SUPPOSEDLY!
There have been numerous examples in the past where a moron in
management says something (not just TV and movies either) is not being >cancelled, only to then turn around weeks or months later to say it is >cancelled.
BBC: Doctor Who "Going forward, with or without Disney",
Spin-off Confirmed for 2026
--------------------------------------------------------
After several months of uncertainty, the BBC has reassured
audiences that Doctor Who is here to stay, although they
stopped short of confirming a new series.
Speaking at the Edinburgh TV Festival, Kate Phillips, Chief
Content Officer at the BBC, underlined the broadcaster's
commitment to the Time Lord's future.
"Any Whovians out there, rest assured - Doctor Who is going
nowhere," she asserted.
Phillips acknowledged the importance of the ongoing
collaboration with Disney, which has boosted the show's
global reach.
"Disney has been a great partnership and it continues with
The War Between The Land And The Sea next year but, going
forward, with or without Disney, Doctor Who will still be
on the BBC."
She sealed her comments with a reassurance that will please
fans: "The TARDIS is going nowhere."
The War Between The Land And The Sea becomes the first
spin-off of Russell T Davies' second era, with the BBC
confirming a 2026 debut after earlier speculation of a
late-2025 release.
Lindsay Salt, the BBC's Director of Drama, added that the
broadcaster was "committed" to Doctor Who, praising its
strong connection with younger viewers. She admitted that
"there's no update at the moment" on the main series, but
promised, "we will share as soon as we can".
We will still have to wait for official confirmation of a
new series, but the signs are more encouraging than fans
have seen in a while, particularly after the low ratings of
Series 15.
<https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/phillips-doctor-who-future-106105.htm>
SUPPOSEDLY!
There have been numerous examples in the past where a moron in
management says something (not just TV and movies either) is not being cancelled, only to then turn around weeks or months later to say it is cancelled.
BBC: Doctor Who "Going forward, with or without Disney",
Spin-off Confirmed for 2026
--------------------------------------------------------
After several months of uncertainty, the BBC has reassured
audiences that Doctor Who is here to stay, although they
stopped short of confirming a new series.
Speaking at the Edinburgh TV Festival, Kate Phillips, Chief
Content Officer at the BBC, underlined the broadcaster's
commitment to the Time Lord's future.
"Any Whovians out there, rest assured - Doctor Who is going
nowhere," she asserted.
Phillips acknowledged the importance of the ongoing
collaboration with Disney, which has boosted the show's
global reach.
"Disney has been a great partnership and it continues with
The War Between The Land And The Sea next year but, going
forward, with or without Disney, Doctor Who will still be
on the BBC."
She sealed her comments with a reassurance that will please
fans: "The TARDIS is going nowhere."
The War Between The Land And The Sea becomes the first
spin-off of Russell T Davies' second era, with the BBC
confirming a 2026 debut after earlier speculation of a
late-2025 release.
Lindsay Salt, the BBC's Director of Drama, added that the
broadcaster was "committed" to Doctor Who, praising its
strong connection with younger viewers. She admitted that
"there's no update at the moment" on the main series, but
promised, "we will share as soon as we can".
We will still have to wait for official confirmation of a
new series, but the signs are more encouraging than fans
have seen in a while, particularly after the low ratings of
Series 15.
<https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/phillips-doctor-who-future-106105.htm>
On 21/08/2025 22:28, Your Name wrote:
SUPPOSEDLY!
There have been numerous examples in the past where a moron in
management says something (not just TV and movies either) is not being
cancelled, only to then turn around weeks or months later to say it is
cancelled.
BBC: Doctor Who "Going forward, with or without Disney",
Spin-off Confirmed for 2026
--------------------------------------------------------
After several months of uncertainty, the BBC has reassured
audiences that Doctor Who is here to stay, although they
stopped short of confirming a new series.
Speaking at the Edinburgh TV Festival, Kate Phillips, Chief
Content Officer at the BBC, underlined the broadcaster's
commitment to the Time Lord's future.
"Any Whovians out there, rest assured - Doctor Who is going
nowhere," she asserted.
Phillips acknowledged the importance of the ongoing
collaboration with Disney, which has boosted the show's
global reach.
"Disney has been a great partnership and it continues with
The War Between The Land And The Sea next year but, going
forward, with or without Disney, Doctor Who will still be
on the BBC."
She sealed her comments with a reassurance that will please
fans: "The TARDIS is going nowhere."
The TARDIS is going nowhere. Sounds like a broken down vehicle. It
hasn't been anywhere since Doctor Who ended in 2017 and it's not going >anywhere now.
The War Between The Land And The Sea becomes the first
spin-off of Russell T Davies' second era, with the BBC
confirming a 2026 debut after earlier speculation of a
late-2025 release.
Lindsay Salt, the BBC's Director of Drama, added that the
broadcaster was "committed" to Doctor Who, praising its
strong connection with younger viewers. She admitted that
She is living in fantasy land. There are no children watching the
infantile woke degeneracy that Doctor Who has been turned into. No
decent parent would let their child watch it and be sexual groomed.
"there's no update at the moment" on the main series, but
promised, "we will share as soon as we can".
We will still have to wait for official confirmation of a
new series, but the signs are more encouraging than fans
have seen in a while, particularly after the low ratings of
Series 15.
<https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/phillips-doctor-who-future-106105.htm> >>
The BBC have just confirmed that the TARDIS is going nowhere. The show
is dead!
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
Verily, in article <10886ne$17fpj$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
The TARDIS is going nowhere. Sounds like a broken down vehicle.
She could definitely have phrased that better!
She also said that Doctor Who is going nowhere, though.
Verily, in article <10886ne$17fpj$1@dont-email.me>, did >agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
The TARDIS is going nowhere. Sounds like a broken down vehicle.
She could definitely have phrased that better!
She also said that Doctor Who is going nowhere, though.
--
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul.
--George Bernard Shaw
On 22/08/2025 00:29, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <10886ne$17fpj$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
The TARDIS is going nowhere. Sounds like a broken down vehicle.
She could definitely have phrased that better!
She also said that Doctor Who is going nowhere, though.
It's totally in limbo then. It won't go on Disney+, on HBO Max, on Prime >Video, on Netflix, and on the BBC either. It's going nowhere along with
the TARDIS.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
Verily, in article <10886ne$17fpj$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
The TARDIS is going nowhere. Sounds like a broken down
vehicle.
She could definitely have phrased that better!
She also said that Doctor Who is going nowhere, though.
In article <xn0p9ui50d0y7i0002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
She could definitely have phrased that better!
She also said that Doctor Who is going nowhere, though.
It's too big a show for the BBC for them to just drop it...
they could do with bringing in a new showrunner, one with no
previous Doctor Who baggage, and freshen it up by making the
show about the Doctor again and dropping all those silly
cameo's and throwback arcs that RTD seems obsessed with.
That is the argument that I have been making.
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <10886ne$17fpj$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
The TARDIS is going nowhere. Sounds like a broken down
vehicle.
She could definitely have phrased that better!
She also said that Doctor Who is going nowhere, though.
It's too big a show for the BBC for them to just drop it... they
could do with bringing in a new showrunner, one with no previous
Doctor Who baggage, and freshen it up by making the show about
the Doctor again and dropping all those silly cameo's and
throwback arcs that RTD seems obsessed with.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p9ui50d0y7i0002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
She could definitely have phrased that better!
She also said that Doctor Who is going nowhere, though.
It's too big a show for the BBC for them to just drop it...
they could do with bringing in a new showrunner, one with no
previous Doctor Who baggage, and freshen it up by making the
show about the Doctor again and dropping all those silly
cameo's and throwback arcs that RTD seems obsessed with.
That is the argument that I have been making.
Then make your argument properly instead of one line sound-bites
like "RTD must be sacked" or "retcon the Timeless Child"
repeatedly posted in the middle of a discussion...
Engage in the discussions here like an adult and stop the
nonsense.
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <10886ne$17fpj$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
The TARDIS is going nowhere. Sounds like a broken down
vehicle.
She could definitely have phrased that better!
She also said that Doctor Who is going nowhere, though.
It's too big a show for the BBC for them to just drop it... they
could do with bringing in a new showrunner, one with no previous
Doctor Who baggage, and freshen it up by making the show about
the Doctor again and dropping all those silly cameo's and
throwback arcs that RTD seems obsessed with.
Verily, in article <xn0p9ui50d0y7i0002@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
It's too big a show for the BBC for them to just drop it... they
could do with bringing in a new showrunner, one with no previous
Doctor Who baggage, and freshen it up by making the show about
the Doctor again and dropping all those silly cameo's and
throwback arcs that RTD seems obsessed with.
It might be best to let it mellow for a couple of years. After that,
they could do a sort of soft reboot where they get back to the show's
roots. A break could let them attract kids who haven't already learned
that the Doctor is cringe.
Verily, in article <1089r0k$1iv1j$2@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
There is no way it can ever recover from that unless there's a complete
reboot from either Sylvester McCoy or Paul McGann
Why would we have to go back that far? I liked the Eccleston year and
most of Tennant as Ten, though it did start spinning out a bit at the
end.
I liked most of Matt Smith's era as well. IMO, things didn't really get
bad until Capaldi's tenure. MISI/Missy/The Mistress was probably the beginning of the end.
"Disney has been a great partnership and it continues with
The War Between The Land And The Sea next year but, going
forward, with or without Disney, Doctor Who will still be
on the BBC."
Verily, in article <1089uoq$1iv1j$5@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Tennant killed off all of his street-cred when he came
back and allowed himself to be attacked and insulted for
being a man by a transgender bigot and their bigoted mother,
Well, that's true enough, but I'm still okay with keeping his
run as Ten.
It's the return which stank up the airwaves.
SUPPOSEDLY!
There have been numerous examples in the past where a moron in
management says something (not just TV and movies either) is not being >cancelled, only to then turn around weeks or months later to say it is >cancelled.
In article <108832o$16p5g$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com wrote:
SUPPOSEDLY!
There have been numerous examples in the past where a moron
in management says something (not just TV and movies either)
is not being cancelled, only to then turn around weeks or
months later to say it is cancelled.
I imagine this spin-off is as doomed as doomed can be!
Verily, in article <xn0p9utpn21xn18000@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
David Tennant's return was RTD replaying his greatest hits
and hoping the popular pairing of Ten (aka Fourteen) and
Donna would restore some fan credibility and help the show
recover from Jodie's era.
I agree. That's what I said as soon as I heard he was coming
back. He probably hoped the early audiences would flock back,
but it doesn't work that way.
I hope this massive retcon happens and happens well, but I
don't have much confidence.
Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <108832o$16p5g$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com wrote:
SUPPOSEDLY!
There have been numerous examples in the past where a moron
in management says something (not just TV and movies either)
is not being cancelled, only to then turn around weeks or
months later to say it is cancelled.
I imagine this spin-off is as doomed as doomed can be!
The BBC don't seem to be in a rush to air it anyway...
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0p9utpn21xn18000@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
David Tennant's return was RTD replaying his greatest hits
and hoping the popular pairing of Ten (aka Fourteen) and
Donna would restore some fan credibility and help the show
recover from Jodie's era.
I agree. That's what I said as soon as I heard he was coming
back. He probably hoped the early audiences would flock back,
but it doesn't work that way.
I hope this massive retcon happens and happens well, but I
don't have much confidence.
RTD's arrogance and ego will stop him retconning anything...
the only chance the show has going forward is for a fresh start
with a new showrunner... not the return of Billie Piper and
David Tennant in more of the same.
Verily, in article <1089r0k$1iv1j$2@dont-email.me>, did >agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
There is no way it can ever recover from that unless there's a complete
reboot from either Sylvester McCoy or Paul McGann
Why would we have to go back that far? I liked the Eccleston year and
most of Tennant as Ten, though it did start spinning out a bit at the
end.
I liked most of Matt Smith's era as well. IMO, things didn't really get
bad until Capaldi's tenure. MISI/Missy/The Mistress was probably the >beginning of the end.
--
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul.
--George Bernard Shaw
Verily, in article <xn0p9ui50d0y7i0002@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
It's too big a show for the BBC for them to just drop it... they
could do with bringing in a new showrunner, one with no previous
Doctor Who baggage, and freshen it up by making the show about
the Doctor again and dropping all those silly cameo's and
throwback arcs that RTD seems obsessed with.
It might be best to let it mellow for a couple of years. After that,
they could do a sort of soft reboot where they get back to the show's
roots. A break could let them attract kids who haven't already learned
that the Doctor is cringe.
--
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul.
--George Bernard Shaw
On 22/08/2025 14:31, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0p9ui50d0y7i0002@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
It's too big a show for the BBC for them to just drop it... they
could do with bringing in a new showrunner, one with no previous
Doctor Who baggage, and freshen it up by making the show about
the Doctor again and dropping all those silly cameo's and
throwback arcs that RTD seems obsessed with.
It might be best to let it mellow for a couple of years. After that,
they could do a sort of soft reboot where they get back to the show's
roots. A break could let them attract kids who haven't already learned
that the Doctor is cringe.
You mean transgender and gay. The show is dead! No decent parent will
let their children watch it ever again, and no child that has watched it >would ever admit to it at school.
No head of drama in their right mind would have ever agreed to the
Doctor being gender swapped and being turned gay. The BBC only have >themselves to blame.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
"Disney has been a great partnership and it continues with
The War Between The Land And The Sea next year but, going
forward, with or without Disney, Doctor Who will still be
on the BBC."
Has there been a threat/any hope that Disney might become uninvolved
with
Doctor Who?
