the American version.

I guess I'm just saying I can see where American TV is coming from, seeing as our cultures have different interests.

Re:Plot/Series Branching (1, Flamebait)

Lurker2288 (995635) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113045)

Eh, you really didn't need to watch Torchwood or the Sarah Jane Adeventures to follow the finale. Thank God, because Torchwood was horrifically awful and Sarah Jane looks even more juvenile than some of the most childish Doctor Who.

Re:Plot/Series Branching (1)

Larry Lightbulb (781175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113145)

Sarah Jane Adventures is a childrens programme.

Re:Plot/Series Branching (1)

Archibald Buttle (536586) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113325)

So is/was Doctor Who.

Whilst these days it's produced by BBC Wales, it was originally a production of the BBC children's TV department...

Re:Plot/Series Branching (1)

mqsoh (1002513) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113057)

They play all those shows on BBC America, except that I'm not sure about "What Not to Wear". So just tell people to tune-in to that channel instead. Except...I think they cut Doctor Who a little, which is wierd. I watched Voyage of the Damned on Sci-Fi and then again recently on BBC America and there were a couple scenes missing. The tour group going down to the surface of Earth for the Christmas experience and the Doctor leaving that Earth historian on Earth with his savings.

Re:Plot/Series Branching (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26113205)

BBC America butchers everything they show in the names of getting the standard 10 minutes of US advertising for every 20 minutes of show. Then if the time constraints weren't enough, they further cut out material to placate the FCC or something. I have no idea why since FCC regulations don't apply to cable TV stations, but they do anyway.

Then there's the PAL to NTSC conversion, which loses even more quality.

In short, you get the same edited crap on BBC America that you do on any other US station that shows BBC shows. Your only legal way to get BBC originals in the US is iTunes. The only other option is piracy, since the US DVDs have the same NTSC issues that BBC America does.

Life on Mars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26113061)

Life on Mars is another example of this.

Re:Plot/Series Branching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26113165)

That's how I watch the Doctor. I downloaded every episode last season. It just makes life easier. That and I can get my Who fix sooner! ;)

Re:Plot/Series Branching (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113223)

I disagree, one of them was just a kids tv program and Tourchwood is not worth watching IMHO. Maybe watching one or two tourchwoods helped me no the characters but i didnt feal id missed anything by not watching more, hell id hoped that the finale was a Lone guns style ending to that.

I applaud the BBC folks for thinking so creatively about spin-offs playing off against Doctor Who, and vice-versa,

And I think that Lucas should never of made the original trilogy, i find the BBC are milking dr who for all they can get. They are completely stomping over old dr.who stories, I mean its had some good episodes in this last series but only a few have lived up to the old series.

Re:Plot/Series Branching (1)

Archibald Buttle (536586) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113287)

I'm in the UK, I'm a fan of Doctor Who and Torchwood, and have set my DVR thingy to record The Sarah Jane Adventures too, although I tend to fall behind with watching that.

I'm really puzzled by your assertion that the three series are inter-linked, and that one needs to watch all three in order to understand Doctor Who.

There have been thematic cross-overs between the series, but generally this has been a flowing out from Doctor Who to the other two. In the case of the Sarah Jane Adventures, this has been the appearance of a couple of particular alien races (and a few specific individuals) that had earlier featured in Doctor Who. These stories may be considered as continuations of the Doctor Who stories, but are essentially still stand-alone, and have had no implications or repercussions in the opposite direction. So, yes, watching Doctor Who can give you a head-start in understanding some Sarah Jane stories, but that's about it.

As for Torchwood, whilst the Doctor Who season preceding the start of that series did have several episodes dealing with the Torchwood Institude. Since then Torchwood itself has been mostly independent of it's parent. About the only reminder of the two being linked has been the presence of Captain Jack. I guess the hand in the jar is about the only other link, but everything one needs to know about that is revealed in Doctor Who itself, not in Torchwood.

I cannot think of a single circumstance in Doctor Who where one has been left in the dark (or even in the shade) if one has not watched Torchwood and/or Sarah Jane. Not one.

Finally the three series generally have not run concurrently here in the UK. As a result, there are usually no story lines happening on the spin-offs whilst Doctor Who is running.

