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.
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.
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. It felt like you knew the
whole time the Series was going to end in a regeneration... yeah we
probably had read or heard that to be the case before the series
started to
air, but most of the stories seemed to be working up to it and it felt
"off."
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.
* SLMR 2.1a * "Excellent...excellent..." - Mr. Burns
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...
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),
No doubt! I would say the same for Dr. Who, minus Kennedy.
including Disney's total lack of creative ability (hence keep doing
lazy 'live-action' remakes of their old animated movies).
Yeah, I wondered why they keep doing those... some of those movies
they've
remade are not very old! I doubt they do much to help them with Gen-Z
men,
or anyone older than Gen-Z for that matter.
* SLMR 2.1a * "Kills millions of germs on contract"
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 liked her portrayal better than the Master that followed. My
exposure to
the Master before the 2000's is limited, but I do remember watching a
series where he was using a TARDIS shaped like a column. I think he
was
being played by either Roger Delgado or, more likely, Anthony Ainley. >Whichever it was, I enjoyed the story.
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...
Agreed. With good stories, the 13th Doctor could have been very >entertaining.
* SLMR 2.1a * "We use language??" - Beavis
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),
No doubt! I would say the same for Dr. Who, minus Kennedy.
including Disney's total lack of creative ability (hence
keep doing lazy 'live-action' remakes of their old
animated movies).
Yeah, I wondered why they keep doing those...
Dumas Walker wrote:
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),
No doubt! I would say the same for Dr. Who, minus Kennedy.
In fairness, Doctor Who "failing" has nothing to do with Disney
as they don't make or own it. Disney paid money to the BBC for
the international streaming rights but Doctor Who is made in the
UK by RTD's production company Bad Wolf for the BBC. Whether
people in the UK watch Doctor Who or not has nothing to do with
Disney. I doubt they had much creative control over the scripts
or storylines... that's on the showrunner.
The Acolyte OTOH...
including Disney's total lack of creative ability (hence
keep doing lazy 'live-action' remakes of their old
animated movies).
Yeah, I wondered why they keep doing those...
And a lot of their "live action" remakes use CGI so they are
not really that live at all. I mean, they didn't use real Lions
in The Lion King "live-action" remake did they?!
Dumas Walker wrote:
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),
No doubt! I would say the same for Dr. Who, minus Kennedy.
In fairness, Doctor Who "failing" has nothing to do with Disney
as they don't make or own it. Disney paid money to the BBC for
the international streaming rights but Doctor Who is made in the
UK by RTD's production company Bad Wolf for the BBC. Whether
people in the UK watch Doctor Who or not has nothing to do with
Disney. I doubt they had much creative control over the scripts
or storylines... that's on the showrunner.
On 24/08/2025 8:14 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Dumas Walker wrote:
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),
No doubt! I would say the same for Dr. Who, minus Kennedy.
In fairness, Doctor Who "failing" has nothing to do with Disney
as they don't make or own it. Disney paid money to the BBC for
the international streaming rights but Doctor Who is made in the
UK by RTD's production company Bad Wolf for the BBC. Whether
people in the UK watch Doctor Who or not has nothing to do with
Disney. I doubt they had much creative control over the scripts
or storylines... that's on the showrunner.
I would think if Disney were throwing a few million dollars in the
direction of BBC/Bad Wolf/RTD, that Disney might want SOME sort of
influence on the content.
--
Daniel70
I would think if Disney were throwing a few million
dollars in the direction of BBC/Bad Wolf/RTD, that Disney
might want SOME sort of influence on the content.
In article <108etus$2pbkl$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote:
I would think if Disney were throwing a few million
dollars in the direction of BBC/Bad Wolf/RTD, that
Disney might want SOME sort of influence on the content.
Spot on correct!
Before that there has been a female Doctor Watson in the USSherlock
Holmes based show "Elementary" in 2012 and a female Starbuck inamong
Moore-Ron's awful re-boot of "Battlestar Galactica" in 2004 ...
others.
In both cases, these were reimaginings of the stories. The original characters didn't turn female.
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.
But Chibnall was the issue.
Exactly. ;)
* SLMR 2.1a * May The Force be with you...
The Doctor wrote:
In article <108etus$2pbkl$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote:
I would think if Disney were throwing a few million
dollars in the direction of BBC/Bad Wolf/RTD, that
Disney might want SOME sort of influence on the content.
Spot on correct!
I don't give RTD a free pass. Blaming Disney for everything
is taking the easy way out, and the facts don't fit that
narrative. I'm sure Disney had some input obviously, but not
enough to shape the content in any major way. What we saw
on-screen in S1/14 and S2/15 of Doctor Who is RTD's vision for
the show... he is the showrunner, so the buck stops with him.
Before that there has been a female Doctor Watson in the USSherlock
Holmes based show "Elementary" in 2012 and a female Starbuck inamong
Moore-Ron's awful re-boot of "Battlestar Galactica" in 2004 ...
others.
In both cases, these were reimaginings of the stories. The original
characters didn't turn female.
On the CW in the US, there was a series recently (either from Canada or
the
UK) where Holmes has a daughter, and Moriarty a son. It wasn't bad.