* SLMR 2.1a * "High as a kite, everybody! Goofballs!!"-Chief Wiggum
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <1089uoq$1iv1j$5@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Tennant killed off all of his street-cred when he came
back and allowed himself to be attacked and insulted for
being a man by a transgender bigot and their bigoted mother,
Well, that's true enough, but I'm still okay with keeping his
run as Ten.
Ten's run was fine. Well, until all of the "I don't want to
go" stuff at the end... which was just lame.
Jodie Whittaker regenerating into David Tennant was RTD doing
his clickbait television thing to get people talking about
Doctor Who ... he's now done the same thing with Billie Piper.
It's the return which stank up the airwaves.
David Tennant's return was RTD replaying his greatest hits
and hoping the popular pairing of Ten (aka Fourteen) and Donna
would restore some fan credibility and help the show recover
from Jodie's era.
In article <108832o$16p5g$1@dont-email.me>, YourName@YourISP.com wrote:
SUPPOSEDLY!
There have been numerous examples in the past where a moron in
management says something (not just TV and movies either) is not being >>cancelled, only to then turn around weeks or months later to say it is >>cancelled.
I imagine this spin-off is as doomed as doomed can be!
Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <108832o$16p5g$1@dont-email.me>,
YourName@YourISP.com wrote:
SUPPOSEDLY!
There have been numerous examples in the past where a moron
in management says something (not just TV and movies either)
is not being cancelled, only to then turn around weeks or
months later to say it is cancelled.
I imagine this spin-off is as doomed as doomed can be!
The BBC don't seem to be in a rush to air it anyway...
Verily, in article <xn0p9utpn21xn18000@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
Ten's run was fine. Well, until all of the "I don't want to
go" stuff at the end... which was just lame.
Yeah, the end was lame. Some people thought he was whiny throughout, but
I thought it was good until the whiny end.
David Tennant's return was RTD replaying his greatest hits
and hoping the popular pairing of Ten (aka Fourteen) and Donna
would restore some fan credibility and help the show recover
from Jodie's era.
I agree. That's what I said as soon as I heard he was coming back. He >probably hoped the early audiences would flock back, but it doesn't work
that way.
I hope this massive retcon happens and happens well, but I don't have
much confidence.
--
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul.
--George Bernard Shaw
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0p9utpn21xn18000@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
David Tennant's return was RTD replaying his greatest hits
and hoping the popular pairing of Ten (aka Fourteen) and
Donna would restore some fan credibility and help the show
recover from Jodie's era.
I agree. That's what I said as soon as I heard he was coming
back. He probably hoped the early audiences would flock back,
but it doesn't work that way.
I hope this massive retcon happens and happens well, but I
don't have much confidence.
RTD's arrogance and ego will stop him retconning anything...
the only chance the show has going forward is for a fresh start
with a new showrunner... not the return of Billie Piper and
David Tennant in more of the same.
On 22/08/2025 21:00, Blueshirt wrote:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0p9utpn21xn18000@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
David Tennant's return was RTD replaying his greatest hits
and hoping the popular pairing of Ten (aka Fourteen) and
Donna would restore some fan credibility and help the show
recover from Jodie's era.
I agree. That's what I said as soon as I heard he was coming
back. He probably hoped the early audiences would flock back,
but it doesn't work that way.
I hope this massive retcon happens and happens well, but I
don't have much confidence.
RTD's arrogance and ego will stop him retconning anything...
the only chance the show has going forward is for a fresh start
with a new showrunner... not the return of Billie Piper and
David Tennant in more of the same.
The only way forward is Dallas, and even then turning the Doctor gay and >using that to sexually groom children has done too much irreparable
damage. Why would any child dare admit to watching this show at school
when it would be bullied and accused of being gay or a transvestite?
The total erasure of the entire RTD era since 2005 is probably the only >viable option. All trust has been lost in the BBC thanks to its
perverted agenda.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
Verily, in article <108aoid$emi$14@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <108al9p$1pjl8$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The total erasure of the entire RTD era since 2005 is probably the only
viable option. All trust has been lost in the BBC thanks to its
perverted agenda.
Woke agenda you mean.
Some might say that's the same thing.
Verily, in article <108al9p$1pjl8$2@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Why would any child dare admit to watching this show at school
when it would be bullied and accused of being gay or a transvestite?
That's been trendy for quite some time. Many kids report feeling
pressured to be gay or trans, for cred.
Have you been following the story of former child star Jojo Siwa? For
about two minutes, she performed "gaypop" and billed herself as "the
gayest person in the world." Then, she met a guy. She is now being
wildly attacked as a so-called tradwife, just for dating a guy.
"Disney has been a great partnership and it continues with
The War Between The Land And The Sea next year but, going
forward, with or without Disney, Doctor Who will still be
on the BBC."
Has there been a threat/any hope that Disney might become uninvolved
with Doctor Who?
Verily, in article <108apnt$1q5p4$2@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 22/08/2025 22:58, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108al9p$1pjl8$2@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Why would any child dare admit to watching this show at school
when it would be bullied and accused of being gay or a transvestite?
That's been trendy for quite some time. Many kids report feeling
pressured to be gay or trans, for cred.
That is called sexual grooming, not trendy.
That's the thing. The kids themselves decide what kids find trendy.
They're highly influenced in those decisions, and for years now most of
those influencing them have been gay or trans or sympathetic. So, yes,
it is trendy.
The good news -- from my POV, and probably yours -- is that GenZ is
shaping up to be more conservative than many predicted. They may have
just plain gone too far, running into some hardwired instincts like
"protect the children." Even so, reversing the trend will take time and different influences.
Have you been following the story of former child star Jojo Siwa? For
about two minutes, she performed "gaypop" and billed herself as "the
gayest person in the world." Then, she met a guy. She is now being
wildly attacked as a so-called tradwife, just for dating a guy.
So she was sexually groomed into thinking she was gay and now the
groomers are attacking and bullying her for refusing to submit to their
will.
Yeah, pretty much. I felt bad for her. I laughed at her initial gaypop
video, but I regret that. Now I just hope people lay off before they
bully her into something drastic.
On 2025-08-22 10:49:45 +0000, Dumas Walker said:
"Disney has been a great partnership and it continues with
The War Between The Land And The Sea next year but, going
forward, with or without Disney, Doctor Who will still be
on the BBC."
Has there been a threat/any hope that Disney might become uninvolved
with Doctor Who?
A few people (RTD, BBC), etc. have said that the BBC and Disney are
still in the "negotiating room" about whether or not Disney will
extended the deal. The fact that such discussion are taking so long
indicates there are some problems from one or both sides.
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney now wants more control, but Disney is
also reportedly now looking for *new* ideas rather than the "failing" franchises, so may not want to stick with Doctor Who.
Disney’s Boy Trouble: Studio Seeks Original IP
to Win Back Gen-Z Men Amid Marvel, Lucasfilm Struggles <https://variety.com/2025/film/news/disney-marvel-lucasfilm-gen- z-1236494681/>
Since so many of the franchises aree "failing" under Disney's ownership,
the obvious reason is Disney themselves (and in terms of Lucasfilm, the Political Correctness stupidity of Kathleen Kennedy), including Disney's total lack of creative ability (hence keep doing lazy 'live-action'
remakes of their old animated movies).
Verily, in article <108al9p$1pjl8$2@dont-email.me>, did >agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Why would any child dare admit to watching this show at school
when it would be bullied and accused of being gay or a transvestite?
That's been trendy for quite some time. Many kids report feeling
pressured to be gay or trans, for cred.
Have you been following the story of former child star Jojo Siwa? For
about two minutes, she performed "gaypop" and billed herself as "the
gayest person in the world." Then, she met a guy. She is now being
wildly attacked as a so-called tradwife, just for dating a guy.
--
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul.
--George Bernard Shaw
On 22/08/2025 22:58, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108al9p$1pjl8$2@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Why would any child dare admit to watching this show at school
when it would be bullied and accused of being gay or a transvestite?
That's been trendy for quite some time. Many kids report feeling
pressured to be gay or trans, for cred.
That is called sexual grooming, not trendy.
Have you been following the story of former child star Jojo Siwa? For
about two minutes, she performed "gaypop" and billed herself as "the
gayest person in the world." Then, she met a guy. She is now being
wildly attacked as a so-called tradwife, just for dating a guy.
So she was sexually groomed into thinking she was gay and now the
groomers are attacking and bullying her for refusing to submit to their
will. Disgusting bunch of perverts! They should be allowed nowhere
children or social media.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
Verily, in article <108ao8h$emi$3@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Given what Gaiman planted in The Doctor's Wife.
My memory of that episode consists largely of "The TARDIS turned human.
So dumb." What did he plant?
--
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul.
--George Bernard Shaw
Verily, in article <108aoid$emi$14@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <108al9p$1pjl8$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The total erasure of the entire RTD era since 2005 is probably the only
viable option. All trust has been lost in the BBC thanks to its
perverted agenda.
Woke agenda you mean.
Some might say that's the same thing.
--
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul.
--George Bernard Shaw
On 22/08/2025 23:11, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108aoid$emi$14@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <108al9p$1pjl8$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The total erasure of the entire RTD era since 2005 is probably the only >>>> viable option. All trust has been lost in the BBC thanks to its
perverted agenda.
Woke agenda you mean.
Some might say that's the same thing.
Woke and perverted are both synonyms for each other.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 2025-08-22 10:49:45 +0000, Dumas Walker said:
"Disney has been a great partnership and it continues with
The War Between The Land And The Sea next year but, going
forward, with or without Disney, Doctor Who will still be
on the BBC."
Has there been a threat/any hope that Disney might become uninvolved
with Doctor Who?
A few people (RTD, BBC), etc. have said that the BBC and Disney are
still in the "negotiating room" about whether or not Disney will
extended the deal. The fact that such discussion are taking so long
indicates there are some problems from one or both sides.
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney now wants more control, but Disney is
also reportedly now looking for *new* ideas rather than the "failing" >franchises, so may not want to stick with Doctor Who.
Disney’s Boy Trouble: Studio Seeks Original IP
to Win Back Gen-Z Men Amid Marvel, Lucasfilm Struggles
<https://variety.com/2025/film/news/disney-marvel-lucasfilm-gen-z-1236494681/>
Since so many of the franchises aree "failing" under Disney's
ownership, the obvious reason is Disney themselves (and in terms of >Lucasfilm, the Political Correctness stupidity of Kathleen Kennedy), >including Disney's total lack of creative ability (hence keep doing
lazy 'live-action' remakes of their old animated movies).
Verily, in article <108apnt$1q5p4$2@dont-email.me>, did >agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 22/08/2025 22:58, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108al9p$1pjl8$2@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Why would any child dare admit to watching this show at school
when it would be bullied and accused of being gay or a transvestite?
That's been trendy for quite some time. Many kids report feeling
pressured to be gay or trans, for cred.
That is called sexual grooming, not trendy.
That's the thing. The kids themselves decide what kids find trendy.
They're highly influenced in those decisions, and for years now most of
those influencing them have been gay or trans or sympathetic. So, yes,
it is trendy.
The good news -- from my POV, and probably yours -- is that GenZ is
shaping up to be more conservative than many predicted. They may have
just plain gone too far, running into some hardwired instincts like
"protect the children." Even so, reversing the trend will take time and >different influences.
Have you been following the story of former child star Jojo Siwa? For
about two minutes, she performed "gaypop" and billed herself as "the
gayest person in the world." Then, she met a guy. She is now being
wildly attacked as a so-called tradwife, just for dating a guy.
So she was sexually groomed into thinking she was gay and now the
groomers are attacking and bullying her for refusing to submit to their
will.
Yeah, pretty much. I felt bad for her. I laughed at her initial gaypop
video, but I regret that. Now I just hope people lay off before they
bully her into something drastic.
--
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul.
--George Bernard Shaw
On 22/08/2025 23:26, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-22 10:49:45 +0000, Dumas Walker said:
"Disney has been a great partnership and it continues with
The War Between The Land And The Sea next year but, going
forward, with or without Disney, Doctor Who will still be
on the BBC."
Has there been a threat/any hope that Disney might become uninvolved
with Doctor Who?
A few people (RTD, BBC), etc. have said that the BBC and Disney are
still in the "negotiating room" about whether or not Disney will
extended the deal. The fact that such discussion are taking so long
indicates there are some problems from one or both sides.
Disney has the option to renew the show and this should have been done
about 3 or 4 months ago to give the BBC time to film a new series or
find a new partner. Since there is no new series in production we can
assume that Disney has cancelled the show, but the BBC is not allowed to >announce this fact until the Sea Devils garbage has been shown on
Disney+ and has ended. I am guessing that there must a clause in the
contract for there to be a gap of at least 2 months or 8 weeks until
after the show has ended for the announcement to be made in order to
give time for viewers to watch the final episode on streaming and be
added to the monthly statistics, so that ad revenue will not to be
affected. Also since nothing is going into production we can also assume
that the BBC has not found a new partner, and who in their right mind
would touch this show after it's been so badly tainted? Davies would
have to go and everything from Whittaker onwards would have to be
retconned as a bad dream for another streamer to agree to take the show
on. They'd also want to see the new episodes in advance before they
would show them so they know they'd not been conned as Disney were or
they would demand that they be given the right to vet the scripts and
choose the show runner, the production company, and the actors to play
all of the leading roles. These no way anyone is going to go ahead with
the pile of degenerate, woke shit RTD has already written.
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney now wants more control, but Disney is
Disney is out. They were on their way out after the failure of Season 1.
also reportedly now looking for *new* ideas rather than the "failing"
franchises, so may not want to stick with Doctor Who.
