Feeds

back to article BBC releases MYSTERY RIDDLE poster for Doctor Who anniversary episode

The BBC has released a teaser image for the Doctor Who 50th anniversary special, which will be a feature-length episode called The Day of the Doctor. Doctor Who 50th Anniversary episode poster. Credit: BBC (click to enlarge) The pic is full of clues about the episode, showing two damaged Daleks, the Tenth, Eleventh and "X" …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

I predict...

A great premise, a cracking plot with a good opening that fizzles out halfway through to end un-spectacularly in so much fluff 'n' nonsense.

Shame. it's been like that for a few years with Dr Who.

Proving that having a big budget, and blowing it on fewer-and-fewer episodes per series doesn't count for everything.

21
2
Silver badge

Re: I predict...

A lot of the stories these days just seem to run out of time. So they find they have to wind them up with some bizarre deus ex machina plot device.

I submit exhibit one: the ending of the first cyberman reprieve: program a "disable" code into a mobile phone, jam it into a console transmitting it to all cybermen simultaneously thus defeating the entire lot of them.

All in a matter of about 20 seconds. Un-f*cking-believable.

3
0
Holmes

Re: I predict...

Yes – it needs fewer, but longer, stories. I'd happily settle for 20 half-hour episodes with stories being typically three or four episodes long.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: I predict...

Every series of Doctor Who has been 13-15 episodes. Hardly "fewer-and-fewer".

I'm also a bit confused on what, according to the article headline, what makes this a "mystery riddle poster"? It looks simply like a bog standard theater poster, showing us some characters and what appears to be an action scene.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: I predict...

"Every series of Doctor Who has been 13-15 episodes. Hardly "fewer-and-fewer"."

You've fallen for the Series 'X' - "Part 1" & "Part 2" budgeting scam.....

1
0
Bronze badge

The national broadcaster is milking the anniversary for all it's worth

Oh God, it's going to be soooo naff!

0
2
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Agreed. If there's anything that sums up the decline of the BBC, it's that it now uses the phrase "celebrity guests" in relation to one of its own programmes.

4
0
Bronze badge

A lot of people will be looking forward to the first episode, though. I have to say, I'm more excited about that than the new one!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

The science behind Doctor Who?

You have got to be kidding, the Tardis control panel consisting of parts of a Victorian steam engine and nobody remembering the last time the Daleks invaded the Earth.

6
1
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

" nobody remembering the last time the Daleks invaded the Earth"

Subtle hint: What's time got to do with it?

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

Not to mention:

Spitfires IN SPAAACCCEEEE (complete with spinning prop's no less)

Titanic IN SPAAAAACCCEEEE

Victorian's IN SPAAAAAACCEEEE

Sharks IN SPAAAA.....wait, IN THE SKY

Gave up on it a long time ago, if its not stupid stuff like the above its "timey-wimey" nonsense. Dr Who has been turned into purely a kids show.

P.S Empty Cassandra frame action figure!

8
3

Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

Spitfires in space formed the basis of around 98% of my childhood playground games. When that episode aired, my jaw hit the floor. Dr Who had READ MY MIND and put it onscreen and I was never happier.

The other stuff you mention, yeah, a bit naff.

But if ANY aircraft could stand up to Daleks, then you better f*cking BELIEVE it would be spitfires!

11
0
Bronze badge

Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

The science behind Dr Who - seems apt that it'd be Cox explaining it, given how light on actual science his programs are.

*runs and hides from people who like their science explained in soft tones, with short words so as not to befuddle their pretty little heads*

Steven R

9
2
Silver badge

@Aldous Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

The 'Titanic IN SPAAAAACCCEEEE' was a fully certified (for paying passengers) spaceship that had been built to resemble an old style ocean cruise liner. You need to pay more attention.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Doesn't deserve to be called sci-fi any more.

It's more like a sappy rom-com crossed with a soap now. I can't even remember the last time the Doctor defeated aliens by doing something science-y, rather than by the clichéd power of love overcoming all obstacles. Pass the sick-bag!

