Verily, in article <xn0pr0hx92q8zct001@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
Daniel70 wrote:
YOU might consider it 'sick', asswipe .... I'm trying
to gain information!!
A search engine might be a more efficient way to seek
information than RADW.
Don't you get all your information from this place? :-D
Verily, in article <xn0pr0ia32qrhvm002@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The most likely scenario is they just move on, go forward and
never mention it. Which would be fine with me.
Indeed. When we speak of it, we give it power. The new series,
if we're blessed with one, would be wise to pick up from the
point at which the ratings tanked.
That was how Roseanne did it. It rebooted from the part people
had actually watched, and nobody complained that it didn't
make sense that Dan was alive.
On 14/06/2026 10:21 am, The True Doctor wrote:
Weren't people/VIEWERS saying similar sorts of things
about 'Doctor Who' after Sly was the Seventh Doctor??
Or when Paul was the Eighth Doctor??
Give it a rest then bring it back!
On 2026-06-13 08:44:47 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Your Name wrote:
Doctor Who used to play on free-to-air channels* here in New Zealand.
With the Disney deal, the potential New Zealand audience dropped from
roughly the entire 5.34 million population down to either 658,000 or
1.06 million Disney+
subscribers (depending on which esitmate you want to believe) - at best >>> that's a drop of 80% of the potential audience! And New Zealand is a
tiny country - the drop is probably been even more in the bigger
countries like Australia. ("Doctor Who" is a rather niche show, so the
potential audience via either
option is going to much smaller than the total numbers.)
The best shows are on the BIG streaming platforms, because that's where
the money is. Those services are all owned by mega media corporations.
They are way bigger than any one national broadcaster, which is
basically a small fish in a big pond these days. The really big shows
that have been funded by Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Disney, Paramount
(etc.) are not going to reach the free to air channels for years, if
ever... so your choice is, pay or pirate.
Here in New Zealand, some of those streaming services do have deals
with Sky TV, so shows like "Game of Thrones" played on a Sky TV
channel, which of course does require a subscription ... **BUT** Sky TV
New Zealand bought one of the free-to-air channels a while back, now
called "Sky Open", which is free to anyone (broadcast and streaming),
which also plays many of those shows, albeit it at a later date. This
proves sharing can be done and reach a wider potential audience. :-)
Also the other New Zealand free-to-air networks have deals with some of
the big UK and US makers to broadcast / stream their shows for free.
Some of them are even available at the same time or very quickly after
the original country's release (some even broadcast quickly) ...
although that can lead to much over-hyped promotion for a show that is
then cancelled in the original country.
You haven't missed much by not having the last two seasons of Doctor
Who anyway, but that was still your choice at the end of the day. Just
one month of Disney+ would have got you all of it! (And still will
actually, as Doctor Who is still on Disney+ overseas.)
I wouldn't want to watch the crappy Doctoress Who and Gay-Black Who
even if it was on free-to-air TV. :-p
On 2026-06-13 10:28:26 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <110j0dh$2orc3$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
All these ridiculous "exclusives" that the
numerous streaming services each have simply means they get far fewer
customers - they need to learn to co-operate and share, or they're
going out of business (like many already have).
They do, though. The average US household spends something like $180 a
month on subscriptions, mostly streaming services. Most of them can't
easily afford it, but they pay it anyway.
That simply further proves Americans are stupid. :-p
It's actually similar everywhere, with morons complaining about not
having enough money, while stupidly wasting piles and piles of money on >idiotic things like buying expensive store-made coffees and cafe
lunches, upgrading to newer mobile phones every year or two, bigger and >bigger TVs, going to the cinema/pubs/clubs every Friday and/or Saturday >night, etc. The "average" person seems to have become incredibly stupid
and greedy. :-(
On 2026-06-13 09:01:23 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pqy3tfodfewm002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If you're going to create a new show then don't even call it Doctor Who >>>>> as it won't be.
Of course it can be. If it features a Time Lord, called The Doctor, who >>>> gets pissed off on his home planet and decides to steal a time machine >>>> from his people and go off and have adventures in time and space.
You don't have to cast an actor to play an old man with white hair and >>>> do everything as it was originally done in 1963. Try and think outside >>>> the box once in a while.
No one is going to watch a remake of An Unearthly Child.
I wouldn't remake that. I'd cherry pick the best ideas, the ideas that >>>> worked, and work up from there with new monsters/aliens. Not retell
exactly the same stories in exactly the same way.
WEll, let us start be a retcon on the Timeless Child.
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It would be starting again.
From the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of its lore.
When Disney bought Star Wars, they shovelled all the existing media
(except for the six main movies) into a big bin they labelled as "Star
Wars Legends", and then went on to make their own nonsense 'Expanded >Universe' instead ... while still re-releasing all the old novels with
the newly labelled covers to cash-grab from fans who must every every >edition.
Now there are rumours that Disney is planning to push their own 'Sequel >Trilogy' to one side, labelling it as "alternate universe", while
making a new 'Sequel Trilogy' instead where the main original
characters Luke, Han, etc. don't die. (Although I think this rumour may
be confusing things with the 'fourth trilogy' that covers what Rey goes
on to do in re-establishing the Jedi.)
Batman and Spider-Man have been redone so many times (both in the TV /
movie industry as well as in the comic books) that nobody now knows
what they actually are.
However the idiocy is termed, "reboots", "remakes", etc. NEVER work.
All they do is make a complete mess of the franchise. Even
"resurrections" rarely erver work and are usually short-lived (the only
one that lasted relatively long was "Doctor Who"). :-(
Verily, in article <110kniq$38t8e$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
stupidly wasting piles and piles of money on
idiotic things like buying expensive store-made coffees and cafe
lunches, upgrading to newer mobile phones every year or two, bigger and
bigger TVs, going to the cinema/pubs/clubs every Friday and/or Saturday
night, etc. The "average" person seems to have become incredibly stupid
and greedy. :-(
One generation's luxuries are the next's necessities.
I hear that's the Amish philosophy. They're not opposed to technology
per se; they're opposed to reliance on it and how dependent that makes
us.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 12/06/2026 20:50, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 12/06/2026 15:02, Blueshirt wrote:
I really would start again, none of them!
Create a new show with a new lore based on the original ideas
and concepts of the show at its inception in 1963. This one
big long continuation thing just becomes too overwhelming
and it can never all fit together in one consistent
continuity.
If you're going to create a new show then don't even call it
Doctor Who as it won't be.
Of course it can be. If it features a Time Lord, called The
Doctor, who gets pissed off on him home planet and decides to
steal a time machine from his people and go off and have
adventures in time and space.
You don't have to cast an actor to play an old man with white
hair and do everything as it was originally done in 1963. Try
and think outside the box once in a while.
So he doesn't look like William Hartnell? He doesn't have a
granddaughter called Susan? He doesn't have a TARDIS? He doesn't fight >Daleks and Cybermen? He doesn't regenerate into someone looking like
Patrick Troughton? Doesn't have his appearance changed to look like Jon >Pertwee? Doesn't regenerate into Tom Baker? No Jo Grant? No Sarah Jane >Smith? No Brigadier? Etc. etc. That series is not Doctor Who. Call it >something else and then anyone can make it and BBC can't sue from for >copyright violation. You'd also be able to make money from it whereas
with Doctor Who you'd be throwing your money down the toilet since it's
all going to the BBC and hardly any of the $200 million they got from
Disney was spent on making Doctor Who.
Doctor Who cannot be rebooted since everyone knows what's
going to happen.
Reboot doesn't mean to do everything exactly the same, it means
to start again with fresh ideas, discarding the past.
Then it's not Doctor Who.
Chibnall already tried turning the Doctor into a genocidal monster from >another dimension that had it's memory erased of its crimes. The show
lost 3/4 of its audience as a result. Davies turned the Doctor gay and >effeminate. It killed the show off completely losing half its remaining >audience again.
Repeat means to do the same thing again.
No one is going to watch a remake of An Unearthly Child.
I wouldn't remake that. I'd cherry pick the best ideas, the
Then how do you do the Doctor's origin story then? If people think it's >going to lead to the Timeless Child monster again then they're never
going to watch it.
ideas that worked, and work up from there with new
monsters/aliens. Not retell exactly the same stories in exactly
the same way.
That would only work as a series of one off movies, not a television
series.
If the degenerate price s*t Davies had not killed of the entire
franchise by making the Doctor gay and making every story and his entire >character about being gay and being black then movie remakes of all the >classic stories plus even some new ones featuring the original
characters of the Doctor could have worked and kept the series going,
just as long as they didn't do a Star Trek 2009 and reimagine every >character and totally destroy The Wrath of Kahn or Genesis of the Daleks.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 13/06/2026 10:01, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pqy3tfodfewm002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If you're going to create a new show then don't even call
it Doctor Who as it won't be.
Of course it can be. If it features a Time Lord, called The
Doctor, who gets pissed off on his home planet and decides to
steal a time machine from his people and go off and have
adventures in time and space.
You don't have to cast an actor to play an old man with white
hair and do everything as it was originally done in 1963. Try
and think outside the box once in a while.
No one is going to watch a remake of An Unearthly Child.
I wouldn't remake that. I'd cherry pick the best ideas, the
ideas that worked, and work up from there with new
monsters/aliens. Not retell exactly the same stories in
exactly the same way.
WEll, let us start be a retcon on the Timeless Child.
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It would
be starting again.
From the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
No one is going to watch a reboot if they believe it will lead towards
the Doctor being the Timeless Child monster.
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor Who completely as
if it was never ever there.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 13/06/2026 14:42, Daniel70 wrote:
On 13/06/2026 7:01 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:..... but, maybe, The Asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their joy >> of child sexual molestation coverup) will be sooooooo old by the time the "New,
In article <xn0pqy3tfodfewm002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If you're going to create a new show then don't even call
it Doctor Who as it won't be.
Of course it can be. If it features a Time Lord, called The
Doctor, who gets pissed off on his home planet and decides to
steal a time machine from his people and go off and have
adventures in time and space.
You don't have to cast an actor to play an old man with white
hair and do everything as it was originally done in 1963. Try
and think outside the box once in a while.
No one is going to watch a remake of An Unearthly Child.
I wouldn't remake that. I'd cherry pick the best ideas, the
ideas that worked, and work up from there with new
monsters/aliens. Not retell exactly the same stories in
exactly the same way.
WEll, let us start be a retcon on the Timeless Child.
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It would
be starting again.
-aFrom the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
Improved" 'Doctor Who' gets around to 'The Timeless Child' arc that he
will not recognise it.
Which is why if he had any sense he'd never waste the rest of his life >watching the reboot. Doctor Who ended in 2017!
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 2026-06-13 23:57:20 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <110kniq$38t8e$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
stupidly wasting piles and piles of money on idiotic things like buying >>> expensive store-made coffees and cafe lunches, upgrading to newer
mobile phones every year or two, bigger and bigger TVs, going to the
cinema/pubs/clubs every Friday and/or Saturday night, etc. The
"average" person seems to have become incredibly stupid and greedy. :-(
One generation's luxuries are the next's necessities.
None of those things could even remotely be called "necessities" by any
sane person.
I hear that's the Amish philosophy. They're not opposed to technology
per se; they're opposed to reliance on it and how dependent that makes
us.
Sort of. It depends on the particular Amish community, since they each >decide for themselves, but in general ...
Many outsiders mistakenly think that the Amish reject technology.
It is more accurate to say that they use technology selectively.
Televisions, radios, and personal computers are rejected outright,
but other types of technology are used selectively or modified to
fit Amish purposes. Amish mechanics also build new machines to
accommodate their cultural guidelines. Moreover, the Amish readily
buy much modern technology, such as gas grills, shop tools,
camping equipment, and some farm equipment.
The Amish do not consider technology evil in itself but they
believe that technology, if left untamed, will undermine worthy
traditions and accelerate assimilation into the surrounding
society. Mass media technology in particular, they fear, would
introduce foreign values into their culture. By bringing greater
mobility, cars would pull the community apart, eroding local ties.
Horse-and-buggy transportation keeps the community anchored in its
local geographical base.
Most Amish groups forbid using electricity from public utility
lines. Electricity from batteries is more local, controllable, and
independent from the outside world. In some settlements, for
example, Amish use batteries to power lights on buggies,
calculators, fans, flashlights, cash registers, copy machines, and
typewriters. Solar energy is sometimes used to charge batteries,
operate electric fences, and power household appliances.
<https://groups.etown.edu/amishstudies/cultural-practices/technology/>
On 13/06/2026 11:59 pm, The Doctor wrote:--
In article <110jlmo$2v0c5$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:05 am, solar penguin wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <110gl4c$23mhp$1@dont-email.me>, did daniel47
@nomail.afraid.org deliver unto us this message:
On 12/06/2026 12:51 am, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
David Tennant transed his kid, so he's psychologically stuck.
Did he though, or did his child choose to go down that road and
the parents, David and Georgia just supported it?
"supported it" .... or endured it when the kid 'came out'??
This was a little kid, not a teenager.
Yeah. That|ore4raos how it normally goes. You have to detect it before >>>> puberty in order to give the kid puberty blockers.
And what happens to the kid on puberty blockers then?? Do they remain on >>> Puberty Blockers forever, NEVER progressing through Puberty?? ....
growing into Gender-Natural Adults??
That is sick.
YOU might consider it 'sick', asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate >their joy of child sexual molestationi coverup) .... I'm trying to gain >information!!
--
Daniel70
Verily, in article <110l0bl$3asvt$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-06-13 23:57:20 +0000, The True Melissa said:
[quoted text muted]
mobile phones every year or two, bigger and bigger TVs, going to theOne generation's luxuries are the next's necessities.
cinema/pubs/clubs every Friday and/or Saturday night, etc. The
"average" person seems to have become incredibly stupid and greedy. :-( >> >
None of those things could even remotely be called "necessities" by any
sane person.
That's the point of the saying, though. The standards of sannity keep >changing.
Having all the streaming services is still unusual, but having cable >Internet isn't. It was a luxury two or three decades ago, but now it's a >necessity for most, and an expensive one.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 14/06/2026 9:18 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-13 09:01:23 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pqy3tfodfewm002@post.eweka.nl>, Blueshirt
<blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If you're going to create a new show then don't even call it
Doctor Who as it won't be.
Of course it can be. If it features a Time Lord, called The
Doctor, who gets pissed off on his home planet and decides to
steal a time machine from his people and go off and have
adventures in time and space.
You don't have to cast an actor to play an old man with white
hair and do everything as it was originally done in 1963. Try
and think outside the box once in a while.
No one is going to watch a remake of An Unearthly Child.
I wouldn't remake that. I'd cherry pick the best ideas, the
ideas that worked, and work up from there with new
monsters/aliens. Not retell exactly the same stories in exactly
the same way.
WEll, let us start be a retcon on the Timeless Child.
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It would be
starting again.
From the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
When Disney bought Star Wars, they shovelled all the existing media
(except for the six main movies) into a big bin they labelled as
"Star Wars Legends", and then went on to make their own nonsense
'Expanded Universe' instead ... while still re-releasing all the old
novels with the newly labelled covers to cash-grab from fans who must
every every edition.
Now there are rumours that Disney is planning to push their own
'Sequel Trilogy' to one side, labelling it as "alternate universe",
while making a new 'Sequel Trilogy' instead where the main original
characters Luke, Han, etc. don't die. (Although I think this rumour
may be confusing things with the 'fourth trilogy' that covers what
Rey goes on to do in re-establishing the Jedi.)
O.K., first off I will declare that I never saw 'Star Wars Episode Four
A New Hope' or what ever it was later called, I saw "Star Wars" then
"Star Wars Episode Five The Empire Strikes Back" .... and on, I think,
to Episode Nine. I don't think I've ever seen Episodes 1, 2 or 3.
Are you now suggesting that Disney will be making NEW Episodes 1, 2 and
3 .... or are they making Episodes 10, 11 and 12??
--Batman and Spider-Man have been redone so many times (both in the TV
/ movie industry as well as in the comic books) that nobody now knows
what they actually are.
However the idiocy is termed, "reboots", "remakes", etc. NEVER work.
All they do is make a complete mess of the franchise.
Correct!!
Even "resurrections" rarely erver work and are usually short-livedCorrect.
(the only one that lasted relatively long was "Doctor Who"). :-(
--
Daniel70
On 14/06/2026 10:23 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 13/06/2026 10:01, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
NOT Gunna happen!! It is seared into our memories!! Well, those whoWEll, let us start be a retcon on the Timeless Child.
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It would
be starting again.
-aFrom the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
No one is going to watch a reboot if they believe it will lead towards
the Doctor being the Timeless Child monster.
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor Who completely as
if it was never ever there.
actually watched it .... so others didn't have to watch it!! ;-)
----
Daniel70
Daniel70 wrote:
YOU might consider it 'sick', asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate >> their joy of child sexual molestation coveup) .... I'm trying to
gain information!!
A search engine might be a more efficient way to seek
information than RADW.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 13/06/2026 10:01, Blueshirt wrote:
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It
would be starting again.
From the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as
part of its lore.
No one is going to watch a reboot if they believe it will
lead towards the Doctor being the Timeless Child monster.
Why do you think reboot means do everything EXACTLY the same?
A reboot could easily ignore that part of the previous show's
lore. Especially as it wasn't part the original concept of the
show. You wouldn't reboot a show to do everything exactly the
same! That doesn't make any sense. You'd use the core concepts
and environments and tell new stories. It's not rocket science!
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor Who
completely as if it was never ever there.
So, you think when a new production company comes on board
and starts making a new series of "Doctor Who" (Whenever that
is.) They are going to waste their limited time and money on
retconning the female Doctor from 2017... which by the time
any new series airs will be over a decade since it happened.
That is not a logical assumption. In fact, it's scarily
delusional.
The most likely scenario is they just move on, go forward and
never mention it. Which would be fine with me.
Verily, in article <xn0pr0hx92q8zct001@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
Daniel70 wrote:
YOU might consider it 'sick', asswipe .... I'm trying to
gain information!!
A search engine might be a more efficient way to seek
information than RADW.
Don't you get all your information from this place? :-D
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Verily, in article <xn0pr0ia32qrhvm002@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The most likely scenario is they just move on, go forward and
never mention it. Which would be fine with me.
Indeed. When we speak of it, we give it power. The new series, if we're >blessed with one, would be wise to pick up from the point at which the >ratings tanked.