The series is dead. There's no way that they can continue from the
ending of Series 2. No one wants it. There would have to be a massive
retcon and that is what Davies should have done by making Omega the
Timeless Child as people were expecting, and everything from Whittaker >onwards part of Conrad's wish, not bringing back Billie Piper as the Doctor.
Disney’s Boy Trouble: Studio Seeks Original IP
to Win Back Gen-Z Men Amid Marvel, Lucasfilm Struggles
<https://variety.com/2025/film/news/disney-marvel-lucasfilm-gen-
z-1236494681/>
So, Disney wanted Doctor Who to appeal to boys and RTD wrote it for 12
year old girls of virtually no intelligence whatsoever and aimed it at >homosexuals after deciding that Doctor Who was too white, masculine, and >heterosexual, except he didn't tell Disney.
Since so many of the franchises aree "failing" under Disney's ownership,
the obvious reason is Disney themselves (and in terms of Lucasfilm, the
Political Correctness stupidity of Kathleen Kennedy), including Disney's
total lack of creative ability (hence keep doing lazy 'live-action'
remakes of their old animated movies).
They wanted to make shows and movies for boys and instead they hired a
bunch of woke degenerates that made them all for girls of very low >intelligence. Woke imbeciles! Kathleen Kennedy should have been sacked
from the moment Disney took LucasFilm over.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 22/08/2025 23:57, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108apnt$1q5p4$2@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 22/08/2025 22:58, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108al9p$1pjl8$2@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Why would any child dare admit to watching this show at school
when it would be bullied and accused of being gay or a transvestite? >>>>>
That's been trendy for quite some time. Many kids report feeling
pressured to be gay or trans, for cred.
That is called sexual grooming, not trendy.
That's the thing. The kids themselves decide what kids find trendy.
They don't and never have done. They're told by marketing companies and >sexual predators what they should think is trendy. This has been the
case since the 1950s when people figured out how to make money from
them, or in the case of the music industry, sexually groom and entice them.
They're highly influenced in those decisions, and for years now most of
those influencing them have been gay or trans or sympathetic. So, yes,
it is trendy.
The good news -- from my POV, and probably yours -- is that GenZ is
shaping up to be more conservative than many predicted. They may have
just plain gone too far, running into some hardwired instincts like
"protect the children." Even so, reversing the trend will take time and
different influences.
We have Donald Trump and Elon Musk to thank for that.
Have you been following the story of former child star Jojo Siwa? For
about two minutes, she performed "gaypop" and billed herself as "the
gayest person in the world." Then, she met a guy. She is now being
wildly attacked as a so-called tradwife, just for dating a guy.
So she was sexually groomed into thinking she was gay and now the
groomers are attacking and bullying her for refusing to submit to their
will.
Yeah, pretty much. I felt bad for her. I laughed at her initial gaypop
video, but I regret that. Now I just hope people lay off before they
bully her into something drastic.
They need to stop this degeneracy being taught in schools. Governor Ron >DeSantis is on the right track but more needs to be done in the same >direction. No sex education for kids until they reach the age of 13, and
even then it needs to limited to being taught as the means by which to >produce children, no different to how animals mate, and it is naturally >between a man and a woman, and how to protect yourself and prevent
unwanted pregnancies. Children also need to be taught about sexual
predators, especially those in the entertainment industry and how to
report them to the authorities.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 22/08/2025 20:43, Blueshirt wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:
I imagine this spin-off is as doomed as doomed can be!
The BBC don't seem to be in a rush to air it anyway...
They're waiting for the graveyard shift to become available,
or Disney are. Disney probably doesn't want to air it so they
can use it as a tax break like Warner did with Batgirl.
Verily, in article <108ao8h$emi$3@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Given what Gaiman planted in The Doctor's Wife.
My memory of that episode consists largely of "The TARDIS
turned human. So dumb." What did he plant?
My favorite of the "second run" Doctors is Tennant. Tom
Baker is probably my overall favorite.
I liked Smith and Capaldi, although the last Capaldi
series (Series 10) sort of lost me a little.
Missy didn't bother me at all. <shrugs>
I also didn't mind the Doctor being female, but most of
her stories seemed "way off" - there seemed to be a lack
of continuity even before "The Timeless Child" that made
the stories difficult to get into.
On 2025-08-22 10:49:45 +0000, Dumas Walker said:
Has there been a threat/any hope that Disney might
become uninvolved with Doctor Who?
A few people (RTD, BBC), etc. have said that the BBC and
Disney are still in the "negotiating room" about whether or
not Disney will extended the deal. The fact that such
discussion are taking so long indicates there are some
problems from one or both sides.
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney now wants more control, but
Disney is also reportedly now looking for new ideas rather
than the "failing" franchises, so may not want to stick with
Doctor Who.
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-22 10:49:45 +0000, Dumas Walker said:
Has there been a threat/any hope that Disney might
become uninvolved with Doctor Who?
A few people (RTD, BBC), etc. have said that the BBC and
Disney are still in the "negotiating room" about whether or
not Disney will extended the deal. The fact that such
discussion are taking so long indicates there are some
problems from one or both sides.
Reportedly, Disney wanted more creative control and access to
the back catalogue of the show...
Whether Disney and the BBC are still in the negotiating room
depends on what rumours you believe. It has been said Disney are
still involved and discussions are ongoing. Whilst other sources
have said Disney are gone and their partnership deal with the
BBC will be left to expire and the BBC will then need to find a
new partner for Doctor Who.
Unless somebody is actually in the room or works for the
BBC/Disney, it's all just talk about talk and rumour upon
rumour. (Watch enough YouTube videos and one of them will be
right!)
The fact that the BBC intend to continue with "Doctor Who" at
some stage isn't a surprise though.
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney now wants more control, but
Disney is also reportedly now looking for new ideas rather
than the "failing" franchises, so may not want to stick with
Doctor Who.
The streaming model hasn't done as well for them as they would
have liked.
After the covid lock-downs people have returned to doing normal things,
like going out and living their life... instead of being stuck indoors watching Netflix all day!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/08/2025 20:43, Blueshirt wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:
I imagine this spin-off is as doomed as doomed can be!
The BBC don't seem to be in a rush to air it anyway...
They're waiting for the graveyard shift to become available,
or Disney are. Disney probably doesn't want to air it so they
can use it as a tax break like Warner did with Batgirl.
The BBC probably want to broadcast it around some environment
themed event as a tie-in to make it look like they are modern
and on point with their messaging...
Is there a "Love a Reptile Day"? If so, it'll air then!
What is needed is a total retcon of the Timeless
Child.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/08/2025 20:43, Blueshirt wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:
I imagine this spin-off is as doomed as doomed can be!
The BBC don't seem to be in a rush to air it anyway...
They're waiting for the graveyard shift to become available,
or Disney are. Disney probably doesn't want to air it so they
can use it as a tax break like Warner did with Batgirl.
The BBC probably want to broadcast it around some environment
themed event as a tie-in to make it look like they are modern
and on point with their messaging...
Is there a "Love a Reptile Day"? If so, it'll air then!
Dumas Walker wrote:
My favorite of the "second run" Doctors is Tennant. Tom
Baker is probably my overall favorite.
Good, and popular, choices... Both of those Doctor's reigned
supreme in the eyes of the TV watching audience. They were
good times for "Doctor Who".
I liked Smith and Capaldi, although the last Capaldi
series (Series 10) sort of lost me a little.
Modern Who started to do that in recent years...
It has often been easy to get lost!
Missy didn't bother me at all. <shrugs>
I liked Missy. I thought she was great. Michelle Gomez
really nailed the part. She would have made a better Rani
than Archie Panjabi. (Or Anita Dobson)
I also didn't mind the Doctor being female, but most of
her stories seemed "way off" - there seemed to be a lack
of continuity even before "The Timeless Child" that made
the stories difficult to get into.
Instead of just working with the idea of a female Doctor having
adventures in time and space and telling good "Doctor Who"
stories using that new dynamic, Chris Chibnall decided to come
up with the Timeless Child arc instead...
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108ao8h$emi$3@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Given what Gaiman planted in The Doctor's Wife.
My memory of that episode consists largely of "The TARDIS
turned human. So dumb." What did he plant?
Dave means that was the first mention of a trans-gender
regeneration in the show (The Corsair) but Steven Moffat
was the showrunner and he was always going to do something
like that anyway, as he's one of those types of modern writers.
So the mention of the Corsair and the comments from the
Sisterhood of Karn woman in the Paul McGann mini-episode were
basically just foreshadowing Missy.
And a female Master was always going to lead to a female
Doctor...
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-22 10:49:45 +0000, Dumas Walker said:
Has there been a threat/any hope that Disney might
become uninvolved with Doctor Who?
A few people (RTD, BBC), etc. have said that the BBC and
Disney are still in the "negotiating room" about whether or
not Disney will extended the deal. The fact that such
discussion are taking so long indicates there are some
problems from one or both sides.
Reportedly, Disney wanted more creative control and access to
the back catalogue of the show...
Whether Disney and the BBC are still in the negotiating room
depends on what rumours you believe. It has been said Disney are
still involved and discussions are ongoing. Whilst other sources
have said Disney are gone and their partnership deal with the
BBC will be left to expire and the BBC will then need to find a
new partner for Doctor Who.
Unless somebody is actually in the room or works for the
BBC/Disney, it's all just talk about talk and rumour upon
rumour. (Watch enough YouTube videos and one of them will be
right!)
The fact that the BBC intend to continue with "Doctor Who" at
some stage isn't a surprise though.
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney now wants more control, but
Disney is also reportedly now looking for new ideas rather
than the "failing" franchises, so may not want to stick with
Doctor Who.
The streaming model hasn't done as well for them as they would
have liked. After the covid lock-downs people have returned to
doing normal things, like going out and living their life...
instead of being stuck indoors watching Netflix all day!
On 2025-08-23 07:50:25 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-22 10:49:45 +0000, Dumas Walker said:
Has there been a threat/any hope that Disney might
become uninvolved with Doctor Who?
A few people (RTD, BBC), etc. have said that the BBC and
Disney are still in the "negotiating room" about whether or
not Disney will extended the deal. The fact that such
discussion are taking so long indicates there are some
problems from one or both sides.
Reportedly, Disney wanted more creative control and access to
the back catalogue of the show...
Whether Disney and the BBC are still in the negotiating room
depends on what rumours you believe. It has been said Disney are
still involved and discussions are ongoing. Whilst other sources
have said Disney are gone and their partnership deal with the
BBC will be left to expire and the BBC will then need to find a
new partner for Doctor Who.
Just go back to the old way and let normal TV broadcast channels air
the show in New Zealand, Australia, etc.
Unless somebody is actually in the room or works for the
BBC/Disney, it's all just talk about talk and rumour upon
rumour. (Watch enough YouTube videos and one of them will be
right!)
The fact that the BBC intend to continue with "Doctor Who" at
some stage isn't a surprise though.
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney now wants more control, but
Disney is also reportedly now looking for new ideas rather
than the "failing" franchises, so may not want to stick with
Doctor Who.
The streaming model hasn't done as well for them as they would
have liked.
Zero surprise there. Streaming is somewhat of a gimmick and most people
are already sick and tired of paying out for all these separate
companies. Plus the "cost of living" increases pretty much everywhere
means more and more people are dropping over-priced streaming services.
The fact that most of the streaming companies also keep raising the
prices doesn't help them either.
If a company brought together all the various streaming services' shows
under one sensible price, it could be a winner, but numerous separate >companies each with their own "exclusive" content was simply never
going to work.
After the covid lock-downs people have returned to doing normal things,
like going out and living their life... instead of being stuck indoors
watching Netflix all day!
That too.
On 2025-08-23 07:34:29 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/08/2025 20:43, Blueshirt wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:
I imagine this spin-off is as doomed as doomed can be!
The BBC don't seem to be in a rush to air it anyway...
They're waiting for the graveyard shift to become available,
or Disney are. Disney probably doesn't want to air it so they
can use it as a tax break like Warner did with Batgirl.
The BBC probably want to broadcast it around some environment
themed event as a tie-in to make it look like they are modern
and on point with their messaging...
Is there a "Love a Reptile Day"? If so, it'll air then!
There's a day for almost everything. :-)
World Reptile Awareness Day
21 October
<https://www.worldanimalprotection.org/our-campaigns/sentience/animal-awareness-days/world-reptile-day/>
Verily, in article <xn0p9vp9v2rlcba003@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The Doctor wrote:
What is needed is a total retcon of the Timeless
Child.
Really? Well why didn't you say that then?
LOL.
--
Trustworthy words are not pretty;
Pretty words are not trustworthy.
-Lao-Tzu
On 2025-08-23 07:34:29 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/08/2025 20:43, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC don't seem to be in a rush to air it anyway...
They're waiting for the graveyard shift to become
available, or Disney are. Disney probably doesn't want
to air it so they can use it as a tax break like Warner
did with Batgirl.
The BBC probably want to broadcast it around some environment
themed event as a tie-in to make it look like they are modern
and on point with their messaging...
Is there a "Love a Reptile Day"? If so, it'll air then!
There's a day for almost everything. :-)
World Reptile Awareness Day
21 October
In article <108btas$223of$1@dont-email.me>,
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-08-23 07:34:29 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The BBC probably want to broadcast it around some
environment themed event as a tie-in to make it look
like they are modern and on point with their messaging...
Is there a "Love a Reptile Day"? If so, it'll air then!
There's a day for almost everything. :-)
World Reptile Awareness Day
21 October
Then October 2026 for the next DW-based spinoff.
On 22/08/2025 12:34, Blueshirt wrote:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <10886ne$17fpj$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
The TARDIS is going nowhere. Sounds like a broken down
vehicle.
