Bio not provided
@TwelvesHoodie No idea.
2 days, 15 hours ago on Best of 2014 Awards: The Winners (Part 2)
2 weeks, 1 day ago on Toby Whithouse Two-parter Confirmed for Series 9
@Paul Raymond My exact list!
2 weeks, 5 days ago on Best of 2014 Awards #1-5 Recap
I think some people have already mentioned this, but I'm getting sick of reading bullet point lists of 'plot holes' or unanswered questions in lieu of actual reviews. I think there was maybe one valid point in David Selby's list; the rest of his ' logic errors to be spotted which all robbed the episode of its much-needed credibility' are explained within the episode. Seeing a reviewer asking questions like "How does St Paul’s Cathedral host the 3W institute? Inter-dimensional
engineering? Something at least resembling an explanation would be
appreciated." when that point is explicitly addressed within the episode they're supposed to be reviewing... Well, it makes me question their much-needed credibility, let's put it that way. I watched the episode once and I picked up on that. How does somebody whose job it is to critically analyse the episode miss it?
2 months, 2 weeks ago on 2nd Opinion: Death in Heaven
Good review, I agree with most of what you said.
2 months, 3 weeks ago on Death in Heaven Review (Part 1)
@markdaventry This is my new favourite comment on this website
2 months, 3 weeks ago on Rate & Discuss Death in Heaven
As a lot of other people have already said, I think Dark Water is a better episode but Utopia has a better Master reveal.
2 months, 3 weeks ago on Face-Off: Utopia vs Dark Water
@DAVidROS That would indeed be a nightmare. I grew up with Tennant and the RTD era and it's unquestionably my favourite era of Who past or present - but I wouldn't wish any part of Who history out of existence, and certainly not the Moffat years.
3 months, 1 week ago on Rate & Discuss Flatline
Mummy wins this one for me - it's not even close. Flatline was a good story, but Mummy was one of my favourites of the series.
3 months, 1 week ago on Face-Off: Mummy vs Flatline
@Xaven @osgood_the_fangirl Pretty outlandish theory there
4 months ago on The Caretaker – 12 Hints & Teasers
To quote Paul Cornell: "Puzzled Who fans: there were two possibilities given for what the thing
in the bed was. One was ruled out. So it was the other one. Because ruling out the second possibility was the whole theme and point of the episode: no monsters except what's inside."
4 months, 2 weeks ago on Poll: Listen – Was there a Monster or not?
@Timhogan One of the what?
Do I think that the thing on the bed was a monster? No. Do I think that the 'perfect hiders' were waiting behind the door at the end of the universe? Yes.
@MaraBackman I think it was just a kid from the home playing a trick on Danny; much like the hull of the spaceship cooling, or the 'Listen' appearing on the chalkboard, it was a case of the Doctor suspecting some malevolent entity when in fact it was something perfectly normal. The "sontarans perverting the course of human history" line is a reference to the Fourth Doctor's first scene from the story Robot, where he wakes up after regenerating and falling unconscious; which, in turn, is a reference to a Third Doctor story called the Time Warrior. That's Doctor Who for you.
4 months, 2 weeks ago on Rate & Discuss Listen
@JamesSkippins I know what you mean - I was okay with it personally, but I worried that the impact would be lost on a large portion of the audience. I'd have rather they'd omitted the reference to the barn in Day of the Doctor, at least.
To put it shortly, I went into this story with pretty low expectations and was presently surprised. After the popularity of The Crimson Horror, a story so suspension-of-belief-shatteringly ridiculous that I personally still suspect it might have been written in the midst of a trionic radiation leak, I was worried that Gatiss would decide to make his next episode equally farcical. Fortunately, whilst this was definitely a funny story, with plenty of scenes devoted primarily to the hilarious bickering between Robin and the Doctor, I never felt like the story was crossing the line from humorous to outright absurd. Despite all the ‘bantering’ and such, the episode still had enough of a serious side to it to keep me emotionally invested; in particular, the theme of heroes, and whether they can exist, was one which I found extremely interesting. I like how Gatiss addressed this idea, and above everything else in the episode I loved Robin’s final speech to the Doctor. They may not be heroes, but they can be stories, and stories can inspire heroic acts in others. That’s a great coda, especially in conjunction with Clara’s line at the end of last week’s episode about the Doctor trying to be a good man, and how the trying is the whole point. I think we’re really going to be exploring the Doctor’s character this series in much more depth than we have previously, and I’m hugely excited about that.