That was how Roseanne did it. It rebooted from the part people had
actually watched, and nobody complained that it didn't make sense that
Dan was alive.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 14/06/2026 8:14 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:Oh, but the 'Community' here HAS to be useful for something, doesn't it??
YOU might consider it 'sick', asswipe .... I'm trying to
gain information!!
A search engine might be a more efficient way to seek
information than RADW.
----
Daniel70
On 14/06/2026 10:21 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 12/06/2026 20:50, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
ideas that worked, and work up from there with new
monsters/aliens. Not retell exactly the same stories in exactly
the same way.
That would only work as a series of one off movies, not a television
series.
If the degenerate price shit Davies had not killed of the entire
franchise by making the Doctor gay
Weren't people/VIEWERS saying similar sorts of things about 'Doctor Who' >after Sly was the Seventh Doctor?? Or when Paul was the Eighth Doctor??
Give it a rest then bring it back!
----
Daniel70
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr0hx92q8zct001@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
Daniel70 wrote:
YOU might consider it 'sick', asswipe .... I'm trying
to gain information!!
A search engine might be a more efficient way to seek
information than RADW.
Don't you get all your information from this place? :-D
Hmmm... I'm trying to think of everything important I have
learned on RADW - important as in, not bible quotes or maths
equations!
<thinks>
....
....
....
<Still thinking...>
<Still thinking...>
:-)
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr0ia32qrhvm002@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The most likely scenario is they just move on, go forward and
never mention it. Which would be fine with me.
Indeed. When we speak of it, we give it power. The new series,
if we're blessed with one, would be wise to pick up from the
point at which the ratings tanked.
Too many people want to live in the past. Ignore it and move on.
That's where RTD went wrong. He could have ignored the 'Timeless
Child' storyline and gone forward with the 15th Doctor... he
decided to double-down on it - as a fuck you to the fans - then
got uppity when the fans switched off.
That was how Roseanne did it. It rebooted from the part people
had actually watched, and nobody complained that it didn't
make sense that Dan was alive.
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it is
going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one way or
another, as we saw her face as the 15th Doctor regenerated. So
they couldn't just go back to pre-2017.
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/06/2026 10:21 am, The True Doctor wrote:
Weren't people/VIEWERS saying similar sorts of things
about 'Doctor Who' after Sly was the Seventh Doctor??
Or when Paul was the Eighth Doctor??
Give it a rest then bring it back!
They did give it a rest, and it did come back.
It will get a rest now, and it will come back.
One day.
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it is
going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one way or
another, as we saw her face as the 15th Doctor regenerated. So
they couldn't just go back to pre-2017.
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
On 14/06/2026 10:21 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 12/06/2026 20:50, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
ideas that worked, and work up from there with new
monsters/aliens. Not retell exactly the same stories in exactly
the same way.
That would only work as a series of one off movies, not a television
series.
If the degenerate price shit Davies had not killed of the entire
franchise by making the Doctor gay
Weren't people/VIEWERS saying similar sorts of things about 'Doctor Who' after Sly was the Seventh Doctor?? Or when Paul was the Eighth Doctor??
Give it a rest then bring it back!
Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/06/2026 10:21 am, The True Doctor wrote:
Weren't people/VIEWERS saying similar sorts of things
about 'Doctor Who' after Sly was the Seventh Doctor??
Or when Paul was the Eighth Doctor??
Give it a rest then bring it back!
They did give it a rest, and it did come back.
It will get a rest now, and it will come back.
One day.
On 14/06/2026 9:18 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-13 09:01:23 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pqy3tfodfewm002@post.eweka.nl>, Blueshirt
<blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If you're going to create a new show then don't even call it
Doctor Who as it won't be.
Of course it can be. If it features a Time Lord, called The
Doctor, who gets pissed off on his home planet and decides to
steal a time machine from his people and go off and have
adventures in time and space.
You don't have to cast an actor to play an old man with white
hair and do everything as it was originally done in 1963. Try
and think outside the box once in a while.
No one is going to watch a remake of An Unearthly Child.
I wouldn't remake that. I'd cherry pick the best ideas, the
ideas that worked, and work up from there with new
monsters/aliens. Not retell exactly the same stories in exactly
the same way.
WEll, let us start be a retcon on the Timeless Child.
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It would be starting again.
From the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
When Disney bought Star Wars, they shovelled all the existing media
(except for the six main movies) into a big bin they labelled as
"Star Wars Legends", and then went on to make their own nonsense
'Expanded Universe' instead ... while still re-releasing all the old
novels with the newly labelled covers to cash-grab from fans who must
every every edition.
Now there are rumours that Disney is planning to push their own
'Sequel Trilogy' to one side, labelling it as "alternate universe",
while making a new 'Sequel Trilogy' instead where the main original
characters Luke, Han, etc. don't die. (Although I think this rumour
may be confusing things with the 'fourth trilogy' that covers what
Rey goes on to do in re-establishing the Jedi.)
O.K., first off I will declare that I never saw 'Star Wars Episode Four
A New Hope' or what ever it was later called, I saw "Star Wars" then
"Star Wars Episode Five The Empire Strikes Back" .... and on, I think,
to Episode Nine. I don't think I've ever seen Episodes 1, 2 or 3.
Are you now suggesting that Disney will be making NEW Episodes 1, 2 and
3 .... or are they making Episodes 10, 11 and 12??
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it is
going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one way or
another, as we saw her face as the 15th Doctor regenerated. So
they couldn't just go back to pre-2017.
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
On 14/06/2026 12:43, Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/06/2026 10:21 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 12/06/2026 20:50, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
ideas that worked, and work up from there with new
monsters/aliens. Not retell exactly the same stories in exactly
the same way.
That would only work as a series of one off movies, not a television
series.
If the degenerate price shit Davies had not killed of the entire
franchise by making the Doctor gay
Weren't people/VIEWERS saying similar sorts of things about 'Doctor Who'
after Sly was the Seventh Doctor?? Or when Paul was the Eighth Doctor??
Give it a rest then bring it back!
Neither of them were gay and neither of them killed off the entire >franchise. Doctor Who still had an audience and the audience wanted it
to return. Doctor Who not longer has an audience and nobody wants it to >return after it went woke and started attacking the viewers because the
were mostly male, white, and heterosexual.
What made the degenerate woke pieces of s*t think that making the
Doctor black, gay and effeminate, and making these his only defining >characterises would attract anything but a tiny minority of viewers to
watch it? How many black effeminate homosexual men do you know? Why
would they even watch the show when it's written for 6-12 year old girls
and embodies total misandry?
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 14/06/2026 13:22, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/06/2026 10:21 am, The True Doctor wrote:
Weren't people/VIEWERS saying similar sorts of things
about 'Doctor Who' after Sly was the Seventh Doctor??
Or when Paul was the Eighth Doctor??
Give it a rest then bring it back!
They did give it a rest, and it did come back.
It will get a rest now, and it will come back.
One day.
No one wants it back. The Timeless Child monster and making the Doctor
gay and transgender made sure of that. The only way to save it is to >completely erase the woke degeneracy and for the BBC to admit that it
was wrong to do this to the show.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 2026-06-14 10:08:54 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 14/06/2026 9:18 am, Your Name wrote:starting again.
On 2026-06-13 09:01:23 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pqy3tfodfewm002@post.eweka.nl>, Blueshirt
<blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If you're going to create a new show then don't even call it
Doctor Who as it won't be.
Of course it can be. If it features a Time Lord, called The
Doctor, who gets pissed off on his home planet and decides to
steal a time machine from his people and go off and have
adventures in time and space.
You don't have to cast an actor to play an old man with white
hair and do everything as it was originally done in 1963. Try
and think outside the box once in a while.
No one is going to watch a remake of An Unearthly Child.
I wouldn't remake that. I'd cherry pick the best ideas, the
ideas that worked, and work up from there with new
monsters/aliens. Not retell exactly the same stories in exactly
the same way.
WEll, let us start be a retcon on the Timeless Child.
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It would be
From the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
When Disney bought Star Wars, they shovelled all the existing media
(except for the six main movies) into a big bin they labelled as
"Star Wars Legends", and then went on to make their own nonsense
'Expanded Universe' instead ... while still re-releasing all the old
novels with the newly labelled covers to cash-grab from fans who must
every every edition.
Now there are rumours that Disney is planning to push their own
'Sequel Trilogy' to one side, labelling it as "alternate universe",
while making a new 'Sequel Trilogy' instead where the main original
characters Luke, Han, etc. don't die. (Although I think this rumour
may be confusing things with the 'fourth trilogy' that covers what
Rey goes on to do in re-establishing the Jedi.)
O.K., first off I will declare that I never saw 'Star Wars Episode Four
A New Hope' or what ever it was later called, I saw "Star Wars" then
"Star Wars Episode Five The Empire Strikes Back" .... and on, I think,
to Episode Nine. I don't think I've ever seen Episodes 1, 2 or 3.
Are you now suggesting that Disney will be making NEW Episodes 1, 2 and
3 .... or are they making Episodes 10, 11 and 12??
I think you've still got the same confusion about the order of the movies.
Original Trilogy (Lucasfilm):
Episode 4: A New Hope first played in 1977 (originally without subtitle)
Episode 5: The Empire Strikes Back first played in 1980
Episode 6: Reutn of the Jedi first played in 1983
Prequel Trilogy (Lucasfilm)
Episode 1: The Phantom Menace first played in 1999
Episode 2: Attack of the Clones first played in 2002
Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith first played in 2005
Sequel Trilogy (Disney)
Episode 7: The Force Awakens first played in 2015
Episode 8: The Last Jedi first played in 2017
Episode 9: The Rise of Skywalker first played in 2019
There are two current rumours:
Least likely: Disney will sideline the existing Episodes 7, 8, and 9
as an 'alternate universe' version and make a new Sequel Trilogy as
a replacement.
Most likely: Disney will make a fourth trilogy (Episodes 10, 11,
and 12, with the Rey character re-building the Jedi Order.
Officially, there is a planned movie set after Episode 9 based around
the Rey character, but has not been confirmed as part of a new trilogy.
There are also other spin-off standalone movies that have been made, >up-coming, and planned.
On 6/14/2026 07:16, Blueshirt wrote:
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it is
going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one way or
another, as we saw her face as the 15th Doctor regenerated. So
they couldn't just go back to pre-2017.
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
Hey...it worked for "Dallas"...sort of.
----
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
On 6/14/2026 07:16, Blueshirt wrote:
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it is
going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one way or
another, as we saw her face as the 15th Doctor regenerated. So
they couldn't just go back to pre-2017.
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
Hey...it worked for "Dallas"...sort of.
On 2026-06-15 00:36:20 +0000, Hornplayer9599 said:
On 6/14/2026 07:16, Blueshirt wrote:
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it is
going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one way or
another, as we saw her face as the 15th Doctor regenerated. So
they couldn't just go back to pre-2017.
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
Hey...it worked for "Dallas"...sort of.
They could easily ignore the "Billie Piper face" nonsense and just jump >straight into a new regeneration of the Doctor. They almost did that
with they Americanised movie (Poirot-Who was only briefly there, but >wouldn't have been if Sylvester McCoy had turned down the offer) and
did do it at the start resurrected series when Quitopher Etchedinstone
first started.
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr0hx92q8zct001@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
Daniel70 wrote:
YOU might consider it 'sick', asswipe .... I'm trying
to gain information!!
A search engine might be a more efficient way to seek
information than RADW.
Don't you get all your information from this place? :-D
Hmmm... I'm trying to think of everything important I have
learned on RADW - important as in, not bible quotes or maths
equations!
<thinks>
....
....
....
<Still thinking...>
<Still thinking...>
:-)
On 2026-06-14 10:08:54 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 14/06/2026 9:18 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-13 09:01:23 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pqy3tfodfewm002@post.eweka.nl>, Blueshirt
<blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If you're going to create a new show then don't even call it
Doctor Who as it won't be.
Of course it can be. If it features a Time Lord, called The
Doctor, who gets pissed off on his home planet and decides to
steal a time machine from his people and go off and have
adventures in time and space.
You don't have to cast an actor to play an old man with white
hair and do everything as it was originally done in 1963. Try
and think outside the box once in a while.
No one is going to watch a remake of An Unearthly Child.
I wouldn't remake that. I'd cherry pick the best ideas, the
ideas that worked, and work up from there with new
monsters/aliens. Not retell exactly the same stories in exactly
the same way.
WEll, let us start be a retcon on the Timeless Child.
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It would be
starting again.
From the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
When Disney bought Star Wars, they shovelled all the existing media
(except for the six main movies) into a big bin they labelled as
"Star Wars Legends", and then went on to make their own nonsense
'Expanded Universe' instead ... while still re-releasing all the old
novels with the newly labelled covers to cash-grab from fans who must
every every edition.
Now there are rumours that Disney is planning to push their own
'Sequel Trilogy' to one side, labelling it as "alternate universe",
while making a new 'Sequel Trilogy' instead where the main original
characters Luke, Han, etc. don't die. (Although I think this rumour
may be confusing things with the 'fourth trilogy' that covers what
Rey goes on to do in re-establishing the Jedi.)
O.K., first off I will declare that I never saw 'Star Wars Episode Four
A New Hope' or what ever it was later called, I saw "Star Wars" then
"Star Wars Episode Five The Empire Strikes Back" .... and on, I think,
to Episode Nine. I don't think I've ever seen Episodes 1, 2 or 3.
Are you now suggesting that Disney will be making NEW Episodes 1, 2 and
3 .... or are they making Episodes 10, 11 and 12??
I think you've still got the same confusion about the order of the movies.
Original Trilogy (Lucasfilm):
-aEpisode 4: A New Hope first played in 1977 (originally without subtitle)
-aEpisode 5: The Empire Strikes Back first played in 1980
-aEpisode 6: Reutn of the Jedi first played in 1983
Prequel Trilogy (Lucasfilm)
-aEpisode 1: The Phantom Menace first played in 1999
-aEpisode 2: Attack of the Clones first played in 2002
-aEpisode 3: Revenge of the Sith first played in 2005
Sequel Trilogy (Disney)
-aEpisode 7: The Force Awakens first played in 2015
-aEpisode 8: The Last Jedi first played in 2017
-aEpisode 9: The Rise of Skywalker first played in 2019
There are two current rumours:
-a Least likely: Disney will sideline the existing Episodes 7, 8, and 9
-a as an 'alternate universe' version and make a new Sequel Trilogy as
-a a replacement.
-a Most likely: Disney will make a fourth trilogy (Episodes 10, 11,
-a and 12, with the Rey character re-building the Jedi Order.
Officially, there is a planned movie set after Episode 9 based around
the Rey character, but has not been confirmed as part of a new trilogy.
There are also other spin-off standalone movies that have been made, up-coming, and planned.
On 13/06/2026 10:01, Blueshirt wrote:
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
No one is going to watch a reboot if they believe it will lead towards
the Doctor being the Timeless Child monster.
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor Who completely as
if it was never ever there.
In article <110kmuu$38o1b$1@dont-email.me>,
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
I wouldn't want to watch the crappy Doctoress Who and Gay-Black Who
even if it was on free-to-air TV. :-p
No longer radio waves TV.
On 15/06/2026 9:37 am, Your Name wrote:
I think you've still got the same confusion about the
order of the movies.
Yes, you are correct, it seems 1, 2, and 3 followed 4, 5,
and 6, then came 7, 8, and 9. (Have I mentioned how my
memory is going??)
And I see, reading Wiki ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars
"The original film, *later retitled* Episode IV: A New Hope,
was followed by the sequels Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
(1980) and Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983), forming the
original Star Wars trilogy."
So the original ORIGINAL film was just 'Star Wars'!! None of
this 'A New Hope' tripe for me!!
On 14/06/2026 10:16 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Hmmm... I'm trying to think of everything important I
have learned on RADW - important as in, not bible quotes
or maths equations!
<thinks>
....
....
....
<Still thinking...>
<Still thinking...>
Boy, Oh, Boy, are you Irish slooooooow thinkers!!
The homosexual issue burns me.
On 14/06/2026 10:23 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 13/06/2026 10:01, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
NOT Gunna happen!! It is seared into our memories!! Well, those whoWEll, let us start be a retcon on the Timeless Child.
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It would
be starting again.
-aFrom the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
No one is going to watch a reboot if they believe it will lead towards
the Doctor being the Timeless Child monster.
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor Who completely
as if it was never ever there.
actually watched it .... so others didn't have to watch it!! ;-)
On 6/14/2026 07:16, Blueshirt wrote:
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation, then it
is going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one
way or another, as we saw her face as the 15th Doctor
regenerated. So they couldn't just go back to pre-2017.
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
Hey...it worked for "Dallas"...sort of.
In article <dOHXR.114705$Cheb.73124@fx15.ams4>,Doctor > >> regenerated. So they couldn't just go back to
Hornplayer9599 <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:
On 6/14/2026 07:16, Blueshirt wrote:
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation, then
it is going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing
in one way or another, as we saw her face as the 15th
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
Hey...it worked for "Dallas"...sort of.
AGA does promote the idea.
In article <xn0pr0lai2uu2kj002@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
Give it a rest then bring it back!
They did give it a rest, and it did come back.
It will get a rest now, and it will come back.
One day.
Soon!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 13/06/2026 10:01, Blueshirt wrote:
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It
would be starting again.
From the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as
part of its lore.
No one is going to watch a reboot if they believe it will
lead towards the Doctor being the Timeless Child monster.
Why do you think reboot means do everything EXACTLY the same?
A reboot could easily ignore that part of the previous show's
lore. Especially as it wasn't part the original concept of the
show. You wouldn't reboot a show to do everything exactly the
same! That doesn't make any sense. You'd use the core concepts
and environments and tell new stories. It's not rocket science!
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor Who
completely as if it was never ever there.
So, you think when a new production company comes on board
and starts making a new series of "Doctor Who" (Whenever that
is.) They are going to waste their limited time and money on
retconning the female Doctor from 2017... which by the time
any new series airs will be over a decade since it happened.
That is not a logical assumption. In fact, it's scarily
delusional.
The most likely scenario is they just move on, go forward and
never mention it. Which would be fine with me.
Verily, in article <xn0pr0ia32qrhvm002@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The most likely scenario is they just move on, go forward and
never mention it. Which would be fine with me.