She could definitely have phrased that better!
She also said that Doctor Who is going nowhere, though.
It's too big a show for the BBC for them to just drop it... they
could do with bringing in a new showrunner, one with no previous
Doctor Who baggage, and freshen it up by making the show about
the Doctor again and dropping all those silly cameo's and
throwback arcs that RTD seems obsessed with.
They've already totally destroyed the entire franchise by turning the
Doctor into the Timeless Child monster, turning him into a woman, and
then turning him gay and using the show to sexually groom children.
There is no way it can ever recover from that unless there's a complete reboot from either Sylvester McCoy or Paul McGann and the wokery
especially turning the Doctor gay is completely and utterly condemned
and watertight assurances are given that the Doctor will never be turned
into a woman or gay ever again and the BBC must accept that it was an enormous mistake to change the Doctor's gender and sexuality and insert
overt political messages into the show, and apologise to the fans who
called this out and were systematically attacked and demeaned with no justification.
The entire RTD era from 2005 onwards must be written off as not being
Doctor Who and the BBC must explicitly state that the Doctor is a white heterosexual male character who had no incarnations before the first
Doctor played by William Hartnell and he will always remain that way.
The BBC must eat humble pie!
On 2025-08-23 07:50:25 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Reportedly, Disney wanted more creative control and access
to the back catalogue of the show...
Whether Disney and the BBC are still in the negotiating room
depends on what rumours you believe. It has been said Disney
are still involved and discussions are ongoing. Whilst other
sources have said Disney are gone and their partnership deal
with the BBC will be left to expire and the BBC will then
need to find a new partner for Doctor Who.
Just go back to the old way and let normal TV broadcast
channels air the show in New Zealand, Australia, etc.
Verily, in article <1089r0k$1iv1j$2@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
There is no way it can ever recover from that unless there's a complete
reboot from either Sylvester McCoy or Paul McGann
Why would we have to go back that far? I liked the Eccleston year and
most of Tennant as Ten, though it did start spinning out a bit at the
end.
I liked most of Matt Smith's era as well. IMO, things didn't really get
bad until Capaldi's tenure. MISI/Missy/The Mistress was probably the beginning of the end.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <108btas$223of$1@dont-email.me>,
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-08-23 07:34:29 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The BBC probably want to broadcast it around some
environment themed event as a tie-in to make it look
like they are modern and on point with their messaging...
Is there a "Love a Reptile Day"? If so, it'll air then!
There's a day for almost everything. :-)
World Reptile Awareness Day
21 October
Then October 2026 for the next DW-based spinoff.
The "Love a Reptile Day" thing was a joke Dave... based
on the presumption that there will be some sort of a romantic
entanglement between a male human and the female Sea Devil in
the spin-off.
Every TV show has to have some emotional drama...
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-23 07:34:29 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/08/2025 20:43, Blueshirt wrote:
The BBC don't seem to be in a rush to air it anyway...
They're waiting for the graveyard shift to become
available, or Disney are. Disney probably doesn't want
to air it so they can use it as a tax break like Warner
did with Batgirl.
The BBC probably want to broadcast it around some environment
themed event as a tie-in to make it look like they are modern
and on point with their messaging...
Is there a "Love a Reptile Day"? If so, it'll air then!
There's a day for almost everything. :-)
World Reptile Awareness Day
21 October
:-)
It's very likely to be around Earth Day in April 2026.
On 22/08/2025 11:23 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
On 22/08/2025 12:34, Blueshirt wrote:Hey, Aggy, you're to holding your breathe are you??
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <10886ne$17fpj$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
The TARDIS is going nowhere. Sounds like a broken down
vehicle.
She could definitely have phrased that better!
She also said that Doctor Who is going nowhere, though.
It's too big a show for the BBC for them to just drop it... they
could do with bringing in a new showrunner, one with no previous
Doctor Who baggage, and freshen it up by making the show about
the Doctor again and dropping all those silly cameo's and
throwback arcs that RTD seems obsessed with.
They've already totally destroyed the entire franchise by turning the
Doctor into the Timeless Child monster, turning him into a woman, and
then turning him gay and using the show to sexually groom children.
There is no way it can ever recover from that unless there's a complete
reboot from either Sylvester McCoy or Paul McGann and the wokery
especially turning the Doctor gay is completely and utterly condemned
and watertight assurances are given that the Doctor will never be turned
into a woman or gay ever again and the BBC must accept that it was an
enormous mistake to change the Doctor's gender and sexuality and insert
overt political messages into the show, and apologise to the fans who
called this out and were systematically attacked and demeaned with no
justification.
The entire RTD era from 2005 onwards must be written off as not being
Doctor Who and the BBC must explicitly state that the Doctor is a white
heterosexual male character who had no incarnations before the first
Doctor played by William Hartnell and he will always remain that way.
The BBC must eat humble pie!
Hang on, maybe you could do the world a favour by holding your breathe!!
--
Daniel70
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-23 07:50:25 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Reportedly, Disney wanted more creative control and access
to the back catalogue of the show...
Whether Disney and the BBC are still in the negotiating room
depends on what rumours you believe. It has been said Disney
are still involved and discussions are ongoing. Whilst other
sources have said Disney are gone and their partnership deal
with the BBC will be left to expire and the BBC will then
need to find a new partner for Doctor Who.
Just go back to the old way and let normal TV broadcast
channels air the show in New Zealand, Australia, etc.
Unfortunately that's not the way the industry is going these
days... television is becoming internet driven in one form or
another... online streaming, catch-up services, box-sets
on demand (etc.)... normal terrestrial TV where you sit down
at a set time to watch a TV show is becoming a dinosaur. Often
the traditional channels wouldn't have the money to buy in
licensed shows from the BIG media companies, so they make
cooking shows, games shows and reality TV instead.
Instead of just working with the idea of a female Doctor having
adventures in time and space and telling good "Doctor Who"
stories using that new dynamic, Chris Chibnall decided to come
up with the Timeless Child arc instead...
On 23/08/2025 5:34 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
Instead of just working with the idea of a female Doctor havingThe 'Timeless Child' idea sort of works for me.
adventures in time and space and telling good "Doctor Who"
stories using that new dynamic, Chris Chibnall decided to come
up with the Timeless Child arc instead...
I mean The Time Lords aren't just like every other Race in the Universe
that we've been introduced.
Vulcans. Kaleds (??). Klingons. Whatever. All Humanoid origins. They
start as Baby "Whatevers", they age, they age they age and they Die.
Time Lords, for some reason, have the ability to Regenerate. Why?? Where
did that ability come from??
Chibnall may not have explained it perfectly, to everyone's satisfaction >....... but at least he had a go!!
--
Daniel70
The 'Timeless Child' idea sort of works for me.
[Snip]
Chibnall may not have explained it perfectly, to
everyone's satisfaction ....... but at least he had
a go!!
In article <xn0p9vz7x34zcgd001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
It's very likely to be around Earth Day in April 2026.
We shall see.
Verily, in article <xn0p9vzfr35amfe002@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
normal terrestrial TV where you sit down at a set
time to watch a TV show is becoming a dinosaur.
Like many, I've come to miss monoculture.
A young person once asked me if the current or new system
of watching movies was better.
Blueshirt looked beyond:
I'll put twenty quid on "The War Between the Land and the
Sea" being broadcast on BBC1 around Earth Day next April!
I’ll also say next April, but for different reasons. We’re
not getting any new Doctor Who next year, so The War… will
start in DW’s usual Easter slot instead.
That’s my guess anyway.
On 23/08/2025 5:34 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
Instead of just working with the idea of a female Doctor havingThe 'Timeless Child' idea sort of works for me.
adventures in time and space and telling good "Doctor Who"
stories using that new dynamic, Chris Chibnall decided to come
up with the Timeless Child arc instead...
I mean The Time Lords aren't just like every other Race in the Universe
that we've been introduced.
Vulcans. Kaleds (??). Klingons. Whatever. All Humanoid origins. They
start as Baby "Whatevers", they age, they age they age and they Die.
Time Lords, for some reason, have the ability to Regenerate. Why?? Where
did that ability come from??
Chibnall may not have explained it perfectly, to everyone's
satisfaction ....... but at least he had a go!!
Daniel70 wrote:
The 'Timeless Child' idea sort of works for me.
[Snip]
Chibnall may not have explained it perfectly, to
everyone's satisfaction ....... but at least he had
a go!!
For me, it looks like Chris Chibnall wanted to establish
pre-Hartnell Doctor's as a way of expanding the canvas for
"Doctor Who" and that was his sole reason for changing the
Doctor's origin story.
And no, it didn't work for me!
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-22 10:49:45 +0000, Dumas Walker said:
Has there been a threat/any hope that Disney might
become uninvolved with Doctor Who?
A few people (RTD, BBC), etc. have said that the BBC and
Disney are still in the "negotiating room" about whether or
not Disney will extended the deal. The fact that such
discussion are taking so long indicates there are some
problems from one or both sides.
Reportedly, Disney wanted more creative control and access to
the back catalogue of the show...
Whether Disney and the BBC are still in the negotiating room
depends on what rumours you believe. It has been said Disney are
still involved and discussions are ongoing. Whilst other sources
have said Disney are gone and their partnership deal with the
BBC will be left to expire and the BBC will then need to find a
new partner for Doctor Who.
Unless somebody is actually in the room or works for the
BBC/Disney, it's all just talk about talk and rumour upon
rumour. (Watch enough YouTube videos and one of them will be
right!)
The fact that the BBC intend to continue with "Doctor Who" at
some stage isn't a surprise though.
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney now wants more control, but
Disney is also reportedly now looking for new ideas rather
than the "failing" franchises, so may not want to stick with
Doctor Who.
The streaming model hasn't done as well for them as they would
have liked. After the covid lock-downs people have returned to
doing normal things, like going out and living their life...
instead of being stuck indoors watching Netflix all day!
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0p9vzfr35amfe002@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
normal terrestrial TV where you sit down at a set
time to watch a TV show is becoming a dinosaur.
Like many, I've come to miss monoculture.
A young person once asked me if the current or new system
of watching movies was better.
As long as there are no adverts I don't care what service
I use to watch movies... but ad breaks every 12/14 minutes are
a no-no so terrestrial TV can fuck off and die if it's going to
do that with films. On-demand is the only way to watch a decent
movie. Sit down when you're ready to watch it, pause and make
the tea when it suits you, and pause and have a piss if you need
to as well.
Oh and if people knock at the door, just hit pause (or record)
and open the door instead of being quiet and hoping they go
away!!!
It might be selfish, but having the right to choose when and how
to watch television programmes/films is a great thing IMO.
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-23 07:50:25 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Reportedly, Disney wanted more creative control and access
to the back catalogue of the show...
Whether Disney and the BBC are still in the negotiating room
depends on what rumours you believe. It has been said Disney
are still involved and discussions are ongoing. Whilst other
sources have said Disney are gone and their partnership deal
with the BBC will be left to expire and the BBC will then
need to find a new partner for Doctor Who.
Just go back to the old way and let normal TV broadcast
channels air the show in New Zealand, Australia, etc.
Unfortunately that's not the way the industry is going these
days... television is becoming internet driven in one form or
another... online streaming, catch-up services, box-sets
on demand (etc.)... normal terrestrial TV where you sit down
at a set time to watch a TV show is becoming a dinosaur. Often
the traditional channels wouldn't have the money to buy in
licensed shows from the BIG media companies, so they make
cooking shows, games shows and reality TV instead.
Verily, in article <xn0p9vqcb2szu4p005@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
And a female Master was always going to lead to a female
Doctor...
Which is precisely why I didn't approve. :-)
Thanks for the explanation.
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0p9vzfr35amfe002@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
normal terrestrial TV where you sit down at a set
time to watch a TV show is becoming a dinosaur.
Like many, I've come to miss monoculture.
A young person once asked me if the current or new system
of watching movies was better.
As long as there are no adverts I don't care what service
I use to watch movies... but ad breaks every 12/14 minutes are
a no-no so terrestrial TV can fuck off and die if it's going to
do that with films.
On-demand is the only way to watch a decent movie. Sit down when you're
ready to watch it, pause and make the tea when it suits you, and pause
and have a piss if you need to as well.
Oh and if people knock at the door, just hit pause (or record)
and open the door instead of being quiet and hoping they go
away!!!
It might be selfish, but having the right to choose when and how
to watch television programmes/films is a great thing IMO.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p9vz7x34zcgd001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
It's very likely to be around Earth Day in April 2026.
We shall see.
I'll put twenty quid on "The War Between the Land and the
Sea" being broadcast on BBC1 around Earth Day next April!
Daniel70 wrote:
The 'Timeless Child' idea sort of works for me.
[Snip]
Chibnall may not have explained it perfectly, to
everyone's satisfaction ....... but at least he had
a go!!
For me, it looks like Chris Chibnall wanted to establish
pre-Hartnell Doctor's as a way of expanding the canvas for
"Doctor Who" and that was his sole reason for changing the
Doctor's origin story.
And no, it didn't work for me!
Verily, in article <xn0p9vzfr35amfe002@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
normal terrestrial TV where you sit down
at a set time to watch a TV show is becoming a dinosaur.
Like many, I've come to miss monoculture.
A young person once asked me if the current or new system of watching
movies was better. I reflexively said that of course the current system
was better, but then I thought it over, and I went back to him with a >different answer. The old system had a lot of hidden benefits, *because*
of the inconvenience and obstacles.
The same thing's true of TV. There were advantages to everyone choosing
from the same few shows. It bonded us to watch the same things, and we
also saw each other's reactions to the normal-life frustration of
"there's nothing on."
