Kris MarshallBing Image Search tells me this is Willem Dafoe. It's clearly not. Is it Rupert Grint?
Kris Marshall
If there was to be an American Doctor, Willem would absolutely rock.Bing Image Search tells me this is Willem Dafoe. It's clearly not. Is it Rupert Grint?
Or maybe just a reflection of tv in a streaming world? We get maybe 10 episodes of a current Star Trek show compared to 26 in the TNG/DS9 era. Even in movies, we seem to get eg a Bond film about once every 5 years compared to every other year in the 1970s, 80s or late 90s.It is coming through the dark……..
If we did do Sherlock type of 90 minute episodes (which would be a sad state of a once grand 13 episode seasons) would we back at “trial of the time lord” brink of cancellation?
Or maybe just a reflection of tv in a streaming world? We get maybe 10 episodes of a current Star Trek show compared to 26 in the TNG/DS9 era.
It is bias, because you expect Doctor Who to conform to your standards or what it should be.That’s not bias. That’s what was put on screen.
I've been seeing a lot of praise as well, lots of positivity on forums at least for the first half of s2, but the review scores haven't been so fantastic. On average they're a little bit above Chibnall's run and a decent amount below anything that came before that.What's been fascinating is watching the rewriting of history after the finale to claim it was all bad. The first six episodes of S2 were overwhelmingly positively received everywhere.
Right? Joy to the World too. And heck, I remember the overwhelming feeling around here and elsewhere that the show was finally finding its footing again with shows like Church on Ruby Road, Boom, 73 Yards and Dot and Bubble.What's been fascinating is watching the rewriting of history after the finale to claim it was all bad. The first six episodes of S2 were overwhelmingly positively received everywhere.
I genuinely believe this. Its incredible really.Some people would hate RTD no matter what he wrote,
When the "Power of the Daleks" animation was released, I went to see it in theaters (you know what's a bad idea? Sitting down to watch three hours straight of sedate, '60s pacing at 9:00 pm), and the theater accidentally rolled "Doctor Strange" instead of "Doctor Who." At least that one made sense, I'm not sure how another cinema I went to accidentally put on "X-Men: First Class" instead of "Super 8."Didn't he once say he didn't want to end up on lunchboxes in relation to Who? Plus he's Dr Strange now so it'd be strange to be Dr Strange and Dr Who simultaneously![]()
I do love this naive idea people have that big stars are just aching to play Dr Who and sitting there with bated breath waiting for the phone to ring.
If Disney can snag Tom Hiddelston for two seasons of Loki it would be great if he could do two seasons of “Doctor Who”
S2 was better than S1. But no, it wasn't "overwhelmingly positively received everywhere."What's been fascinating is watching the rewriting of history after the finale to claim it was all bad. The first six episodes of S2 were overwhelmingly positively received everywhere.
It's been on for 3 seasons longer than The Simpsons (39 total, vs 36) not to mention 26ish years longer, I would argue if it were going to "continue on forever like a zombie" we would be long past that point. I however have loved both new seasons, and all of RTD's seasons before. Moffat was iffy for me, Chibnall was not my cup of tea.ecause I really don't want the series to turn into another The Simpsons, just continuing on forever like a zombie
S2 was better than S1. But no, it wasn't "overwhelmingly positively received everywhere."
Straczynski is 70 years old. He'll be even older when/if the BBC come around to him, and RTD and Moffat have spoken about how overwhelming and exhausting the job of Doctor Who is. Straczynski may have wanted to do it in the past, but he's not a realistic option at this point, imho.
Not proving your point, but okay.Thank's for proving my point..
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.