Speaking of impossible heroes, it turns out Robin Hood wasn't so impossible after all. I honestly don’t know how I feel about this. On the one hand, it irked me that the show deviated from established history by pinning down a ‘real’ Robin Hood - I know that it’s silly to complain about deviating from history when there were robot knights striding through Nottingham, but it still bothered me nonetheless. I think it’s because I felt that, if there really was a real Robin Hood, the Doctor should already have known about him. On the other hand, it completely defied my expectations for the episode in a way I found refreshing; we’re all familiar with the story formula of the Doctor encountering something which doesn’t make any sense, getting all sceptical about it, and then being proven right. But not this time - this time there’s no evil alien interference, it’s just an honest case of a group of merry men becoming the stuff of myths and legends. I really like that - it’s a very hopeful idea. The message that I took away from this story was that impossible heroes can exist, and that the Doctor is one of them - he’s a hero, not a good dalek! Take that, Rusty.
Okay, I’m just about done now. Overall, I think this is one of Gatiss’ best stories - it wasn’t a knock-out spectacular piece of television, but it was amusing and entertaining (the kind of episode that gets called a ‘romp’ by literally everyone ever) with an underlying theme that I really appreciated.
4 months, 3 weeks ago on Rate & Discuss Robot of Sherwood
@jemihedgehog33 oooooooh, I hadn't thought of that! Good theory.
4 months, 3 weeks ago on 12 Great Moments From Robot of Sherwood
Whilst they were both excellent Doctor debuts, and very different sorts of stories, Deep Breath was a more enjoyable story for me personally because it tackled regeneration from an angle that hadn't really been explored before. So that gets my vote.
5 months ago on Face-Off: The Eleventh Hour vs Deep Breath
@A Friend of the Ood Like Mr Razza said, it's a play on "Robin of Sherwood", the old TV show.
5 months ago on Robot of Sherwood BBC Synopsis
@Polyphase No kissing at all? That sounds like an incredibly boring universe.
5 months, 1 week ago on Addressing the Deep Breath Kiss
@Seaborn W Deadman "I'm not going to kill you, Mr. Half-Face Man. I'm gonna talk to you. And then you're gonna kill yourself." A Study in Clockwork, perhaps?
5 months, 1 week ago on Whodunnit? The Fate of the Half-Face Man
I honestly didn't feel like this was a 'reassuring the fangirls' moment at all - it felt completely right for the story they were trying to tell. Capaldi's lines directly afterwards - "I'm not on the phone, I'm standing right here in front of you. And you don't see me. Do you have any idea what that's like?" - were the most powerful of the episode for me, and the scene addressed regeneration from a totally different angle from what we've seen before. Loved it.
5 months, 1 week ago on Moffat on THAT Deep Breath Cameo
I honestly don't want them to emphasise the seperation between classic and new Who. It's all the same Doctor Who, and that's the attitude the production team should have.
6 months, 2 weeks ago on Will There Be a 10th Anniversary Special for the Revival?
@gunslinger19 Well, I think the reason River was using those children's stories as sources was because that was the last time, that she knew of, that anybody ever saw the Doctor prior to his 'death' at Silencio Lake (in terms of his personal chronology, not subjective time). But I do think that the whole scene with River at the end felt tacked on, and would have worked better as part of the beginning of The Wedding of River Song.
7 months ago on The Common Criticisms of Closing Time
Sounds good - as I think I've said before on this site, I'm very curious as to what sort of story he'd tell. Personally still hoping that the mystery slot either goes to Gaiman or Whithouse, but I'll be happy if it does turn out to be Boyce.
7 months ago on Series 8: The Final Writer?
My problem with Closing Time isn't that the Cybermen were defeated with love, which seems to be the most common criticism of this story - a precedent was set for that in Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel and in The Next Doctor, both of which end with the Cybermen being unravelled by emotion. In fact, I think it's fitting for an enemy whose modus operandi is to remove all emotion from other life forms - to 'upgrade' them into supposedly superior beings - to be defeated by the very thing they are trying to eradicate. It demonstrates the power of emotion, of 'love', over brute force and detached intellect, which in my opinion is very appropriate thematically for Doctor Who.