Indeed. When we speak of it, we give it power. The new series, if we're blessed with one, would be wise to pick up from the point at which the ratings tanked.
That was how Roseanne did it. It rebooted from the part people had
actually watched, and nobody complained that it didn't make sense that
Dan was alive.
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr0ia32qrhvm002@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The most likely scenario is they just move on, go forward and
never mention it. Which would be fine with me.
Indeed. When we speak of it, we give it power. The new series,
if we're blessed with one, would be wise to pick up from the
point at which the ratings tanked.
Too many people want to live in the past. Ignore it and move on.
That's where RTD went wrong. He could have ignored the 'Timeless
Child' storyline and gone forward with the 15th Doctor... he
decided to double-down on it - as a fuck you to the fans - then
got uppity when the fans switched off.
That was how Roseanne did it. It rebooted from the part people
had actually watched, and nobody complained that it didn't
make sense that Dan was alive.
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it is
going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one way or
another, as we saw her face as the 15th Doctor regenerated. So
they couldn't just go back to pre-2017.
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
On 14/06/2026 13:16, Blueshirt wrote:
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it
is going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one
way or
No it isn't. Clara wakes up from a dream with a baby by her
side and Danny Pink walks out of the shower... Capaldi
regenerates from when he died in The Doctor Falls... etc. etc.
It's not even mentioned or see. Clara just wake up from this
nightmare without a single word said about it.
Verily, in article <xn0pr0l302uj8km001@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it is
going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one way or
another, as we saw her face as the 15th Doctor regenerated. So
they couldn't just go back to pre-2017.
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
We see shots of Billie Piper as the Doctor, other shots that look like a
a continuation... but they're intercut with scenes of Peter Capaldi
trapped in a pod (or goo, or whatever) and struggling to wake.
Then....
[Who wants to write the next event?]
On 14/06/2026 11:29, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor
Who completely as if it was never ever there.
So, you think when a new production company comes on board
and starts making a new series of "Doctor Who" (Whenever that
is.) They are going to waste their limited time and money on
retconning the female Doctor from 2017... which by the time
any new series airs will be over a decade since it happened.
You need to waste any time or money on it. You continue from
where Capaldi died in The Doctor Falls and he is seen
regenerating into the next Doctor. You have Clara waking up
from a hideous nightmare and Danny Pink walks out of the
shower with their son and the sound of the TARDIS
materialising is herd the background. The next Doctor
materialises on Gallifrey and sees a pregnant Time Lady
accompanied by her husband and their kids... etc. etc.
That is not a logical assumption. In fact, it's scarily
delusional.
Was Dallas delusional when they realised that the series
was dead with Patrick Duffy as Bobby Ewing?
Doctor Who fans though do tend to like things to be in order and
ignoring the Billie Piper face at the end of "The Reality War"
could upset a lot of their sensibilities.
Doctor: The medics took a scan of your brain patterns and analysed them. You've been suffering from inter-regenerational hallucinations.
Everything you think happened around the time you were mortally wounded
by the Cybermen is all a false psychological construct.
On 14/06/2026 10:16 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr0hx92q8zct001@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
Daniel70 wrote:
YOU might consider it 'sick', asswipe .... I'm trying
to gain information!!
A search engine might be a more efficient way to seek
information than RADW.
Don't you get all your information from this place? :-D
Hmmm... I'm trying to think of everything important I have
learned on RADW - important as in, not bible quotes or maths
equations!
<thinks>
....
....
....
<Still thinking...>
<Still thinking...>
Boy, Oh, Boy, are you Irish slooooooow thinkers!!
----
:-)
Daniel70
On 15/06/2026 9:37 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-14 10:08:54 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 14/06/2026 9:18 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-13 09:01:23 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pqy3tfodfewm002@post.eweka.nl>, Blueshirt
<blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
If you're going to create a new show then don't even call it
Doctor Who as it won't be.
Of course it can be. If it features a Time Lord, called The
Doctor, who gets pissed off on his home planet and decides to
steal a time machine from his people and go off and have
adventures in time and space.
You don't have to cast an actor to play an old man with white
hair and do everything as it was originally done in 1963. Try
and think outside the box once in a while.
No one is going to watch a remake of An Unearthly Child.
I wouldn't remake that. I'd cherry pick the best ideas, the
ideas that worked, and work up from there with new
monsters/aliens. Not retell exactly the same stories in exactly
the same way.
WEll, let us start be a retcon on the Timeless Child.
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It would be
starting again.
From the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
When Disney bought Star Wars, they shovelled all the existing media
(except for the six main movies) into a big bin they labelled as
"Star Wars Legends", and then went on to make their own nonsense
'Expanded Universe' instead ... while still re-releasing all the old
novels with the newly labelled covers to cash-grab from fans who must
every every edition.
Now there are rumours that Disney is planning to push their own
'Sequel Trilogy' to one side, labelling it as "alternate universe",
while making a new 'Sequel Trilogy' instead where the main original
characters Luke, Han, etc. don't die. (Although I think this rumour
may be confusing things with the 'fourth trilogy' that covers what
Rey goes on to do in re-establishing the Jedi.)
O.K., first off I will declare that I never saw 'Star Wars Episode Four
A New Hope' or what ever it was later called, I saw "Star Wars" then
"Star Wars Episode Five The Empire Strikes Back" .... and on, I think,
to Episode Nine. I don't think I've ever seen Episodes 1, 2 or 3.
Are you now suggesting that Disney will be making NEW Episodes 1, 2 and
3 .... or are they making Episodes 10, 11 and 12??
I think you've still got the same confusion about the order of the movies.
Yes, you are correct, it seems 1, 2, and 3 followed 4, 5, and 6, then
came 7, 8, and 9. (Have I mentioned how my memory is going??)
And I see, reading Wiki .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars
"The original film, *later retitled* Episode IV: A New Hope, was
followed by the sequels Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and >Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983), forming the original Star Wars >trilogy."
So the original ORIGINAL film was just 'Star Wars'!! None of this 'A New >Hope' tripe for me!!
----
Original Trilogy (Lucasfilm):
-aEpisode 4: A New Hope first played in 1977 (originally without subtitle) >> -aEpisode 5: The Empire Strikes Back first played in 1980
-aEpisode 6: Reutn of the Jedi first played in 1983
Prequel Trilogy (Lucasfilm)
-aEpisode 1: The Phantom Menace first played in 1999
-aEpisode 2: Attack of the Clones first played in 2002
-aEpisode 3: Revenge of the Sith first played in 2005
Sequel Trilogy (Disney)
-aEpisode 7: The Force Awakens first played in 2015
-aEpisode 8: The Last Jedi first played in 2017
-aEpisode 9: The Rise of Skywalker first played in 2019
There are two current rumours:
-a Least likely: Disney will sideline the existing Episodes 7, 8, and 9
-a as an 'alternate universe' version and make a new Sequel Trilogy as
-a a replacement.
-a Most likely: Disney will make a fourth trilogy (Episodes 10, 11,
-a and 12, with the Rey character re-building the Jedi Order.
Officially, there is a planned movie set after Episode 9 based around
the Rey character, but has not been confirmed as part of a new trilogy.
There are also other spin-off standalone movies that have been made,
up-coming, and planned.
Daniel70
On 14/06/2026 10:23 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 13/06/2026 10:01, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
.... but WE ALL know that IT DID HAPPEN, Aggy!The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
No one is going to watch a reboot if they believe it will lead towards
the Doctor being the Timeless Child monster.
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor Who completely as
if it was never ever there.
----
Daniel70
On 14/06/2026 10:36 pm, The Doctor wrote:--
In article <110kmuu$38o1b$1@dont-email.me>,
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
<Snip>
Correct, asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their joy of child >sexual molestation coverup), T.V. signals DON'TI wouldn't want to watch the crappy Doctoress Who and Gay-Black Who
even if it was on free-to-air TV. :-p
No longer radio waves TV.
use the longer Radio waves .... the
higher in Frequency you go, the shorter the Wavelengths are!!
T.V. signals COULD use the longer Radio waves .... but it would be a
very low picture rate.
--
Daniel70
Daniel70 wrote:
On 15/06/2026 9:37 am, Your Name wrote:
I think you've still got the same confusion about the
order of the movies.
Yes, you are correct, it seems 1, 2, and 3 followed 4, 5,
and 6, then came 7, 8, and 9. (Have I mentioned how my
memory is going??)
Forgetful, this one is.
And I see, reading Wiki ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars
"The original film, *later retitled* Episode IV: A New Hope,
was followed by the sequels Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
(1980) and Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983), forming the
original Star Wars trilogy."
So the original ORIGINAL film was just 'Star Wars'!! None of
this 'A New Hope' tripe for me!!
Around and around in the goldfish bowl we go...
Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/06/2026 10:16 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Hmmm... I'm trying to think of everything important I
have learned on RADW - important as in, not bible quotes
or maths equations!
<thinks>
....
....
....
<Still thinking...>
<Still thinking...>
Boy, Oh, Boy, are you Irish slooooooow thinkers!!
I like to take my time so I don't come across as clueless
as some others here!
Plus, I know what order the Star Wars films go in! ;-)
The Doctor wrote:
The homosexual issue burns me.
I'm sure there's a cream you could get for it.
Although the safest thing might be for you to stop going
to church.
On 14/06/2026 11:13, Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/06/2026 10:23 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 13/06/2026 10:01, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
NOT Gunna happen!! It is seared into our memories!! Well, those whoWEll, let us start be a retcon on the Timeless Child.
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It would
be starting again.
-aFrom the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
No one is going to watch a reboot if they believe it will lead towards
the Doctor being the Timeless Child monster.
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor Who completely
as if it was never ever there.
actually watched it .... so others didn't have to watch it!! ;-)
If it doesn't happen then Doctor Who will NEVER return. It ended in 2017
and there hasn't been a single episode of it since then.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 6/14/2026 07:16, Blueshirt wrote:
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation, then it
is going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one
way or another, as we saw her face as the 15th Doctor
regenerated. So they couldn't just go back to pre-2017.
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
Hey...it worked for "Dallas"...sort of.
In fairness, Doctor Who is a sci-fi/fantasy type of show these
days, so it's easily got around. You could just ignore it, wave
your hand, and put it all down to wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey
stuff... or, everything since 2017 could be written off as
happening in a parallel universe, and now (when the show
returns) the Doctor is back in the proper universe. So it's
easily done if the new production team did want to ignore the
Billie Piper 'regeneration' thing. Which on reflection, I think
they probably should.
Doctor Who fans though do tend to like things to be in order and
ignoring the Billie Piper face at the end of "The Reality War"
could upset a lot of their sensibilities.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <dOHXR.114705$Cheb.73124@fx15.ams4>,Doctor > >> regenerated. So they couldn't just go back to
Hornplayer9599 <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:
On 6/14/2026 07:16, Blueshirt wrote:
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation, then
it is going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing
in one way or another, as we saw her face as the 15th
pre-2017.
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
Hey...it worked for "Dallas"...sort of.
AGA does promote the idea.
An idea I have ridiculed over the years.
BUT...
Now in 2026...
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr0lai2uu2kj002@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
Give it a rest then bring it back!
They did give it a rest, and it did come back.
It will get a rest now, and it will come back.
One day.
Soon!
I'm going 2028 or 2029.
So soon, ish.
On 14/06/2026 11:29, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 13/06/2026 10:01, Blueshirt wrote:
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It
would be starting again.
From the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as
part of its lore.
No one is going to watch a reboot if they believe it will
lead towards the Doctor being the Timeless Child monster.
Why do you think reboot means do everything EXACTLY the same?
Unless it is stated otherwise from the start this is a natural assumption.
A reboot could easily ignore that part of the previous show's
lore. Especially as it wasn't part the original concept of the
show. You wouldn't reboot a show to do everything exactly the
same! That doesn't make any sense. You'd use the core concepts
and environments and tell new stories. It's not rocket science!
Chibnall made the Timeless Child monster into a core concept along with
a female Doctor, and then Davies made a gay Doctor into one. This
degenerate crap has to be erased from the very start and stated that
none of these concepts will ever be part of a reboot. The only way this
can be done is in exactly the same way Bobby Ewing was brought back from
the dead in Dallas, because Doctor Who is deader than Bobby Ewing.
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor Who
completely as if it was never ever there.
So, you think when a new production company comes on board
and starts making a new series of "Doctor Who" (Whenever that
is.) They are going to waste their limited time and money on
retconning the female Doctor from 2017... which by the time
any new series airs will be over a decade since it happened.
You need to waste any time or money on it. You continue from where
Capaldi died in The Doctor Falls and he is seen regenerating into the
next Doctor. You have Clara waking up from a hideous nightmare and Danny >Pink walks out of the shower with their son and the sound of the TARDIS >materialising is herd the background. The next Doctor materialises on >Gallifrey and sees a pregnant Time Lady accompanied by her husband and
their kids... etc. etc.
That is not a logical assumption. In fact, it's scarily
delusional.
Was Dallas delusional when they realised that the series was dead with >Patrick Duffy as Bobby Ewing?
The most likely scenario is they just move on, go forward and
never mention it. Which would be fine with me.
No one is going to watch it. The degenerate woke agenda must be utterly >denounced from the start to reassure the audience. The easiest way of
doing this is to do a Dallas.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 14/06/2026 12:05, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr0ia32qrhvm002@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The most likely scenario is they just move on, go forward and
never mention it. Which would be fine with me.
Indeed. When we speak of it, we give it power. The new series, if we're
blessed with one, would be wise to pick up from the point at which the
ratings tanked.
That was how Roseanne did it. It rebooted from the part people had
actually watched, and nobody complained that it didn't make sense that
Dan was alive.
There you go. And no one is going to complain when the see Danny Pink
still alive and the father of several children by Clara Oswald.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 14/06/2026 13:16, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr0ia32qrhvm002@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The most likely scenario is they just move on, go forward and
never mention it. Which would be fine with me.
Indeed. When we speak of it, we give it power. The new series,
if we're blessed with one, would be wise to pick up from the
point at which the ratings tanked.
Too many people want to live in the past. Ignore it and move on.
That's where RTD went wrong. He could have ignored the 'Timeless
Child' storyline and gone forward with the 15th Doctor... he
decided to double-down on it - as a fuck you to the fans - then
got uppity when the fans switched off.
That was how Roseanne did it. It rebooted from the part people
had actually watched, and nobody complained that it didn't
make sense that Dan was alive.
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it is
going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one way or
No it isn't. Clara wakes up from a dream with a baby by her side and
Danny Pink walks out of the shower... Capaldi regenerates from when he
died in The Doctor Falls... etc. etc.
another, as we saw her face as the 15th Doctor regenerated. So
they couldn't just go back to pre-2017.
No one cares.
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
It's not even mentioned or see. Clara just wake up from this nightmare >without a single word said about it.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 14/06/2026 13:49, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr0l302uj8km001@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it is
going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one way or
another, as we saw her face as the 15th Doctor regenerated. So
they couldn't just go back to pre-2017.
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
We see shots of Billie Piper as the Doctor, other shots that look like a
a continuation... but they're intercut with scenes of Peter Capaldi
trapped in a pod (or goo, or whatever) and struggling to wake.
You don't need a single show of Billie Piper. You just start the episode >with Peter Capaldi regenerating from when he died in The Doctor Falls or
on Gallifrey.
Then....
[Who wants to write the next event?]
I already wrote it a couple of years ago. It can be licenced to the new >producers on request.
ACT 1, SCENE 1
(The Doctor wakes up in a new body lying on his back in a hospital bed.
He leans up from his pillow and opens his eyes. A doctor is standing
beside the bed.)
THE DOCTOR: Ugh... (groans and yawns)
Doctor: Good to see that you're awake Doctor.
THE DOCTOR: Awake? ... Where am I? ... Where is This?
Doctor: This is Gallifrey Doctor. Congratulations! You've regenerated.
THE DOCTOR: Regenerated? (The Doctor looks at his hands and then feels
his face with them. He then pauses.) Gallifrey was destroyed. (he
exclaims) How can I be here?
(A Time Lord steps into view from the shadows, not noticed before by the >Doctor.)
Time Lord: You were rescued from the event horizon of a black hole.
THE DOCTOR: Rescued? How, who by?
Time Lord: With the Time Scoop.
THE DOCTOR: That's Time Lord technology, and it's forbidden.
Time Lord: Not since the Last Great Time War.
THE DOCTOR: Where's Bill? What happened to Bill?
Time Lord: Bill, we don't know of any Bill.
THE DOCTOR: What? I was with Bill just now, ... I mean just a few
moments ago. Before I regenerated. Wait...
Doctor: There is no Bill. She only existed in your mind.
THE DOCTOR: How do you know Bill was a she?
Time Lord: Pronouns, pronouns, Doctor. Tut, tut, tut...
Doctor: The medics took a scan of your brain patterns and analysed them. >You've been suffering from inter-regenerational hallucinations.
Everything you think happened around the time you were mortally wounded
by the Cybermen is all a false psychological construct.
THE DOCTOR: No, that's not true. Bill was real.
Time Lord: No she was not. You made her up. You made a lot of stuff up
that hardly makes any sense. A planet sized dragon hatching from a shell >formed by the Terran moon. Cybermen regenerating like Time Lords. The >Timeless Child. The Flux. Laws of nature based on cartoon logic.
Historical figures changing race. Bi-generation...
Doctor: You suffered considerable trauma. Only to be expected from the
huge gravitational gradient you experienced.
THE DOCTOR: So, none of my recent memories are either accurate or even
of real events at all?
Doctor: No they are not. None of them. They never occurred the way you
now remember. You know full well that Time Lords can't regenerate into a >different gender from the one they were originally assigned at birth.
What if they happened to be pregnant at the time? What do you imagine
would happen to the foetus?
Time Lord: And to the Time Lord themselves.
THE DOCTOR: Yes, you've brought up a valid point. That's why it's >biologically forbidden to all Time Lords. So what really happened to me >then?
Time Lord: We're not quite sure. Maybe you can help us?
(the Doctor sits on the side of the bed facing his interlocutors.)
THE DOCTOR: Why am I here?
Time Lord: We rescued you.
THE DOCTOR: Why?
Time Lord: We need you to go on a mission.
THE DOCTOR: Oh, no, no, no...
Time Lord: You've not even heard what it's about yet.
