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!

Happy 50th Doctor Who

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the is-that-like-a-vorlon-or-something dept.

Sci-Fi 211

beaverdownunder writes "To commemorate 50 years of the Tardis, today the BBC is airing a 75 minute special finally revealing the secrets of the Time War. What did you think of the special? And what's your fondest memory of Who? And what about that Capaldi guy?" Okian Warrior pointed out today's Google doodle too.

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

What do you mean, "did you think"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45502577)

It's only just started this minute.

Re:What do you mean, "did you think"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45502609)

Since when do you need to know what you are talking about to comment on Slashdot?

Re:What do you mean, "did you think"? (1)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#45503175)

Yes, but the tadpole with the wheatabix was something not many people noticed

Re:What do you mean, "did you think"? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45502655)

I see you're not a Timelord.

Re:What do you mean, "did you think"? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#45502703)

You've just revealed who the tard is.

Re:What do you mean, "did you think"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503063)

Who knows.

Re:What do you mean, "did you think"? (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year ago | (#45503873)

It's only just started this minute.

Time travelers commenting on stories always have spoilers.

Re:What do you mean, "did you think"? (1)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#45504001)

and sometimes racing stripes

2nd Dr (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45502597)

Troughton FTW.
Pity so much of his stuff has been lost as he was such a great character; the development past grumpy educational granddad to the different forms we know today.

Re:2nd Dr (1)

Insomnium (1415023) | about a year ago | (#45502971)

Troughton FTW. Pity so much of his stuff has been lost as he was such a great character; the development past grumpy educational granddad to the different forms we know today.

most of the lost material was found a few months back.

Re:2nd Dr (2)

mikael (484) | about a year ago | (#45504047)

They announced that there are 7 new episodes that have been recovered. Some guy had recorded the shows broadcast live using a cine-camera but he lost the sound. Fortunately, the BBC had keep the sound reels, but had lost the video. They were able to combine both together.

I just hope they would be able to do something crazy like find out that the magnetic heads of the recording machines were strong enough to leave some kind of signal on the audio tapes.

Thought this site was supposed to be news... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45502627)

for nerds! I don't know any that like that garbage. We're all sci-fi fans so we instead like shows like Star Trek or Stargate. What's next? Gossip about Dexter?

Re:Thought this site was supposed to be news... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45502709)

Gossip about Dexter?

The serial killer or the one with a laboratory?

Re:Thought this site was supposed to be news... (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#45503075)

The serial killer had a laboratory, too. ;-)

Re:Thought this site was supposed to be news... (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#45503395)

The live action serial killer, or the animated serial killer?

Re:Thought this site was supposed to be news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503531)

The one with the hot sister, presumably (and remember, pedophelia is frowned upon)

Re:Thought this site was supposed to be news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503867)

Dee Dee?

Who's popular where? (1)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about a year ago | (#45502629)

Although the Tardis has its many fans worldwide, it's most popular in the UK. Which proves once again that it's bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.

(Disclaimer: I don't know if that's really true, but it was necessary to construct the above "joke".)

Re:Who's popular where? (2)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#45503191)

Hmmm. Looks like you edited the joke right out of your comment.

Re:Who's popular where? (1)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about a year ago | (#45504187)

You're right, sorry. I'd promise that it won't happen again, except it probably will.

Traditions... (5, Funny)

Dartz-IRL (1640117) | about a year ago | (#45502661)

The couch has been moved a metre forward from the wall, and I have adopted the traditional viewing position.

And here come the Daleks.

EXTERMINATE!

Re:Traditions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45502675)

spoilers...

Re:Traditions... (1)

coastwalker (307620) | about a year ago | (#45502747)

Dont be silly, most of us have already watched it, twice. Anyway you can be sure that first post will keep changing.

Re:Traditions... (2)

Dartz-IRL (1640117) | about a year ago | (#45502831)

I think the presence of the Daleks is a given on an event of this magnitude.

Re:Traditions... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503469)

I bet it's also a tradition for you to get gang raped by Linux faggots 3 times a week. Right?
 