My real problem with this story is the pacing. Roberts tries to recreate that whimsical, buddy-movie atmosphere that worked so well in The Lodger, but the story here just doesn't accomodate that sort of tone in the same way. In The Lodger, the source of the conflict, the 'A-plot', was a mysterious entity in the flat upstairs; it was intruiging and certainly malevolent, but not immediately threatening. The Doctor was investigating it without actually confronting it, and that gave that side of the story a slow, almost relaxed pace that allowed tension to build gradually over the course of the episode; as a result of this, the story had plenty of breathing room to devote to its 'B-plot', the Doctor's interference with Craig and Sophie's budding relationship. In Closing Time, though, the threat should be much more immediate - the Cybermen have been established as one of the Doctor's most dangerous enemies, one of the most serious threats he has ever dealt with. To have them instead inhabit a story with the same relaxed pace and humorous attitude as that of The Lodger hugely diminishes their credibility as real foes. If Roberts wanted a story with the same 'feel' as The Lodger, then he should have avoided using such a 'serious' enemy; on the flipside, if he wanted to write a Cybermen story that really did them justice as villains, he should have adopted a less whimsical tone than he did in his previous outing.
All this doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the story; I thought it was very entertaining, and the Doctor's monologue concerning his looming death was excellently performed by Smith. I just don't think the Cybermen were a good fit for the style of episode Roberts was trying to write, and they were mishandled and underused as a result.
An excellent article. I agree with all of your points, except perhaps the part about the regeneration limit; whilst I was fine with Moffat using the Time Lords to resolve that issue, and I'm certain that that wasn't his primary reason for bringing back Gallifrey, I wouldn't say that it was the only solution or the best. But apart from that, great job!
7 months, 1 week ago on Why Bringing Back Gallifrey Is Right…
@RhonDOH City of Death all the way. It plays to the real strengths of classic Who - strong dialogue and ingenious storytelling. Plus it's funny as all hell and John Cleese makes a cameo appearance!
7 months, 2 weeks ago on You will become like us! The Best ‘Converter’ Episodes
Hmm, not sure if I agree with some of these choices. Human Nature/The Family of Blood and The Day of the Doctor both, in my opinion, require some prior investment in the characters and storylines to be properly appreciated; and showing a new viewer Blink is the dictionary definition of setting standards too high too early. As for The End of the World - if you're going to start that early, why not just show them Rose? It is, for me, the ultimate introductory story - hell, it had to be, to bring back the show after such an extended absence. I do agree, however, with The Eleventh Hour and The Snowmen - they'd both make excellent first stories if you're trying to warm someone up with specifically the more recent series.
Whilst I do feel that Clara's characterisation suffered somewhat in Series 7 due to the Impossible Girl arc - it's difficult to give depth to a character whose origins and motives are deliberately left unexplored for story reasons, after all - I never found her to be lacking in personality, and the intrigue of the aforementioned arc (coupled with Coleman's excellent onscreen presence) kept me interested in the character throughout the duration of the series.
What's more, now that the arc is concluded, Clara is free to develop more as an individual rather than as the crux of a storyline; in Day we see her working at Coal Hill, and in Time we get a neat little glimpse into her family situation. I predict that in Series 8 Moffat will continue to flesh out her character's backstory and persona, and that's no bad thing.
Thanks for the article!
7 months, 3 weeks ago on Clara Oswald – A Question of Perspective
@Tardis Stowaway Ooh, I like the sound of that!
7 months, 3 weeks ago on Stanley Parable Narrator Cast in Doctor Who
One final point, which I wanted to seperate from the others because I think it really is extremely important.
"However, the Doctor has been around for far longer than Clara and in
theory knows what is moral and what is immoral. Clara, by telling the
Doctor that he is better than that and can save the Time Lords,
convinces him that his own judgement is wrong and she, an inexperienced
human, is right and knows in that exact situation what is moral. It
should be a decision for the Doctor to make, not Clara. It is the
Doctor’s race, not Clara’s. Sometimes the right decision is not always
the one that saves lives and the one that saves the people you love, but
the one that restores peace and possibly saves the universe."
This whole paragraph is, in my opinion, entirely against the spirit of Doctor Who. A strong theme of the show, especially in recent years, is that the Doctor - being ancient, and alien, and well-travelled - can sometimes lose his way morally. As he says in Amy's Choice, his friends are the best of him; and we saw in The Waters of Mars what happens when he travels alone for too long. This is a man who relies on his friends to ground him, to humanise him, to remind him of what is wrong and what is right. To a man with a time machine and a thousand years of experience, what's one life? What's a million? Without his companions, without Clara and all who came before her, the Doctor would definitely be the sort of man who would murder four billion children to end a war. He needs his companions to make him remember who he really is, and who he always aspires to be: the Doctor.