THE DOCTOR: I'm not going on any mission. No... No more missions for me.
Time Lord: We could always return you back to where we found you.
THE DOCTOR: Go on then.
(The Doctor steps out of bed on shaky legs and moves towards the window, >taking in the view of the Citadel. Looking outside of his hospital room
he reaches for the latch.)
Time Lord: If you're thinking of escaping by jumping through that window
I wouldn't try.
Doctor: You wouldn't survive the fall from this height.
THE DOCTOR: I've fallen from far greater heights in my past and survived.
Time Lord: Think again Doctor. The last time you fell from a great
height you regenerated into a young blond man. First and only time
you've been blond.
THE DOCTOR: How do you know all of these things about my history?
Time Lord: I absorbed your mind signature from the Matrix.
(A tall elegant women walks into the room.)
THE DOCTOR: You can't do that. Only the...
(The Doctor is interrupted by the woman.)
Woman: You're Excellency, you've been summoned by the High Council.
THE DOCTOR: ...only the Lord High President of the High Council of
Gallifrey can do that...
Woman: Correct Doctor. (pause) Mister President, the high council is
waiting and becoming impatient.
(The President looks towards the Doctor)
Time Lord PRESIDENT: Doctor they're waiting for you too.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
The True Doctor wrote:
On 14/06/2026 11:29, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor
Who completely as if it was never ever there.
So, you think when a new production company comes on board
and starts making a new series of "Doctor Who" (Whenever that
is.) They are going to waste their limited time and money on
retconning the female Doctor from 2017... which by the time
any new series airs will be over a decade since it happened.
You need to waste any time or money on it. You continue from
where Capaldi died in The Doctor Falls and he is seen
regenerating into the next Doctor. You have Clara waking up
from a hideous nightmare and Danny Pink walks out of the
shower with their son and the sound of the TARDIS
materialising is herd the background. The next Doctor
materialises on Gallifrey and sees a pregnant Time Lady
accompanied by her husband and their kids... etc. etc.
I'd take Ncuti Gatwa in his skirt before Danny fucking Pink!
That is not a logical assumption. In fact, it's scarily
delusional.
Was Dallas delusional when they realised that the series
was dead with Patrick Duffy as Bobby Ewing?
Because it's sci-fi! You can use sci-fi concepts instead of
a dream. A parallel/alternate universe wouldn't have worked
for Dallas, but Doctor Who could easily find a way of
invalidating its established lore... rewrite reality, timeline >collapse/reset, quantum branching, memory alteration...
A dream would be cheesy. I'd like to think any new producers
would give it a bit more thought than that!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 14/06/2026 13:16, Blueshirt wrote:
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it
is going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one
way or
No it isn't. Clara wakes up from a dream with a baby by her
side and Danny Pink walks out of the shower... Capaldi
regenerates from when he died in The Doctor Falls... etc. etc.
It's not even mentioned or see. Clara just wake up from this
nightmare without a single word said about it.
That's just hopium. It's not going to happen though is it?
New producers, new era of show, new international distribution
deal, probably even new season numbering and they go back
fifteen years! Yeah, that's not going to confuse anyone is it?
<face palm>--
Verily, in article <xn0pr1zok4a0neb003@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
Doctor Who fans though do tend to like things to be in order and
ignoring the Billie Piper face at the end of "The Reality War"
could upset a lot of their sensibilities.
If I were the new showrunner, I'd leverage this. Capaldi or a new guy is >trapped by the Toymaker or similar, and in his captive trance he mutters >things like "It just doesn't *make sense*," intercut with scenes of
things like the Rose Doctor and the the female Master. Anything we >specifically want to get rid of would be shown as part of the fever
dream. Eventually, the Doctor struggles to consciousness as the sheer
level of craziness tells him it isn't real.
I have lots more ideas. If only I could get someone to give me a grant,
I'd do it. I doubt a Kickstarter would go anywhere, though.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Verily, in article <110orto$bqf1$1@dont-email.me>, did >agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Doctor: The medics took a scan of your brain patterns and analysed them.
You've been suffering from inter-regenerational hallucinations.
Everything you think happened around the time you were mortally wounded
by the Cybermen is all a false psychological construct.
And the Doctor goes off to fight the bad guy who did all that? That's
fairly similar to my idea, with a different treatment.
Hey, want to work on it together? If we get enough people, we could do a >full Doctor Who Continues on YouTube, akin to Star Trek Continues.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
In article <xn0pr1zup4a9iyn006@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr0lai2uu2kj002@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
They did give it a rest, and it did come back.
It will get a rest now, and it will come back.
One day.
Soon!
I'm going 2028 or 2029.
Bidders' war can occur.
In article <xn0pr20g64b4lms008@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
New producers, new era of show, new international
distribution deal, probably even new season numbering...
and they go back fifteen years! Yeah, that's not going
to confuse anyone is it?
Be hopeful!
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr1zup4a9iyn006@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr0lai2uu2kj002@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
They did give it a rest, and it did come back.
It will get a rest now, and it will come back.
One day.
Soon!
I'm going 2028 or 2029.
Bidders' war can occur.
I'm sure there's a queue going around the block outside
Broadcasting House in London as we speak...
I'm pretty sure when Disney terminated their partnership
the BBC would have had some discussions with potential new
partners behind the scenes. Clearly nobody was that interested,
so they cancelled the planned Christmas special. So I'm not
sure there will be too many production companies falling over
themselves to sign up Doctor Who in the current climate.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr20g64b4lms008@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
New producers, new era of show, new international
distribution deal, probably even new season numbering...
and they go back fifteen years! Yeah, that's not going
to confuse anyone is it?
Be hopeful!
I like to be hopeful, but I also like to be realistic.
Verily, in article <110orto$bqf1$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Doctor: The medics took a scan of your brain patterns and analysed them.
You've been suffering from inter-regenerational hallucinations.
Everything you think happened around the time you were mortally wounded
by the Cybermen is all a false psychological construct.
And the Doctor goes off to fight the bad guy who did all that? That's
fairly similar to my idea, with a different treatment.
Hey, want to work on it together? If we get enough people, we could do a
full Doctor Who Continues on YouTube, akin to Star Trek Continues.
On 15/06/2026 14:15, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <110orto$bqf1$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Doctor: The medics took a scan of your brain patterns and analysed them. >>> You've been suffering from inter-regenerational hallucinations.
Everything you think happened around the time you were mortally wounded
by the Cybermen is all a false psychological construct.
And the Doctor goes off to fight the bad guy who did all that? That's
fairly similar to my idea, with a different treatment.
No. He either goes off to fight the Daleks or he goes back to fight the >Cybermen on Mondas. The hallucinations are self explanatory and the
result of the Doctor's own imagination trying to make sense of him dying.
Hey, want to work on it together? If we get enough people, we could do a
full Doctor Who Continues on YouTube, akin to Star Trek Continues.
We need someone who knows how to make movies using AI.
If the Doctor goes to Mondas I already wrote a full script for that in >2009ish. For the Dalek story I created an outline for it about 5 years
ago or something. All they need is upping the stakes, or the Doctor can
go off an fight some other enemy which isn't under copyright.
The Terry Nation estate didn't want the image of the Daleks totally >destroyed and turned into a laughing stock after Davies turned the
Doctor gay so they were never allowed to be in any Gatwa episodes and >neither were the Cybermen for the same reason.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
We need someone who knows how to make movies using AI.
If the Doctor goes to Mondas I already wrote a full script for that in 2009ish. For the Dalek story I created an outline for it about 5 years
ago or something. All they need is upping the stakes, or the Doctor can
go off an fight some other enemy which isn't under copyright.
The Terry Nation estate didn't want the image of the Daleks totally destroyed and turned into a laughing stock after Davies turned the
Doctor gay so they were never allowed to be in any Gatwa episodes and neither were the Cybermen for the same reason.
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
Hey...it worked for "Dallas"...sort of.
In fairness, Doctor Who is a sci-fi/fantasy type of show these
days, so it's easily got around. You could just ignore it, wave
your hand, and put it all down to wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey
stuff... or, everything since 2017 could be written off as
happening in a parallel universe, and now (when the show
returns) the Doctor is back in the proper universe. So it's
easily done if the new production team did want to ignore the
Billie Piper 'regeneration' thing. Which on reflection, I think
they probably should.
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from that black box he was placed in at the end of an episode during the Smith (I think) era? I honestly don't remember...they could start there with him escaping the
box that triggers a regeneration. However that would relegate Capaldi's
era to the parallel universe. Just a thought.
On 6/15/2026 07:15, Blueshirt wrote:
In fairness, Doctor Who is a sci-fi/fantasy type of show
these days, so it's easily got around. You could just ignore
it, wave your hand, and put it all down to wibbly-wobbly
timey-wimey stuff... or, everything since 2017 could be
written off as happening in a parallel universe, and now
(when the show returns) the Doctor is back in the proper
universe. So it's easily done if the new production team did
want to ignore the Billie Piper 'regeneration' thing. Which
on reflection, I think they probably should.
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from that black
box he was placed in at the end of an episode during the Smith
(I think) era?
I honestly don't remember...they could start there with him
escaping the box that triggers a regeneration.
However that would relegate Capaldi's era to the parallel
universe. Just a thought.
Verily, in article <zaWXR.39815$nw61.18799@fx07.ams4>, did Hornplayer9599@aol.com deliver unto us this message:
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from that black
box he was placed in at the end of an episode during the
Smith (I think) era? I honestly don't remember...they could
start there with him escaping the box that triggers a
regeneration. However that would relegate Capaldi's era to
the parallel universe. Just a thought.
He was switched with Clara, and a whole lot of plot fell out
from that, so it might not be the best point.
On second thought, I'm not that into Clara. I'll take it.
In article <xn0pr22bp4dp665001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Be hopeful!
I like to be hopeful, but I also like to be realistic.
There is someone out there.
In article <xn0pr227u4djmm4000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
I'm sure there's a queue going around the block outside
Broadcasting House in London as we speak...
I'm pretty sure when Disney terminated their partnership
the BBC would have had some discussions with potential new
partners behind the scenes. Clearly nobody was that
interested, so they cancelled the planned Christmas special.
So I'm not sure there will be too many production companies
falling over themselves to sign up Doctor Who in the current
climate.
Well the queue is probably virtual.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 14/06/2026 11:29, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor
Who completely as if it was never ever there.
So, you think when a new production company comes on board
and starts making a new series of "Doctor Who" (Whenever that
is.) They are going to waste their limited time and money on
retconning the female Doctor from 2017... which by the time
any new series airs will be over a decade since it happened.
You need to waste any time or money on it. You continue from
where Capaldi died in The Doctor Falls and he is seen
regenerating into the next Doctor. You have Clara waking up
from a hideous nightmare and Danny Pink walks out of the
shower with their son and the sound of the TARDIS
materialising is herd the background. The next Doctor
materialises on Gallifrey and sees a pregnant Time Lady
accompanied by her husband and their kids... etc. etc.
I'd take Ncuti Gatwa in his skirt before Danny fucking Pink!
That is not a logical assumption. In fact, it's scarily
delusional.
Was Dallas delusional when they realised that the series
was dead with Patrick Duffy as Bobby Ewing?
Because it's sci-fi! You can use sci-fi concepts instead of
a dream. A parallel/alternate universe wouldn't have worked
for Dallas, but Doctor Who could easily find a way of
invalidating its established lore... rewrite reality, timeline collapse/reset, quantum branching, memory alteration...
A dream would be cheesy. I'd like to think any new producers
would give it a bit more thought than that!
On 15/06/2026 13:42, Blueshirt wrote:
I'd take Ncuti Gatwa in his skirt before Danny fucking
Pink!
And what harm did Danny Pink do to you?
He never cried like a little baby girl in every single
episode, did he?
The True Doctor wrote:
On 15/06/2026 13:42, Blueshirt wrote:
I'd take Ncuti Gatwa in his skirt before Danny fucking
Pink!
And what harm did Danny Pink do to you?
Danny Pink was an awful character, badly written... with trendy
"emotional baggage" to make us feel sorry for him. I didn't! I
found him too boring. I couldn't see what Clara saw in him.
He never cried like a little baby girl in every single
episode, did he?
Men cry too!
Do you not get emotional from time to time?
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of
particular characters, meeting some fairly loose staging
requirements,
On 15/06/2026 9:37 am, Your Name wrote:<snip>
On 2026-06-14 10:08:54 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 14/06/2026 9:18 am, Your Name wrote:
When Disney bought Star Wars, they shovelled all the existing media
(except for the six main movies) into a big bin they labelled as "Star >>>> Wars Legends", and then went on to make their own nonsense 'Expanded
Universe' instead ... while still re-releasing all the old novels with >>>> the newly labelled covers to cash-grab from fans who must every every >>>> edition.
Now there are rumours that Disney is planning to push their own 'Sequel >>>> Trilogy' to one side, labelling it as "alternate universe", while
making a new 'Sequel Trilogy' instead where the main original
characters Luke, Han, etc. don't die. (Although I think this rumour may >>>> be confusing things with the 'fourth trilogy' that covers what Rey goes >>>> on to do in re-establishing the Jedi.)
O.K., first off I will declare that I never saw 'Star Wars Episode Four
A New Hope' or what ever it was later called, I saw "Star Wars" then
"Star Wars Episode Five The Empire Strikes Back" .... and on, I think,
to Episode Nine. I don't think I've ever seen Episodes 1, 2 or 3.
Are you now suggesting that Disney will be making NEW Episodes 1, 2 and
3 .... or are they making Episodes 10, 11 and 12??
I think you've still got the same confusion about the order of the movies.
Yes, you are correct, it seems 1, 2, and 3 followed 4, 5, and 6, then
came 7, 8, and 9. (Have I mentioned how my memory is going??)
And I see, reading Wiki .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars
"The original film, *later retitled* Episode IV: A New Hope, was
followed by the sequels Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983), forming the original Star Wars trilogy."
So the original ORIGINAL film was just 'Star Wars'!! None of this 'A
New Hope' tripe for me!!
Original Trilogy (Lucasfilm):
aEpisode 4: A New Hope first played in 1977 (originally without subtitle)
aEpisode 5: The Empire Strikes Back first played in 1980
aEpisode 6: Reutn of the Jedi first played in 1983
Prequel Trilogy (Lucasfilm)
aEpisode 1: The Phantom Menace first played in 1999
aEpisode 2: Attack of the Clones first played in 2002
aEpisode 3: Revenge of the Sith first played in 2005
Sequel Trilogy (Disney)
aEpisode 7: The Force Awakens first played in 2015
aEpisode 8: The Last Jedi first played in 2017
aEpisode 9: The Rise of Skywalker first played in 2019
There are two current rumours:
a Least likely: Disney will sideline the existing Episodes 7, 8, and 9
a as an 'alternate universe' version and make a new Sequel Trilogy as
a a replacement.
a Most likely: Disney will make a fourth trilogy (Episodes 10, 11,
a and 12, with the Rey character re-building the Jedi Order.
Officially, there is a planned movie set after Episode 9 based around
the Rey character, but has not been confirmed as part of a new trilogy.
There are also other spin-off standalone movies that have been made,
up-coming, and planned.
The True Melissa wrote:
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of
particular characters, meeting some fairly loose staging
requirements,
Have you tried NightCafe Studio?
I'm told it's quite popular around these parts for images...
In article <110oq6u$ba4b$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 14/06/2026 11:13, Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/06/2026 10:23 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 13/06/2026 10:01, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
NOT Gunna happen!! It is seared into our memories!! Well, those whoWEll, let us start be a retcon on the Timeless Child.
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It would
be starting again.
-aFrom the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
No one is going to watch a reboot if they believe it will lead towards >>>> the Doctor being the Timeless Child monster.
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor Who completely
as if it was never ever there.
actually watched it .... so others didn't have to watch it!! ;-)
If it doesn't happen then Doctor Who will NEVER return. It ended in 2017
and there hasn't been a single episode of it since then.
So who is looking at the tender?
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from that black
box he was placed in at the end of an episode during the Smith
(I think) era?
The Pandorica?
I honestly don't remember...they could start there with him
escaping the box that triggers a regeneration.
However that would relegate Capaldi's era to the parallel
universe. Just a thought.
There are some that like to say the show "finished" when the
Moon became an egg... so, losing the whole Capaldi era wouldn't
be a big deal to those types I'd say!
I actually liked Peter Capaldi though... it was Clara that I
thought got too much importance in that era.
Verily, in article <110p53h$ep5n$1@dont-email.me>, did >agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
We need someone who knows how to make movies using AI.
That's not going to work well, not if you want all the characters to
have the same likenesses consistently.
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of particular
characters, meeting some fairly loose staging requirements, and I've
gotten one usable picture in several days. I do know how to prompt, and
I've added a plethora of reference pictures. It's a hard problem.
There's a reason all those AI commercials use very short shots *and* are >pretty obviously AI.
We might be able to make a Claude skill for DAZ Studio or Poser or
similar. Ideally we could have actual actors and sets, but that would >probably require angel funding.
If the Doctor goes to Mondas I already wrote a full script for that in
2009ish. For the Dalek story I created an outline for it about 5 years
ago or something. All they need is upping the stakes, or the Doctor can
go off an fight some other enemy which isn't under copyright.
The Terry Nation estate didn't want the image of the Daleks totally
destroyed and turned into a laughing stock after Davies turned the
Doctor gay so they were never allowed to be in any Gatwa episodes and
neither were the Cybermen for the same reason.
Did they say that?--
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 6/15/2026 07:15, Blueshirt wrote:
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
Well... unless they make it all a dream.
Hey...it worked for "Dallas"...sort of.
In fairness, Doctor Who is a sci-fi/fantasy type of show these
days, so it's easily got around. You could just ignore it, wave
your hand, and put it all down to wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey
stuff... or, everything since 2017 could be written off as
happening in a parallel universe, and now (when the show
returns) the Doctor is back in the proper universe. So it's
easily done if the new production team did want to ignore the
Billie Piper 'regeneration' thing. Which on reflection, I think
they probably should.
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from that black box he was >placed in at the end of an episode during the Smith (I think) era? I >honestly don't remember...they could start there with him escaping the
box that triggers a regeneration. However that would relegate Capaldi's
era to the parallel universe. Just a thought.