8
0
TRT
Silver badge

Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

Actually the current console consists of bits scavenged from a variety of places, including a Westinghouse frame from the London Underground, and a rhesostatic brake lever from a trolleybus. All fascinating stuff really.

2
0

Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

AC: "You have got to be kidding, the Tardis control panel consisting of parts of a Victorian steam engine."

The Time Lords were masters of deception and camouflage. It defined their culture and technology. The Doctor has never been able to escape this fully.

The external controls of a TARDIS are mimetic.

Their physical appearance or construction have never really mattered. What matters is the one-on-one relationship between a Time Lord and the system's core AI:

"I may not always take you where you want to go, but I will always take you to where you need to be,"

2
0
Silver badge

Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

As stupid as it was, I loved spitfires in space.

1
1
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

"Victorian's IN SPAAAAAACCEEEE"

Don't get all possessive about the Victorians.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

A true whovian would have been able to spot the Titanic in space as a tribute to Douglas Adams

5
0
h3
Bronze badge

Re: Doesn't deserve to be called sci-fi any more.

The new Doctor was a hardcore fanatic of Doctor Who (Before such things existed anywhere else) have to see what he does. (And he is old so unless they are into old man love things after the Saville thing they will have to do something else. Or bring back the Doctors Daughter which they might do).

0
0

Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

Well there is no science really, just pseudo-science. Doctor Who is fantasy, or as Moffatt himself puts it: a "fairy story".

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

"You have got to be kidding, the Tardis control panel consisting of parts of a Victorian steam engine and nobody remembering the last time the Daleks invaded the Earth."

Parts is parts. Doesn't matter how old they as long as they still work. And who knows how old they are? It's a Tardis, time is completely relevant, or irrelevant, depending on your viewpoint.

Also, why would people the last time the Daleks invaded? That invasion hasn't happened for them yet.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

Parts is parts. Doesn't matter how old they as long as they still work.

I tell myself that every morning.

2
0
Bronze badge

@Idocrase Re: Spitfires

" But if ANY aircraft could stand up to Daleks, then you better f*cking BELIEVE it would be spitfires! "

Oh yeah, rule Britannia, Britannia rules the skies, God bless the queen and her Spitfire! Funny how everyone bought into that myth. Spitfires were not that great. Among other things, their limited flight ceiling made it difficult to engage safely with a Messerschmidt, and the metal fuselage offered very little value as armour, but meant that most of the fleet was grounded for repair at any given time.

It was the much larger fleet of canvas-clad Hawker Hurricanes, patched up and sent back into the air before the paint had dried, and engaging the enemy from above that got us through it.

2
0

Re: The science behind Doctor Who?

When was Dr. Who ever NOT a kids show?

1
0

Re: @Idocrase Spitfires

Although it is true the Hurricane had a higher maximum ceiling than the spitfire, mainly due to its larger wing area its performance at altitude was poor and the effect operating height was around 3000 feet lower than the spitfire's. Spitfires also had higher speed and overall agility. Hurricanes being slower and heavier provided a more stable gun platform. Minor damage to Hurricanes was initially easier to repair, because the ground crews knew all about fabric and dope but as time went on repair crews became equally adept at the two aircraft and availability for the two types throughout the BoB were very similar.

In practice the spitfires were deployed at higher altitudes and used to attack the fighters while the more numerous Hurricanes went for the bombers. The comparison between the two types is best made by looking at their service lives. If Hurricanes were better and cheaper it is rather doubtful they would have been phased out quite so early!

In comparison to the German types those who flew both say picking a Mk1 or 2 Spitfire or an Me109 would be tough, but the injector on the 109's engine certainly gave it an advantage in "getting away" as it kept working under negative G loads, it carried cannon which did a lot more damage than a Browning however its turning circle was much wider.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @Idocrase Spitfires

You'll be saying you don't like Dr Who next....

0
0
Silver badge

Ninth Doctor?

Whut? Did I miss something?

Anyway, the meaning is:

There'll be Doctors, Daleks and explosions.