"Sometimes the right decision is not always
the one that saves lives and the one that saves the people you love, but
the one that restores peace and possibly saves the universe."
Maybe. But that's an incredibly difficult decision to make, and in The Day of the Doctor, we and our hero are given a reprieve in the form of a third option: a plan which saves lives AND the universe. The Doctor finds, through Clara and through his own past, hope where he thought there was only guilt. And surely hope is what Who is all about?
7 months, 3 weeks ago on Why Bringing Back Gallifrey is Wrong
I disagree with a lot of the arguments brought up in this article. I suspect that this is simply a matter of opinion, but nonetheless I'd like to try and re-interpret some of the evidence surrounding the points you made here, to try and cast a more positive view on Gallifrey's rescue in The Day of the Doctor.
Firstly, 'The Plot Up To Day'. A common complaint I see concerning Day's climax is that it alters Who history - now that Gallifrey was never actually destroyed, the themes of guilt and loneliness explored during the 9th and 10th Doctor's eras are meaningless. I honestly don't think that this is the case; if anything, I think it's even more tragic that the Doctor was forced, for hundreds of years, to endure that guilt and trauma and loneliness, despite the fact that the Time Lords had actually been saved. That, for me, makes his suffering all the more sharp and poignant, and it certainly doesn't diminish the quality of previous stories. As for Ten's dislike of the Time Lords in The End of Time, that can be quite safely attributed to the specific circumstances of the story; "You didn't see them, in the final days of the war", he says, conveying to us that the specific individuals who appear in that story are not the Time Lord norm. They are dangerous, desperate, willing to sacrifice everything for a chance to survive. Sure, the Time Lords as a society have always been corrupt and arrogant, but on the whole they are not the villainous, contemptuous dictators we encounter in The End of Time. These points, personally, counter the argument that a return for Gallifrey undermines the story and character arcs of previous years.
Now, 'The Day of the Doctor.' In this section of your article you said "For that all to be undone? I don’t think Ten would support that." But this is a misunderstanding of how the events in Day of the Doctor play out. The Doctor's plan to save Gallifrey does not alter history in any perceptible way - that is the crux that makes the scheme possible. To all intents and for all pratical purposes, Gallifrey has still been destroyed, and thus the Time War has still been ended and the universe has still been made a safer place. Once again, I would argue that the events of Day have no negative impact of previous Who stories of recent years. As for 'Possible Future For Gallifrey', I'll simply say that there's no way to really know how a 'proper' return for the Time Lords would affect the show - would it cause a change as massive as their supposed destruction? Or would the show carry on its current track with nary a backward glance? That, I can't answer. But I have faith in the BBC, and in the current production team, that however they decide to tackle the continuing existence of Gallifrey, they will do so in a way which honours the mythos and opens up brave new story possibilities.
To conclude: Gallifrey's return both strengthened existing stories and created possibilities for strong new stories. What more do you want than that?
Whilst I hugely enjoyed Jenny's character in The Doctor's Daughter, I don't personally think there's any need to bring her back to the show. Both her character arc - overcoming her programming to accept the Doctor's more pacifistic morality - and the Doctor's personal arc of accepting her as his daughter were wrapped up very well by Stephen Greenhorn in TDD, and I don't see how Jenny's return would serve the story, or either character, in any way.
Although I appreciate the sentiment with which this article is written, I can't say I particularly support any of the points it makes. Sure, bringing back Jenny would complete a Hartnell-style TARDIS quartet at a very superficial level; but is a nice piece of self-referential humour enough to carry a series? Besides, at a meaningful character level, Jenny is very different to Susan, so if Moffat and co are genuinely trying to envoke a sense of the original TARDIS team, it certainly wouldn't be wise to use Jenny to do so.
Additionally, I would argue that Capaldi being an older, more fatherly figure by no means qualifies him as a more appropriate Doctor to interact with Jenny; obviously I have no idea how Capaldi will take the role, but if he goes with the "dark and fierce" incarnation that people seem to be predicting, I can't imagine that he and the aggressively irreverent Jenny would have an even remotely companionable relationship. Tennant's inner turmoil concerning the situation in TDD was balanced with his usual flippant humour and bombastic attitude, which suited Jenny down to a T; I can't imagine how a sterner portrayal of the Doctor would aid the on-screen chemistry of the characters in any way.
The regeneration point, about Georgia Moffett no longer acting, just strengthens the argument for bringing in a new character with their own backstory and arcs, and whilst Moffat saving her caused quite a stir at the time, looking back I honestly think that - if he had any plan concerning the character to begin with - he has long since abandoned it in favour of establishing and exploring ideas of his own creation.