----
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
Verily, in article <zaWXR.39815$nw61.18799@fx07.ams4>, did >Hornplayer9599@aol.com deliver unto us this message:
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from that black box he was
placed in at the end of an episode during the Smith (I think) era? I
honestly don't remember...they could start there with him escaping the
box that triggers a regeneration. However that would relegate Capaldi's
era to the parallel universe. Just a thought.
He was switched with Clara, and a whole lot of plot fell out from that,
so it might not be the best point.
On second thought, I'm not that into Clara. I'll take it.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 6/15/2026 07:15, Blueshirt wrote:
In fairness, Doctor Who is a sci-fi/fantasy type of show
these days, so it's easily got around. You could just ignore
it, wave your hand, and put it all down to wibbly-wobbly
timey-wimey stuff... or, everything since 2017 could be
written off as happening in a parallel universe, and now
(when the show returns) the Doctor is back in the proper
universe. So it's easily done if the new production team did
want to ignore the Billie Piper 'regeneration' thing. Which
on reflection, I think they probably should.
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from that black
box he was placed in at the end of an episode during the Smith
(I think) era?
The Pandorica?
I honestly don't remember...they could start there with him
escaping the box that triggers a regeneration.
However that would relegate Capaldi's era to the parallel
universe. Just a thought.
There are some that like to say the show "finished" when the
Moon became an egg... so, losing the whole Capaldi era wouldn't
be a big deal to those types I'd say!
I actually liked Peter Capaldi though... it was Clara that I
thought got too much importance in that era.
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <zaWXR.39815$nw61.18799@fx07.ams4>, did
Hornplayer9599@aol.com deliver unto us this message:
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from that black
box he was placed in at the end of an episode during the
Smith (I think) era? I honestly don't remember...they could
start there with him escaping the box that triggers a
regeneration. However that would relegate Capaldi's era to
the parallel universe. Just a thought.
He was switched with Clara, and a whole lot of plot fell out
from that, so it might not be the best point.
The plot falling out has happened quite a lot in "Doctor Who"
recently!
On second thought, I'm not that into Clara. I'll take it.
Never been into Clara much either... she did have some good
moments early on, but for me she overstayed her welcome. Clara
was one of those "Oh so special" companions where it was all
about her.... "The Impossible Girl". I hate that shit.
Especially the version of her that helped the First Doctor steal
the TARDIS on Gallifrey and start his adventures.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr22bp4dp665001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Be hopeful!
I like to be hopeful, but I also like to be realistic.
There is someone out there.
I'm sure there is, "Doctor Who" is a big name in British
television.... but how much of a risk do prospective
co-producers want to take, and how much money do they want
to spend on the show? We already know the BBC isn't rolling
in a lot of 'spare' cash to throw at "Doctor Who" ... or they'd
be making it!
I have no problem with a low-budget, minimal effects show if
we had decent stories... after all, it's what I grew up on! But
these days the big media companies that produce TV shows like to
have them look flashy with big bangs, explosions and plenty of
CGI. That all costs money.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr227u4djmm4000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
I'm sure there's a queue going around the block outside
Broadcasting House in London as we speak...
I'm pretty sure when Disney terminated their partnership
the BBC would have had some discussions with potential new
partners behind the scenes. Clearly nobody was that
interested, so they cancelled the planned Christmas special.
So I'm not sure there will be too many production companies
falling over themselves to sign up Doctor Who in the current
climate.
Well the queue is probably virtual.
Yes Dave, I wouldn't think it was a real queue going down
Portland Place...
BUT, if Disney pulled out of their partnership with the BBC last
year, after S2/15 probably. Then that was a year ago. Were the
BBC sitting on their hands for a whole year hoping for donations
to come in so they could make the 2026 Christmas Special, or
were they secretly in negotiations with other prospective
partners for funding "Doctor Who"? If the latter, then the
current situation means nobody was interested in whatever the
BBC were offering. Which is a bad sign.
If the BBC were not talking to anybody, then why announce a
Christmas special in October 2025, and say they had plans for
Doctor Who continuing, if they knew they didn't have the funding
to make it? That's also a bad sign.
So virtual or real, I'd say the queue is minimal!
It will probably turn out that BBC Studios 'win' the competitive
tender in an auction of one!
On 15/06/2026 13:42, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 14/06/2026 11:29, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor
Who completely as if it was never ever there.
So, you think when a new production company comes on board
and starts making a new series of "Doctor Who" (Whenever that
is.) They are going to waste their limited time and money on
retconning the female Doctor from 2017... which by the time
any new series airs will be over a decade since it happened.
You need to waste any time or money on it. You continue from
where Capaldi died in The Doctor Falls and he is seen
regenerating into the next Doctor. You have Clara waking up
from a hideous nightmare and Danny Pink walks out of the
shower with their son and the sound of the TARDIS
materialising is herd the background. The next Doctor
materialises on Gallifrey and sees a pregnant Time Lady
accompanied by her husband and their kids... etc. etc.
I'd take Ncuti Gatwa in his skirt before Danny fucking Pink!
And what harm did Danny Pink do to you? He never cried like a little
baby girl in every single episode, did he?
That is not a logical assumption. In fact, it's scarily
delusional.
Was Dallas delusional when they realised that the series
was dead with Patrick Duffy as Bobby Ewing?
Because it's sci-fi! You can use sci-fi concepts instead of
a dream. A parallel/alternate universe wouldn't have worked
for Dallas, but Doctor Who could easily find a way of
invalidating its established lore... rewrite reality, timeline
collapse/reset, quantum branching, memory alteration...
All are far too complicated and need to reference the pile of shit
written by Davies and Chibnall and give it credence and take too long
doing it.
A dream would be cheesy. I'd like to think any new producers
would give it a bit more thought than that!
No. The only way to bring in new and existing viewers is to start with
Clara waking up from a dream or Capaldi regenerating. It's instant and
you get straight into new adventures without any woke shit bogging
people down needing to know everything that happened before.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
The True Doctor wrote:
On 15/06/2026 13:42, Blueshirt wrote:
I'd take Ncuti Gatwa in his skirt before Danny fucking
Pink!
And what harm did Danny Pink do to you?
Danny Pink was an awful character, badly written... with trendy
"emotional baggage" to make us feel sorry for him. I didn't! I
found him too boring. I couldn't see what Clara saw in him.
He never cried like a little baby girl in every single
episode, did he?
Men cry too!
Do you not get emotional from time to time?
On 15/06/2026 20:34, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 15/06/2026 13:42, Blueshirt wrote:
I'd take Ncuti Gatwa in his skirt before Danny fucking
Pink!
And what harm did Danny Pink do to you?
Danny Pink was an awful character, badly written... with trendy
"emotional baggage" to make us feel sorry for him. I didn't! I
found him too boring. I couldn't see what Clara saw in him.
He's still a better character than gay crybaby Gatwa ever was.
He should have never given up his life for the sake of a Muslim
terrorist fanatic from Iraq or Afghanistan.
He never cried like a little baby girl in every single
episode, did he?
Men cry too!
Do you not get emotional from time to time?
Not in every single episode after getting everybody killed.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
The True Melissa wrote:
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of
particular characters, meeting some fairly loose staging
requirements,
Have you tried NightCafe Studio?
I'm told it's quite popular around these parts for images...
On 2026-06-15 11:39:00 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 15/06/2026 9:37 am, Your Name wrote:<snip>
On 2026-06-14 10:08:54 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 14/06/2026 9:18 am, Your Name wrote:
Yes, you are correct, it seems 1, 2, and 3 followed 4, 5, and 6, thenWhen Disney bought Star Wars, they shovelled all the existing media >>>>> (except for the six main movies) into a big bin they labelled as "Star >>>>> Wars Legends", and then went on to make their own nonsense 'Expanded >>>>> Universe' instead ... while still re-releasing all the old novels with >>>>> the newly labelled covers to cash-grab from fans who must every every >>>>> edition.
Now there are rumours that Disney is planning to push their own 'Sequel >>>>> Trilogy' to one side, labelling it as "alternate universe", while
making a new 'Sequel Trilogy' instead where the main original
characters Luke, Han, etc. don't die. (Although I think this rumour may >>>>> be confusing things with the 'fourth trilogy' that covers what Rey goes >>>>> on to do in re-establishing the Jedi.)
O.K., first off I will declare that I never saw 'Star Wars Episode Four >>>> A New Hope' or what ever it was later called, I saw "Star Wars" then
"Star Wars Episode Five The Empire Strikes Back" .... and on, I think, >>>> to Episode Nine. I don't think I've ever seen Episodes 1, 2 or 3.
Are you now suggesting that Disney will be making NEW Episodes 1, 2 and >>>> 3 .... or are they making Episodes 10, 11 and 12??
I think you've still got the same confusion about the order of the movies. >>
came 7, 8, and 9. (Have I mentioned how my memory is going??)
And I see, reading Wiki .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars
"The original film, *later retitled* Episode IV: A New Hope, was
followed by the sequels Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and
Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983), forming the original Star Wars
trilogy."
So the original ORIGINAL film was just 'Star Wars'!! None of this 'A
New Hope' tripe for me!!
Originally nobody thought the film would be successful, so it was
released as a standalone movie "Star Wars". When that proved to be
immensely popular, the second movie was made ("Episode V: The Empire
Strikes Back") and the original was sub-titled as "Episode IV: A New
Hope" in the 1981 re-release.
George Lucas often claimed he had a full story for other movies and
that he had started in the middle with Episode IV, because the start of
the story was political and thought too boring. In various interviews
he claimed the story could make 9 or 12 movies. The reality is that he
only ever had a very vague story outline and background details, which
were constantly being changed and tweaked as he actually got to writing
each of the later movies. The original movie itself was re-written
numerous times with many changes before and while being made, and even
after its release was still being altered for re-releases in home video
and the 'Special Edition' cinema version.
Original Trilogy (Lucasfilm):
aEpisode 4: A New Hope first played in 1977 (originally without subtitle) >>> aEpisode 5: The Empire Strikes Back first played in 1980
aEpisode 6: Reutn of the Jedi first played in 1983
Prequel Trilogy (Lucasfilm)
aEpisode 1: The Phantom Menace first played in 1999
aEpisode 2: Attack of the Clones first played in 2002
aEpisode 3: Revenge of the Sith first played in 2005
Sequel Trilogy (Disney)
aEpisode 7: The Force Awakens first played in 2015
aEpisode 8: The Last Jedi first played in 2017
aEpisode 9: The Rise of Skywalker first played in 2019
There are two current rumours:
a Least likely: Disney will sideline the existing Episodes 7, 8, and 9
a as an 'alternate universe' version and make a new Sequel Trilogy as
a a replacement.
a Most likely: Disney will make a fourth trilogy (Episodes 10, 11,
a and 12, with the Rey character re-building the Jedi Order.
Officially, there is a planned movie set after Episode 9 based around
the Rey character, but has not been confirmed as part of a new trilogy.
There are also other spin-off standalone movies that have been made,
up-coming, and planned.
Verily, in article <xn0pr2bl0snu5vy007@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Melissa wrote:
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of
particular characters, meeting some fairly loose staging
requirements,
Have you tried NightCafe Studio?
I'm told it's quite popular around these parts for images...
I did make a few images there at one point. They were okay (with good >settings and good prompts), but I don't want to pay for another AI. I
plan to stop paying for this one once two projects are done.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 15/06/2026 14:40, The Doctor wrote:
In article <110oq6u$ba4b$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 14/06/2026 11:13, Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/06/2026 10:23 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 13/06/2026 10:01, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
NOT Gunna happen!! It is seared into our memories!! Well, those whoWEll, let us start be a retcon on the Timeless Child.
Dave, a reboot wouldn't retcon the Timeless Child! It would
be starting again.
-aFrom the beginning.
The old show would still feature the 'Timeless Child' as part of
its lore.
No one is going to watch a reboot if they believe it will lead towards >>>>> the Doctor being the Timeless Child monster.
The Timeless Child monster must be erased from Doctor Who completely >>>>> as if it was never ever there.
actually watched it .... so others didn't have to watch it!! ;-)
If it doesn't happen then Doctor Who will NEVER return. It ended in 2017 >>> and there hasn't been a single episode of it since then.
So who is looking at the tender?
I don't think it's been issued yet, and it's not clear who will be
providing the money for it. Will the BBC provide funding or does the
bidder have to pay for it all, and if so what do they get out of it? If
the BBC retains all the broadcast rights in the UK then how is a British >bidder supposed to pay for it if the don't run an international
streaming service?
If the BBC is providing all the funding then where is that going to come >from and how much is it going to pay the bidder to make it. If this was
a defence contract to tender for drones then the companies bidding for
the tender would say what the drones would cost and the price for the
drones that best did the job would be paid by the government, and
usually the lowest bidder would win if all the drones were equal.
How are you supposed to bid for something when you don't know how much
the BBC is willing to spend, that's if it has any money at all?
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 6/15/2026 13:35, Blueshirt wrote:
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from that black
box he was placed in at the end of an episode during the Smith
(I think) era?
The Pandorica?
That's it.
I honestly don't remember...they could start there with him
escaping the box that triggers a regeneration.
However that would relegate Capaldi's era to the parallel
universe. Just a thought.
There are some that like to say the show "finished" when the
Moon became an egg... so, losing the whole Capaldi era wouldn't
be a big deal to those types I'd say!
I actually liked Peter Capaldi though... it was Clara that I
thought got too much importance in that era.
----
Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan
Verily, in article <xn0pr2bl0snu5vy007@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Melissa wrote:
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of
particular characters, meeting some fairly loose staging
requirements,
Have you tried NightCafe Studio?
I'm told it's quite popular around these parts for images...
I did make a few images there at one point. They were okay
(with good settings and good prompts), but I don't want to pay
for another AI. I plan to stop paying for this one once two
projects are done.
Crabs or mind wipe
?
In article <xn0pr29g2skw152000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
I actually liked Peter Capaldi though... it was Clara
that I thought got too much importance in that era.
What about Bill Potts?
Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/06/2026 10:16 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Hmmm... I'm trying to think of everything important I
have learned on RADW - important as in, not bible quotes
or maths equations!
<thinks>
....
....
....
<Still thinking...>
<Still thinking...>
Boy, Oh, Boy, are you Irish slooooooow thinkers!!
I like to take my time so I don't come across as clueless
as some others here!
Plus, I know what order the Star Wars films go in! ;-)
In article <MPG.4499f6428d51309598a05c@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <110p53h$ep5n$1@dont-email.me>, did >agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
We need someone who knows how to make movies using AI.
That's not going to work well, not if you want all the characters to
have the same likenesses consistently.
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of particular >characters, meeting some fairly loose staging requirements, and I've >gotten one usable picture in several days. I do know how to prompt, and >I've added a plethora of reference pictures. It's a hard problem.
There's a reason all those AI commercials use very short shots *and* are >pretty obviously AI.
We might be able to make a Claude skill for DAZ Studio or Poser or >similar. Ideally we could have actual actors and sets, but that would >probably require angel funding.
Well, what about a sales pitch?
In article <xn0pr1yvd48zju0000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 15/06/2026 9:37 am, Your Name wrote:
I think you've still got the same confusion about the
order of the movies.
Yes, you are correct, it seems 1, 2, and 3 followed 4, 5,
and 6, then came 7, 8, and 9. (Have I mentioned how my
memory is going??)
Forgetful, this one is.
And I see, reading Wiki ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars
"The original film, *later retitled* Episode IV: A New Hope,
was followed by the sequels Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
(1980) and Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983), forming the
original Star Wars trilogy."
So the original ORIGINAL film was just 'Star Wars'!! None of
this 'A New Hope' tripe for me!!
Around and around in the goldfish bowl we go...
Thank you YN!
In article <MPG.449a4354337c142698a05f@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr2bl0snu5vy007@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Melissa wrote:
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of
particular characters, meeting some fairly loose staging
requirements,
Have you tried NightCafe Studio?
I'm told it's quite popular around these parts for images...
I did make a few images there at one point. They were okay (with good >settings and good prompts), but I don't want to pay for another AI. I
plan to stop paying for this one once two projects are done.
Just stay free.
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr2bl0snu5vy007@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Melissa wrote:
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of
particular characters, meeting some fairly loose staging
requirements,
Have you tried NightCafe Studio?
I'm told it's quite popular around these parts for images...
I did make a few images there at one point. They were okay
(with good settings and good prompts), but I don't want to pay
for another AI. I plan to stop paying for this one once two
projects are done.
You have to pay for NightCafe?! I assumed as Dave used it daily,
and he isn't renowned for paying for much, it was free!
Time Lord: If you're thinking of escaping by jumping through that window
I wouldn't try.
Doctor: You wouldn't survive the fall from this height.
THE DOCTOR: I've fallen from far greater heights in my past and survived.
On 6/15/2026 13:35, Blueshirt wrote:
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from that black
box he was placed in at the end of an episode during the Smith
(I think) era?
The Pandorica?
That's it.
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr2bl0snu5vy007@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Melissa wrote:
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of
particular characters, meeting some fairly loose staging
requirements,
Have you tried NightCafe Studio?
I'm told it's quite popular around these parts for images...
I did make a few images there at one point. They were okay
(with good settings and good prompts), but I don't want to pay
for another AI. I plan to stop paying for this one once two
projects are done.
You have to pay for NightCafe?! I assumed as Dave used it daily,
and he isn't renowned for paying for much, it was free!
The Doctor wrote:
Crabs or mind wipe
?
Hmmm... not great options.
Of the two I think I'd prefer the mind wipe...
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr29g2skw152000@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
I actually liked Peter Capaldi though... it was Clara
that I thought got too much importance in that era.
What about Bill Potts?
I was sad when she was cyber-converted.
On 15/06/2026 10:03 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:Nar! Nar! Na-Nar! Nar!!
On 14/06/2026 10:16 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
Hmmm... I'm trying to think of everything important I
have learned on RADW - important as in, not bible quotes
or maths equations!
<thinks>
....
....
....
<Still thinking...>
<Still thinking...>
Boy, Oh, Boy, are you Irish slooooooow thinkers!!
I like to take my time so I don't come across as clueless
as some others here!
Plus, I know what order the Star Wars films go in! ;-)
----
Daniel70
Verily, in article <110qkrq$nj2$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.4499f6428d51309598a05c@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <110p53h$ep5n$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
We need someone who knows how to make movies using AI.
That's not going to work well, not if you want all the characters to
have the same likenesses consistently.