* SLMR 2.1a * It's time for the Possum Lodge Word Game!!!
The Doctor wrote:
In article <108etus$2pbkl$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote:
I would think if Disney were throwing a few million
dollars in the direction of BBC/Bad Wolf/RTD, that
Disney might want SOME sort of influence on the content.
Spot on correct!
I don't give RTD a free pass. Blaming Disney for everything
is taking the easy way out, and the facts don't fit that
narrative. I'm sure Disney had some input obviously, but not
enough to shape the content in any major way. What we saw
on-screen in S1/14 and S2/15 of Doctor Who is RTD's vision for
the show... he is the showrunner, so the buck stops with him.
Daniel70 wrote:
I would think if Disney were throwing a few million
dollars in the direction of BBC/Bad Wolf/RTD, that Disney
might want SOME sort of influence on the content.
I'd find it hard to believe that a Bogey monster, singing
Goblins, the really deep and meaningful Susan twist arc, the
fourth wall breaking Mrs Flood cameos, Sutekh - the all powerful
destroyer of life - returning... to be destroyed fairly easily,
an Indian Isaac Newton, the really clever mavity universe, the
Rani bigenerating, and Omega also returning... for all of two
minutes (etc.) would be the sort of thing the Disney executives
in LA would pitch as ideas for RTD to write scripts around...
I could be wrong of course.
:-)
including Disney's total lack of creative ability (hence
keep doing lazy 'live-action' remakes of their old
animated movies).
Yeah, I wondered why they keep doing those...
And a lot of their "live action" remakes use CGI so they are
not really that live at all. I mean, they didn't use real Lions
in The Lion King "live-action" remake did they?!
Not sure as I didn't watch it, but I would guess not. :D
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 the CW in the US, there was a series recently (either from Canada or
the UK) where Holmes has a daughter, and Moriarty a son. It wasn't bad.
On 2025-08-24 15:22:21 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Daniel70 wrote:
I would think if Disney were throwing a few million
dollars in the direction of BBC/Bad Wolf/RTD, that Disney
might want SOME sort of influence on the content.
I'd find it hard to believe that a Bogey monster, singing
Goblins, the really deep and meaningful Susan twist arc, the
fourth wall breaking Mrs Flood cameos, Sutekh - the all powerful
destroyer of life - returning... to be destroyed fairly easily,
an Indian Isaac Newton, the really clever mavity universe, the
Rani bigenerating, and Omega also returning... for all of two
minutes (etc.) would be the sort of thing the Disney executives
in LA would pitch as ideas for RTD to write scripts around...
I could be wrong of course.
:-)
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they can easily >"suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc. put into the show as
well as ideas to make it more appealing to Americans (and the horrible
McGann movie shows how well that works out).
On 2025-08-24 15:29:56 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <108etus$2pbkl$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote:
I would think if Disney were throwing a few million
dollars in the direction of BBC/Bad Wolf/RTD, that
Disney might want SOME sort of influence on the content.
Spot on correct!
I don't give RTD a free pass. Blaming Disney for everything
is taking the easy way out, and the facts don't fit that
narrative. I'm sure Disney had some input obviously, but not
enough to shape the content in any major way. What we saw
on-screen in S1/14 and S2/15 of Doctor Who is RTD's vision for
the show... he is the showrunner, so the buck stops with him.
It would have been a combination of the BBC, Disney, and RTD all trying
to appease the Politically Correct morons.
including Disney's total lack of creative ability (hence
keep doing lazy 'live-action' remakes of their old
animated movies).
Yeah, I wondered why they keep doing those...
And a lot of their "live action" remakes use CGI so they are
not really that live at all. I mean, they didn't use real
Lions in The Lion King "live-action" remake did they?!
Not sure as I didn't watch it, but I would guess not. :D
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they
can easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc.
put into the show as well as ideas to make it more appealing
to Americans (and the horrible McGann movie shows how well
that works out).
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 the CW in the US, there was a series recently (either from Canada
or the UK) where Holmes has a daughter, and Moriarty a son. It
wasn't bad.
Dumas Walker wrote:
including Disney's total lack of creative ability (hence
keep doing lazy 'live-action' remakes of their old
animated movies).
Yeah, I wondered why they keep doing those...
And a lot of their "live action" remakes use CGI so they are
not really that live at all. I mean, they didn't use real
Lions in The Lion King "live-action" remake did they?!
Not sure as I didn't watch it, but I would guess not. :D
:-)
All of the animals in The Lion King "live action" remake
were CGI... in fact the whole film was computer generated. It
was very good CGI, but not live at all.
Your Name wrote:
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they
can easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc.
put into the show as well as ideas to make it more appealing
to Americans (and the horrible McGann movie shows how well
that works out).
They'd want to make Doctor Who more appealing to the British
audience first... the show has been on a downward spiral for
the past few years. Even the return of David Tennant and
Catherine Tate in 2023 didn't do much to stop the rot!
Verily, in article <108g4rt$33gah$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
In the BBC series "Sherlock" she was named
"Eurus Holmes", a sister neither Sherlock nor Mycroft even knew about -
Mycroft knew. He and the parents all kept it secret from Holmes. He >supposedly kept his sister locked up while casually and constantly lying
to his brother about it, and the supernaturally observant Sherlock never >noticed a thing.