Fuck you, fuck your television and fuck Islam.

conspiracy! (3, Funny)

Dthief (1700318) | about a year ago | (#45502691)

It all makes sense now....Dr. Who was on the grassy knoll the whole time

Re:conspiracy! (2)

murdocj (543661) | about a year ago | (#45503593)

no... but he will be.

Re: conspiracy! (2)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year ago | (#45503921)

Wrong British sci fi series. It was Lister, Rimmer and Kriten

Re: conspiracy! (1)

murdocj (543661) | about a year ago | (#45503973)

Well... the doctor has lots of time. so to speak.

Re:conspiracy! (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45504163)

See if you can find the book "Who Killed Kennedy" for the truth. About a lot of things.

You'll note there's no question mark in the title...

I am the only one? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45502719)

I never could stand Doctor Who, new or old. I've tried several time, but it's just too hokey..

Re:I am the only one? (2)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#45503213)

And that's what it's all about then, isn't it? The hokey. Or close to it. It's all abit hokey wokey ...ish

Who? (0)

Pharoah_69 (2866937) | about a year ago | (#45502731)

The old Dr. Who was great. He had one great scarf that was distinctive, not to mention the "Afro." He probably had all the ladies back then.

Re:Who? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503969)

It's Doctor Who, not Dr. Who.

check this with proof (-1, Offtopic)

Olivia Wood (3442129) | about a year ago | (#45502755)

ONLINE JOB my unmarried friend has twin toddlers and revamped $9k her 1st month. It feels therefore sensible creating abundant|such a lot|most} cash once others have to be compelled to work for thus much less. this is often what I do =======>> WWW.BLUE48.COM ONLINE JOB

Re:check this with proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503917)

With that nickname your campaign will soon become flaccid here. I know, I peeked behind the Tardis door.

Where can I stream or buy this online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45502765)

I assume this will show up on iTunes some time later this week (last season, they had every episode the day after)? Anywhere else?

Why are Internet audiences still apparently treated as second-class?

Re:Where can I stream or buy this online? (1)

rduke15 (721841) | about a year ago | (#45503025)

Yes, where is the link? I'm not in the UK, so I can't see it. Where is the torrent???

Re:Where can I stream or buy this online? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503091)

Fuck torrents, I don't mind paying money for TV. I won't pay $80 a month for a bunch of garbage I don't want to watch, but I do buy shows I want to watch online. I can never get shows on the same day the TV audiences get them though. And the selection is more limited. And some shows don't even come out the same day every week (occasionally they're delayed a whole week!), so TV night is sometimes a bust. Sometimes I feel silly paying for this type of treatment instead of just using torrents like a 'normal' person.

Re: Where can I stream or buy this online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503745)

Is now a good time to remind everybody here I pay 130 quid a year and get what I am fucking given?

Took me 21:45 to beat the Google game (5, Funny)

HatofPig (904660) | about a year ago | (#45502851)

That was pretty fun! I wasted 10 regenerations trying to get past the Crying Angel in the graveyard.

Science Magic != Science Fiction (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45502883)

I haven't seen much of the old series, but I've been watching the revival up through about 2009. I've lost almost all interest though. Nearly every show has multiple deus ex machina, or should I say science ex machina. He lives in a world of the most crazy hocus-pocus magic I've ever seen, but it's supposed to be alright since a quick spouting of psuedoscientific technobabble can explain away any and all supernatural phenomena. It's all the excitement of a really weird supernatural universe, yet within the comfortable box of scientific naturalism.

Re:Science Magic != Science Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45502987)

The things you accuse the show of are all true, but I have no idea why you think that means it isn't science fiction, or how it's different from almost any other widely-popular scifi show (or even why that necessarily means it's not good).

Re:Science Magic != Science Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503037)

It's pretty campy. It is science fiction, just not good science fiction.