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of particular
characters, meeting some fairly loose staging requirements, and I've
gotten one usable picture in several days. I do know how to prompt, and
I've added a plethora of reference pictures. It's a hard problem.
There's a reason all those AI commercials use very short shots *and* are >> >pretty obviously AI.
We might be able to make a Claude skill for DAZ Studio or Poser or
similar. Ideally we could have actual actors and sets, but that would
probably require angel funding.
Well, what about a sales pitch?
To whom?
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 15/06/2026 11:39 pm, The Doctor wrote:--
In article <xn0pr1yvd48zju0000@post.eweka.nl>,Hey, asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their joy of child sexual >molestation coverup), why have YOU replied to one of Blueshirt's posts IF you >are actually replying to Your Name?? Don't you know how to reply
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 15/06/2026 9:37 am, Your Name wrote:
I think you've still got the same confusion about the
order of the movies.
Yes, you are correct, it seems 1, 2, and 3 followed 4, 5,
and 6, then came 7, 8, and 9. (Have I mentioned how my
memory is going??)
Forgetful, this one is.
And I see, reading Wiki ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars
"The original film, *later retitled* Episode IV: A New Hope,
was followed by the sequels Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
(1980) and Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983), forming the
original Star Wars trilogy."
So the original ORIGINAL film was just 'Star Wars'!! None of
this 'A New Hope' tripe for me!!
Around and around in the goldfish bowl we go...
Thank you YN!
DIRECTLY to someone??
--
Daniel70
Verily, in article <110ql5e$nj2$13@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.449a4354337c142698a05f@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr2bl0snu5vy007@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Melissa wrote:
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of
particular characters, meeting some fairly loose staging
requirements,
Have you tried NightCafe Studio?
I'm told it's quite popular around these parts for images...
I did make a few images there at one point. They were okay (with good
settings and good prompts), but I don't want to pay for another AI. I
plan to stop paying for this one once two projects are done.
Just stay free.
I'm not averse to paying for resources I use, but I don't want to pay
for pictures of randos. If and when someone creates an LLM which makes >character preservation simple, I'd probably pay for it. That appears to
be quite a ways off still.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Verily, in article <xn0pr36xw5flk6u000@news.eternal-september.org>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr2bl0snu5vy007@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Melissa wrote:
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of
particular characters, meeting some fairly loose staging
requirements,
Have you tried NightCafe Studio?
I'm told it's quite popular around these parts for images...
I did make a few images there at one point. They were okay
(with good settings and good prompts), but I don't want to pay
for another AI. I plan to stop paying for this one once two
projects are done.
You have to pay for NightCafe?! I assumed as Dave used it daily,
and he isn't renowned for paying for much, it was free!
You get a little credit each day for free. This isn't useful, since one
has to churn out multiple images before getting a usable one. The free >credits are intended as a trial. I tried it, and I found it hard to
prompt. It doesn't take reference pictures. It's a toy.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 15/06/2026 10:41 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Time Lord: If you're thinking of escaping by jumping through that window
I wouldn't try.
Doctor: You wouldn't survive the fall from this height.
THE DOCTOR: I've fallen from far greater heights in my past and survived.
Yes, SHE has fallen from Outer Space back down to Earth and through the
roof of a Bus!! ;-P
----
Daniel70
On 16/06/2026 12:58 pm, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 6/15/2026 13:35, Blueshirt wrote:
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from that black
box he was placed in at the end of an episode during the Smith
(I think) era?
The Pandorica?
That's it.
.... but wasn't it Amy that eventually got out of The Pandorica ....
after Rory the Roman had 'stood guard' for a couple of thousands years??
----
Daniel70
Verily, in article
<xn0pr36xw5flk6u000@news.eternal-september.org>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
You have to pay for NightCafe?! I assumed as Dave used
it daily, and he isn't renowned for paying for much, it
was free!
You get a little credit each day for free. This isn't useful,
since one has to churn out multiple images before getting a
usable one. The free credits are intended as a trial.
I tried it, and I found it hard to prompt.
It doesn't take reference pictures.
It's a toy.
In article <MPG.449b0b05959174bd98a063@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <110qkrq$nj2$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.4499f6428d51309598a05c@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <110p53h$ep5n$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
We need someone who knows how to make movies using AI.
That's not going to work well, not if you want all the characters to
have the same likenesses consistently.
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of particular
characters, meeting some fairly loose staging requirements, and I've
gotten one usable picture in several days. I do know how to prompt, and >> >I've added a plethora of reference pictures. It's a hard problem.
There's a reason all those AI commercials use very short shots *and* are >> >pretty obviously AI.
We might be able to make a Claude skill for DAZ Studio or Poser or
similar. Ideally we could have actual actors and sets, but that would
probably require angel funding.
Well, what about a sales pitch?
To whom?
To the BBC why our production team should be chosen to produce Doctor Who.
On 16/06/2026 12:58 pm, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 6/15/2026 13:35, Blueshirt wrote:
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from
that black box he was placed in at the end of an
episode during the Smith (I think) era?
The Pandorica?
That's it.
.... but wasn't it Amy that eventually got out of The
Pandorica .... after Rory the Roman had 'stood guard' for a
couple of thousands years??
In article <MPG.449b0c8ffec0aefa98a064@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <110ql5e$nj2$13@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.449a4354337c142698a05f@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr2bl0snu5vy007@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Melissa wrote:
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of
particular characters, meeting some fairly loose staging
requirements,
Have you tried NightCafe Studio?
I'm told it's quite popular around these parts for images...
I did make a few images there at one point. They were okay (with good
settings and good prompts), but I don't want to pay for another AI. I
plan to stop paying for this one once two projects are done.
Just stay free.
I'm not averse to paying for resources I use, but I don't want to pay
for pictures of randos. If and when someone creates an LLM which makes >character preservation simple, I'd probably pay for it. That appears to
be quite a ways off still.
Just check your options.
Verily, in article <110rk7r$ju9$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
To the BBC why our production team should be chosen
to produce Doctor Who.
The biggest challenge will be explaining why they should
give it to a group of Usenet cranks,
instead of people with TV production experience. It might
help if we could make a pilot.
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article
<xn0pr36xw5flk6u000@news.eternal-september.org>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
You have to pay for NightCafe?! I assumed as Dave used
it daily, and he isn't renowned for paying for much, it
was free!
You get a little credit each day for free. This isn't useful,
since one has to churn out multiple images before getting a
usable one. The free credits are intended as a trial.
I tried it, and I found it hard to prompt.
You're not the only one it seems!
It doesn't take reference pictures.
It doesn't seem to do much from the examples of it that
I have had the misfortune to sear my eyes looking at!
It's a toy.
That explains a lot... children like toys!
Verily, in article <110rk7r$ju9$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.449b0b05959174bd98a063@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <110qkrq$nj2$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.4499f6428d51309598a05c@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <110p53h$ep5n$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
We need someone who knows how to make movies using AI.
That's not going to work well, not if you want all the characters to
have the same likenesses consistently.
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of particular
characters, meeting some fairly loose staging requirements, and I've
gotten one usable picture in several days. I do know how to prompt, and >> >> >I've added a plethora of reference pictures. It's a hard problem.
There's a reason all those AI commercials use very short shots *and* are
pretty obviously AI.
We might be able to make a Claude skill for DAZ Studio or Poser or
similar. Ideally we could have actual actors and sets, but that would >> >> >probably require angel funding.
Well, what about a sales pitch?
To whom?
To the BBC why our production team should be chosen to produce Doctor Who.
The biggest challenge will be explaining why they should give it to a
group of Usenet cranks, instead of people with TV production experience.
It might help if we could make a pilot.
As for me, I'm still struggling to get an image generator to make
something that's better than a desktop rendering.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
Daniel70 wrote:
On 16/06/2026 12:58 pm, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 6/15/2026 13:35, Blueshirt wrote:
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from
that black box he was placed in at the end of an
episode during the Smith (I think) era?
The Pandorica?
That's it.
.... but wasn't it Amy that eventually got out of The
Pandorica .... after Rory the Roman had 'stood guard' for a
couple of thousands years??
Sort of.
The Pandorica was a prison for the Doctor. The Doctor was put
in it by the Alliance.... but then he escaped. Amy was then
inside it, and it was guarded by [Auton] Rory for thousands
of years... until "The Big Bang".
Verily, in article <110rkbl$ju9$7@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.449b0c8ffec0aefa98a064@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <110ql5e$nj2$13@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.449a4354337c142698a05f@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr2bl0snu5vy007@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The True Melissa wrote:
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of
particular characters, meeting some fairly loose staging
requirements,
Have you tried NightCafe Studio?
I'm told it's quite popular around these parts for images...
I did make a few images there at one point. They were okay (with good >> >> >settings and good prompts), but I don't want to pay for another AI. I >> >> >plan to stop paying for this one once two projects are done.
Just stay free.
I'm not averse to paying for resources I use, but I don't want to pay
for pictures of randos. If and when someone creates an LLM which makes
character preservation simple, I'd probably pay for it. That appears to
be quite a ways off still.
Just check your options.
Dave, I tried. The options can force it to try with a reference picture,
but there's nothing which stops them from hallucinating parts of the
faces. The result is a rando who may kind of resemble the character, but >also may not, and either way it's not an image of the character.
Human-driven tools are still better. The corporations which have gotten >decent results are usually throwing a lot of people and money at it. For >instance, that Dutch McDonald's all-AI commercial everyone hated wasn't
just prompts and options. A team of over a dozen people wrestled a >hallucination octopus for weeks, discarding thousands of clips, to get >enough clips to paste into one short commercial.
Some people try a thousand times, hoping for one usable image. That
costs money.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <110rk7r$ju9$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
To the BBC why our production team should be chosen
to produce Doctor Who.
The biggest challenge will be explaining why they should
give it to a group of Usenet cranks,
Speak for yourself!
instead of people with TV production experience. It might
help if we could make a pilot.
I'm pretty sure Claude, I mean the Bard... could come up with
a decent script. AGA, our Script Editor, can tidy it up and
throw-in some of his unique life observations, Dave can use his
crayons and make up the story board... Horny will come on board
and do the score and Penguin will be the Casting Director.
While you get the job of selling it all to the BBC...
I reckon we've a chance...
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <110rk7r$ju9$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
To the BBC why our production team should be chosen
to produce Doctor Who.
The biggest challenge will be explaining why they should
give it to a group of Usenet cranks,
Speak for yourself!
Daniel70 wrote:
On 16/06/2026 12:58 pm, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 6/15/2026 13:35, Blueshirt wrote:
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from
that black box he was placed in at the end of an
episode during the Smith (I think) era?
The Pandorica?
That's it.
.... but wasn't it Amy that eventually got out of The
Pandorica .... after Rory the Roman had 'stood guard' for a
couple of thousands years??
Sort of.
The Pandorica was a prison for the Doctor. The Doctor was put
in it by the Alliance.... but then he escaped. Amy was then
inside it, and it was guarded by [Auton] Rory for thousands
of years... until "The Big Bang".
On 17/06/2026 1:30 am, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <110rk7r$ju9$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
To the BBC why our production team should be chosen
to produce Doctor Who.
The biggest challenge will be explaining why they should
give it to a group of Usenet cranks,
Speak for yourself!
My sentiments persactly!!
----
Daniel70
On 17/06/2026 1:15 am, Blueshirt wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:So that's a YES then!!
On 16/06/2026 12:58 pm, Hornplayer9599 wrote:
On 6/15/2026 13:35, Blueshirt wrote:
Out of curiosity, did the Doctor ever escape from
that black box he was placed in at the end of an
episode during the Smith (I think) era?
The Pandorica?
That's it.
.... but wasn't it Amy that eventually got out of The
Pandorica .... after Rory the Roman had 'stood guard' for a
couple of thousands years??
Sort of.
The Pandorica was a prison for the Doctor. The Doctor was put
in it by the Alliance.... but then he escaped. Amy was then
inside it, and it was guarded by [Auton] Rory for thousands
of years... until "The Big Bang".
----
Daniel70
Train uploading a graphic and training it.
In article <xn0pr36xw5flk6u000@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
You have to pay for NightCafe?! I assumed as Dave used it daily,
and he isn't renowned for paying for much, it was free!
Payment is optional.
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <110rk7r$ju9$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
To the BBC why our production team should be chosen
to produce Doctor Who.
The biggest challenge will be explaining why they should
give it to a group of Usenet cranks,
Speak for yourself!
instead of people with TV production experience. It might
help if we could make a pilot.
I'm pretty sure Claude, I mean the Bard... could come up with
a decent script. AGA, our Script Editor, can tidy it up and
throw-in some of his unique life observations, Dave can use his
crayons and make up the story board
... Horny will come on board
and do the score and Penguin will be the Casting Director.
While you get the job of selling it all to the BBC...
I reckon we've a chance...
In article <110u1hp$1qtad$2@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 17/06/2026 1:30 am, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <110rk7r$ju9$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
To the BBC why our production team should be chosen
to produce Doctor Who.
The biggest challenge will be explaining why they should
give it to a group of Usenet cranks,
Speak for yourself!
My sentiments persactly!!
You mean precisely.
Verily, in article <110p53h$ep5n$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
We need someone who knows how to make movies using AI.
That's not going to work well, not if you want all the characters to
have the same likenesses consistently.
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of particular
characters, meeting some fairly loose staging requirements, and I've
gotten one usable picture in several days. I do know how to prompt, and
I've added a plethora of reference pictures. It's a hard problem.
There's a reason all those AI commercials use very short shots *and* are pretty obviously AI.
We might be able to make a Claude skill for DAZ Studio or Poser or
similar. Ideally we could have actual actors and sets, but that would probably require angel funding.
If the Doctor goes to Mondas I already wrote a full script for that in
2009ish. For the Dalek story I created an outline for it about 5 years
ago or something. All they need is upping the stakes, or the Doctor can
go off an fight some other enemy which isn't under copyright.
The Terry Nation estate didn't want the image of the Daleks totally
destroyed and turned into a laughing stock after Davies turned the
Doctor gay so they were never allowed to be in any Gatwa episodes and
neither were the Cybermen for the same reason.
Did they say that?
On 15/06/2026 17:45, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <110p53h$ep5n$1@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
We need someone who knows how to make movies using AI.
That's not going to work well, not if you want all the characters to
have the same likenesses consistently.
AI will improve. It has already learned to do cats with different likenesses.
No idea if it's reached a stage where you can feed a script into it and
get it to generate an entire episode all by itself.
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of particular characters, meeting some fairly loose staging requirements, and I've
gotten one usable picture in several days. I do know how to prompt, and I've added a plethora of reference pictures. It's a hard problem.
There's a reason all those AI commercials use very short shots *and* are pretty obviously AI.
Can this be done with software running on your graphics card or do you
need something more powerful than and RTX 5090? I need a reason to
justify spending thousands on one.
We might be able to make a Claude skill for DAZ Studio or Poser or
similar. Ideally we could have actual actors and sets, but that would probably require angel funding.
Real actors require money, far more money than it would cost to buy an
RTX 5090 even at double the RRP.
Ideally it should be able to be filmed on an iPhone with actors and sets generated by AI or inserted into live footage by AI.
Elon Musk shared an AI recreation of the Iliad which looks far better
and more historically accurate than the racist bight Christopher Nolan's Travesty.
The Terry Nation estate has previously said that it didn't want the
Daleks turned into a laughing stock or bought into riddicule. You just
need to put 2 and 2 together.
On 15/06/2026 10:41 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Time Lord: If you're thinking of escaping by jumping through that
window I wouldn't try.
Doctor: You wouldn't survive the fall from this height.
THE DOCTOR: I've fallen from far greater heights in my past and survived.
Yes, SHE has fallen from Outer Space back down to Earth and through the
roof of a Bus!! ;-P
The True Doctor wrote:
On 14/06/2026 13:16, Blueshirt wrote:
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it
is going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one
way or
No it isn't. Clara wakes up from a dream with a baby by her
side and Danny Pink walks out of the shower... Capaldi
regenerates from when he died in The Doctor Falls... etc. etc.
It's not even mentioned or see. Clara just wake up from this
nightmare without a single word said about it.
That's just hopium. It's not going to happen though is it?
New producers, new era of show, new international distribution
deal, probably even new season numbering and they go back
fifteen years! Yeah, that's not going to confuse anyone is it?
<face palm>
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr22bp4dp665001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Be hopeful!
I like to be hopeful, but I also like to be realistic.
There is someone out there.
I'm sure there is, "Doctor Who" is a big name in British
television.... but how much of a risk do prospective
co-producers want to take, and how much money do they want
to spend on the show? We already know the BBC isn't rolling
in a lot of 'spare' cash to throw at "Doctor Who" ... or they'd
be making it!
I have no problem with a low-budget, minimal effects show if
we had decent stories... after all, it's what I grew up on! But
these days the big media companies that produce TV shows like to
have them look flashy with big bangs, explosions and plenty of
CGI. That all costs money.
In article <xn0pr2alosmf2sx002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr22bp4dp665001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Be hopeful!
I like to be hopeful, but I also like to be realistic.
There is someone out there.
I'm sure there is, "Doctor Who" is a big name in British
television.... but how much of a risk do prospective
co-producers want to take, and how much money do they want
to spend on the show? We already know the BBC isn't rolling
in a lot of 'spare' cash to throw at "Doctor Who" ... or they'd
be making it!
I have no problem with a low-budget, minimal effects show if
we had decent stories... after all, it's what I grew up on! But
these days the big media companies that produce TV shows like to
have them look flashy with big bangs, explosions and plenty of
CGI. That all costs money.
I wonder where that tender is?
On 17/06/2026 9:35 am, The Doctor wrote:--
<Snip>
Train uploading a graphic and training it.
Is that 'Train' an AIT, asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their >joy of child sexual molestation coverup), an Artificial Intelligence Train?? >--
Daniel70
On 16/06/2026 11:45 pm, The Doctor wrote:--
In article <xn0pr36xw5flk6u000@news.eternal-september.org>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
<Snip>
Hey, there's a thing!! If each of us pay NightCafe a couple of bucks,You have to pay for NightCafe?! I assumed as Dave used it daily,
and he isn't renowned for paying for much, it was free!
Payment is optional.
maybe NightCafe will KICK the asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate >their joy of child sexual molestation coverup) off!!