The underlying idea could have been a good movie, offbeat and baroque.
It didn't fit the Holmes world, though, either the original material or
the Moffatt version where Holmes essentially has powers. Mycroft had to
be handed the idiot ball, and dragging Moriarty in seemed almost like
parody.
ObDW: Speaking of big secrets, what did you all think of Turlough's arc?
I like the idea of a snake slithering onto the TARDIS crew. I think it
could be used again, perhaps with a different twist.
--
Doctor Who: The Mind of Evil (Third Doctor)
Watch party on Saturday, 1:00 PST >https://discord.gg/mw4QzndY?event=1408952064645795852
In article <xn0p9yoni5uxmc1003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
They'd want to make Doctor Who more appealing to the
British audience first... the show has been on a downward
spiral for the past few years. Even the return of David
Tennant and Catherine Tate in 2023 didn't do much to stop
the rot!
Because RTD did not give what the audience wanted.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p9yoni5uxmc1003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
They'd want to make Doctor Who more appealing to the
British audience first... the show has been on a downward
spiral for the past few years. Even the return of David
Tennant and Catherine Tate in 2023 didn't do much to stop
the rot!
Because RTD did not give what the audience wanted.
And what did the audience want Dave?
In article <xn0p9yt7a6135hi001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p9yoni5uxmc1003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
They'd want to make Doctor Who more appealing to the
British audience first... the show has been on a downward
spiral for the past few years. Even the return of David
Tennant and Catherine Tate in 2023 didn't do much to stop
the rot!
Because RTD did not give what the audience wanted.
And what did the audience want Dave?
Retcon the Timeless Child.
Verily, in article <108g4rt$33gah$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
In the BBC series "Sherlock" she was named
"Eurus Holmes", a sister neither Sherlock nor Mycroft even knew about -
Mycroft knew. He and the parents all kept it secret from Holmes. He supposedly kept his sister locked up while casually and constantly lying
to his brother about it, and the supernaturally observant Sherlock never noticed a thing.
The underlying idea could have been a good movie, offbeat and baroque.
It didn't fit the Holmes world, though, either the original material or
the Moffatt version where Holmes essentially has powers. Mycroft had to
be handed the idiot ball, and dragging Moriarty in seemed almost like
parody.
ObDW: Speaking of big secrets, what did you all think of Turlough's arc?
I like the idea of a snake slithering onto the TARDIS crew. I think it
could be used again, perhaps with a different twist.
In article <756049333@darkrealms.ca>,
Dumas Walker <NOSPAM.Dumas.Walker@darkrealms.ca> wrote:
Before that there has been a female Doctor Watson in the USSherlock
Holmes based show "Elementary" in 2012 and a female Starbuck inamong
Moore-Ron's awful re-boot of "Battlestar Galactica" in 2004 ...
others.
originalIn both cases, these were reimaginings of the stories. The
characters didn't turn female.
On the CW in the US, there was a series recently (either from Canadaor
the
UK) where Holmes has a daughter, and Moriarty a son. It wasn't bad.
You think?
Verily, in article <108htou$3fd6o$2@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
No it couldn't. It destroys the character of Sherlock Holmes.
Yes, it could have been a good movie *about* *other* *characters*.
That's what I said: It could have been good, but wasn't Sherlock Holmes.
Verily, in article <108hlca$gl8$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Because RTD did not give what the audience wanted.
We didn't want a return to looking at Tennant and
Tate. We wanted a return to better stories.
Verily, in article <108hpos$1rns$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Retcon the Timeless Child.
All we have to do is ignore it. Quiet retcons are the
easiest kind.
Your Name wrote:
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they
can easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc.
put into the show as well as ideas to make it more appealing
to Americans (and the horrible McGann movie shows how well
that works out).
They'd want to make Doctor Who more appealing to the British
audience first... the show has been on a downward spiral for
the past few years. Even the return of David Tennant and
Catherine Tate in 2023 didn't do much to stop the rot!
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p9yt7a6135hi001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p9yoni5uxmc1003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
They'd want to make Doctor Who more appealing to the
British audience first... the show has been on a downward
spiral for the past few years. Even the return of David
Tennant and Catherine Tate in 2023 didn't do much to stop
the rot!
Because RTD did not give what the audience wanted.
And what did the audience want Dave?
Retcon the Timeless Child.
But what if RTD had retconned the Timeless Child? Do you think
Ncuti Gatwa wouldn't be the Doctor?
Do you think we wouldn't
have got the mavity universe? Do you think we wouldn't have had
singing Goblins, space babies and the return of the Rani, Omega
and Sutekh? Do you think Rogue wouldn't have kissed the Doctor?
Do you think Joy wouldn't have become a star? Do you think the
scripts would be any different?
Retconning the Timeless Child arc wouldn't have made the last
two years of Doctor Who any more entertaining for the general
audience. It would be the exact same stories... but some Doctor
Who lore from 2017 would have been changed. Most of the general
public couldn't give a damn about that. People have stopped
watching Doctor Who because it's not as entertaining anymore.