Simple.

5
0

Re: Ninth Doctor?

What if the John Hurt incarnation is revealed to be the big "Bad Wolf"?

It would explain the rough beardy look, and possibly resolve arcs-within-arcs going back to the very start of the resurrected series :)

Just a thought.

1
0

Re: Ninth Doctor?

Maybe the Docotr's real name is actually "Davros" and the reason he hates the Daleks so much is that he cannot face the fact that, no matter how much he changes things, he is destined to be crippled and stranded on Skaro by the Time Lords, then create the Dalek race to stop the them from taking over the galaxy. The John Hurt incarnation is the Doctor who finally accepted his fate and set out to become the necessary evil that would save the universe from his own race.

20
0
Bronze badge
Go

Re: Ninth Doctor?

That would make an astounding episode. Better than anything I've seen them turn out in recent years. You should write it....

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: Ninth Doctor?

Thats clever and deserves a Thumbs up!

0
0

Re: Ninth Doctor?

I suspect Hurt is meant to be the eighth doctor, and the plot will have something to do with the time war, that's only been alluded to so far.

If so, I really like Hurt, am sure he'll do a great job, but part of me wants Paul McGann for the part.

1
0
Bronze badge

Dr Davros?

The Doctor can't be Davros -- the Daleks were designed to fight for genetic purity based on Kaled DNA. The Doctors timelord DNA makes him a valid target, and a Dr Davros would have been one of the first against the wall on Skaro.

0
0
TRT
Silver badge

Re: Ninth Doctor?

Paul McGann?

Well, i suppose he could do a narrative voice over...

"Regeneration. It's like a dozen transatlantic flights without ever getting off the plane. Time change. You lose, you gain. Makes no difference so long as you keep taking the pills. But sooner or later you've got to get out because it's crashing. Then all at once those frozen hours melt out through the nervous system and seep out the pores."

0
0

Re: Dr Davros?

Well they fight for the purity of the Dalek race, and it should be clear that Dalek and Kaled are genetically distinct. While Davros is identified as a Kaled, this could be a deception on the his part, it's not like he has never lied!

The Daleks have always considered Davros inferior and probably would kill him if he didn't keep proving his usefulness.

0
0
Silver badge

Big earner

Dr Who is a big big earner subsidising our licence fees, much like Top Gear does. Big fanfare stuff like this is to remind the world that we have a tradition of good TV sci-if and perhaps there's some more of our programming you'd like to buy?

The Been takes such a kicking from commercial competitive interests like Murdoch, Desmond and has suffered wound after wound but still makes some belting telly despite it all.

16
1

Re: Big earner

This is completely ridiculous. If you think that any BBC programmes *subsidise* the license fee, you're assuming that they wouldn't get made without the BBC. That's clearly not true. Look at Eastenders - why on earth is the BBC doing this? Their remit is to make programmes which no one else will make, and clearly soaps like Eastenders would be made by the other channels.

It's much more likely that the BBC holds UK TV back by crowding out potential competitors, who have good ideas but can't take the risk of making the programme and bringing it to market. if it's a good idea then the BBC just steals it and provides it for free.

Always remember, you can choose whether to watch commercial channels or Sky, but the BBC demands money under the threat of prison.

1
22

Re: Big earner

Hi Rupert!

15
0
Happy

Re: Big earner

"Look at Eastenders - why on earth is the BBC doing this?"

Apparently so Glaswegians learn to speak in a way that Londoners can understand.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24021961

2
0
Silver badge

@firefoxx

While I agree on eastenders needing to die a quick death, I do think the BBC is worth the money.

Don't forget we get the iPlayer & Radio included in that fee...

Now if it was to be subscriber only, then it would not be what it is, and some of the great shows that have come out of the BBC in recent years would not exist...

ITV is usually shite,

Channel 4 & the BBC are pretty much the only channels that produce anything new & decent in the current era of British TV...

10
0
Silver badge

Re: @firefoxx

Actually, I was thinking that ITV have really pulled their socks up recently.