I don't want anybody to think I'm being negative - I loved Jenny, as I said above, and I think a minor appearance a la the ensemble cast of A Good Man Goes To War could potentially be very entertaining. It's just that, at the end of the day, once the initial "Jenny! You're still alive?!" shock value wore off, there would be very little from a story perspective for them to do with the character that could not be done better with somebody else.
8 months ago on Bring Back… Jenny, the Doctor’s Daughter
@supermoff I'd personally recommend The Stealers of Dreams for the 9th Doctor, The Ressurection Casket, The Doctor Trap and The Eyeless for the 10th Doctor, and Touched by an Angel and Borrowed Time for the 11th Doctor.
As for the classics, I particularly enjoyed The Wheel of Ice (2nd Doctor) and the recently re-released Festival of Death (4th Doctor).
8 months ago on First 12th Doctor Novels Detailed
Absolutely lovely. Whovians stand united!
8 months ago on Dear Whovians…
@Ollie Walton Harrod @G_Unitt To be fair, in the original canon Mycroft was reportedly even smarter than Sherlock; he was just too lazy to ever do anything with his remarkable mind. Whilst I see your point, Mycroft's intelligence coupled with his lack of ambition makes him a much more interesting character, and that by association makes Sherlock a much more interesting character as well.
8 months ago on Sexism and Doctor Who: The Truth
@The_Eternal_Dalek I agree with what you're saying about a female Doctor being plausible; I think the only problem with casting a female Doctor at the moment is that it would be viewed as a political decision. Like Moffat said in that recent interview, it's not a case of 'we should get a woman to play the Doctor!' but a case of 'we should get that person to play the Doctor!' And the day when 'that person' happens to be a woman is the day we get a female Doctor.
A large proportion of the people who were supporting casting a female Doctor recently were doing so because they felt it would benefit the equality movement, rather than the storytelling of the show; whilst that is a very righteous cause, and a valid reason to support something, in my opinion storytelling should always come first, and writers should focus on making characters complex and interesting regardless of their gender.
As for people who call themselves feminists without properly understanding the movement, I think it's fair to say that they're just a small vocal minority. The vast majority of feminist articles I've read defending or condemning Moffat are intelligently written and well thought-out, and though I don't personally think he's a sexist writer I think both sides of the argument have been well represented by various members and groups within the Who fandom.
@Planet of the Deaf @KingOrokos That 'does cinema reflect society or affect society' question is an extremely interesting one; I'd say the answer is a bit of both.
The problem isn't that movies are about "male subjects and interests" - there's nothing wrong with making movies about the military or the police or any of the areas I mentioned above. The problem is, why are those considered "male subjects and interests"? The world is 50% women after all, so films that are popular or successful must be appealling to female viewers as well; why aren't there more action films with primarily female casts, then?
I agree with you that genres such as the soap and the medical drama - ie, serialised dramas - work much better on the small screen format, but again, why should we consider those sorts of shows to be more appropriate for women? Sure, all soaps have a large female following, but as I said above, the really successful ones will have a large male following as well.
Ultimately, in TV and in cinema, storytelling comes first, and if the story you're conveying requires an all-male or all-female cast to be effective then by all means go ahead with it. But in many cases, I think, screenwriters and directors choose to simply portray characters in roles they are comfortable with - the male action hero and his fragile female love interest, for example - and that leads to a lot of squandered opportunities.
A film I often think about when discussing this is the original Alien. During the initial stages of writing the screenplay, Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett noted in the script "the crew is unisex and all parts are interchangeable for men or women." They had realised that the gender of the characters was unimportant to the narrative, and focused instead on writing characters who could be interesting and well-developed regardless of their gender. This gave us Ellen Ripley, arguably one of the most iconic female protagonists in move history.
Ripley is not a 'strong female character', she's a strong character who happens to be female. This sort of attitude is how we should approach film-making and TV production as a whole; rather than trying to catagorise whether a film or TV episode is pro- or anti-women, we should focus on developing our society so that all characters - including those who happen to be female - can be developed in whatever way most befits the story, without the writers or directors having to worry about the audience's gender-influenced perceptions of said characters.
(Sorry, got a bit rambly and off-topic there.)
