10 comments

  • thinkingemote 45 minutes ago
    One thing with some modern sci-fi shows is that it's more of a message with a disguise of a story rather than a story with a disguised message.

    The writers justify the change by saying (correctly) that the message is important and that right now is the most important time to say the message. The message became more important than the vehicle that it travelled in so poor story writing is acceptable.

    It's like Christian rock music, it's okay and if you are Christian you might enjoy it both for the message and the music but if you just want good music you are likely not going to enjoy it as much as regular "secular" rock.

    But there's also rock music that everyone can enjoys which contains (not sure the word to describe it) non obvious but religious-adjacent themes.

    • wisty 8 minutes ago
      Nah, politics in shows is great. It's like CGI. It can really make a show pop if it's well thought out, subtle, and feels realistic.

      People complain about it when it seems to be used as an excuse for a lack other aspects of the show, or it makes everything seem unrealistic because they were more keen on putting it in than actually caring about whether it was realistic or at least made things feel realistic to the viewer.

      The OG Jurassic Park had lots of politics and lots of CGI. No-one complained about it, because it was well done. If they had a jerkily animated raptor judo flipping a t-rex for no other reason than the director thought it would be cool to include then people would be saying the CGI was awful.

    • graemep 5 minutes ago
      > It's like Christian rock music

      its usually not good though. If it was good they would not market it as Christian. Lots of bands have Christian lyrics without Christian marketing - U2 for example. I suppose that is the equivalent of the SF story with the disguised message.

    • calvinmorrison 30 minutes ago
      nobody ever got hurt listening to mewithoutyou
  • sien 4 hours ago
    The wikipedia entry is well worth a read for anyone interested in this.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shada_(Doctor_Who)

    The tie in between Shada and Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective agency is worth noting.

  • mapontosevenths 5 hours ago
    The unfinished original is one of my favorites, and the 2017 animated version is also wonderful.

    I feel like the animated version filled in gaps I hadn't even realized were there in the old one that just had the voice overs.

    If you like classic who, Adams, or both, and haven't seen it buy the blu-ray!

  • spiralpolitik 2 hours ago
    There have also been a couple of audio versions over the years (one with Paul McGann).

    There was also a partial BBC attempt in late 80s/90s that was released on VHS with Tom Baker narrating the missing scenes.

  • pessimizer 20 minutes ago
    The part that they generally leave out is that Shada is mostly terrible (although Christopher Neame's delivery as Skagra is very funny and over the top), and Douglas Adams's run on Who was mostly terrible. Adams himself was embarrassed by it, and a remember reading a quote somewhere with him saying that he dodged a bullet by Shada never getting out there.

    The fan-animated remake is better than the commercially released animated remake, and the guy who did it also redid part of it with early gen AI and that's pretty great, too.

    The best part of Shada is how awesome Victoria Burgoyne looked in it. Her career went nowhere, but at least she's here.

  • philipallstar 5 hours ago
    Who exterminated the 2026 Christmas special[0]?

    [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c621ln7vx7qo

    • voidUpdate 4 hours ago
      I'll be honest, I think Dr Who is due for a 1989-style shelving for a while. I've loved watching the show since I was young, but I think the quality has fallen off significantly recently. Capaldi was the last "great doctor" in my opinion. Whittaker is a good actress, I thought she performed well in Broadchurch (ironically also written by Chibnall), but her writing was just awful, and it feels like they've just spent the last couple of seasons nostalgia-baiting the fans, like with the Midnight episode
      • afavour 1 hour ago
        I think it just needs fresh blood.

        Much like the show in the latter years of its first run it collapsed under the weight of its own canon, and writers/showrunners that enthusiastically embraced that canon and alienated the casual audience.

        IMO they should never have brought back the Time Lords. That was the genius stroke of the 2005 reboot. Just make the Doctor an intergalactic oddball, let the adventures run from there. What's weird is that Russell Davies was the one who understood this... then when he came back to the show he shoveled nostalgia on top of nostalgia and sank the thing.

        I never even watched the Chibnall era so I'm not fully informed but from reading about the Timeless Child arc it just sounds like a show disappearing up its own arse. It's supposed to be a family show, younger kids don't care about that kind of stuff. Just make it fun.