Vera's pretty good, Downton Abbey is nicely done (although I no longer watch), Doc Martin is enjoyable fluff, Broadchurch was excellent, as is Whitechapel. That's a pretty good lineup.

But Eastenders deserves to die in a pit of burning oil.

6
0
Silver badge

Re: Big earner

"Look at Eastenders - why on earth is the BBC doing this?"

Because if they don't then the Murdoch press say that they're not giving people the lowbrow crap they want. If they do, of course, then they complain that they shouldn't be doing populist things and should only be doing high-brow stuff that is non-commercial. At which point, they ask why non-commercial stuff is being paid for by the tax-payer etc.

It's been like this for my whole life and it's never going to be anything more than right-wing Adam Smith-style whinging by self-interested nobodies.

13
0
Silver badge
Coffee/keyboard

Re: Big earner

> It's been like this for my whole life and it's never going to be anything more than right-wing Adam Smith-style whinging by self-interested nobodies.

That is absolutely brilliant.

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Big earner

I was checking out the Play Store, to see what "player" apps are available. I stumbled across the ITV Player app and duly installed it. And then uninstalled it a couple of minutes later when I looked at the utter crap that is available on there. If that is the best ITV can produce, then you are welcome to it.

Just about every decent comedy of the last 40 years has BBC at the end of it. Likewise quiz programmes, virtually all dramas, wildlife and nature programmes. There is some crap on the Beeb, true, but there is also some brilliant TV.

If the alternative to the licence fee is adverts every 10 minutes and programmes of the standard broadcast on ITV, 5 and any number of Sky channels, you can keep it and I'll pay my money to the BBC, thanks.

9
0

Re: Big earner

"we have a tradition of good TV sci-if" ...

OK, let's make a list:

Quatermass.

Stingray/Thunderbirds/Captain Scarlet/UFO (presuming by 'us' you mean Britain).

About 3 episodes of 'The Tomorrow People'.

The Flipside of Dominick Hide.

VERY early Dr Who (Hartnell era, some later but very rare after that).

A couple of Star-Cops episodes.

Cold Lazarus.

Some of the Hitch-Hiker's Guide.

ermmm ...

I'm specifically excluding:

Blake's bloody 7.

(and everything else).

The British are as likely to win the world cup as make a decent stab at a science fiction story on TV!

Whereas the Americans know exactly how to do it and make us look VERY stupid.

99% of Dr Who (badly written childish fantasy)

2
11
h3
Bronze badge

Re: @firefoxx

I don't think they do compared to the old days.

I like stuff like Father Ted but channel 4 doesn't bother with anything funny like that.

BBC hasn't really done much I have wanted either in recent times.

They put some effort in to the Eccleston Season of Doctor Who then decided to not do the job properly. (And do most stuff on earth which is boring).

Watched most of the sci-fi and fantasy but they dragged it all on far too long. (Merlin / Robin Hood etc and it wasn't that good and there was far too little of it).

(AMC and HBO make most of the stuff I want to watch).

0
1
Bronze badge
Meh

Re: Big earner

Can't argue that Americans are unable to make great sci-fi.

It seems to me that it's somewhat of a bygone era though. The last great Sci-fi I've seen from America was Firefly, which was sadly cancelled (now why didn't the BBC pick that up!)

If I am wrong - which I sure as hell might be - then by all means point me to the new interesting and well made. thoroughly consistent sci-fi of America that I've missed!

0
0

Re: @firefoxx

ITV have not produced much of any note since all the old regions disappeared. Companies like Thames Television and HTV made some good stuff in the 70's and 80's.

Channel Four? A few good comedies (Peep Show, Inbetweeners) and not much else of note this century. Basically they went down the pan around the time Big Brother started.

BBC Four has been good, but I believe its budget has been slashed, BBC One is pretty awful. Quizzes, cooking, terrible soaps and talent shows seem to make up most of the output. Kids don't even have their own Saturday morning show any more!

BBC radio though, has no equal.

2
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.