That's on the stories of today, not the show's past.
Verily, in article <108hpos$1rns$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Retcon the Timeless Child.
All we have to do is ignore it. Quiet retcons are the easiest kind.
--
Doctor Who: The Mind of Evil (Third Doctor)
Watch party on Saturday, 1:00 PST >https://discord.gg/mw4QzndY?event=1408952064645795852
Verily, in article <108hlca$gl8$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Because RTD did not give what the audience wanted.
Exactly. We didn't want a return to looking at Tennant and Tate. We
wanted a return to better stories.
--
Doctor Who: The Mind of Evil (Third Doctor)
Watch party on Saturday, 1:00 PST >https://discord.gg/mw4QzndY?event=1408952064645795852
In article <756049333@darkrealms.ca>,
Dumas Walker <NOSPAM.Dumas.Walker@darkrealms.ca> wrote:
Before that there has been a female Doctor Watson in the USSherlock
Holmes based show "Elementary" in 2012 and a female Starbuck inamong
Moore-Ron's awful re-boot of "Battlestar Galactica" in 2004 ...
others.
originalIn both cases, these were reimaginings of the stories. The
characters didn't turn female.
On the CW in the US, there was a series recently (either from Canadaor
the
UK) where Holmes has a daughter, and Moriarty a son. It wasn't bad.
You think?
Yes, I did.
* SLMR 2.1a * What do you mean, QWK?? It took me over an hour to
read!!
In fairness, Doctor Who "failing" has nothing to do with Disney
as they don't make or own it. Disney paid money to the BBC for
the international streaming rights but Doctor Who is made in the
UK by RTD's production company Bad Wolf for the BBC. Whether
people in the UK watch Doctor Who or not has nothing to do with
Disney. I doubt they had much creative control over the scripts
or storylines... that's on the showrunner.
I would think if Disney were throwing a few million dollars in the
direction of BBC/Bad Wolf/RTD, that Disney might want SOME sort of
influence on the content.
That is what I am thinking. Disney is not directly involved but, if
they
are forking over the $$$, they do have influence. That said, unless I
am
mistaken, they were not financially involved when Chinball was at the
helm
-- when it really went off the rails.
* SLMR 2.1a * 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely small values of 5.
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108hlca$gl8$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Because RTD did not give what the audience wanted.
We didn't want a return to looking at Tennant and
Tate. We wanted a return to better stories.
^ THIS ^
I wonder will people want a return to Piper and Tennant
when the show returns from its break.. or will it just
provoke another big yawn from the general public?
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108hpos$1rns$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Retcon the Timeless Child.
All we have to do is ignore it. Quiet retcons are the
easiest kind.
That's all the people have to do, ignore it. But they won't!
They keep banging on about it every single day!
It's also why I advocate head-canon... if it doesn't work for
me, it doesn't count. Simples.
On 2025-08-25 16:08:30 +0000, Melissa Hollingsworth said:
Verily, in article <108htou$3fd6o$2@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
No it couldn't. It destroys the character of Sherlock Holmes.
Yes, it could have been a good movie *about* *other* *characters*.
That's what I said: It could have been good, but wasn't Sherlock Holmes.
Same goes for pretty much every idiotic "reboot". Why Hollyweird
insists on re-using an old name for what is really a different product
is simply ridiculous and makes no sense at all.
Supposedly re-using the old name is to entice the original fans, who
then get angry because of all the silly changes. The new version has
those silly changes to entice new fans, who would have been put off
watching anyway by re-using the name of the old version they didn't
like. It's a lose-lose situation, whereas giving teh new product a new
name wold mean everyone gives it chance to see if it is any good or
not in its own right - no preconceived ideas.
Intelligence in Hollyweird is simply non-existant. :-\
Verily, in article <108htou$3fd6o$2@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
No it couldn't. It destroys the character of Sherlock Holmes.
Yes, it could have been a good movie *about* *other* *characters*.
That's what I said: It could have been good, but wasn't Sherlock Holmes.
On 2025-08-25 10:50:46 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Your Name wrote:
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they
can easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc.
put into the show as well as ideas to make it more appealing
to Americans (and the horrible McGann movie shows how well
that works out).
They'd want to make Doctor Who more appealing to the British
audience first... the show has been on a downward spiral for
the past few years. Even the return of David Tennant and
Catherine Tate in 2023 didn't do much to stop the rot!
Disney doesn't care about the British audience nor the show's fans. If
they can get more American wanting to watch it, they will get more
money.
On 2025-08-25 10:50:46 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Your Name wrote:
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they
can easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc.
put into the show as well as ideas to make it more appealing
to Americans (and the horrible McGann movie shows how well
that works out).
They'd want to make Doctor Who more appealing to the British
audience first... the show has been on a downward spiral for
the past few years. Even the return of David Tennant and
Catherine Tate in 2023 didn't do much to stop the rot!
Disney doesn't care about the British audience nor the show's fans. If
they can get more American wanting to watch it, they will get more money.
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108hlca$gl8$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Because RTD did not give what the audience wanted.
We didn't want a return to looking at Tennant and
Tate. We wanted a return to better stories.