Re:Science Magic != Science Fiction (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#45503497)

I don't consider it campy. But of course, my thinking of 'campy' is that everyone says the 1960s Batman tv show was campy. So 'campy' means not just slightly goofy and fun, but it has to be stupidly idiotic in a non-serious way. Doctor Who might be non-serious sci-fi, and it certainly has goofy elements in it, but it's not stupidly idiotic. Most of its drawbacks, for lack of a better term, stem from it being a show made by and for British public tv. It didn't have the budget of top-ranked American shows, so it looks more like a B-movie than our shows. But that doesn't make it campy.

Re: Science Magic != Science Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45504189)

It actually has a reasonable budget. In homage to its origins and its fans' expectations it walks the line between goofy sets and polished proper sets. UK fans often damn shows that dramatically change when they get momey so it hasn't much choice really.

Re:Science Magic != Science Fiction (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503807)

It's fiction couched in science and technology. This frees the writers from the constraints of "normal" life, free to explore what it is to be human by taking the human experience beyond anything we could imagine ourselves. In this way, we can understand ourselves a little better. What would we do if faced with outlandish moral problem X?, who would we save in quandary Y?, what path would we choose in mystery Z? and so on.

At it's heart, it's fiction, not an educational science show.

Summary: he's in a police box travelling through space and time, and you're complaining about scientific inaccuracy now?

Tom Baker (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45502993)

Enough said.

Re:Tom Baker (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#45503147)

SPOILERS...

Pretty ironic, him showing up for the 50th anniversary episode and related "about" shows, after he was such a prick about NOT doing the 25th. At least we know Eccleston wasn't asked.

Re:Tom Baker (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#45503919)

He will always be remembered as the legless pirate on Blackadder. Oooh, what a big ship I've got.

Google doodle? (1)

rduke15 (721841) | about a year ago | (#45503039)

What Google doodle? Was it yesterday?

It's here (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#45503135)

It should be on Google's home page [google.com] , starting Saturday.

Perhaps it's not Saturday yet where you are? Or maybe it's locked by country-code or something?

Re:It's here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503215)

It's on google.co.uk.

Re:It's here (1)

rduke15 (721841) | about a year ago | (#45503293)

Yes, it's only on google.co.uk for me. It's actually not only a logo, but a silly little game. Funny.

Re:It's here (2)

BarryHaworth (536145) | about a year ago | (#45503313)

It should be on Google's home page [google.com] , starting Saturday.

Perhaps it's not Saturday yet where you are? Or maybe it's locked by country-code or something?

Here in Australia we got it on Friday. And we got the special on local TV at the same time as the UK.

Re:Google doodle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503233)

No not yesterday, I played it tomorrow.

trolls (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503043)

To all the crybabies:
Complaining about Doctor Who for not being scientifically accurate is as stupid as complaining about The Lord of The Rings for not being historically accurate. Now, go f**k yourself.

Favorite moments (4, Informative)

murdocj (543661) | about a year ago | (#45503045)

My favorite doctor is Tom Baker... all the energy, the scarf, the huge grin, the way he could challenge just about any evil, despite the odds.

I loved how the Doctor got pulled into locating the keys to time:

White Guardian asks the Doctor to locate the keys.
Doctor: What happens if I say no?
White Guardian: Nothing
Doctor: Nothing?
White Guardian: Nothing
Doctor: Nothing???
White Guardian: Nothing... ever

I must admit, though, one of the best moments is when BBC revived Dr. Who and had an episode (maybe the first episode) where the Doctor takes Rose billions of years into the future, with the sun about to engulf the earth. To the Doctor, it's just all part of the normal cycle of things... just on a larger scale. But Rose is overcome watching the extinction of her planet. It makes you realize that the Doctor is NOT just a guy with a time machine... he's an alien, with a completely alien view of the universe.

Re:Favorite moments (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#45503173)

The new series had a similar line, but it might be just coincidence.

Doctor: "Nothing happens. And it keeps on happening."

Something like that, anyway. The consequence of trying to change a fixed moment in time.

Gn44 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503077)

all parties it's a relatively than this BSD box, overly morbid and OUTER SPACE THE And Juliet 40,000 than its Windows 40,000 coming to keep up as bought the farm...

What number system (2)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#45503089)

What number system do Time Lords use?

If its Hexadecimal then 12 regenerations iis not a problem for a while at least.