The easier and more convenient we make things, the worse we make the
people using them.
--
Trustworthy words are not pretty;
Pretty words are not trustworthy.
-Lao-Tzu
On 22/08/2025 11:43 pm, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <1089r0k$1iv1j$2@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
There is no way it can ever recover from that unless there's a complete
reboot from either Sylvester McCoy or Paul McGann
Why would we have to go back that far? I liked the Eccleston year and
most of Tennant as Ten, though it did start spinning out a bit at the
end.
I liked most of Matt Smith's era as well. IMO, things didn't really get
bad until Capaldi's tenure. MISI/Missy/The Mistress was probably the
beginning of the end.
Tennant and Smith struck me as being younger than the rest. Switching
back to (a bit) older age (Capaldi) didn't help.
Blueshirt looked beyond:
I'll put twenty quid on "The War Between the Land and the
Sea" being broadcast on BBC1 around Earth Day next April!
I’ll also say next April, but for different reasons. We’re not
getting any new Doctor Who next year, so The War… will start
in DW’s usual Easter slot instead.
That’s my guess anyway.
--
solar penguin
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0p9vzfr35amfe002@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
normal terrestrial TV where you sit down at a set
time to watch a TV show is becoming a dinosaur.
Like many, I've come to miss monoculture.
A young person once asked me if the current or new system
of watching movies was better.
As long as there are no adverts I don't care what service
I use to watch movies... but ad breaks every 12/14 minutes are
a no-no so terrestrial TV can f* off and die if it's going to
do that with films. On-demand is the only way to watch a decent
movie. Sit down when you're ready to watch it, pause and make
the tea when it suits you, and pause and have a piss if you need
to as well.
Oh and if people knock at the door, just hit pause (or record)
and open the door instead of being quiet and hoping they go
away!!!
It might be selfish, but having the right to choose when and how
to watch television programmes/films is a great thing IMO.
solar penguin wrote:
Blueshirt looked beyond:
I'll put twenty quid on "The War Between the Land and the
Sea" being broadcast on BBC1 around Earth Day next April!
I’ll also say next April, but for different reasons. We’re
not getting any new Doctor Who next year, so The War… will
start in DW’s usual Easter slot instead.
Which makes perfect sense now we know there will be no new
"Doctor Who" next Spring.
Whether "The War Between the Land and the Sea" will be a good
substitute is another matter...
That’s my guess anyway.
At this stage, all guesses are equal...
When I read these online summaries of the spin-off recently it
just seemed like something for an environmental tie-in... so
I had a 2 + 2 = 4 moment when the BBC said it will now be
released in 2026...
"The story grapples with climate change as a central theme and
will help deepen public understanding of environmental urgency.
UNIT plays the central role, presenting what happens when the
Doctor isn’t around, tackling the existential threat the Sea
Devils pose, and exploring human responses to catastrophic
ecological disruption."
Speaking to Rylan Clark at the Edinburgh TV Festival, Russell
Tovey gave some insight into the show, saying: "It's set in our
world. Climate change is a huge factor, again it needs to be
factored more into art so we really get an understanding of it."
So, as the PR seems to be going for the climate change angle...
in my head = Earth Day! ;-)
Whatever the reason, Spring 2026 would be a long time to wait
for a series that finished filming in December 2024!
On 23/08/2025 14:51, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
The 'Timeless Child' idea sort of works for me.
[Snip]
Chibnall may not have explained it perfectly, to
everyone's satisfaction ....... but at least he had
a go!!
For me, it looks like Chris Chibnall wanted to establish
pre-Hartnell Doctor's as a way of expanding the canvas for
He wasn't expanding anything. He wanted to justify the Doctor
regenerating into a woman, when for 14 previous incarnations the Doctor
had been white, male, and heterosexual, by creating an infinite number
of regenerations before Hartnell of different genders, races, and >sexualities.
He destroyed the entire franchise in the process.
"Doctor Who" and that was his sole reason for changing the
Doctor's origin story.
And no, it didn't work for me!
It only worked for those of very, very, very, very, extremely low >intelligence.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 2025-08-23 12:48:53 +0000, Melissa Hollingsworth said:
Verily, in article <xn0p9vqcb2szu4p005@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
And a female Master was always going to lead to a female
Doctor...
Which is precisely why I didn't approve. :-)
Thanks for the explanation.
The Mistress appearing in 2014 wasn't the first time a character has
been gender-swapped to appease the Politically Correct quotas. (Joanna
Lumley of course played the Doctor back in 1999, although it was a Red
Nose Day charity parody that isn't considered 'canon'.)
Before that there has been a female Doctor Watson in the US Sherlock
Holmes based show "Elementary" in 2012 and a female Starbuck in
Moore-Ron's awful re-boot of "Battlestar Galactica" in 2004 ... among
others.
In fact, if you look back through history there are loads more. For
example, in the Norse mythology, the god Loki apparently not only
changed gender, but also species, to become a female horse that gave
birth to a magic foal with eight legs. So even the idiocy of
gender-swapping is nothing new, despite what the Politically Correct
whiner like to think they achieved "first".
On 2025-08-23 13:18:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 22/08/2025 11:43 pm, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <1089r0k$1iv1j$2@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
There is no way it can ever recover from that unless there's a complete >>>> reboot from either Sylvester McCoy or Paul McGann
Why would we have to go back that far? I liked the Eccleston year and
most of Tennant as Ten, though it did start spinning out a bit at the
end.
I liked most of Matt Smith's era as well. IMO, things didn't really get
bad until Capaldi's tenure. MISI/Missy/The Mistress was probably the
beginning of the end.
Tennant and Smith struck me as being younger than the rest. Switching
back to (a bit) older age (Capaldi) didn't help.
Matt Smith has been the youngest actor to play the role (so far) at 26
years old, although he looks older than he is. David Tennant is the
fourth youngest to play the role at 34 years old. Unless you count the >various child actors who have played one-off young versions of the
Doctor in "Listen" and "The Timeless Children".
Peter Capaldi was the second oldest (55 years and 5 months old) to play >Doctor Who, just beaten by William Hartnell (55 years and 9 months old)
... unless you also include the one-off actors like John Hurt (approx.
73 years old), David Bradley (75 years old), and Richard Hurndall (72
years old).
<https://bluetowel.wordpress.com/2021/07/15/doctor-who-how-old-was-each-actor-to-play-the-doctor/>
On 23/08/2025 08:50, Blueshirt wrote:
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-22 10:49:45 +0000, Dumas Walker said:
Has there been a threat/any hope that Disney might
become uninvolved with Doctor Who?
A few people (RTD, BBC), etc. have said that the BBC and
Disney are still in the "negotiating room" about whether or
not Disney will extended the deal. The fact that such
discussion are taking so long indicates there are some
problems from one or both sides.
Reportedly, Disney wanted more creative control and access to
the back catalogue of the show...
You mean the wanted to sack Davies.
HBO already has the back catalogue. That's why Disney started
renumbering the seasons from season 1.
Whether Disney and the BBC are still in the negotiating room
depends on what rumours you believe. It has been said Disney are
still involved and discussions are ongoing. Whilst other sources
have said Disney are gone and their partnership deal with the
BBC will be left to expire and the BBC will then need to find a
new partner for Doctor Who.
Unless somebody is actually in the room or works for the
BBC/Disney, it's all just talk about talk and rumour upon
rumour. (Watch enough YouTube videos and one of them will be
right!)
The contract with Disney already expired in May, otherwise the BBC would
have announced a new series going into production and new casting,
especially that of the Doctor.>
The fact that the BBC intend to continue with "Doctor Who" at
some stage isn't a surprise though.
The BBC said Doctor Who is going nowhere. The bus is going nowhere, the >TARDIS is going nowhere. That's doesn't mean that its continuing. It
means its come to a grinding halt.
The BBC are probably prevented from doing anything until the the Sea
Devils crap fronted by an incompetent, man hating, misandrist has been
aired.
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney now wants more control, but
Disney is also reportedly now looking for new ideas rather
than the "failing" franchises, so may not want to stick with
Doctor Who.
The streaming model hasn't done as well for them as they would
have liked. After the covid lock-downs people have returned to
doing normal things, like going out and living their life...
instead of being stuck indoors watching Netflix all day!
They're playing computer games, or reading books, or mowing the lawn.
Why would they want to watch degenerate woke garbage on TV or streaming
to be lectured to, attacked, and have their intelligence insulted? Why
would parents allow their children to be sexually groomed by these
disgusting woke perverts?
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
Verily, in article <108dhca$2fcj9$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
Before that there has been a female Doctor Watson in the US Sherlock
Holmes based show "Elementary" in 2012 and a female Starbuck in
Moore-Ron's awful re-boot of "Battlestar Galactica" in 2004 ... among
others.
In both cases, these were reimaginings of the stories. The original characters didn't turn female.
On 2025-08-23 23:43:35 +0000, Melissa Hollingsworth said:
Verily, in article <108dhca$2fcj9$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
Before that there has been a female Doctor Watson in the US Sherlock
Holmes based show "Elementary" in 2012 and a female Starbuck in
Moore-Ron's awful re-boot of "Battlestar Galactica" in 2004 ... among
others.
In both cases, these were reimaginings of the stories. The original
characters didn't turn female.
But it is still gender-swapping of an established character.
Ethnicity-swapping also isn't anything new. We had the black Doctor and
black / Indian Isaac Newton, but before that was a black Hermione
Grainger in the Harry Potter stage play. Many others as well. Even in
the comic books they just had to ethnicity-swap Spider-Man.
On 2025-08-23 23:43:35 +0000, Melissa Hollingsworth said:
Verily, in article <108dhca$2fcj9$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
Before that there has been a female Doctor Watson in the US Sherlock
Holmes based show "Elementary" in 2012 and a female Starbuck in
Moore-Ron's awful re-boot of "Battlestar Galactica" in 2004 ... among
others.
In both cases, these were reimaginings of the stories. The original
characters didn't turn female.
But it is still gender-swapping of an established character.
Ethnicity-swapping also isn't anything new. We had the black Doctor and
black / Indian Isaac Newton, but before that was a black Hermione
Grainger in the Harry Potter stage play. Many others as well. Even in
the comic books they just had to ethnicity-swap Spider-Man.
On 23/08/2025 14:51, Blueshirt wrote:
For me, it looks like Chris Chibnall wanted to establish
pre-Hartnell Doctor's as a way of expanding the canvas for
He wasn't expanding anything. He wanted to justify the Doctor
regenerating into a woman, when for 14 previous incarnations
the Doctor had been white, male, and heterosexual, by creating
an infinite number of regenerations before Hartnell of
different genders, races, and sexualities.
On 2025-08-23 15:57:28 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
A young person once asked me if the current or new system
of watching movies was better.
As long as there are no adverts I don't care what service
I use to watch movies... but ad breaks every 12/14 minutes
are a no-no so terrestrial TV can fuck off and die if it's
going to do that with films.
We record almost everything we watch so we can fast-forward
throught the adverts. It also saves time since a "1 hour" show
only takes around 45 minutes.
On-demand is the only way to watch a decent movie. Sit down
when you're ready to watch it, pause and make the tea when
it suits you, and pause and have a piss if you need to as
well.
Most services either already have adverts or are introducing
them, unless you pay for the most expensive membership tier.
I liked Missy. I thought she was great. Michelle Gomez
really nailed the part. She would have made a better Rani
than Archie Panjabi. (Or Anita Dobson)
I liked her portrayal better than the Master that followed.
Instead of just working with the idea of a female Doctor
having adventures in time and space and telling good "Doctor
Who" stories using that new dynamic, Chris Chibnall decided
to come up with the Timeless Child arc instead...
Agreed. With good stories, the 13th Doctor could have been
very entertaining.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 23/08/2025 14:51, Blueshirt wrote:
For me, it looks like Chris Chibnall wanted to establish
pre-Hartnell Doctor's as a way of expanding the canvas for
He wasn't expanding anything. He wanted to justify the Doctor
regenerating into a woman, when for 14 previous incarnations
the Doctor had been white, male, and heterosexual, by creating
an infinite number of regenerations before Hartnell of
different genders, races, and sexualities.
I disagree. Chris Chibnall could have turned the Doctor
into a female Time Lord without the Timeless Child storyline.
We didn't need a new back story for Time Lords (and all the
Gallifrey mumbo jumbo) for Missy - or the General - did we?
Male to female regenerations had already been established in
"Doctor Who" before Jodie Whittaker was cast as the 13th Doctor.
Plus Steven Moffat had already thrown the Sisterhood of Karn's
elixir in to the mix, when Paul McGann regenerated into John
Hurt, that enabled Time Lords using it to choose their
appearance after regenerating ("male or female, fat or thin") So
there was no need for anyone to re-write the Doctor's origin
story. The idea was established, you had a male Doctor, he
regenerated into a female Doctor, now get on with it.
The idea for the Timeless Child storyline was an unnecessary
addition to the show's lore. Instead of focusing on all that,
Chris Chibnall could have just had the 13th Doctor have normal
adventures in time and space with her three companions.
The True Doctor wrote:
For some inexplicable reason they degenerate woke imbeciles
running the BBC have decided to cast a black west sub-Saharan
African actor in their new drama about King Harold set
in 1066. Since when were sub-Saharan Africans in Britain at
the time of William the Conqueror? I lost all suspension of
disbelief the moment I say the trailer.
The BBC love casting black/brown people in historical dramas
from time periods where there were none, or very few, around...
I think it's called colour-blind casting. But these anachronisms
just stand out and make the drama's unbelievable.