        • Wowfunhappy 1 hour ago
          The Chibnall episodes sucked but then Russel T David came back as showrunner. If you haven't seen the first three episodes he did, with David Tennant returning as the doctor, you're missing out.

          I liked the regular season that followed too, it had good and bad episodes just like the last time RTD was showrunner.

      • jordanb 4 hours ago
        It fell apart in the Capaldi era. The "kill the moon" was the "jump the shark" of neu-Who
        • wisty 15 minutes ago
          Implying it hadn't already fell apart in the Matt Smith era, where there was a season finale that made less sense than the end of Neo Genesis Evangelion (I think I'm talking about The Pandorica Opens, but it's honestly all a blur, and was at the time I watched it too). Moffat hyped up future episodes but could rarely deliver, RTD just hit you with a massive sucker punch on the 2nd or 3rd last episode and WOW.

          Also implying that the wheels weren't kinda getting loose when 10ant said his final farewell at that (otherwise fairly underrated IMO) episode where the Master was hungry.

        • voidUpdate 4 hours ago
          Capaldi had strong episodes throughout his run, but yes, I personally did dislike some of the storylines. The Zygon stuff felt very weak to me, and I never understood the "The Hybrid" storyline. But heaven sent/hell bent were bangers, and I definitely enjoyed his finale Cybermen episodes.

          But yes, the moon suddenly reappearing in between shots, perfectly fine and identical to before, was very silly

          • jordanb 3 hours ago
            Maybe Capaldi ended on a high note. I was done with the show after the moon episode and quit watching. I couldn't keep suspending disbelief after that. It wasn't just one bad episode the whole thing felt tired.

            Capaldi was a great actor and it was nice that he got some good scripts (I really liked the one where he was in Doctor Prison, great concept), but his run felt to me like a show running out of ideas.

            I didn't watch the Whittaker doctor. Heard it was awful and wasn't surprised. I eventually saw the pilot and it was indeed, awful.

            • voidUpdate 3 hours ago
              Back when it was airing, I sort of lost interest around Capaldi. I think his episodes were a bit too "mature" for me, when I preferred funny scifi show. But I've come to appreciate a lot of his episodes more. But he did have some really dogshit ones, like the moon episode, The Caretaker (Where a school gets attacked by a dalek knockoff), and Sleep No More, which was so bad that me and my girlfriend spent the whole episode talking about other stuff when having a marathon rewatch. Both of us are big fans of doctor who in general
          • mr_roboto 3 hours ago
            They went ultra woke and it tanked exactly as you'd expect.
            • afavour 1 hour ago
              Staggers me when I see viewpoints like this about Who, Trek and the like. Take a second to consider, maybe it isn't the show's outlook that changed, it's you?

              Who has always been progressive. Trek, too. If you were your current age in the 60s I bet you'd be railing against Kirk kissing Uhura.

            • voidUpdate 3 hours ago
              Doctor Who has been "woke" for a long time. I believe the 4th doctor discuss what pronouns to use for an alien. There have been several episodes essentially about slavery in the 10th and 11th doctors runs. Also you should read about The Happiness Patrol, a 7th doctor episode
              • rsynnott 7 minutes ago
                Also, well, women in major non-romantic roles in the 1960s! I'm struggling to think of another major TV example of that from the time period, honestly.
              • philipallstar 3 hours ago
                > I believe the 4th doctor discuss what pronouns to use for an alien.

                You believe it because you've memorised it for such a time as this, but it is not the same as woke "black is white if it feels it is" style feelings.

                > There have been several episodes essentially about slavery in the 10th and 11th doctors runs

                Being anti-slavery isn't woke. Thinking that changing the name of a git branch from "master" to "main" fights slavery is woke.