Re:What number system (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#45503187)

I think the TARDIS translation system handles that in the same way it handles language, given that it's never come up before.

Re:What number system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503195)

Base 60

Re:What number system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503501)

Melody Pond gave him all of her extra regenerations anyway, so its already solved that there'll be more regenerations after Peter Capaldi.

Although Moffat's complaining about "where did the fans get this number of regenerations?" nonsense... duh, you emphasized it again by having the time lords saying "All 13 of him!"

Too retro (0)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#45503145)

Dr. Who, Star [Wars|Gate|Dreck]. Too retro. I'm old enough to remember when they all started. They had their day. They need to disappear into history.

Even Ender's Game is retro. I read the original short story when it came out in 1977. It was a good short story. Then it was turned into a long, dreary series. Then a movie. Now Lionsgate is planning a second movie or TV series. Are we going to have to put up with that whole series as movies?

This week "Hunger Games #2", which is at least original. Its first copy is "Divergent", coming out soon. There's a whole section of post-apocalyptic teen novels in print, and, the vampire/werewolf/zombie thing having run its course, we'll be seeing more of those. There's a glut of "chosen one teen hero" movies. It worked for Harry Potter, but it's been downhill since then. Low point: "The Last Airbender", or "Why M. Night Shyamalan sucks".

(Recommended reading in that genre: "Stormdancer", by Jay Kristoff. It's Japanese drama by a gaijin, but it's well executed and has film potential.)

Re:Too retro (4, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | about a year ago | (#45503237)

Yes, the "original" Hunger Games which is nothing at all like Battle Royale...

Re:Too retro (5, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45504185)

Dr. Who, Star [Wars|Gate|Dreck]. Too retro. I'm old enough to remember when they all started. They had their day. They need to disappear into history.

You know, you can just stop watching something if you don't like it.

Are we going to have to put up with that whole series as movies?

Unless you're going to be dragged into the cinema against your will and clamped into the chair with your eyelids propped up a la Clockwork Orange, no, you're not going to have to put up with it.

They had their day. They need to disappear into history.

Your opinion doesn't trump everyone else's. Sorry.

Watched (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#45503151)

The zygon framing story seemed a bit forced - it just distracted from the more important events. The main story went very, very nicely. Canon consistancy achieved quite well (Packed full of references to the classic series), though I think I saw them acknowledge the existance of the movie in there - and that alone is a serious, serious problem.

Fans *deny* that movie.

And the temporal hypercomputer trick? That was just very cool.

Re:Watched (4, Informative)

Spad (470073) | about a year ago | (#45503247)

The "Night of the Doctor" prelude already established the McGann Doctor (including radio plays) as canon.

Re:Watched (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#45503403)

Which creates a problem. Dr Who is infamous for the loose canon, but the movie is bad even by Dr Who standards. Daleks being *polite*? The doctor being somehow half human, a characteristic never acknowledged anywhere else?

Re:Watched (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503583)

Tennet's severed hand grew into a half-human/half-timelord when pumped full of regeneration energy (although he only had one heart), and as we've seen with Melody Pond, Time Lords are essentially just humans forcibly evolved by the Time Vortex, so the "half human" thing isnt really outside the realm of possibility. And if nothing else, it can just be chalked up to "the doctor lies."

Re:Watched (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45504195)

If you go around calling it "Dr Who" and not capitalising "Doctor," you may find your ideas getting short shrift ;)

Re:Watched (1)

BarryHaworth (536145) | about a year ago | (#45503333)

And the temporal hypercomputer trick? That was just very cool.

Yes ... but what sort of techno geek uses the same device for 400 years and doesn't even update the OS?

Re:Watched (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#45503393)

He's replaced the screwdriver several times, including upgrading the hardware - apparently he just copies over the software each time, probably because it'd take years to get it working the way he likes otherwise.

Re:Watched (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503429)

Yes ... but what sort of techno geek uses the same device for 400 years and doesn't even update the OS?

No Gallifrey, no updates.

Re:Watched (1)

RDW (41497) | about a year ago | (#45503809)

Yes, it's like being stranded in 2015 with a Blackberry, the last of your kind.