It annoys me when they do it with Agatha Christie dramatisations
especially, but they tend to do it with everything now.
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-23 15:57:28 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
A young person once asked me if the current or new system
of watching movies was better.
As long as there are no adverts I don't care what service
I use to watch movies... but ad breaks every 12/14 minutes
are a no-no so terrestrial TV can fuck off and die if it's
going to do that with films.
We record almost everything we watch so we can fast-forward
throught the adverts. It also saves time since a "1 hour" show
only takes around 45 minutes.
This is the way...
On-demand is the only way to watch a decent movie. Sit down
when you're ready to watch it, pause and make the tea when
it suits you, and pause and have a piss if you need to as
well.
Most services either already have adverts or are introducing
them, unless you pay for the most expensive membership tier.
And that's wrong! If you pay a subscription to a streaming
service you shouldn't have to watch adverts.
Although from what I have seen so far the adverts are at the
beginning of the films. They don't break into the actual movie
like the commercial TV channels do with their advert breaks.
Which isn't as bad... but I am against adverts on a paid
streaming service in principle.
Dumas Walker wrote:
I liked Missy. I thought she was great. Michelle Gomez
really nailed the part. She would have made a better Rani
than Archie Panjabi. (Or Anita Dobson)
I liked her portrayal better than the Master that followed.
100%!
Missy WAS a way better version of the character than Sacha
Dhawan's Master. I didn't like him at all.
Instead of just working with the idea of a female Doctor
having adventures in time and space and telling good "Doctor
Who" stories using that new dynamic, Chris Chibnall decided
to come up with the Timeless Child arc instead...
Agreed. With good stories, the 13th Doctor could have been
very entertaining.
Yes. The female Doctor is conflated with the Timeless Child but
it was an unnecessary arc. The 13th Doctor didn't HAVE to have
that storyline.
On 2025-08-23 13:18:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 22/08/2025 11:43 pm, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <1089r0k$1iv1j$2@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
There is no way it can ever recover from that unless there's a complete >>>> reboot from either Sylvester McCoy or Paul McGann
Why would we have to go back that far? I liked the Eccleston year and
most of Tennant as Ten, though it did start spinning out a bit at the
end.
I liked most of Matt Smith's era as well. IMO, things didn't really get
bad until Capaldi's tenure. MISI/Missy/The Mistress was probably the
beginning of the end.
Tennant and Smith struck me as being younger than the rest. Switching
back to (a bit) older age (Capaldi) didn't help.
Matt Smith has been the youngest actor to play the role (so far) at 26
years old, although he looks older than he is. David Tennant is the
fourth youngest to play the role at 34 years old. Unless you count the various child actors who have played one-off young versions of the
Doctor in "Listen" and "The Timeless Children".
Peter Capaldi was the second oldest (55 years and 5 months old) to play Doctor Who, just beaten by William Hartnell (55 years and 9 months old)
... unless you also include the one-off actors like John Hurt (approx.
73 years old), David Bradley (75 years old), and Richard Hurndall (72
years old).
<https://bluetowel.wordpress.com/2021/07/15/doctor-who-how-old-was-each-actor-to-play-the-doctor/>
The contract with Disney already expired in May, otherwise the BBC would
have announced a new series going into production and new casting,
especially that of the Doctor.>
The fact that the BBC intend to continue with "Doctor Who" at
some stage isn't a surprise though.
The BBC said Doctor Who is going nowhere. The bus is going nowhere, the TARDIS is going nowhere. That's doesn't mean that its continuing. It
means its come to a grinding halt.
On 24/08/2025 9:19 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-23 13:18:24 +0000, Daniel70 said:I don't include Richard Hurndall as an incarnation of The Doctor. If
On 22/08/2025 11:43 pm, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <1089r0k$1iv1j$2@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
There is no way it can ever recover from that unless there's a complete >>>>> reboot from either Sylvester McCoy or Paul McGann
Why would we have to go back that far? I liked the Eccleston year and
most of Tennant as Ten, though it did start spinning out a bit at the
end.
I liked most of Matt Smith's era as well. IMO, things didn't really get >>>> bad until Capaldi's tenure. MISI/Missy/The Mistress was probably the
beginning of the end.
Tennant and Smith struck me as being younger than the rest. Switching
back to (a bit) older age (Capaldi) didn't help.
Matt Smith has been the youngest actor to play the role (so far) at 26
years old, although he looks older than he is. David Tennant is the
fourth youngest to play the role at 34 years old. Unless you count the
various child actors who have played one-off young versions of the
Doctor in "Listen" and "The Timeless Children".
Peter Capaldi was the second oldest (55 years and 5 months old) to play
Doctor Who, just beaten by William Hartnell (55 years and 9 months old)
... unless you also include the one-off actors like John Hurt (approx.
73 years old), David Bradley (75 years old), and Richard Hurndall (72
years old).
<https://bluetowel.wordpress.com/2021/07/15/doctor-who-how-old-was-each-actor-to-play-the-doctor/>
anything thing he is just an incarnation of William Hartnell.
--
Daniel70
On 24/08/2025 5:42 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The contract with Disney already expired in May, otherwise the BBC would
have announced a new series going into production and new casting,
especially that of the Doctor.>
The fact that the BBC intend to continue with "Doctor Who" at
some stage isn't a surprise though.
The BBC said Doctor Who is going nowhere. The bus is going nowhere, the
TARDIS is going nowhere. That's doesn't mean that its continuing. It
means its come to a grinding halt.
"The bus is going nowhere, the TARDIS is going nowhere."
WHAT?? What? "Bus" Has someone fixed The TARDIS' CHAMELEON Circuit or >something??
That'll get peoples backs up!!
--
Daniel70
Daniel demanded:
On 24/08/2025 5:42 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The BBC said Doctor Who is going nowhere. The bus is going nowhere, the
TARDIS is going nowhere. That's doesn't mean that its continuing. It
means its come to a grinding halt.
"The bus is going nowhere, the TARDIS is going nowhere."
WHAT?? What? "Bus" Has someone fixed The TARDIS' CHAMELEON Circuit
or something??
That'll get peoples backs up!!
A bus TARDIS? Is it anything to do with Iris Wildthyme?
--
solar penguin
Daniel demanded:
On 24/08/2025 5:42 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The BBC said Doctor Who is going nowhere. The bus is going nowhere, the
TARDIS is going nowhere. That's doesn't mean that its continuing. It
means its come to a grinding halt.
"The bus is going nowhere, the TARDIS is going nowhere."
WHAT?? What? "Bus" Has someone fixed The TARDIS' CHAMELEON Circuit
or something??
That'll get peoples backs up!!
A bus TARDIS? Is it anything to do with Iris Wildthyme?
On 24/08/2025 9:19 am, Your Name wrote:
Peter Capaldi was the second oldest (55 years and 5 months
old) to play Doctor Who, just beaten by William Hartnell
(55 years and 9 months old) ... unless you also include the
one-off actors like John Hurt (approx. 73 years old), David
Bradley (75 years old), and Richard Hurndall (72 years old).
I don't include Richard Hurndall as an incarnation of The
Doctor. If anything thing he is just an incarnation of William
Hartnell.
Daniel demanded:
"The bus is going nowhere, the TARDIS is going nowhere."
WHAT?? What? "Bus" Has someone fixed The TARDIS' CHAMELEON
Circuit or something??
That'll get peoples backs up!!
A bus TARDIS? Is it anything to do with Iris Wildthyme?
Verily, in article <108evdd$2pmg1$1@dont-email.me>, did solar.penguin@gmail.com deliver unto us this message:
A bus TARDIS? Is it anything to do with Iris Wildthyme?
I love this group. Where else is anyone going to mention
Iris Wildthyme in 2025?
The True Doctor wrote:
On 23/08/2025 14:51, Blueshirt wrote:
For me, it looks like Chris Chibnall wanted to establish
pre-Hartnell Doctor's as a way of expanding the canvas for
He wasn't expanding anything. He wanted to justify the Doctor
regenerating into a woman, when for 14 previous incarnations
the Doctor had been white, male, and heterosexual, by creating
an infinite number of regenerations before Hartnell of
different genders, races, and sexualities.
I disagree. Chris Chibnall could have turned the Doctor
into a female Time Lord without the Timeless Child storyline.
We didn't need a new back story for Time Lords (and all the
Gallifrey mumbo jumbo) for Missy - or the General - did we?
Male to female regenerations had already been established in
"Doctor Who" before Jodie Whittaker was cast as the 13th Doctor.
Plus Steven Moffat had already thrown the Sisterhood of Karn's
elixir in to the mix, when Paul McGann regenerated into John
Hurt, that enabled Time Lords using it to choose their
appearance after regenerating ("male or female, fat or thin") So
there was no need for anyone to re-write the Doctor's origin
story. The idea was established, you had a male Doctor, he
regenerated into a female Doctor, now get on with it.
The idea for the Timeless Child storyline was an unnecessary
addition to the show's lore. Instead of focusing on all that,
Chris Chibnall could have just had the 13th Doctor have normal
adventures in time and space with her three companions.
The True Doctor wrote:
For some inexplicable reason they degenerate woke imbeciles
running the BBC have decided to cast a black west sub-Saharan
African actor in their new drama about King Harold set
in 1066. Since when were sub-Saharan Africans in Britain at
the time of William the Conqueror? I lost all suspension of
disbelief the moment I say the trailer.
The BBC love casting black/brown people in historical dramas
from time periods where there were none, or very few, around...
I think it's called colour-blind casting. But these anachronisms
just stand out and make the drama's unbelievable.
It annoys me when they do it with Agatha Christie dramatisations
especially, but they tend to do it with everything now.
Verily, in article <108dr5f$2hc11$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
Ethnicity-swapping also isn't anything new. We had the black Doctor and
black / Indian Isaac Newton, but before that was a black Hermione
Grainger in the Harry Potter stage play. Many others as well. Even in
the comic books they just had to ethnicity-swap Spider-Man.
The black Doctor was defensible, IMO. We saw a Time Lord change apparent
race in the classic show, at the end of "The Talons of Weng-Chiang." If
it could happen then, it can happen now.
My fanwank is that regeneration is influenced by the humanoids around
the Time Lord at the time.
On 24/08/2025 5:42 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The contract with Disney already expired in May, otherwise the BBC
would have announced a new series going into production and new
casting, especially that of the Doctor.>
The fact that the BBC intend to continue with "Doctor Who" at
some stage isn't a surprise though.
The BBC said Doctor Who is going nowhere. The bus is going nowhere,
the TARDIS is going nowhere. That's doesn't mean that its continuing.
It means its come to a grinding halt.
"The bus is going nowhere, the TARDIS is going nowhere."
WHAT?? What? "Bus" Has someone fixed The TARDIS' CHAMELEON Circuit or something??
That'll get peoples backs up!!
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-23 15:57:28 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
A young person once asked me if the current or new system
of watching movies was better.
As long as there are no adverts I don't care what service
I use to watch movies... but ad breaks every 12/14 minutes
are a no-no so terrestrial TV can fuck off and die if it's
going to do that with films.
We record almost everything we watch so we can fast-forward
throught the adverts. It also saves time since a "1 hour" show
only takes around 45 minutes.
This is the way...
On-demand is the only way to watch a decent movie. Sit down
when you're ready to watch it, pause and make the tea when
it suits you, and pause and have a piss if you need to as
well.
Most services either already have adverts or are introducing
them, unless you pay for the most expensive membership tier.
And that's wrong! If you pay a subscription to a streaming
service you shouldn't have to watch adverts.
Although from what I have seen so far the adverts are at the
beginning of the films. They don't break into the actual movie
like the commercial TV channels do with their advert breaks.
Which isn't as bad... but I am against adverts on a paid
streaming service in principle.
Verily, in article <108evdd$2pmg1$1@dont-email.me>, did >solar.penguin@gmail.com deliver unto us this message:
A bus TARDIS? Is it anything to do with Iris Wildthyme?
I love this group. Where else is anyone going to mention Iris Wildthyme
in 2025?
--
Doctor Who: The Mind of Evil (Third Doctor)
Watch party on Saturday, 1:00 PST >https://discord.gg/mw4QzndY?event=1408952064645795852
On 24/08/2025 10:09 pm, solar penguin wrote:
Daniel demanded:WOW!! A "Doctor Who" reference ..... in a "Doctor Who" newsgroup!!
On 24/08/2025 5:42 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The BBC said Doctor Who is going nowhere. The bus is going nowhere, the >>>> TARDIS is going nowhere. That's doesn't mean that its continuing. It
means its come to a grinding halt.
"The bus is going nowhere, the TARDIS is going nowhere."
WHAT?? What? "Bus" Has someone fixed The TARDIS' CHAMELEON Circuit
or something??
That'll get peoples backs up!!
A bus TARDIS? Is it anything to do with Iris Wildthyme?
Can someone bar Solar Penguin for being "On Topic"??
--
Daniel70
Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/08/2025 9:19 am, Your Name wrote:
Peter Capaldi was the second oldest (55 years and 5 months
old) to play Doctor Who, just beaten by William Hartnell
(55 years and 9 months old) ... unless you also include the
one-off actors like John Hurt (approx. 73 years old), David
Bradley (75 years old), and Richard Hurndall (72 years old).
I don't include Richard Hurndall as an incarnation of The
Doctor. If anything thing he is just an incarnation of William
Hartnell.
You don't include Richard Hurndall?! Cough... splutter... what
sort of nonsense is this? Next you'll be saying Doctor Who
finished in October 1966...
