Doctor Who News, Articles, Cast and Crew Interviews

[Alan]

Which is certainly no fault of Chibnall's. He doesn't even come on board till the year after that!

Indeed. The BBC One controller doesn't want Doctor Who conflicting with various national moments including the Euros and the Olympics. All perfectly reasonable in my mind. I'm happy to wait. What is a year of waiting compared to the 16 between Series 26 and 27 anyway?

[rushy]

I've heard people say the actual reason is that they want to give Chibnall time to wrap up Broadchurch's third season.

[Alan]

I've heard people say the actual reason is that they want to give Chibnall time to wrap up Broadchurch's third season.

It could possibly be a bit of both - scheduling and series 3 of Broadchurch.

Doctor Who will return.

[rushy]

Of course it will. And Chibnall's gonna be great.

[BruTak]

Every writer has his good days and bad days.

I'm willing to give Chris Chibnall a chance.

And as for the year or so wait, well, it'll give me an opportunity to rewatch all my Doctor Who DVDs.

[Alan]

Every writer has his good days and bad days.

I'm willing to give Chris Chibnall a chance.

And as for the year or so wait, well, it'll give me an opportunity to rewatch all my Doctor Who DVDs.

I've been doing that a week after The Husbands of River Song aired and just today watched The Enemy of the World and The Web of Fear from Series 5. Nearing the beginning of the end of the Patrick Troughton era.

[BruTak]

All my DW DVDs are stored under my bed.

Which probably goes some way to explaining why I keep having such weird dreams...

[Alan]

All my DW DVDs are stored under my bed.

Which probably goes some way to explaining why I keep having such weird dreams...

But at least there's less space for the monsters and aliens to fit under there.

[Annoyed]

Would you believe there's already a "Fire Chibnall" thread over on Gallifrey Base?

Honestly, there's no pleasing some people...

Clearly certified Ogrons of the highest order behind that one. Hopefully that thread will get shut down soon.

Unless the site is owned and operated by BBC management, what possible excuse or justification would they have for silencing the voices of unhappy viewers? The show management is doing something the viewers don't like. They have to live with the fact that they will piss some folks off.

Or does the site in question only want positive comments?

[Alan]

Unless the site is owned and operated by BBC management, what possible excuse or justification would they have for silencing the voices of unhappy viewers? The show management is doing something the viewers don't like. They have to live with the fact that they will piss some folks off.

Or does the site in question only want positive comments?

No, it doesn't want just positive comments...but what it does want is sensible, non-provocative conversation. And asking for someone to be fired when the man doesn't even take charge until 2018 could be seen as provocative.

[Annoyed]

No, it doesn't want just positive comments...but what it does want is sensible, non-provocative conversation. And asking for someone to be fired when the man doesn't even take charge until 2018 could be seen as provocative.

So that would make it a "yes man" site, where you must agree with the prevailing opinion, or your opinion isn't wanted.
Perhaps the people who don't like the new guy have seen his work and don't like it.

Sites that focus on TV shows exist so fans can discuss the shows they like. That includes criticism. Not much of a site if they don't allow differing views to be heard, if you ask me.

[Alan]

So that would make it a "yes man" site, where you must agree with the prevailing opinion, or your opinion isn't wanted.
Perhaps the people who don't like the new guy have seen his work and don't like it.

Sites that focus on TV shows exist so fans can discuss the shows they like. That includes criticism. Not much of a site if they don't allow differing views to be heard, if you ask me.

They do allow criticism. You're missing my point. When I say provocative I'm talking about threads such as the one asking for a person to be fired with no clear reasoning or justification as to why they want him to go when he hasn't even arrived yet. It can lead to high level arguing of the sort that could resort to the forum temporarily closing down which is precisely what happened back in 2005 to the site at the time - "Outpost Gallifrey" after it was announced that Christopher Eccleston was leaving after his one and only series. An entire site had closed its doors for a few hours to allow people to cool down.

There needs to be a sensitivity surrounding events like these and the leaving of Steven Moffat and the in-coming of Chris Chibnall is one of them. It needs to be handled with care because there is nothing quite like a fan reaction when someone or a group of someone's are rubbed up the wrong way.

[Annoyed]

Free Speech includes the right of people who disagree with the majority to make their voices heard, too.

Rather than censor someone who posts a non-conformist opinion, maybe they should block the people who give the people who voice opposition to the mainstream view grief?

And how does anyone know whether those with opposing views such as the one asking for a person to be fired with no clear reasoning or justification as to why they want him to go when he hasn't even arrived yet don't have legitimate reasons? Maybe they saw his work elsewhere and didn't like it.

I'm not supporting or opposing the new guy. I don't know anything about him, so I'm not in his or Moffat's corner. I'll wait till I see his work. The thing I'm unhappy about is the delay till 2017 for a new season.

I'm just saying that EVERYONE's views have the right to be heard.
Even if it is just a knee-jerk reaction to change, they have the right to voice their opinion. If someone gives them grief, ban or censor the person or people giving the grief, not the person posting a different view.

[rushy]

"Maybe they saw his work elsewhere."

How does his work elsewhere come into this? If he was less than competent, the BBC wouldn't have hired him. And since he is competent, we need to see how exactly he's going to handle running Doctor Who before we can start giving any real opinions about him.

Andrew Cartmel didn't seem like such a hot choice either back in 1987, but it was thanks to him that the classic series left with dignity.

As for the whole freedom of speech thing, I suppose you're right. Freedom of speech means you have the freedom to be dumb and not give legitimate reasons for posting your opinion.

[Alan]

Sir Terry Wogan 1938 - 2016
Sunday, 31 January, 2016 - Reported by Marcus

http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2016/01...1938-2016.html

Television and radio host Sir Terry Wogan has died at the age of 77.

Terry Wogan was for many years the face and voice of the BBC. The success of his Radio Two morning show led to a television contract and for most of the 1980's he presented a live interview show on BBC One three times a week.

Over the years he interviewed many of the stars of Doctor Who, including Jon Pertwee, Peter Davison and Colin Baker.

For over thirty years he hosted the annual charity telethon, Children In Need, which featured many elements based on Doctor Who, including the 1993 Doctor Who/EastEnders mashup Dimensions in Time, the 2007 meeting between the Fifth and Tenth Doctor, Time Crash, and the entire 20th Anniversary story The Five Doctors.

In 1985 twenty stars of the series, past and present appeared on the show to present a donation to the charity raised by proceeds of the BBC exhibition in Blackpool.