^ THIS ^
I wonder will people want a return to Piper and Tennant
when the show returns from its break.. or will it just
provoke another big yawn from the general public?
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they can
easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc. put into the
show as well as ideas to make it more appealing to Americans (and
the horrible McGann movie shows how well that works out).
As an American who prefers my foreign shows to be "foreign," I do
not like this. I am a fan of the show "Endeavour" and was
disappointed to find out they changed some things for the PBS
broadcasts because they thought "we" might not get it.
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108hlca$gl8$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Because RTD did not give what the audience wanted.
We didn't want a return to looking at Tennant and
Tate. We wanted a return to better stories.
^ THIS ^
I wonder will people want a return to Piper and Tennant
when the show returns from its break.. or will it just
provoke another big yawn from the general public?
On 25/08/2025 20:14, Blueshirt wrote:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <108hlca$gl8$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Because RTD did not give what the audience wanted.
We didn't want a return to looking at Tennant and
Tate. We wanted a return to better stories.
^ THIS ^
I wonder will people want a return to Piper and Tennant
when the show returns from its break.. or will it just
provoke another big yawn from the general public?
Tennant is finished. The public had enough of him the moment he decided
to virtue signal that the Doctor was gay and transgender and used the
show to try to sexually groom their children and vulnerable young adults.
The only way back for Doctor Who is a complete write-off and
denunciation of everything from Kill the Moon onwards and an appology to
the fans and viewer for all of the bigoted attacks that were inflicted
on them by the show runners, actors, writers, and producers, for not
enjoying degenerate woke garbage. And even that might be too little too
late after the damage Tennant did to his own legacy.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 26/08/2025 5:14 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:I was going to suggest another (1989 ... 2005) type break so (just as
Verily, in article <108hlca$gl8$4@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
Because RTD did not give what the audience wanted.
We didn't want a return to looking at Tennant and
Tate. We wanted a return to better stories.
^ THIS ^
I wonder will people want a return to Piper and Tennant
when the show returns from its break.. or will it just
provoke another big yawn from the general public?
'we' had time to reject/forget DoctorSly and DoctorPaul) we could forget
the Gatwa Doctor and The Timeless Child IF WE WANTED TO and start off on
new adventures .... and, who knows, I might even still be around for the >re-resurrection!!
--
Daniel70
Verily, in article <108k0sd$3utb0$2@dont-email.me>, did >agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Just how stupid were the BBC
to have even listened to RTDs pitch that Doctor Who was too white, too
masculine, too straight, and too British, and not kicked him out of the
door flying?
I've mentioned this before, but my belief is that they *did* tell him no
the first time. This is what he wanted to do all along, but he wasn't
allowed during his first turn, so he invented Captain Jack to sex it up >instead.
Later, when it was failing and they wanted to bring him back, he was >unrestrained. Now, we have this.
--
Doctor Who: The Mind of Evil (Third Doctor)
Watch party on Saturday, 1:00 PST >https://discord.gg/mw4QzndY?event=1408952064645795852
On the CW in the US, there was a series recently (either fromCanada
or the UK) where Holmes has a daughter, and Moriarty a son. It
wasn't bad.
I didn't notice the "Moriaty a son" bit. Maybe I wasn't watching
close
enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_%26_Daughter
On 25/08/2025 10:10 am, Dumas Walker wrote:
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they can
easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc. put into the
show as well as ideas to make it more appealing to Americans (and
the horrible McGann movie shows how well that works out).
As an American who prefers my foreign shows to be "foreign," I do
not like this. I am a fan of the show "Endeavour" and was
disappointed to find out they changed some things for the PBS
broadcasts because they thought "we" might not get it.
How did 'they' change "Endeavour"??
On 2025-08-26 11:22:06 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 25/08/2025 10:10 am, Dumas Walker wrote:
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they can
easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc. put into the
show as well as ideas to make it more appealing to Americans (and
the horrible McGann movie shows how well that works out).
As an American who prefers my foreign shows to be "foreign," I do
not like this. I am a fan of the show "Endeavour" and was
disappointed to find out they changed some things for the PBS
broadcasts because they thought "we" might not get it.
How did 'they' change "Endeavour"??
Many British shows are often "edited" for overseas release. Usually it
that means shortening them to fit into the "standard" one-hour, with
adverts, timeslots.
On 2025-08-26 11:22:06 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 25/08/2025 10:10 am, Dumas Walker wrote:
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they can
easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc. put into the
show as well as ideas to make it more appealing to Americans (and
the horrible McGann movie shows how well that works out).
As an American who prefers my foreign shows to be "foreign," I do
not like this. I am a fan of the show "Endeavour" and was
disappointed to find out they changed some things for the PBS
broadcasts because they thought "we" might not get it.
How did 'they' change "Endeavour"??
Many British shows are often "edited" for overseas release. Usually it
that means shortening them to fit into the "standard" one-hour, with
adverts, timeslots.
On 27/08/2025 6:52 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-26 11:22:06 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 25/08/2025 10:10 am, Dumas Walker wrote:
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they can
easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc. put into the
show as well as ideas to make it more appealing to Americans (and
the horrible McGann movie shows how well that works out).