--
Daniel70
On 17/06/2026 1:30 am, Blueshirt wrote:--
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <110rk7r$ju9$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
To the BBC why our production team should be chosen
to produce Doctor Who.
The biggest challenge will be explaining why they should
give it to a group of Usenet cranks,
Speak for yourself!
instead of people with TV production experience. It might
help if we could make a pilot.
I'm pretty sure Claude, I mean the Bard... could come up with
a decent script. AGA, our Script Editor, can tidy it up and
throw-in some of his unique life observations, Dave can use his
crayons and make up the story board
Hey, maybe, the asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their joy of >child sexual molestation coverup) could Host the Video for us on his powerful Server!!
... Horny will come on board--
and do the score and Penguin will be the Casting Director.
While you get the job of selling it all to the BBC...
I reckon we've a chance...
Daniel70
On 17/06/2026 10:40 pm, The Doctor wrote:--
In article <110u1hp$1qtad$2@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 17/06/2026 1:30 am, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <110rk7r$ju9$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
To the BBC why our production team should be chosen
to produce Doctor Who.
The biggest challenge will be explaining why they should
give it to a group of Usenet cranks,
Speak for yourself!
My sentiments persactly!!
You mean precisely.
Hey, asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their joy of child sexual >molestation coverup), if I had meant 'precisely', I would have typed >'precisely', asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their joy of child >sexual molestation coverup)!!
See!! I meant to type 'precisely', twice, in the above paragraph, >asswipe(Word used by paedophiles to indicate their joy of child sexual >molestation coverup), and look what happened!!
--
Daniel70
On 15/06/2026 17:45, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <110p53h$ep5n$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
We need someone who knows how to make movies using AI.
That's not going to work well, not if you want all the characters to
have the same likenesses consistently.
AI will improve. It has already learned to do cats with different >likenesses.
No idea if it's reached a stage where you can feed a script into it and
get it to generate an entire episode all by itself.
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of particular
characters, meeting some fairly loose staging requirements, and I've
gotten one usable picture in several days. I do know how to prompt, and
I've added a plethora of reference pictures. It's a hard problem.
There's a reason all those AI commercials use very short shots *and* are
pretty obviously AI.
Can this be done with software running on your graphics card or do you
need something more powerful than and RTX 5090? I need a reason to
justify spending thousands on one.
We might be able to make a Claude skill for DAZ Studio or Poser or
similar. Ideally we could have actual actors and sets, but that would
probably require angel funding.
Real actors require money, far more money than it would cost to buy an
RTX 5090 even at double the RRP.
Ideally it should be able to be filmed on an iPhone with actors and sets >generated by AI or inserted into live footage by AI.
Elon Musk shared an AI recreation of the Iliad which looks far better
and more historically accurate than the racist bight Christopher Nolan's >Travesty.
If the Doctor goes to Mondas I already wrote a full script for that in
2009ish. For the Dalek story I created an outline for it about 5 years
ago or something. All they need is upping the stakes, or the Doctor can
go off an fight some other enemy which isn't under copyright.
The Terry Nation estate didn't want the image of the Daleks totally
destroyed and turned into a laughing stock after Davies turned the
Doctor gay so they were never allowed to be in any Gatwa episodes and
neither were the Cybermen for the same reason.
Did they say that?
The Terry Nation estate has previously said that it didn't want the
Daleks turned into a laughing stock or bought into riddicule. You just
need to put 2 and 2 together.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
Verily, in article <110v1mh$25e4j$2@dont-email.me>, did >agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
On 15/06/2026 17:45, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <110p53h$ep5n$1@dont-email.me>, did
agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
We need someone who knows how to make movies using AI.
That's not going to work well, not if you want all the characters to
have the same likenesses consistently.
AI will improve. It has already learned to do cats with different
likenesses.
No idea if it's reached a stage where you can feed a script into it and
get it to generate an entire episode all by itself.
Nope, nowhere near that yet. You'd need to do many takes each of many
short shots. You may have noticed that AI video has a lot of unnecessary >cuts; that's because it's almost impossible to get a long shot right, so
a lot of cutting and pasting happens.
I'm currently trying to make some *still pictures* of particular
characters, meeting some fairly loose staging requirements, and I've
gotten one usable picture in several days. I do know how to prompt, and
I've added a plethora of reference pictures. It's a hard problem.
There's a reason all those AI commercials use very short shots *and* are >> > pretty obviously AI.
Can this be done with software running on your graphics card or do you
need something more powerful than and RTX 5090? I need a reason to
justify spending thousands on one.
You want to host locally? It's an option, but the power you'd need
depends on what you want to do.
Most local users seem to run local llama, which was designed for that.
It tends to lag the biggest players, but at the rate this field is
moving, it'll be as good next year as the biggest players are today.
We might be able to make a Claude skill for DAZ Studio or Poser or
similar. Ideally we could have actual actors and sets, but that would
probably require angel funding.
Real actors require money, far more money than it would cost to buy an
RTX 5090 even at double the RRP.
Ideally it should be able to be filmed on an iPhone with actors and sets
generated by AI or inserted into live footage by AI.
Elon Musk shared an AI recreation of the Iliad which looks far better
and more historically accurate than the racist bight Christopher Nolan's
Travesty.
Generating with AI is harder than idiots make it sound. Often, the
generator does a thousand generations to get one of professional
quality. If you just take what it gives you, you get the AI slop that >everyone complains about.
We'd also have to consider the general aversion to AI. Huge numbers of >people just won't partake of anything which uses it. We'd need GenZ to
buy in, so that could be a fatal objection.
I'll see what kind of budget Star Trek Continues had.
The Terry Nation estate has previously said that it didn't want the
Daleks turned into a laughing stock or bought into riddicule. You just
need to put 2 and 2 together.
Interesting.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 16/06/2026 13:57, Daniel70 wrote:
On 15/06/2026 10:41 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Time Lord: If you're thinking of escaping by jumping through thatYes, SHE has fallen from Outer Space back down to Earth and through the
window I wouldn't try.
Doctor: You wouldn't survive the fall from this height.
THE DOCTOR: I've fallen from far greater heights in my past and survived. >>
roof of a Bus!! ;-P
It was a train. It was Rosa Parks who fell through a bus.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 15/06/2026 13:47, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 14/06/2026 13:16, Blueshirt wrote:
If when "Doctor Who" returns it is a continuation then it
is going to have to deal with the Billie Piper thing in one
way or
No it isn't. Clara wakes up from a dream with a baby by her
side and Danny Pink walks out of the shower... Capaldi
regenerates from when he died in The Doctor Falls... etc. etc.
It's not even mentioned or see. Clara just wake up from this
nightmare without a single word said about it.
That's just hopium. It's not going to happen though is it?
It's the only way Doctor Who can possibly return.
New producers, new era of show, new international distribution
deal, probably even new season numbering and they go back
fifteen years! Yeah, that's not going to confuse anyone is it?
<face palm>
There's not going to be any new international distribution. No one, I
repeat no one is going to watch this show after the Doctor was turned
gay, effeminate, and transgender in order to be used by a bunch of sick >perverts to sexually groom children.
The only way to bring viewers back is for the BBC to completely disown
this woke travesty. Wokery has destroyed the BBC and all if its IPs.
These degenerate sexist and racist bigots have even made the football >unwatchable by having a bunch of ignorant bimbos discuss and commentate
on it, a bunch of bimbos who've been beaten repeatedly by huge margins
by teams made up of 14 year-old boys or younger. You have to be able to >suspend your disbelief in order to listen to them and that's almost
totally impossible to do. The ITV is even worse doing this than the BBC
and with them they even got the male presents talking down to their
bimboic level every time they're with them and forcing them to talk
about how much they fancy and admire all of the players. And then
there's the level of the commercials which are all being made for total >imbeciles of very low IQs based on selling an image rather than telling
you why their product is worth the money you have to pay for it and why
you even need it in the first place.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 15/06/2026 20:26, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr22bp4dp665001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Be hopeful!
I like to be hopeful, but I also like to be realistic.
There is someone out there.
I'm sure there is, "Doctor Who" is a big name in British
television.... but how much of a risk do prospective
Used to be a big name in British television. Now it's a total laughing >stock.
co-producers want to take, and how much money do they want
to spend on the show? We already know the BBC isn't rolling
They're not going to spend a single penny of their own money on it
unless the BBC gives them all of the rights, which means selling them
the entire franchise.
in a lot of 'spare' cash to throw at "Doctor Who" ... or they'd
be making it!
Unfortunately this is not like licencing Doctor Who to a company like
Big Finish or Virgin Publishing where they pay a fee for the right to
make and distribute Doctor Who audios or novels and take all of the
profits. Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever and will
not make the licence any money whatsoever after it went woke. After the
BBC turned the Doctor gay no one will touch it or watch it.
If the BBC insists on keeping the degenerate wokery, Timeless Child
monster, and the fake regenerations after Capaldi any company paying for
the rights will not have the freedom to make any money from it since
wokery destroys profits.
The BBC will have to pay producers to make the show, usually the lowest >bidder, if their want to impose their disgusting agender based on DEI, >discrimination, exclusion, and inequity, and where's the money going to
come from?
I have no problem with a low-budget, minimal effects show if
we had decent stories... after all, it's what I grew up on! But
The BBC are not interested in decent stories. They're only interested in >political messages after they were taken over by a bunch of far-left >activist to going the sex offenders the BBC already nurtured.
these days the big media companies that produce TV shows like to
have them look flashy with big bangs, explosions and plenty of
CGI. That all costs money.
It's the degenerate stunt casting that costs money. SFX can now easily
be done using AI at a fraction of the cost. Bad Wold and RTD took all of
the money for themselves and their friends. Look at the racist director >Christopher Nolan's Travesty. It looks like absolute shit. Elon Musks AI
did a better job making a trailer for it than Nolan.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 16/06/2026 05:55, The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr2alosmf2sx002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr22bp4dp665001@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Be hopeful!
I like to be hopeful, but I also like to be realistic.
There is someone out there.
I'm sure there is, "Doctor Who" is a big name in British
television.... but how much of a risk do prospective
co-producers want to take, and how much money do they want
to spend on the show? We already know the BBC isn't rolling
in a lot of 'spare' cash to throw at "Doctor Who" ... or they'd
be making it!
I have no problem with a low-budget, minimal effects show if
we had decent stories... after all, it's what I grew up on! But
these days the big media companies that produce TV shows like to
have them look flashy with big bangs, explosions and plenty of
CGI. That all costs money.
I wonder where that tender is?
There isn't one and their isn't likely to be one for years. It's more
lies from the BBC. Where is Ruin Johnson's Star Wars Trilogy Kathleen >Kennedy promised? LIES, LIES, LIES!!!
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 16/06/2026 05:55, The Doctor wrote:
I wonder where that tender is?
There isn't one and their isn't likely to be one for years.
It's more lies from the BBC. Where is Ruin Johnson's Star
Wars Trilogy Kathleen Kennedy promised? LIES, LIES, LIES!!!
Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever and will
not make the licence any money whatsoever after it went woke.
After the BBC turned the Doctor gay no one will touch it or
watch it.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 16/06/2026 05:55, The Doctor wrote:
I wonder where that tender is?
There isn't one and their isn't likely to be one for years. It's more
lies from the BBC. Where is Ruin Johnson's Star Wars Trilogy Kathleen
Kennedy promised? LIES, LIES, LIES!!!
It's definitely a bit of propaganda. Some fans seem to think the tender
is going to be this week and there will be "Doctor Who" back on the TV
next year!
The tender process might not start for months and could take ages to complete, depending on how many interested parties there are... then
the series would have to be scripted, cast and go into production. To complicate matters, the BBC's charter is up for renewal next year. So I don't see the BBC wanting to commit too much money into co-producing
"Doctor Who" when they don't know what their financial landscape will
be going forward. (How can you put money into a show if you don't know
how much money you have to play with and where your future funding is
coming from?) I reckon we'll be lucky if we see "Doctor Who back on
BBC1 much before 2030.
The hopium smokers in fandom might wish to believe otherwise, but the financial state of the BBC is a big player in all of this. The "we're putting it out to tender" PR stuff is just the BBC treading water... to
keep the fans happy until such time as they are able to make a new
series. It 'could' be years.
The True Doctor wrote:
Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever and will not make
the licence any money whatsoever after it went woke. After the BBC
turned the Doctor gay no one will touch it or watch it.
This is not true, as the 2005 - 2023 era is now streaming on AMC+ and I
have seen plenty of fans discussing some of those episodes on Doctor
Who web forums... AMC only signed their distribution deal with the BBC
a few months ago, so even in 2026 somebody overseas was interested in
the show.
The Ncuti Gatwa seasons are still on Disney+ too... although I don't
see too many people discussing those episodes. But he's there,
strutting his stuff, and weeping those tears for our overseas comrades.
The True Doctor wrote:
Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever and will
not make the licence any money whatsoever after it went woke.
After the BBC turned the Doctor gay no one will touch it or
watch it.
This is not true, as the 2005 - 2023 era is now streaming on
AMC+ and I have seen plenty of fans discussing some of those
episodes on Doctor Who web forums... AMC only signed their
distribution deal with the BBC a few months ago, so even in 2026
somebody overseas was interested in the show.
The Ncuti Gatwa seasons are still on Disney+ too... although I
don't see too many people discussing those episodes. But he's
there, strutting his stuff, and weeping those tears for our
overseas comrades.
On 2026-06-18 12:49:35 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 16/06/2026 05:55, The Doctor wrote:
I wonder where that tender is?
There isn't one and their isn't likely to be one for years. It's more
lies from the BBC. Where is Ruin Johnson's Star Wars Trilogy Kathleen
Kennedy promised? LIES, LIES, LIES!!!
It's definitely a bit of propaganda. Some fans seem to think the tender
is going to be this week and there will be "Doctor Who" back on the TV
next year!
The tender process might not start for months and could take ages to
complete, depending on how many interested parties there are... then
the series would have to be scripted, cast and go into production. To
complicate matters, the BBC's charter is up for renewal next year. So I
don't see the BBC wanting to commit too much money into co-producing
"Doctor Who" when they don't know what their financial landscape will
be going forward. (How can you put money into a show if you don't know
how much money you have to play with and where your future funding is
coming from?) I reckon we'll be lucky if we see "Doctor Who back on
BBC1 much before 2030.
The hopium smokers in fandom might wish to believe otherwise, but the
financial state of the BBC is a big player in all of this. The "we're
putting it out to tender" PR stuff is just the BBC treading water... to
keep the fans happy until such time as they are able to make a new
series. It 'could' be years.
Some of the past actors, producers, etc. of the show have recently said >"it's not cancelled" ... realistically, it actually is, because there
won't be anything new on TV for many years (if ever). The BBC
management may as well just admit the show is over now and move on.
On 2026-06-18 12:59:06 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever and will not make
the licence any money whatsoever after it went woke. After the BBC
turned the Doctor gay no one will touch it or watch it.
This is not true, as the 2005 - 2023 era is now streaming on AMC+ and I
have seen plenty of fans discussing some of those episodes on Doctor
Who web forums... AMC only signed their distribution deal with the BBC
a few months ago, so even in 2026 somebody overseas was interested in
the show.
The Ncuti Gatwa seasons are still on Disney+ too... although I don't
see too many people discussing those episodes. But he's there,
strutting his stuff, and weeping those tears for our overseas comrades.
But bother of those streaming options cost money, which most people
simply won't be spending, so the potential audience is again relatively >miniscule.
Here in New Zealand we used to have old episodes (some really old, not
just the Quitopher onwards stuff) playing on regular free-to-air
channels, as well as Sky TV, which is a much bigger potential audience
than AMC+ and Disney+ combined will ever have here. Same in other
countries that used to broadcast the show.
If the BBC wants real money and rebuild audience numbers in the long
term, they need to go back to licencing the shows to free-to-air
networks in various countries.
On 18/06/2026 13:59, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever and will
not make the licence any money whatsoever after it went woke.
After the BBC turned the Doctor gay no one will touch it or
watch it.
This is not true, as the 2005 - 2023 era is now streaming on
AMC+ and I have seen plenty of fans discussing some of those
episodes on Doctor Who web forums... AMC only signed their
distribution deal with the BBC a few months ago, so even in 2026
somebody overseas was interested in the show.
Nobody but a handful of people subscribe to AMC+.
The show is dead!
The Ncuti Gatwa seasons are still on Disney+ too... although I
And nobody is watching them. Only 200 people watched them to begin with.
The show is dead! Killed by wokery.
don't see too many people discussing those episodes. But he's
there, strutting his stuff, and weeping those tears for our
overseas comrades.
Weeping tears because he knew he'd killed the show off. He told the
entire audience to go and fuck grass and they all stopped watching.
----
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." --William Shatner
On 2026-06-18 12:49:35 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The hopium smokers in fandom might wish to believe
otherwise, but the financial state of the BBC is a big
player in all of this. The "we're putting it out to tender"
PR stuff is just the BBC treading water... to keep the fans
happy until such time as they are able to make a new
series. It 'could' be years.
Some of the past actors, producers, etc. of the show have
recently said "it's not cancelled" ... realistically, it
actually is, because there won't be anything new on TV for
many years (if ever). The BBC management may as well just
admit the show is over now and move on.
On 2026-06-18 12:59:06 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever
This is not true, as the 2005 - 2023 era is now streaming on
AMC+ and I have seen plenty of fans discussing some of
those episodes on Doctor Who web forums... AMC only signed
their distribution deal with the BBC a few months ago, so
even in 2026 somebody overseas was interested in the show.
The Ncuti Gatwa seasons are still on Disney+ too... although
I don't see too many people discussing those episodes. But
he's there, strutting his stuff, and weeping those tears
for our overseas comrades.
But bother of those streaming options cost money, which most
people simply won't be spending, so the potential audience is
again relatively miniscule.
Here in New Zealand we used to have old episodes (some really
old, not just the Quitopher onwards stuff) playing on regular
free-to-air channels, as well as Sky TV, which is a much
bigger potential audience than AMC+ and Disney+ combined will
ever have here. Same in other countries that used to broadcast
the show.
On 16/06/2026 13:57, Daniel70 wrote:
On 15/06/2026 10:41 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Time Lord: If you're thinking of escaping by jumping through that
window I wouldn't try.
Doctor: You wouldn't survive the fall from this height.