Re:Watched (2)

Bogtha (906264) | about a year ago | (#45504207)

The Zygon framing story set up the solution to the Time War - the Warrior Doctor said as much when he remarked that the Ghost of Christmas Future didn't just take him to any future, it took him to the future he needed to see - i.e. it led him to the solution by specifically showing him the Zygon event. The Zygon framing story showed the audience how a stasis cube is used to freeze something in time (via the paintings), and it showed how the Doctor can take advantage of his multiple incarnations to perform a task that would normally take centuries (via the door unlocking), which were used to a) end the Time War in a different way and b) to provide an excuse for involving all of the Doctor's incarnations.

Best Doctor Who coverage = The Register (5, Informative)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about a year ago | (#45503163)

The best 50th anniversary coverage I've seen by far is over the The Register. (Yes, the same publication you read to find out what will be on SlashDot tomorrow.)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/23/doctor_who_is_50/ [theregister.co.uk]

A good 75 minutes (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about a year ago | (#45503169)

I am just wondering who will empty the cup of tea and find Gallifrey. It will make it more interesting if a few Time Lords can be brought into future plots.

This is cool, and I'm not even a fan of the show! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503209)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUBxHd3bMhg

Dumbing it down (2)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#45503359)

The mystery of the Time War is part of the mythos - don't explain it, then it's just a thing. When Tennant told the Master about "the could-have-been-King" that was awesome - left you just enough to wonder and imagine what happened. BBC is killing Dr Who by commoditizing it.

Re:Dumbing it down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503445)

Did you watch it or are you just posting assuming you know what's going on?

Re:Dumbing it down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503923)

And all of that still happened. The question is, how did it end? Followed by the question, how did it REALLY end?

Personally, I think they did fine. Take your cynicism elsewhere, Doctor Who has no room for it. :p

Didn't like it (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503437)

I seem to be massively in the minority here, but I wasn't impressed with the 50th anniversary Dr Who episode.

Aside from the randomness of running around with Queen Elizabeth I, I don't understand why writers feel it is necessary for them to retcon an established story's past. We've always known that the Doctor did something awful that resulted in the destruction of Gallifrey and the Daleks, and although it ended the Time War and saved the galaxy, it is something the Doctor has always felt very guilty about.

However, the writers of the show decided that they could fix this problem by "freezing" Gallifrey in a fixed point in time, rather than burning it. This, they reasoned, would result in the planet and the Time Lords being saved, but the Daleks being destroyed. How? Simple - they would destroy one another in the crossfire.

No. No, they wouldn't. There are millions and millions of Dalek ships surrounding the planet. They wouldn't just keep firing once the planet popped out of existence, wiping all their forces out. They would stop as soon as Gallifrey vanished, leaving the galaxy to attempt to face (and lose to) a huge army of rampaging Daleks. And even if they did something kill each other in the crossfire, the Daleks on the surface of the planet are just as frozen in time as the citizens of the world.

Why change what the Doctor did? Why remove that flaw, in an attempt to make him whiter-than-white?! The destruction of his homeworld was the Doctor's burden to shoulder. Taking that away makes him less human (I'm aware of the irony there, as he's actually an alien).

Re:Didn't like it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503953)

Because the phrase "there was no choice" doesn't apply to the Doctor. There's always another way, even when it seems there isn't.

Also... To get technical (dear god, defending the science in Doctor Who... that's almost heresy!), the Daleks were bombarding the planet from orbit. Being Daleks, expect a mathematically precise bombardment pattern organized for maximum efficiency. Now factor in how long the weapons take to reach the planet once fired, and explain how they make their energy blasts stop in mid flight?

My question is what would happen to the Dalek fleet when the rather large gravity well they were standing on top of vanished?

*** SOMEWHAT SPOILERISH *** (1, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about a year ago | (#45503467)

I just got back from watching the simulcast, and it was so fantastic, I can hardly see straight!

"Inhaler!"