Strangely enough, you didn't say you didn't include David
Bradley as an incarnation of the Doctor... who is the oldest
actor to actually play the Doctor on TV... but David Bradley
is of course just an incarnation of Richard Hurndall! ;-)
solar penguin wrote:
Daniel demanded:
"The bus is going nowhere, the TARDIS is going nowhere."
WHAT?? What? "Bus" Has someone fixed The TARDIS' CHAMELEON
Circuit or something??
That'll get peoples backs up!!
A bus TARDIS? Is it anything to do with Iris Wildthyme?
:-)
That'll go over a few heads... but well done, our Iris needs
a bit of love.
On 24/08/2025 13:15, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108dr5f$2hc11$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
Ethnicity-swapping also isn't anything new. We had the black Doctor and
black / Indian Isaac Newton, but before that was a black Hermione
Grainger in the Harry Potter stage play. Many others as well. Even in
the comic books they just had to ethnicity-swap Spider-Man.
The black Doctor was defensible, IMO. We saw a Time Lord change apparent
race in the classic show, at the end of "The Talons of Weng-Chiang." If
it could happen then, it can happen now.
Which Talons of Weng-Chiang was this? It's not the one I have on VHS.
A white European actor playing a British man putting on Yellow Face to >impersonate a Chinese magician for a Victorian musichall show is not a
Time Lord changing race.
My fanwank is that regeneration is influenced by the humanoids around
the Time Lord at the time.
The only Time Lord in Talons was the Doctor and he didn't turn Chinese.
Tom Baker did put on Black Face to play Othello though at the National >Theatre I think.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 24/08/2025 11:14, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 23/08/2025 14:51, Blueshirt wrote:
For me, it looks like Chris Chibnall wanted to establish
pre-Hartnell Doctor's as a way of expanding the canvas for
He wasn't expanding anything. He wanted to justify the Doctor
regenerating into a woman, when for 14 previous incarnations
the Doctor had been white, male, and heterosexual, by creating
an infinite number of regenerations before Hartnell of
different genders, races, and sexualities.
I disagree. Chris Chibnall could have turned the Doctor
into a female Time Lord without the Timeless Child storyline.
But he didn't because he's a degenerate woke piece of s*t with very low >intelligence.
We didn't need a new back story for Time Lords (and all the
Gallifrey mumbo jumbo) for Missy - or the General - did we?
So there's only one explanation. The one I gave above.
Male to female regenerations had already been established in
"Doctor Who" before Jodie Whittaker was cast as the 13th Doctor.
No it wasn't. Nothing after Kill the Moon is canon.
Plus Steven Moffat had already thrown the Sisterhood of Karn's
elixir in to the mix, when Paul McGann regenerated into John
Hurt, that enabled Time Lords using it to choose their
appearance after regenerating ("male or female, fat or thin") So
This was not part of normal regeneration. It was an artifact of the Time
War. It's like the Doctor being given female hormones to grow breasts.
there was no need for anyone to re-write the Doctor's origin
story. The idea was established, you had a male Doctor, he
regenerated into a female Doctor, now get on with it.
Chibnall needed to justify the Doctor turning female because there was
no precedent for it. For 14 regenerations the Doctor was a man. He
wasn't transgender.
The idea for the Timeless Child storyline was an unnecessary
addition to the show's lore. Instead of focusing on all that,
Chibnall needed to justify the Doctor not being white and previous
female incarnations because he's a total imbecile.
Chris Chibnall could have just had the 13th Doctor have normal
adventures in time and space with her three companions.
He could have done. But this wasn't about exploring what could happen if
the Doctor turned into woman. All Chibnall did was to write the Doctor
as a man played by a woman and use every episode to systematically
attack men and heterosexuality. It was about nothing more than
degenerate woke virtue signalling to score woke points and trying to
justify the disgusting and perverted entertainment industry and disguise
its crimes under a cloak of wokery while it continued to sexually groom >children. Watch season 4 of The Boys on Amazon which tells you this.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-23 15:57:28 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
A young person once asked me if the current or new system
of watching movies was better.
As long as there are no adverts I don't care what service
I use to watch movies... but ad breaks every 12/14 minutes
are a no-no so terrestrial TV can fuck off and die if it's
going to do that with films.
We record almost everything we watch so we can fast-forward
throught the adverts. It also saves time since a "1 hour" show
only takes around 45 minutes.
This is the way...
On-demand is the only way to watch a decent movie. Sit down
when you're ready to watch it, pause and make the tea when
it suits you, and pause and have a piss if you need to as
well.
Most services either already have adverts or are introducing
them, unless you pay for the most expensive membership tier.
And that's wrong! If you pay a subscription to a streaming
service you shouldn't have to watch adverts.
Although from what I have seen so far the adverts are at the
beginning of the films. They don't break into the actual movie
like the commercial TV channels do with their advert breaks.
Which isn't as bad... but I am against adverts on a paid
streaming service in principle.
On 24/08/2025 11:14, Blueshirt wrote:
If you pay a subscription to a streaming service
you shouldn't have to watch adverts.
Although from what I have seen so far the adverts are
at the beginning of the films. They don't break into
the actual movie
Nope. They're in the middle of them too and they don't even
pick appropriate scenes to put them in. They're usually in the
middle of action and pivotal exposition to annoy you as much
as possible. Use an ad blocker.
like the commercial TV channels do with their advert breaks.
Which isn't as bad... but I am against adverts on a paid
streaming service in principle.
Why should anyone have to pay to watch adverts? If they're
going to insert adverts into it than is has to be free. The
government needs to pass a law in order to stop this
disgusting practice.
The True Doctor wrote:
For some inexplicable reason they degenerate woke imbeciles
running the BBC have decided to cast a black west sub-Saharan
African actor in their new drama about King Harold set
in 1066. Since when were sub-Saharan Africans in Britain at
the time of William the Conqueror? I lost all suspension of
disbelief the moment I say the trailer.
The BBC love casting black/brown people in historical dramas
from time periods where there were none, or very few, around...
I think it's called colour-blind casting. But these anachronisms
just stand out and make the drama's unbelievable.
It annoys me when they do it with Agatha Christie dramatisations
especially, but they tend to do it with everything now.
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108evdd$2pmg1$1@dont-email.me>, did
solar.penguin@gmail.com deliver unto us this message:
A bus TARDIS? Is it anything to do with Iris Wildthyme?
I love this group. Where else is anyone going to mention
Iris Wildthyme in 2025?
Random stuff like that happens here from time to time... it's
when people start mentioning Panda I'll get worried...
On 24/08/2025 13:00, Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/08/2025 5:42 am, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
The contract with Disney already expired in May, otherwise the BBC
would have announced a new series going into production and new
casting, especially that of the Doctor.>
The fact that the BBC intend to continue with "Doctor Who" at
some stage isn't a surprise though.
The BBC said Doctor Who is going nowhere. The bus is going nowhere,
the TARDIS is going nowhere. That's doesn't mean that its continuing.
It means its come to a grinding halt.
"The bus is going nowhere, the TARDIS is going nowhere."
WHAT?? What? "Bus" Has someone fixed The TARDIS' CHAMELEON Circuit or
something??
That'll get peoples backs up!!
All I need to say is Ken Dodd!!!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 24/08/2025 13:00, Daniel70 wrote:
"The bus is going nowhere, the TARDIS is going nowhere."
WHAT?? What? "Bus" Has someone fixed The TARDIS' CHAMELEON
Circuit or something??
That'll get peoples backs up!!
All I need to say is Ken Dodd!!!
Don't mention the Tollmaster!!!
On 24/08/2025 8:14 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Back in 'Agatha Christie' times, Blacks just weren't good enough for
The True Doctor wrote:
For some inexplicable reason they degenerate woke imbeciles
running the BBC have decided to cast a black west sub-Saharan
African actor in their new drama about King Harold set
in 1066. Since when were sub-Saharan Africans in Britain at
the time of William the Conqueror? I lost all suspension of
disbelief the moment I say the trailer.
The BBC love casting black/brown people in historical dramas
from time periods where there were none, or very few, around...
I think it's called colour-blind casting. But these anachronisms
just stand out and make the drama's unbelievable.
It annoys me when they do it with Agatha Christie dramatisations
especially, but they tend to do it with everything now.
anything except manual labour.
I mean even well after 'Agatha Christie' times, we had such things as
"The Black and White Minstrel Show". Oh, look, there was even a U.K. >version!!
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/100-voices/people-nation-empire/make-yourself-at-home/the-black-and-white-minstrel-show
--
Daniel70
On 24/08/2025 8:14 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Back in 'Agatha Christie' times, Blacks just weren't good enough for
The True Doctor wrote:
For some inexplicable reason they degenerate woke imbeciles
running the BBC have decided to cast a black west sub-Saharan
African actor in their new drama about King Harold set
in 1066. Since when were sub-Saharan Africans in Britain at
the time of William the Conqueror? I lost all suspension of
disbelief the moment I say the trailer.
The BBC love casting black/brown people in historical dramas
from time periods where there were none, or very few, around...
I think it's called colour-blind casting. But these anachronisms
just stand out and make the drama's unbelievable.
It annoys me when they do it with Agatha Christie dramatisations
especially, but they tend to do it with everything now.
anything except manual labour.
I mean even well after 'Agatha Christie' times, we had such things as
"The Black and White Minstrel Show". Oh, look, there was even a U.K. version!!
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/100-voices/people-nation-empire/ make-yourself-at-home/the-black-and-white-minstrel-show
On 24/08/2025 8:14 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
For some inexplicable reason they degenerate woke imbeciles
running the BBC have decided to cast a black west
sub-Saharan African actor in their new drama about King
Harold set in 1066. Since when were sub-Saharan Africans
in Britain at the time of William the Conqueror? I lost
all suspension of disbelief the moment I say the trailer.
The BBC love casting black/brown people in historical dramas
from time periods where there were none, or very few,
around... I think it's called colour-blind casting. But
these anachronisms just stand out and make the drama's
unbelievable.
It annoys me when they do it with Agatha Christie
dramatisations especially, but they tend to do it with
everything now.
Back in 'Agatha Christie' times, Blacks just weren't good
enough for anything except manual labour.
On 25/08/2025 3:19 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 24/08/2025 13:00, Daniel70 wrote:
"The bus is going nowhere, the TARDIS is going nowhere."
WHAT?? What? "Bus" Has someone fixed The TARDIS'
CHAMELEON Circuit or something??
That'll get peoples backs up!!
All I need to say is Ken Dodd!!!
No, that is NOT all you need say!
Daniel70 wrote:
On 25/08/2025 3:19 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 24/08/2025 13:00, Daniel70 wrote:No, that is NOT all you need say!
"The bus is going nowhere, the TARDIS is going nowhere."
WHAT?? What? "Bus" Has someone fixed The TARDIS'
CHAMELEON Circuit or something??
That'll get peoples backs up!!
All I need to say is Ken Dodd!!!
It was enough!
We don't need to be reminded about that era of the show... the
pantomime era as I like to call it.
<shudder>
On 25/08/2025 12:51, Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/08/2025 8:14 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:Back in 'Agatha Christie' times, Blacks just weren't good enough for
For some inexplicable reason they degenerate woke imbeciles
running the BBC have decided to cast a black west sub-Saharan
African actor in their new drama about King Harold set
in 1066. Since when were sub-Saharan Africans in Britain at
the time of William the Conqueror? I lost all suspension of
disbelief the moment I say the trailer.
The BBC love casting black/brown people in historical dramas
from time periods where there were none, or very few, around...
I think it's called colour-blind casting. But these anachronisms
just stand out and make the drama's unbelievable.
It annoys me when they do it with Agatha Christie dramatisations
especially, but they tend to do it with everything now.
anything except manual labour.
That is completely wrong. Back in 'Agatha Christie' times hardly anyone
knew or had even seen a black person, therefore the Spanish word for
black was never considered to be offensive.
I mean even well after 'Agatha Christie' times, we had such things as
"The Black and White Minstrel Show". Oh, look, there was even a U.K.
version!!
It was the highest rated entertainment show on the BBC. People thought
look at all of those white women swooning over those black men, why is
that? The should could not have been more woke and multicultural with
its encouragement of interracial relationships.
--https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/100-voices/people-nation-empire/
make-yourself-at-home/the-black-and-white-minstrel-show
On 26/08/2025 12:43 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/08/2025 12:51, Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/08/2025 8:14 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:Back in 'Agatha Christie' times, Blacks just weren't good enough for
For some inexplicable reason they degenerate woke imbeciles
running the BBC have decided to cast a black west sub-Saharan
African actor in their new drama about King Harold set
in 1066. Since when were sub-Saharan Africans in Britain at
the time of William the Conqueror? I lost all suspension of
disbelief the moment I say the trailer.
The BBC love casting black/brown people in historical dramas
from time periods where there were none, or very few, around...
I think it's called colour-blind casting. But these anachronisms
just stand out and make the drama's unbelievable.
It annoys me when they do it with Agatha Christie dramatisations
especially, but they tend to do it with everything now.
anything except manual labour.
That is completely wrong. Back in 'Agatha Christie' times hardly anyone
knew or had even seen a black person, therefore the Spanish word for
black was never considered to be offensive.
I mean even well after 'Agatha Christie' times, we had such things as
"The Black and White Minstrel Show". Oh, look, there was even a U.K.
version!!
It was the highest rated entertainment show on the BBC. People thought
look at all of those white women swooning over those black men, why is
that? The should could not have been more woke and multicultural with
its encouragement of interracial relationships.
But, Aggy, were the "Black Minstrels" actually Black men .... or just
White men with make-up on??
Why was that?? There were no 'talented' Black men anywhere to be found, >maybe!!