As an American who prefers my foreign shows to be "foreign," I do
not like this. I am a fan of the show "Endeavour" and was
disappointed to find out they changed some things for the PBS
broadcasts because they thought "we" might not get it.
How did 'they' change "Endeavour"??
Many British shows are often "edited" for overseas release. Usually it
that means shortening them to fit into the "standard" one-hour, with
adverts, timeslots.
Ah! of course.
On 2025-08-27 06:07:20 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 27/08/2025 6:52 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-26 11:22:06 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 25/08/2025 10:10 am, Dumas Walker wrote:
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they can
easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc. put into the >>>>>> show as well as ideas to make it more appealing to Americans (and
the horrible McGann movie shows how well that works out).
As an American who prefers my foreign shows to be "foreign," I do
not like this. I am a fan of the show "Endeavour" and was
disappointed to find out they changed some things for the PBS
broadcasts because they thought "we" might not get it.
How did 'they' change "Endeavour"??
Many British shows are often "edited" for overseas release. Usually it
that means shortening them to fit into the "standard" one-hour, with
adverts, timeslots.
Ah! of course.
There can sometimes be other changes due to sex, violence, bad
language, etc that "might offend some viewers" in other countries or
simply do not quite fit with the image the network has.
There's a topic at MovieChat.org about changes to "Endeavour" (and
other shows) made by PBS: ><https://moviechat.org/tt2701582/Endeavour/58c79b6893cef4080d930e2f/Does-PBS-Masterpiece-Mystery-edit-all-Endeavour-episodes>
On 27/08/2025 6:52 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-26 11:22:06 +0000, Daniel70 said:Ah! of course.
On 25/08/2025 10:10 am, Dumas Walker wrote:
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they can
easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc. put into the
show as well as ideas to make it more appealing to Americans (and
the horrible McGann movie shows how well that works out).
As an American who prefers my foreign shows to be "foreign," I do
not like this. I am a fan of the show "Endeavour" and was
disappointed to find out they changed some things for the PBS
broadcasts because they thought "we" might not get it.
How did 'they' change "Endeavour"??
Many British shows are often "edited" for overseas release. Usually it
that means shortening them to fit into the "standard" one-hour, with
adverts, timeslots.
--
Daniel70
As an American who prefers my foreign shows to be "foreign," I do
not like this. I am a fan of the show "Endeavour" and was
disappointed to find out they changed some things for the PBS
broadcasts because they thought "we" might not get it.
How did 'they' change "Endeavour"??
How did 'they' change "Endeavour"??
Many British shows are often "edited" for overseas release. Usually
it
that means shortening them to fit into the "standard" one-hour, with
adverts, timeslots.
PBS doesn't have adverts and, IIRC, aired the episodes for 90 minutes
in
two roughly 45-minute "halfs." I got the impression that it wasn't for
time but for things they didn't think that we'd understand.
As I pointed out before, PBS has been airing a whole lot of British
drama
and comedy programming for years, and the average PBS viewer *would*
likely
understand.
* SLMR 2.1a * Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
On 2025-08-27 06:07:20 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 27/08/2025 6:52 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-26 11:22:06 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 25/08/2025 10:10 am, Dumas Walker wrote:
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they can
easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc. put into the >>>>>> show as well as ideas to make it more appealing to Americans (and
the horrible McGann movie shows how well that works out).
As an American who prefers my foreign shows to be "foreign," I do
not like this. I am a fan of the show "Endeavour" and was
disappointed to find out they changed some things for the PBS
broadcasts because they thought "we" might not get it.
How did 'they' change "Endeavour"??
Many British shows are often "edited" for overseas release. Usually it
that means shortening them to fit into the "standard" one-hour, with
adverts, timeslots.
Ah! of course.
There can sometimes be other changes due to sex, violence, bad
language, etc that "might offend some viewers" in other countries or
simply do not quite fit with the image the network has.
There's a topic at MovieChat.org about changes to "Endeavour" (and
other shows) made by PBS: <https://moviechat.org/tt2701582/Endeavour/58c79b6893cef4080d930e2f/Does-PBS-Masterpiece-Mystery-edit-all-Endeavour-episodes>
Verily, in article <756303762@darkrealms.ca>, did >NOSPAM.Dumas.Walker@darkrealms.ca deliver unto us this message:
Ironically, part of the reason it was failing was that they allowed
Chinball to convince them that some of the above was true. Rather than
reverting back to what was working, they went all in.
You know, it's very unusual for shows to right themselves after going
wrong. A few have managed it, but most don't.
I guess showrunners have trouble admitting errors in direction.
--
Doctor Who: The Mind of Evil (Third Doctor)
Watch party on Saturday, 1:00 PST >https://discord.gg/mw4QzndY?event=1408952064645795852
On 2025-08-26 11:22:06 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 25/08/2025 10:10 am, Dumas Walker wrote:
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they can
easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc. put into the
show as well as ideas to make it more appealing to Americans (and
the horrible McGann movie shows how well that works out).