                • voidUpdate 3 hours ago
                  Could you please define what you think "woke" means then? Because I'm working off the definition of "being aware of and attentive to social and political injustices, especially regarding race, gender, and inequality"
                  • rsynnott 5 minutes ago
                    Traditionally (in the modern pejorative sense), it means "things the speaker doesn't like", in much the same sense as "common sense" means "the speaker's opinions".
                  • jimbokun 2 hours ago
                    What is the word for when those are the ONLY things you can see in the world, to the exclusion of any other factors?
                    • krapp 1 hour ago
                      "strawman"
                  • philipallstar 3 hours ago
                    I think you have to be completely in another universe to think that's all anyone means by that. Are you really so delusional about your own superiority that you think "anti-woke" just means anti those things? It's 2026 and there has been almost 10 years of woke excess. I don't think me explaining is going to do anything for you or to knock you off your high horse.
                    • rcxdude 2 hours ago
                      That's pretty much the definition that the term started with (arguably it was a bit more general in some sense: just along the lines of 'politically aware and engaged'). It seems to have morphed, but I find that when it's used pejoratively there's not one fixed definition beyond 'I don't like it'.
                      • philipallstar 1 hour ago
                        > That's pretty much the definition that the term started with

                        No, it started as being aware of issues black Americans were facing. Then it got co-opted and contorted by the far left in America into all sorts of crazy issues.

                    • voidUpdate 3 hours ago
                      That's why I'm asking you what your definition of woke is, so that I can understand what it is about new doctor who that you don't like
            • TheOtherHobbes 35 minutes ago
              No doubt MAGA Who would have been much more popular?
            • jordanb 3 hours ago
              More like "go woke because you've run out of ideas." The only "woke" thing about Whittaker was that the doctor was female, something they would have done in earlier episodes (in fact, did do) and wouldn't have made a big deal about it.

              But they had no reason for people to watch Who by the time you got to Whittaker, and the show should have been cancelled already but it was making too much money, so they treated her like a Cousin Oliver and made the fact that she was the First Female Doctor (not even true) into a huge thing because they had nothing else.

              • philipallstar 2 hours ago
                Probably the fact that in one episode[0] the Doctor's incarnations were actually mostly women except for the most recent few - who obscured this important fact - smelled a lot like "yet another man taking credit for a woman's work".

                [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Timeless_Children

                • jimbokun 2 hours ago
                  I wasn’t aware of those episodes but from that description sounds like people writing the show who despise the character and the audience.
                  • philipallstar 1 hour ago
                    That is a key trait needed to be hired as a writer into all sorts of successful shows in the last 15 years.
              • voidUpdate 3 hours ago
                I think the episode written by Malorie Blackman about some random time criminal appearing during MLK and Rosa Parks' protests would fall under "woke" too, but that was just a shit episode because of bad writing. A competent episode writer could probably have done something better with that time period/setting
            • nilamo 1 hour ago
              idk, Who, Trek, Star Wars have been woke since the 60s. At this point, it seems more likely that you've changed woke to mean "anything I don't like". Or you watch too much Fox
      • TheOtherHobbes 38 minutes ago
        All of the big franchises are collapsing under the weight of nostalgia and self-reference. Reboots like Picard are shockingly, almost insensitively, retrospective.
    • consumer451 5 hours ago
      Thanks for posting that. Good to know the BBC is moving on from Davies, and investing in a full season with a new production company.

      Star Trek is in far worse shape these days. According to Riker, this is the first time in decades where there is no TV or movie even in the planning phase.

      • xoxxala 21 minutes ago
        There is a new movie in the early stages of development. Some news was teased at Comic-Con in July and the directors spoke about it a few weeks ago.

        "After years of an unclear future, it seemed as though “Star Trek” finally found a path back to the big screen as “Spider-Man: Homecoming” writers and “Game Night” and “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” filmmakers Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley boarded the film."

        https://www.darkhorizons.com/next-star-trek-film-tackles-cor...

      • philipallstar 5 hours ago
        And Star Wars. Complete train wreck. Disney just has so much money to burn from live action remakes they can limp along.
      • hdgvhicv 5 hours ago
        Development on ‘09 started after production wrapped on enterprise in March 2005, although there wasn’t a lot in it. Production in earnest was certainly underway 18 months after.
  • hedora 1 hour ago
    I recently discovered his text adventure bureaucracy.
  • nosrednAhsoJ 2 hours ago
    The book is good, at least...
  • metalman 4 hours ago
    I recoverd a 3/4” studio broadcast VCR/P that when checked, contains a tape that says Doctor Who. I also at once recovered a wire recorder, with a wire spool inside, and another time wax cylinder recorder, with cylinders. All sitting there as minor mysteries. ;)
  • ZeroDayDreamer 1 hour ago
    [flagged]