My favorites: The "War Doctor", the Brigadier's daughter, Dr Who - King of England(!), Gallifrey Stands!, and my VERY favorite, the "Curator". Holy crap, I wasn't expecting the Curator!

Re:*** SOMEWHAT SPOILERISH *** (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45504203)

Holy crap, I wasn't expecting the Curator!

I knew something was up, but... well, spoilers, but: blub.

Night of the Doctor mini prequel (1)

Kilsally (3442175) | about a year ago | (#45503481)

Night of the Doctor mini prequel on BBC YouTube Channel http://bit.ly/1cJgVLP [bit.ly] the 8th Doctor regenerates into the John Hurt #drwho

Re:Night of the Doctor mini prequel (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45504205)

#drwho

Yeeeaaah no.

Fantastic entertainment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45503573)

Really kept the pace up and "I wonder what will happen next" factor at a high level all the way through. And the John Hurt character was brilliant and quite different from what we had been led to expect. As for the nerds currently moaning about "the canon" because their favourite pet theories have been exterminated, calm down and have a jelly baby.

Great basis to take the series forward from too once the equally intriguing looking Xmas episode has played out.

I only wish (2)

drewsup (990717) | about a year ago | (#45503627)

The curator, when done talking to Matt Smith, had pulled that little rumpled bag from his coat pocket and said the magic words...
"Jelly Baby?"

Too bad the Daleks won (2)

Livius (318358) | about a year ago | (#45503835)

...the Time War since the only Daleks defeated were the ones in close orbit around Gallifrey, which certainly was not all of them.

I don't expect perfection from Doctor Who script-writing but I expected better.

Re:Too bad the Daleks won (1)

tie_guy_matt (176397) | about a year ago | (#45504007)

In later episodes they already established that some daleks survived. Besides you can't kill off all the daleks. It wouldn't be Doctor Who w/o Daleks! There are some episodes you can think about afterward. However, like most sci fi it is probably better if you just sit enjoy and realize that it is still better than most of what is on tv -- try not to think too much about it afterwards!

Move the doctors up one? (1)

tie_guy_matt (176397) | about a year ago | (#45503931)

So does this mean that John Hurt is the nineth doctor and Christopher Eccleston is the tenth? Or is John Hurt the 12 doctor? Does it go by when they were introduced on the show or by the Doctor's age? Or is John Hurt not getting counted? Paul McGann was in only one episode and he counts. Actually we never saw Paul McGann turn into John Hurt and we really didn't see John Hurt turn into Christopher Eccleston (he was turning into another doctor but I guess they couldn't get Christopher Eccleston to do a cameo) so in the future could they just keep pulling out more and more past doctors? The nerd in me wants to know!

Re:Move the doctors up one? (1)

Pop69 (700500) | about a year ago | (#45504055)

The Movie Doctor turns into the War Doctor in the Night of the Doctor mini episode.

The comment about the ears in the War Doctor regeneration at the end makes it pretty clear he's turning into the Rose Doctor

Re:Move the doctors up one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45504095)

So does this mean that John Hurt is the nineth doctor and Christopher Eccleston is the tenth? Or is John Hurt the 12 doctor? Does it go by when they were introduced on the show or by the Doctor's age? Or is John Hurt not getting counted? Paul McGann was in only one episode and he counts. Actually we never saw Paul McGann turn into John Hurt and we really didn't see John Hurt turn into Christopher Eccleston (he was turning into another doctor but I guess they couldn't get Christopher Eccleston to do a cameo) so in the future could they just keep pulling out more and more past doctors? The nerd in me wants to know!

Perhaps Paul McGann & John Hurt are the same Doctor? The Time War went for a Long Time.
Perhaps the Doctor aged, linear fashion in one timeline before regenerating?

What's the name of it?? (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | about a year ago | (#45503965)

I am missing out otherwise..

I looked through the site and I am missing it completely...

Don't miss the Peter Davison special... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45504103)

The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot [bbc.co.uk] , a 30-minute "behind the scenes" written and directed by 5th Doctor Peter Davison [wikipedia.org] ...

It's got everyone. Including cameo appearances by Peter Jackson and Ian McKellen (~13:00)...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?