One problem I've always had with people using the Bechdel Test to grade whether or not a piece of media is 'sexist' is that the test wasn't meant to be used for that purpose. Alison Bechdel's original comic was a criticism of the industry as a whole, and by extention society as a whole - her point was that so few movies feature multiple female characters having conversations unrelated to men because most of the scenarios and areas deemed 'interesting' by movie-makers and movie-goers (ie the police force, the military, the business world, organised crime, etc) are strictly male-dominated. The solution to this problem isn't to give every piece of film or television a strict 'pass' or 'fail' based on the test - that invalidates the impact of complex and well-developed female characters such as Amy and River. The solution is to work towards a future where society is less male-dominated, where there are just as many women as men working in any given field, so that discrimination based on gender is no longer as much of an issue.
But anyway, this is a spectacularly written article, much more thorough and
intelligent and considerate than anything else I've read on the subject recently. Thank you for writing it.
This is the first I've heard about Frank Cottrell Boyce potentially writing an episode, and I'm very curious to see what sort of story he'd pen for Who. Really hope Gaiman is one of the yet-to-be-announced writers!
On another note, does anybody else think it's likely - given the airdate is in August, and the series is 12 episodes long - that this year's Christmas Special will double as the 'real' season finale? Episode 1 airing on August 30th would leave only a couple of weeks between Episode 12 and Christmas, so they could potentially end Series 8 on a huge cliffhanger to be resolved at Christmas after a few weeks of anticipation. Just an idea!
8 months ago on Doctor Who Series 8 (2014): What We Know UPDATE
Given how male-dominated the industry is, it's always nice to have a female director working in such a prominent position. Two-parter or not, I'm sure it'll be an excellent finale!
8 months ago on Two-Part Finale for Series 8
I'd just like to say a huge thank you to Mr. Capon for putting so much effort into this little series of articles. All of this data must have taken quite a bit of time to put together and it makes for a very interesting read.
8 months ago on Analysing The Top Doctor Who Stories (DWM 2014)
I remember everybody reacting in a very similar manner when Katherine Jenkins was cast - 'They've cast a singer?! Oh god, it's Doctor Who the Musical!'
I'm sure she'll be great in whatever role they've cast her in. I wonder if her song will be part of the story a la A Christmas Carol, or if it'll just be part of the soundtrack.
8 months ago on Foxes Cast in Series 8
@Jason_Darko A talented and varied guest cast in a high-end BBC1 show? The horror, the horror!
@kian_chen The what?
8 months, 1 week ago on DWM #474: First Five Decades Cover
@RyanMRKO721 Tonally and thematically it was perfect, and of course the soundtrack and the dialogue were spectacular. I think the problem most people have with it comes from a storytelling standpoint; it's oddly paced, poorly explained, and an awful lot of the elements introduced don't seem to come to much. Personally, I feel much the same was about The Beast Below as I do about Rings; I enjoy watching it, but the weaknesses in the story and how it's conveyed are too prominent for me to say I think it's a good story. Just my two cents!
8 months, 1 week ago on The Top Stories & Doctors (According to DWM 2014)
Nothing too shocking here, then. Sad to see McGann so low on the favourite Doctors list - I was hoping his recent exposure through Night of the Doctor would have helped repopularise him amongst the newer areas of the fanbase, but oh well. Not entirely sure if Day of the Doctor deserves the top spot, but as a celebration of the series thus far it was pretty spectacular, and when you're polling the hardcore end of the fan spectrum that means a lot. Wouldn't have put either Rings of Akhaten or Fear Her in the bottom ten, and The Space Museum definitely doesn't deserve to be there.
Thanks for this, DWTV, these are some interesting stats!
I appreciate all of the various theories that people are coming up with, but honestly I neither expect them to give Capaldi's past appearances this level of attention, nor want them to. I highly doubt Torchwood will reappear during Moffat's tenure on Who, and in particular I doubt that Frobisher or the 456 incident will play any part in a story arc in the show. The idea that Moffat would dig up a five-year-old storyline or character from a spin-off show that he never even worked on, as opposed to telling his own original tale or just giving a quick handwave explanation, seems absurd to me. For the same reason, I don't think the plot of series 8 will be hinged around an episode from 2008 which the vast majority of the mainstream audience will only vaguely remember, if at all. Regardless of whether it would be the most incredible timey-wimey retconn-y story of all time ever, it's simply bad writing to rely on your audience remembering details from half a decade ago just so they can fully understand your story.
8 months, 2 weeks ago on Capaldi’s Previous Appearances: A Theory
This looks incredible! Really looking forward to it.
9 months ago on The War Doctor Returns in “Engines of War”