As an American who prefers my foreign shows to be "foreign," I do
not like this. I am a fan of the show "Endeavour" and was
disappointed to find out they changed some things for the PBS
broadcasts because they thought "we" might not get it.
How did 'they' change "Endeavour"??
Many British shows are often "edited" for overseas release. Usually it
that means shortening them to fit into the "standard" one-hour, with
adverts, timeslots.
In article
<MPG.4318da0db98c772198988d@news.eternal-september.org>,
Melissa Hollingsworth <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess showrunners have trouble admitting errors in
direction.
And now RTD is getting dragged down for defending RTD.
Verily, in article <756303762@darkrealms.ca>, did NOSPAM.Dumas.Walker@darkrealms.ca deliver unto us:
Ironically, part of the reason it was failing was that
they allowed Chinball to convince them that some of the
above was true. Rather than reverting back to what was
working, they went all in.
You know, it's very unusual for shows to right themselves
after going wrong. A few have managed it, but most don't.
I guess showrunners have trouble admitting errors in direction.
The Doctor wrote:
In article
<MPG.4318da0db98c772198988d@news.eternal-september.org>,
Melissa Hollingsworth <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess showrunners have trouble admitting errors in
direction.
And now RTD is getting dragged down for defending RTD.
That might have made sense to you when you typed it... but
my Yaddish Translator doesn't seem to be working properly
today.
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <756303762@darkrealms.ca>, did
NOSPAM.Dumas.Walker@darkrealms.ca deliver unto us:
Ironically, part of the reason it was failing was that
they allowed Chinball to convince them that some of the
above was true. Rather than reverting back to what was
working, they went all in.
You know, it's very unusual for shows to right themselves
after going wrong. A few have managed it, but most don't.
I don't think "Doctor Who" is beyond redemption, it's not been
all bad. The show has just lost it's way a bit lately with RTD
reliving his past glories and making a show that he thinks
people want to watch, as opposed to something that they do
actually want to watch! He's out of touch with the audience.
For me, "Doctor Who" needs a fresh start with a new showrunner.
I guess showrunners have trouble admitting errors in direction.
I think on the whole most creative types are like that though,
aren't they? It's their ideas, so they must be great ideas
because they think they are!
Verily, in article <xn0pa2yds41f7z8002@news.eternal-september.org>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The show has just lost it's way a bit lately with RTD
reliving his past glories and making a show that he thinks
people want to watch, as opposed to something that they do
actually want to watch! He's out of touch with the audience.
For me, "Doctor Who" needs a fresh start with a new showrunner.
In my grumpier moments, I think it should be cancelled for another rest
and then (with luck) revived under a showrunner who takes it seriously. >Objectively, though, you're probably right. The show is a fixture
I guess showrunners have trouble admitting errors in direction.
I think on the whole most creative types are like that though,
aren't they? It's their ideas, so they must be great ideas
because they think they are!
We probably all have that tendency.
As that Evil Overlord list says: If I employ people as advisors, I will >occasionally listen to their advice.
--
Doctor Who: The Mind of Evil (Third Doctor)
Watch party on Saturday, 1:00 PST >https://discord.gg/mw4QzndY?event=1408952064645795852
Verily, in article <MPG.4319f4c3210a1b41989896@news.eternal-
september.org>, did thetruemelissa@gmail.com deliver unto us this
message:
For me, "Doctor Who" needs a fresh start with a new showrunner.
In my grumpier moments, I think it should be cancelled for another rest
and then (with luck) revived under a showrunner who takes it seriously.
Objectively, though, you're probably right. The show is a fixture
That got cut off. I meant to say that the show is a fixture of British
TV, and interest could turn back to it if it got interesting.
It inherently has that potential. Unfortunately, the way things have
been going, they'll probably try to interest kids by recasting the
Doctor with an influencer and having him do a podcast from the TARDIS.
What would interest kids for real is what has always interested kids:
models of what kind of people they might be.
--
Doctor Who: The Mind of Evil (Third Doctor)
Watch party on Saturday, 1:00 PST >https://discord.gg/mw4QzndY?event=1408952064645795852
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <756303762@darkrealms.ca>, did
NOSPAM.Dumas.Walker@darkrealms.ca deliver unto us:
Ironically, part of the reason it was failing was that
they allowed Chinball to convince them that some of the
above was true. Rather than reverting back to what was
working, they went all in.
You know, it's very unusual for shows to right themselves
after going wrong. A few have managed it, but most don't.
I don't think "Doctor Who" is beyond redemption, it's not been
all bad. The show has just lost it's way a bit lately with RTD
reliving his past glories and making a show that he thinks
people want to watch, as opposed to something that they do
actually want to watch! He's out of touch with the audience.
For me, "Doctor Who" needs a fresh start with a new showrunner.
I guess showrunners have trouble admitting errors in direction.
I think on the whole most creative types are like that though,
aren't they? It's their ideas, so they must be great ideas
because they think they are!
On 28/08/2025 10:04 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:Yeap. Not ever painting by Leonardo da Vinci rates as good ss the "Mona >Lisa"!!
Verily, in article <756303762@darkrealms.ca>, did
NOSPAM.Dumas.Walker@darkrealms.ca deliver unto us:
Ironically, part of the reason it was failing was that
they allowed Chinball to convince them that some of the
above was true. Rather than reverting back to what was
working, they went all in.