Re:Plot/Series Branching (1, Troll)

WeirdJohn (1170585) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113323)

I believe you forgot to mention that "Three's Company" was a very poor copy of "Man about the House" and the terrible adaptations of "The Office" and "Kath and Kim". I suspect that the American networks have a very poor opinion of their customer's intelligence, and remake these shows to cater for the crowd that cannot tie their own shoelaces.

Hold on... (2, Interesting)

CRiyl (1086791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113493)

The American "The Office" is terrible? Do you know what fans of "Pushing Daisies" would give to have their show last five seasons? "Three's Company" a "poor copy"; granted, Three's Company was never about being sophisticated but is a guilty favorite and almost always seems to a pillar of the Nick-at-Nite lineup. What's next, deriding "Sandford and Son"?

Re:Hold on... (1)

CRiyl (1086791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113521)

Whoops, I forgot a question mark and a "be".

Re:Plot/Series Branching (1)

laddiebuck (868690) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113501)

Not exactly a new thing. Sanford and Son, Three's Company / Three's a Crowd, and quite a few others come to mind. But sometimes these can be quite successful too.

Re:Plot/Series Branching (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113541)

Doctor Who really seems to make the most sense if you watch it in the UK in sequence with its spin-offs such as Torchwood or the Sarah Jane Adventures, because in the Season 4 finale there are tie-ins to the spin-offs as well as some earlier episodes in the season that refer to story lines happening on the spin-offs. In other words, watching Doctor Who in America on the 1 season delay sans spin-offs leads to confusion because you don't know what's going on.

To which I say "Thank Xod for the interwebs." I'm watching them the day after they air and quite enjoying myself, thank you.

What was cut? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26112905)

Is Sarah Jane Adventures showing in Canada? If not, I could see the CBC editing out the Sarah Jane & Luke parts out of fear the viewers will have no clue why she is there and who Luke is.

Even worse (3, Informative)

smartin (942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112907)

If you watch the credits I believe it mentions the Canadian Film Board which has always made me believe that it is partially funded by Canadian tax payer dollars.

Re:Even worse (4, Informative)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113039)

It is indeed (partially) Canadian taxpayer funded.

'citation require' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26113461)

I'll presume by "Canadian Film Board" you mean the NFB, and I can't find any reference to their involvement online.

It wouldn't fit the NFB's purpose to simply support the show, but they may have had resources that were licensed by it. And it may have been some other organization entirely -- can anyone back up the parent posts with detail?

tardis.wikia has this:

In 2008 it was announced that the CBC would no longer be funding Torchwood and would not air the second series (it was subsequently aired by a competing network, Space, about five months after its UK broadcast). It was rumored that the CBC had also dropped its funding for Series 4 of Doctor Who, which was supported by the fact the CBC no longer received screen credit on Series 4 episodes, but the CBC later said it was still supporting the series.

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation [wikia.com]

Funding in that sense would typically be investment in production in exchange for broadcasting rights. Partnership deals like that are normal for the CBC, which is not the same type of organization as the NFB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Film_Board_of_Canada [wikipedia.org]

If you'll check the credits for more shows, you'll notice the CBC, BBC, and other similar organizations often turn up in each other's credits. There's a long history of combining resources, and more elaborate partnerships ultimately involving the trading of shows rather than outright purchases of licenses.

Re:'citation require' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26113545)

Yes - we owe the Australians one for Blackadder.

Unwatchable? (5, Funny)

Al Al Cool J (234559) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112965)

I watched the CBC broadcast version and didn't notice anything odd. It was fast-paced toward the end, but then a lot of them are like that. Am watching the full-length version on their site now to see what difference I can see.

Maybe the CBC could get the same editor to cut the Pirates of the Caribbean movies down to a reasonable length. That would be sweet.

Re:Unwatchable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26113547)

Maybe the CBC could get the same editor to cut the Pirates of the Caribbean movies down to a reasonable length.

Hell I could do that. Zero is a reasonable length, right?

mised 20 minutes, eh? (1, Funny)

aunt edna (924333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26112997)

even Canadians get lucky sometimes.

Re:mised 20 minutes, eh? (1)

sunami (751539) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113027)

Yea, thankfully Moffat's taking over, Davies' episodes have been quite bad.