--https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/100-voices/people-nation-empire/
make-yourself-at-home/the-black-and-white-minstrel-show
Daniel70
On 26/08/2025 12:43 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/08/2025 12:51, Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/08/2025 8:14 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:Back in 'Agatha Christie' times, Blacks just weren't good enough for
For some inexplicable reason they degenerate woke imbeciles
running the BBC have decided to cast a black west sub-Saharan
African actor in their new drama about King Harold set
in 1066. Since when were sub-Saharan Africans in Britain at
the time of William the Conqueror? I lost all suspension of
disbelief the moment I say the trailer.
The BBC love casting black/brown people in historical dramas
from time periods where there were none, or very few, around...
I think it's called colour-blind casting. But these anachronisms
just stand out and make the drama's unbelievable.
It annoys me when they do it with Agatha Christie dramatisations
especially, but they tend to do it with everything now.
anything except manual labour.
That is completely wrong. Back in 'Agatha Christie' times hardly
anyone knew or had even seen a black person, therefore the Spanish
word for black was never considered to be offensive.
I mean even well after 'Agatha Christie' times, we had such things as
"The Black and White Minstrel Show". Oh, look, there was even a U.K.
version!!
It was the highest rated entertainment show on the BBC. People thought
look at all of those white women swooning over those black men, why is
that? The should could not have been more woke and multicultural with
its encouragement of interracial relationships.
But, Aggy, were the "Black Minstrels" actually Black men .... or just
White men with make-up on??
Why was that??
There were no 'talented' Black men anywhere to be found, > maybe!!
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/100-voices/people-nation-empire/
make-yourself-at-home/the-black-and-white-minstrel-show
On 26/08/2025 12:51, Daniel70 wrote:
On 26/08/2025 12:43 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/08/2025 12:51, Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/08/2025 8:14 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:Back in 'Agatha Christie' times, Blacks just weren't good enough for
For some inexplicable reason they degenerate woke imbeciles
running the BBC have decided to cast a black west sub-Saharan
African actor in their new drama about King Harold set
in 1066. Since when were sub-Saharan Africans in Britain at
the time of William the Conqueror? I lost all suspension of
disbelief the moment I say the trailer.
The BBC love casting black/brown people in historical dramas
from time periods where there were none, or very few, around...
I think it's called colour-blind casting. But these anachronisms
just stand out and make the drama's unbelievable.
It annoys me when they do it with Agatha Christie dramatisations
especially, but they tend to do it with everything now.
anything except manual labour.
That is completely wrong. Back in 'Agatha Christie' times hardly
anyone knew or had even seen a black person, therefore the Spanish
word for black was never considered to be offensive.
I mean even well after 'Agatha Christie' times, we had such things as
"The Black and White Minstrel Show". Oh, look, there was even a U.K.
version!!
It was the highest rated entertainment show on the BBC. People thought
look at all of those white women swooning over those black men, why is
that? The should could not have been more woke and multicultural with
its encouragement of interracial relationships.
But, Aggy, were the "Black Minstrels" actually Black men .... or just
White men with make-up on??
Why was that??
Because black men is what the women wanted because of their superior
sexual prowess. There you see... The BBC were sexually grooming children
even back then... Yes, of-course they were... This of-course was the
time of Jimmy Saville.
There were no 'talented' Black men anywhere to be found, > maybe!!
They eventually found Lenny Henry who presented the show and was one of
the minstrels.
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/100-voices/people-nation-empire/
make-yourself-at-home/the-black-and-white-minstrel-show
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 26/08/2025 12:51, Daniel70 wrote:
On 26/08/2025 12:43 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/08/2025 12:51, Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/08/2025 8:14 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:Back in 'Agatha Christie' times, Blacks just weren't good
For some inexplicable reason they degenerate woke
imbeciles running the BBC have decided to cast a black west
sub-Saharan African actor in their new drama about King
Harold set in 1066. Since when were sub-Saharan Africans in
Britain at the time of William the Conqueror? I lost all
suspension of disbelief the moment I say the trailer.
The BBC love casting black/brown people in historical dramas
from time periods where there were none, or very few,
around... I think it's called colour-blind casting. But these
anachronisms just stand out and make the drama's
unbelievable.
It annoys me when they do it with Agatha Christie
dramatisations especially, but they tend to do it with
everything now.
enough for anything except manual labour.
That is completely wrong. Back in 'Agatha Christie' times hardly
anyone knew or had even seen a black person, therefore the
Spanish word for black was never considered to be offensive.
I mean even well after 'Agatha Christie' times, we had such
things as "The Black and White Minstrel Show". Oh, look, there
was even a U.K. version!!
It was the highest rated entertainment show on the BBC. People
thought look at all of those white women swooning over those
black men, why is that? The should could not have been more woke
and multicultural with its encouragement of interracial
relationships.
But, Aggy, were the "Black Minstrels" actually Black men .... or
just White men with make-up on??
Why was that??
Because black men is what the women wanted because of their superior
sexual prowess.
There you see... The BBC were sexually grooming children even back
then
... Yes, of-course they were... This of-course was the time of Jimmy--
Saville.
There were no 'talented' Black men anywhere to be found, maybe!!
They eventually found Lenny Henry who presented the show and was one
of the minstrels.
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/100-voices/people-nation-empire/
make-yourself-at-home/the-black-and-white-minstrel-show
Disney doesn't care about the British audience nor the
show's fans. If they can get more American wanting to
watch it, they will get more money.
On 27/08/2025 1:07 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/2025 12:51, Daniel70 wrote:
On 26/08/2025 12:43 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 25/08/2025 12:51, Daniel70 wrote:
On 24/08/2025 8:14 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:Back in 'Agatha Christie' times, Blacks just weren't good
For some inexplicable reason they degenerate woke
imbeciles running the BBC have decided to cast a black west
sub-Saharan African actor in their new drama about King
Harold set in 1066. Since when were sub-Saharan Africans in
Britain at the time of William the Conqueror? I lost all
suspension of disbelief the moment I say the trailer.
The BBC love casting black/brown people in historical dramas
from time periods where there were none, or very few,
around... I think it's called colour-blind casting. But these
anachronisms just stand out and make the drama's
unbelievable.
It annoys me when they do it with Agatha Christie
dramatisations especially, but they tend to do it with
everything now.
enough for anything except manual labour.
That is completely wrong. Back in 'Agatha Christie' times hardly
anyone knew or had even seen a black person, therefore the
Spanish word for black was never considered to be offensive.
I mean even well after 'Agatha Christie' times, we had such
things as "The Black and White Minstrel Show". Oh, look, there
was even a U.K. version!!
It was the highest rated entertainment show on the BBC. People
thought look at all of those white women swooning over those
black men, why is that? The should could not have been more woke
and multicultural with its encouragement of interracial
relationships.
But, Aggy, were the "Black Minstrels" actually Black men .... or
just White men with make-up on??
Why was that??
Because black men is what the women wanted because of their superior
sexual prowess.
So why not have Black Men portraying Black Men??
There you see... The BBC were sexually grooming children even back
then
Sorry!! How is having White Men portraying Black Men "Child Grooming",
Aggy?? An entirely new application of the word "Grooming", maybe!
... Yes, of-course they were... This of-course was the time of Jimmy--
Saville.
There were no 'talented' Black men anywhere to be found, maybe!!
They eventually found Lenny Henry who presented the show and was one
of the minstrels.
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/100-voices/people-nation-empire/ >>>>> make-yourself-at-home/the-black-and-white-minstrel-show
Daniel70
Your Name wrote:
Disney doesn't care about the British audience nor the
show's fans. If they can get more American wanting to
watch it, they will get more money.
Yeah, but even that idea seems strange to me... as the only
way Disney get more money is by getting more subscribers to
their streaming service (Disney+). Which seems a nice idea
in theory, but I never thought "Doctor Who" was the show that
was going to make thousands of people around the world rush
out and try Disney+ out if they didn't already have it.
I did think the people who already had a Disney+ subscription,
maybe for Star Wars or Marvel, or just because they had kids
that liked Disney stuff, might click play and try out an episode
of "Doctor Who" once they saw it was on there... but as a show
to make people subscribe to a streaming service for? Nah, I
never thought "Doctor Who" was that 'must watch' type of show.
In article <xn0pa1hxt2jjz4m000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Your Name wrote:
Disney doesn't care about the British audience nor the
show's fans. If they can get more American wanting to
watch it, they will get more money.
Yeah, but even that idea seems strange to me... as the only
way Disney get more money is by getting more subscribers to
their streaming service (Disney+). Which seems a nice idea
in theory, but I never thought "Doctor Who" was the show
that was going to make thousands of people around the world
rush out and try Disney+ out if they didn't already have it.
I did think the people who already had a Disney+
subscription, maybe for Star Wars or Marvel, or just because
they had kids that liked Disney stuff, might click play and
try out an episode of "Doctor Who" once they saw it was on
there... but as a show to make people subscribe to a
streaming service for? Nah, I never thought "Doctor Who" was
that 'must watch' type of show.
There is a streaming revolt.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pa1hxt2jjz4m000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Your Name wrote:
Disney doesn't care about the British audience nor the
show's fans. If they can get more American wanting to
watch it, they will get more money.
Yeah, but even that idea seems strange to me... as the only
way Disney get more money is by getting more subscribers to
their streaming service (Disney+). Which seems a nice idea
in theory, but I never thought "Doctor Who" was the show
that was going to make thousands of people around the world
rush out and try Disney+ out if they didn't already have it.
I did think the people who already had a Disney+
subscription, maybe for Star Wars or Marvel, or just because
they had kids that liked Disney stuff, might click play and
try out an episode of "Doctor Who" once they saw it was on
there... but as a show to make people subscribe to a
streaming service for? Nah, I never thought "Doctor Who" was
that 'must watch' type of show.
There is a streaming revolt.
There is a look after your wallet revolt... as the prices
for these streaming services continually rise upwards, people
let their subscriptions lapse and wait for offers... well,
that's what I do anyway. Binge and purge.
Your Name wrote:
Disney doesn't care about the British audience nor the
show's fans. If they can get more American wanting to
watch it, they will get more money.
Yeah, but even that idea seems strange to me...
as the only way Disney get more money is by getting more subscribers to
their streaming service (Disney+). Which seems a nice idea in theory,
but I never thought "Doctor Who" was the show that was going to make thousands of people around the world rush out and try Disney+ out if
they didn't already have it.
I did think the people who already had a Disney+ subscription, maybe
for Star Wars or Marvel, or just because they had kids that liked
Disney stuff, might click play and try out an episode of "Doctor Who"
once they saw it was on there... but as a show to make people subscribe
to a streaming service for? Nah, I never thought "Doctor Who" was that
'must watch' type of show.
On 2025-08-27 11:52:05 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Your Name wrote:
Disney doesn't care about the British audience nor the
show's fans. If they can get more American wanting to
watch it, they will get more money.
Yeah, but even that idea seems strange to me...
Almost every decision made by Hollyweird and/or morons in managament >(including politicians) is weird and makes no sense, and is usually
just a massive waste of time and money. :-(
The real reason is because they then get a huge bonus payment for
having the idea, even when it causes the entire company to fail, they
still get a massive 'golden handshake' payout while being kicked out
the door.
as the only way Disney get more money is by getting more subscribers to
their streaming service (Disney+). Which seems a nice idea in theory,
but I never thought "Doctor Who" was the show that was going to make
thousands of people around the world rush out and try Disney+ out if
they didn't already have it.
I did think the people who already had a Disney+ subscription, maybe
for Star Wars or Marvel, or just because they had kids that liked
Disney stuff, might click play and try out an episode of "Doctor Who"
once they saw it was on there... but as a show to make people subscribe
to a streaming service for? Nah, I never thought "Doctor Who" was that
'must watch' type of show.
On 2025-08-27 11:52:05 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Your Name wrote:
Disney doesn't care about the British audience nor the
show's fans. If they can get more American wanting to
watch it, they will get more money.
Yeah, but even that idea seems strange to me...
Almost every decision made by Hollyweird and/or morons in managament >(including politicians) is weird and makes no sense, and is usually
just a massive waste of time and money. :-(
The real reason is because they then get a huge bonus payment for
having the idea, even when it causes the entire company to fail, they
still get a massive 'golden handshake' payout while being kicked out
the door.
as the only way Disney get more money is by getting more subscribers to
their streaming service (Disney+). Which seems a nice idea in theory,
but I never thought "Doctor Who" was the show that was going to make
thousands of people around the world rush out and try Disney+ out if
they didn't already have it.
I did think the people who already had a Disney+ subscription, maybe
for Star Wars or Marvel, or just because they had kids that liked
Disney stuff, might click play and try out an episode of "Doctor Who"
once they saw it was on there... but as a show to make people subscribe
to a streaming service for? Nah, I never thought "Doctor Who" was that
'must watch' type of show.
Ubiquitous wrote:
YourName@YourISP.com wrote:
SUPPOSEDLY!
There have been numerous examples in the past where a moron
in management says something (not just TV and movies either)
is not being cancelled, only to then turn around weeks or
months later to say it is cancelled.
I imagine this spin-off is as doomed as doomed can be!
The BBC don't seem to be in a rush to air it anyway...
blueshirt@indigo.news wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:
YourName@YourISP.com wrote:
SUPPOSEDLY!
There have been numerous examples in the past where a moron
in management says something (not just TV and movies either)
is not being cancelled, only to then turn around weeks or
months later to say it is cancelled.
I imagine this spin-off is as doomed as doomed can be!
The BBC don't seem to be in a rush to air it anyway...
I imagine it's hard to find actors with the stamina required to film it.
--
Not a joke! Don't jump!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:12:00 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,066 |
| Messages: | 6,417,248 |