You know, it's very unusual for shows to right themselves
after going wrong. A few have managed it, but most don't.
I don't think "Doctor Who" is beyond redemption, it's not been
all bad. The show has just lost it's way a bit lately with RTD
reliving his past glories and making a show that he thinks
people want to watch, as opposed to something that they do
actually want to watch! He's out of touch with the audience.
For me, "Doctor Who" needs a fresh start with a new showrunner.
I guess showrunners have trouble admitting errors in direction.
I think on the whole most creative types are like that though,
aren't they? It's their ideas, so they must be great ideas
because they think they are!
--
Daniel70
Binky bleated :
In article <108pm6d$1c4uv$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote:
Yeap. Not ever painting by Leonardo da Vinci rates as good ss the "Mona
Lisa"!!
Just the one original
And the other originals bricked up in the basement.
On 27/08/2025 6:52 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-08-26 11:22:06 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 25/08/2025 10:10 am, Dumas Walker wrote:
Disney may not have suggested actual storylines, but they can
easily "suggest" that there is more "diversity", etc. put into the
show as well as ideas to make it more appealing to Americans (and
the horrible McGann movie shows how well that works out).
As an American who prefers my foreign shows to be "foreign," I do
not like this. I am a fan of the show "Endeavour" and was
disappointed to find out they changed some things for the PBS
broadcasts because they thought "we" might not get it.
How did 'they' change "Endeavour"??
Many British shows are often "edited" for overseas release. Usually it
that means shortening them to fit into the "standard" one-hour, with
adverts, timeslots.
Here in Australia, we have our ABC showing 'Endeavour' in 90 minute
format (ABC doesn't carry 'Ads' with-in a Program but does do
'promotions' for its other programms between programs).
Their latest trick is, at the end of Program 'A' they'll do a promotion
for the next scheduled program (Program 'B'), then do a promo for some
other program (Program C), then actually show Program 'B'.
Meanwhile, one of the Commercial stations shows 'Endeavour' in 2hr
format (including Ads with-in the program).
Can't say I've seen the same Episode on both stations in the same week
.... but it could happen! ;-)
On 2025-08-28 17:34:42 +0000, solar penguin said:
Binky bleated :
In article <108pm6d$1c4uv$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote:
Yeap. Not ever painting by Leonardo da Vinci rates as good ss the "Mona >>>> Lisa"!!
Just the one original
And the other originals bricked up in the basement.
There are at least four known "Mona Lisa" paintings done by Leonardo da
Vinci and his students.
One of a kind?
Actually, there's at least four different versions painted by
Leonardo da Vinci and his students. But the one we all know
and love is at the Louvre Museum in Paris, France. The others
can be found at the Prado Museum and in numerous private
collections.
<https://artsandculture.google.com/story/5-things-you-didn-39-t-know-about-the-mona-lisa/RAWhCf30WpKiZQ>
Binky bleated :^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted.
In article <108pm6d$1c4uv$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote:
Yeap. Not ever painting by Leonardo da Vinci rates as good ss the "Mona
Lisa"!!
Just the one original
And the other originals bricked up in the basement.
--
solar penguin
Binky bleated :
In article <108pm6d$1c4uv$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote:
Yeap. Not ever painting by Leonardo da Vinci rates as good ss the "Mona
Lisa"!!
Just the one original
And the other originals bricked up in the basement.
On 8/28/2025 12:34, solar penguin wrote:
Binky bleated :
In article <108pm6d$1c4uv$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse> wrote:
Yeap. Not ever painting by Leonardo da Vinci rates as good ss the "Mona >>>> Lisa"!!
Just the one original
And the other originals bricked up in the basement.
Except the all say "This is a fake" on the canvas. :)
--
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
Ironically, part of the reason it was failing was that they allowed Chinball to convince them that some of the above was true. Ratherthan
reverting back to what was working, they went all in.
You know, it's very unusual for shows to right themselves after going
wrong. A few have managed it, but most don't.
I guess showrunners have trouble admitting errors in direction.
Ironically, part of the reason it was failing was that they allowedthan
Chinball to convince them that some of the above was true. Rather
reverting back to what was working, they went all in.
You know, it's very unusual for shows to right themselves after going
wrong. A few have managed it, but most don't.
So true, especially if it might be seen as going against the "PC" flow
of
things.
I guess showrunners have trouble admitting errors in direction.
This also although, in this case, the BBC were handing off from one to
the
other and could have themselves realized and admitted the errors vs. >continuing down the wrong path. ;)
* SLMR 2.1a * Uncontained entropy experiment gone crazy.......maybe.
As I pointed out before, PBS has been airing a whole lot of British
drama
and comedy programming for years, and the average PBS viewer *would*
likely
understand.
Hence why DW aired on PBS all those years ago.
Yes. I am not 100% that our local PBS ever aired it, but I know that
plenty did.
* SLMR 2.1a * I don't NEED Robocomm! ... I'm up at 4:00 am
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 49:36:34 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,314 |
| Posted today: | 1 |