Best media money can buy! (0, Offtopic)

WheelDweller (108946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113059)

They seem to share a similar problem with us; the media is owned by the government. Now, HERE, journalism is an outmoded word like SteamShanty. There, the media has been bought for so long, their version of PBS has actually TAKEN OVER.

Look, guys, at what we have to look forward to, when we don't ASK QUESTIONS of our leaders. It's what happens when we think (for reasons that must be insanity!) that government can do a better job than we can.

Everywhere you go, our Congress has touched things and made them worse. Now, after grabbing almost a trillion dollars in "an emergency", they're looking for all sorts of other "emergencies" in a power grab like we've never seen before.

When PBS owns the airways of AmeriKa, and we all must follow the leader who keeps getting elected, and elected, and elected....I'd rather miss 20 minutes of Doctor Who than live in that place.

No, don't mark me troll: my complaint is made to make people think, not to urge voting for any particular candidate. And I'm not here to fight, I'm here to debate.

Conservatism, the idea that the government (especially the Federal one) doesn't have the right, or a history of doing things right. Remember the $600 toliet seat? Are you really gonna let them run your healthcare? Really?

Wonder where your freedoms went? Liberalism ate them. And every time it was "for the children":

- For example, smoking in your car with a kid in California is ATTEMPTED MURDER. (Even though you can't kill with second hand smoke. No, ya can't!)

- In California, the power companies, not you, own the setting on the thermostat.

= The EPA now considers CO2 a pollutant.

No Republican...especially no _Conservative_ ever had anything to do with this madness. Welcome to Liberalism and the New AmeriKa! Yay, change at last! I was so bored at having money and freedom.

Re:Best media money can buy! (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113641)

>For example, smoking in your car with a kid in California is ATTEMPTED MURDER.

[citation needed]

Canadian create problem, and offer solution! (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113095)

www.isohunt.com

Re:Canadian create problem, and offer solution! (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113163)

The internet. The other companion to us up here in the frozen white north. Especially in the winter where the west has blizzards, the east has freezing rain and when they meet in the middle it's a giant slushee party.

Blame Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26113229)

Blame Canada! Oh wait...

So that's what happened... (2, Insightful)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113437)

I watched the final episode on the "Ceeb" and thought it was disjointed and incoherent. Now I know why.

Changing the topic a bit, I find the new Dr. Who series to be overly sentimental, even maudlin. I prefer good ol' space opera without all the tears. Give me "Annihilate them!" over "I'll miss you, Doctor." any day.

This is Why I download (1)

icelator (1402517) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113509)

This is why I download. I live in Canada and we constantly have to wait for shows or not get them at all. Global one of the networks here would buy exclusive rights to Stargate SG1 and then never show it so we would not get the new episodes until a year later. I try to watch stuff legally and I even go to the websites that now play full tv shows, but they never work for people in Canada. I download shows because I refuse to wait a year to watch them.

Umm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26113531)

Since when has Canada mattered? Seriously, is Canada important in entertainment, or anything else for that matter? Sure you have Moosehead and hockey sticks. That hardly makes you a first world nation.

All Depends What You are On (4, Funny)

qazwart (261667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26113549)

My sister had broken her arm. It was so bad, they put some sort of metal bar through her arm to hold her arm in a single position. Because of the pain, she was on some powerful medication. To put it mildly, she was not her normal self. Many hippies have spent decades attempting the mental state those drugs put my sister in.

She was watching TV late one night and called me up and told me about this great science fiction show. It was witty, the writing was wonderful. She laughed, She cried. She was on the edge of her seat. But she couldn't remember the name. She remembered that there was a doctor or surgeon on it and they were in a phone booth...

Dr. Who?, I suggested.

That's it!

Dr. Who? I replied again. Are you sure it was Dr. Who?

Yes, she told me, it was wonderful.

The next week, she saw the show again. This time, not enwrapped in her druggy little fog. She called me up the next day and told me she changed her mind about the show.

I've watched the show many times since then, and as far as I am concerned, being sober doesn't help improve the coherence of the plot. Frankly, I would find it hard to tell if our local station cut out vital scenes which hurt the clarity of the overall plot.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?