THE DOCTOR: I've fallen from far greater heights in my past and
survived.
Yes, SHE has fallen from Outer Space back down to Earth and through
the roof of a Bus!! ;-P
It was a train. It was Rosa Parks who fell through a bus.
On 18/06/2026 13:59, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever
This is not true, as the 2005 - 2023 era is now streaming on
AMC+ and I have seen plenty of fans discussing some of those
episodes on Doctor Who web forums... AMC only signed their
distribution deal with the BBC a few months ago, so even in
2026 somebody overseas was interested in the show.
Nobody but a handful of people subscribe to AMC+.
don't see too many people discussing those episodes. But he's
there, strutting his stuff, and weeping those tears for our
overseas comrades.
Weeping tears because he knew he'd killed the show off. He
told the entire audience to go and fuck grass and they all
stopped watching.
On 15/06/2026 20:26, Blueshirt wrote:
in a lot of 'spare' cash to throw at "Doctor Who" ... or they'd be
making it!
Unfortunately this is not like licencing Doctor Who to a company like
Big Finish or Virgin Publishing where they pay a fee for the right
to make and distribute Doctor Who audios or novels and take all of
the profits. Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever and
will not make the licence any money whatsoever after it went woke.
After the BBC turned the Doctor gay no one will touch it or watch
it.
If the BBC insists on keeping the degenerate wokery, Timeless Child
monster, and the fake regenerations after Capaldi any company paying
for the rights will not have the freedom to make any money from it
since wokery destroys profits.
The BBC will have to pay producers to make the show, usually the
lowest bidder,
if their want to impose their disgusting agender based on DEI, discrimination, exclusion, and inequity, and where's the money going
to come from?
I have no problem with a low-budget, minimal effects show if we had
decent stories... after all, it's what I grew up on! But
The BBC are not interested in decent stories. They're only interested
in political messages after they were taken over by a bunch of
far-left activist to going the sex offenders the BBC already
nurtured.
On 18/06/2026 8:57 am, The True Doctor wrote:
if their want to impose their disgusting agender based
on DEI, discrimination, exclusion, and inequity, and
where's the money going to come from?
Yeah, right, Aggy, WE should be ABSOLUTELY disgusted by the
DISCRIMINATION and INEQUITY displayed by the BBC in EXCLUDING
Females from the lead role in 'Doctor Who'
On 18/06/2026 8:15 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 16/06/2026 13:57, Daniel70 wrote:
On 15/06/2026 10:41 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
THE DOCTOR: I've fallen from far greater heights in my
past and survived.
Yes, SHE has fallen from Outer Space back down to Earth
and through the roof of a Bus!! ;-P
It was a train. It was Rosa Parks who fell through a bus.
"Six of one, ...."
How many times do I have to tell you! He told them to "turn off
their TV and go and touch grass". It's not the same thing.
You're doing a Daniel on it now!
However, when the lead actor of TV shows tells the fans of that
show to turn it off and go outside, then he can't really
complain when thousands of people do exactly that. So maybe it
was not the best attitude to take because of a few criticisms.
Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-18 12:49:35 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The hopium smokers in fandom might wish to believe
otherwise, but the financial state of the BBC is a big
player in all of this. The "we're putting it out to tender"
PR stuff is just the BBC treading water... to keep the fans
happy until such time as they are able to make a new
series. It 'could' be years.
Some of the past actors, producers, etc. of the show have
recently said "it's not cancelled" ... realistically, it
actually is, because there won't be anything new on TV for
many years (if ever). The BBC management may as well just
admit the show is over now and move on.
Things can change... if and when a new production team come
on board, the funding is there, and they have scripts for a
new series. My opinion, based on sound reasoning and logic is,
it could be a few years. But until then, it's cancelled.
There was a Christmas special planned, it's cancelled.
So I think it's fair enough to use the term, for now.
Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-18 12:59:06 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever
This is not true, as the 2005 - 2023 era is now streaming on
AMC+ and I have seen plenty of fans discussing some of
those episodes on Doctor Who web forums... AMC only signed
their distribution deal with the BBC a few months ago, so
even in 2026 somebody overseas was interested in the show.
The Ncuti Gatwa seasons are still on Disney+ too... although
I don't see too many people discussing those episodes. But
he's there, strutting his stuff, and weeping those tears
for our overseas comrades.
But bother of those streaming options cost money, which most
people simply won't be spending, so the potential audience is
again relatively miniscule.
Miniscule to you, but Disney+ have millions of subscribers
around the world. I don't know much about AMC apart from they
made "The Walking Dead" (and its many spin-offs) and own the
"BBC America" TV channel in the US, so they must be reasonably
big in the USA. So to say "Doctor Who" on these services has no
potential audience is clearly not correct... of course, that
doesn't mean all of the Disney+/AMC+ subscribers want to watch
episodes of "Doctor Who", maybe it is only a small percentage...
but the option is there for them if they want to.
AMC+ have the better deal as there are some really good "Doctor
Who" stories between 2005 and 2017... after 2017, not so much.
The two Ncuti Gatwa seasons on Disney+ might be an acquired
taste, but I'm sure some people, somewhere, like them.
^^^^^Here in New Zealand we used to have old episodes (some really
old, not just the Quitopher onwards stuff) playing on regular
free-to-air channels, as well as Sky TV, which is a much
bigger potential audience than AMC+ and Disney+ combined will
ever have here. Same in other countries that used to broadcast
the show.
The toothpaste isn't going to go back into the tube. Most decent
TV shows are on the big streaming platforms now, free-to-air TV
are only getting the crumbs... and that isn't going to change.
No mater how many people go out and shake their fist at the
clouds.--
On 18/06/2026 8:15 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 16/06/2026 13:57, Daniel70 wrote:"Six of one, ...."
On 15/06/2026 10:41 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Time Lord: If you're thinking of escaping by jumping through that
window I wouldn't try.
Doctor: You wouldn't survive the fall from this height.
THE DOCTOR: I've fallen from far greater heights in my past and
survived.
Yes, SHE has fallen from Outer Space back down to Earth and through
the roof of a Bus!! ;-P
It was a train. It was Rosa Parks who fell through a bus.
----
Daniel70
The True Doctor wrote:
On 18/06/2026 13:59, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever
This is not true, as the 2005 - 2023 era is now streaming on
AMC+ and I have seen plenty of fans discussing some of those
episodes on Doctor Who web forums... AMC only signed their
distribution deal with the BBC a few months ago, so even in
2026 somebody overseas was interested in the show.
Nobody but a handful of people subscribe to AMC+.
Only if, "handful" in Agamemnon speak means "millions" in the
real world!
don't see too many people discussing those episodes. But he's
there, strutting his stuff, and weeping those tears for our
overseas comrades.
Weeping tears because he knew he'd killed the show off. He
told the entire audience to go and fuck grass and they all
stopped watching.
How many times do I have to tell you! He told them to "turn off
their TV and go and touch grass". It's not the same thing.
You're doing a Daniel on it now!
However, when the lead actor of TV shows tells the fans of that
show to turn it off and go outside, then he can't really
complain when thousands of people do exactly that. So maybe it
was not the best attitude to take because of a few criticisms.
On 18/06/2026 8:57 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 15/06/2026 20:26, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
in a lot of 'spare' cash to throw at "Doctor Who" ... or they'd be
making it!
Unfortunately this is not like licencing Doctor Who to a company like
Big Finish or Virgin Publishing where they pay a fee for the right
to make and distribute Doctor Who audios or novels and take all of
the profits. Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever and
will not make the licence any money whatsoever after it went woke.
After the BBC turned the Doctor gay no one will touch it or watch
it.
If the BBC insists on keeping the degenerate wokery, Timeless Child
monster, and the fake regenerations after Capaldi any company paying
for the rights will not have the freedom to make any money from it
since wokery destroys profits.
The BBC will have to pay producers to make the show, usually the
lowest bidder,
... but if the BBC selects the lowest bidder, they will probably drive
even MORE viewers away!!
if their want to impose their disgusting agender based on DEI,
discrimination, exclusion, and inequity, and where's the money going
to come from?
Yeah, right, Aggy, WE should be ABSOLUTELY disgusted by the
DISCRIMINATION and INEQUITY displayed by the BBC in EXCLUDING Females
from the lead role in 'Doctor Who'
I have no problem with a low-budget, minimal effects show if we had
decent stories... after all, it's what I grew up on! But
The BBC are not interested in decent stories. They're only interested
in political messages after they were taken over by a bunch of
far-left activist to going the sex offenders the BBC already
nurtured.
Or if they were taken over by a bunch of far-right activist, either!!
----
Daniel70
Daniel70 wrote:
On 18/06/2026 8:57 am, The True Doctor wrote:
if their want to impose their disgusting agender based
on DEI, discrimination, exclusion, and inequity, and
where's the money going to come from?
Yeah, right, Aggy, WE should be ABSOLUTELY disgusted by the
DISCRIMINATION and INEQUITY displayed by the BBC in EXCLUDING
Females from the lead role in 'Doctor Who'
That's why it'll never be openly retconned... as the BBC are
never going to admit publicly that casting a woman as The Doctor
was wrong. It would send the wrong signal in this modern world
that we live in.
Verily, in article <xn0pr7jw0xuoi6h007@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
How many times do I have to tell you! He told them to "turn off
their TV and go and touch grass". It's not the same thing.
You're doing a Daniel on it now!
However, when the lead actor of TV shows tells the fans of that
show to turn it off and go outside, then he can't really
complain when thousands of people do exactly that. So maybe it
was not the best attitude to take because of a few criticisms.
He's not the only entertainment bigwig who made that mistake. I think
their bubbles misled them. In their daily experience, *everyone* is >progressive to a fault and other views are only held by a few cranks
online. They think that they're shedding a tiny but vocal minority, and >they're genuinely shocked when it turns out those people were >representative.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
In article <xn0pr7j12xtfqdr002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Things can change... if and when a new production team come
on board, the funding is there, and they have scripts for a
new series. My opinion, based on sound reasoning and logic
is, it could be a few years. But until then, it's cancelled.
There was a Christmas special planned, it's cancelled.
So I think it's fair enough to use the term, for now.
The BBC has put DW out for tender.
There is a backlash towards streaming in NA.
The Doctor wrote:
There is a backlash towards streaming in NA.
Torrents, binaries, and hacked Firesticks are a
thing.
Nobody needs to pay for anything. Everything is
out there.
Somewhere.
On 16/06/2026 13:57, Daniel70 wrote:
On 15/06/2026 10:41 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Time Lord: If you're thinking of escaping by jumping through that
window I wouldn't try.
Doctor: You wouldn't survive the fall from this height.
THE DOCTOR: I've fallen from far greater heights in my past and
survived.
Yes, SHE has fallen from Outer Space back down to Earth and through
the roof of a Bus!! ;-P
It was a train. It was Rosa Parks who fell through a bus.
Verily, in article <xn0pr7m3kxxladz00g@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The Doctor wrote:
There is a backlash towards streaming in NA.
Torrents, binaries, and hacked Firesticks are a
thing.
Nobody needs to pay for anything. Everything is
out there.
Somewhere.
But then how do creators get paid?
If we don't reward creators, shows won't last. Passion
projects exist, but they seldom last as long or turn out as
well as professional projects.
Some creators need to be rewarded.
"and shake their fist at the clouds."
In article <xn0pr7kmoxvlx9o00a@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 18/06/2026 8:57 am, The True Doctor wrote:
if their want to impose their disgusting agender based
on DEI, discrimination, exclusion, and inequity, and
where's the money going to come from?
Yeah, right, Aggy, WE should be ABSOLUTELY disgusted by the
DISCRIMINATION and INEQUITY displayed by the BBC in EXCLUDING
Females from the lead role in 'Doctor Who'
That's why it'll never be openly retconned... as the BBC are
never going to admit publicly that casting a woman as The Doctor
was wrong. It would send the wrong signal in this modern world
that we live in.
The proble now is the Timeless Child Abomination.
In article <11137pm$396nc$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 18/06/2026 8:57 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 15/06/2026 20:26, Blueshirt wrote:
I have no problem with a low-budget, minimal effects show if we had
decent stories... after all, it's what I grew up on! But
The BBC are not interested in decent stories. They're only interested
in political messages after they were taken over by a bunch of
far-left activist to going the sex offenders the BBC already
nurtured.
Or if they were taken over by a bunch of far-right activist, either!!
Beware Farage!
Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-18 12:59:06 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever
This is not true, as the 2005 - 2023 era is now streaming on
AMC+ and I have seen plenty of fans discussing some of
those episodes on Doctor Who web forums... AMC only signed
their distribution deal with the BBC a few months ago, so
even in 2026 somebody overseas was interested in the show.
The Ncuti Gatwa seasons are still on Disney+ too... although
I don't see too many people discussing those episodes. But
he's there, strutting his stuff, and weeping those tears
for our overseas comrades.
But bother of those streaming options cost money, which most
people simply won't be spending, so the potential audience is
again relatively miniscule.
Miniscule to you, but Disney+ have millions of subscribers around the world.
I don't know much about AMC apart from they made "The Walking Dead"
(and its many spin-offs) and own the "BBC America" TV channel in the
US, so they must be reasonably big in the USA. So to say "Doctor Who"
on these services has no
potential audience is clearly not correct...
of course, that doesn't mean all of the Disney+/AMC+ subscribers want
to watch episodes of "Doctor Who", maybe it is only a small
percentage... but the option is there for them if they want to.
AMC+ have the better deal as there are some really good "Doctor Who"
stories between 2005 and 2017... after 2017, not so much.
The two Ncuti Gatwa seasons on Disney+ might be an acquired taste, but
I'm sure some people, somewhere, like them.
Here in New Zealand we used to have old episodes (some really old, not
just the Quitopher onwards stuff) playing on regular free-to-air
channels, as well as Sky TV, which is a much bigger potential audience
than AMC+ and Disney+ combined will ever have here. Same in other
countries that used to broadcast the show.
The toothpaste isn't going to go back into the tube. Most decent TV
shows are on the big streaming platforms now, free-to-air TV are only getting the crumbs... and that isn't going to change. No mater how many people go out and shake their fist at the clouds.
The Doctor wrote:
There is a backlash towards streaming in NA.
Torrents, binaries, and hacked Firesticks are a thing.
Nobody needs to pay for anything. Everything is out there.
Somewhere.
Verily, in article <xn0pr7m3kxxladz00g@post.eweka.nl>, did blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The Doctor wrote:
There is a backlash towards streaming in NA.
Torrents, binaries, and hacked Firesticks are a thing.
Nobody needs to pay for anything. Everything is out there.
Somewhere.
But then how do creators get paid?
If we don't reward creators, shows won't last. Passion projects exist,
but they seldom last as long or turn out as well as professional
projects.
Daniel70 wrote:
On 18/06/2026 8:15 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 16/06/2026 13:57, Daniel70 wrote:
On 15/06/2026 10:41 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
THE DOCTOR: I've fallen from far greater heights in my past and survived.
Yes, SHE has fallen from Outer Space back down to Earth and through
the roof of a Bus!! ;-P
It was a train. It was Rosa Parks who fell through a bus.
"Six of one, ...."
Well... unless you are waiting at the bus station for the train to arrive.
:-)
On 18/06/2026 8:57 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 15/06/2026 20:26, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
in a lot of 'spare' cash to throw at "Doctor Who" ... or they'd be
making it!
Unfortunately this is not like licencing Doctor Who to a company like
Big Finish or Virgin Publishing where they pay a fee for the right
to make and distribute Doctor Who audios or novels and take all of
the profits. Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever and
will not make the licence any money whatsoever after it went woke.
After the BBC turned the Doctor gay no one will touch it or watch
it.
If the BBC insists on keeping the degenerate wokery, Timeless Child
monster, and the fake regenerations after Capaldi any company paying
for the rights will not have the freedom to make any money from it
since wokery destroys profits.
The BBC will have to pay producers to make the show, usually the
lowest bidder,
... but if the BBC selects the lowest bidder, they will probably drive
even MORE viewers away!!
In most cases those creators, actors, etc. have all already been paid
... massively over-paid ... for doing their job. The fact that they
want to still get "residuals" decades later is simply pure greed. Do I
still get paid when a computer program I wrote for a company I no
longer work for is used? Nope.
It similar to the pure greed whereby ex-politicans are still paid an
annual salary and get perks for life!
People are paid to do a job. They shouldn't get "bonuses" and they definitely shouldn't continue to be paid after they finish the job.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr7j12xtfqdr002@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Things can change... if and when a new production team come
on board, the funding is there, and they have scripts for a
new series. My opinion, based on sound reasoning and logic
is, it could be a few years. But until then, it's cancelled.
There was a Christmas special planned, it's cancelled.
So I think it's fair enough to use the term, for now.
The BBC has put DW out for tender.
Really Dave? You do know what that actually means and how the
process works though, you do?
Doctor Who is cancelled.
Until it's not.
The Doctor wrote:
There is a backlash towards streaming in NA.
Torrents, binaries, and hacked Firesticks are a
thing.
Nobody needs to pay for anything. Everything is
out there.
Somewhere.
Verily, in article <xn0pr7m3kxxladz00g@post.eweka.nl>, did >blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The Doctor wrote:
There is a backlash towards streaming in NA.
Torrents, binaries, and hacked Firesticks are a
thing.
Nobody needs to pay for anything. Everything is
out there.
Somewhere.
But then how do creators get paid?
If we don't reward creators, shows won't last. Passion projects exist,
but they seldom last as long or turn out as well as professional
projects.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 18/06/2026 8:15 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 16/06/2026 13:57, Daniel70 wrote:Yes, a train, just re-watched (or, rather, am still re-watching. Part
On 15/06/2026 10:41 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
<Snip>
Time Lord: If you're thinking of escaping by jumping through that
window I wouldn't try.
Doctor: You wouldn't survive the fall from this height.
THE DOCTOR: I've fallen from far greater heights in my past and
survived.
Yes, SHE has fallen from Outer Space back down to Earth and through
the roof of a Bus!! ;-P
It was a train. It was Rosa Parks who fell through a bus.
way through.) that episode.
That's what I get for programming my PVR to record two programs at the
same time .... no re-watching!! ;-)
----
Daniel70
The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <xn0pr7m3kxxladz00g@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The Doctor wrote:
There is a backlash towards streaming in NA.
Torrents, binaries, and hacked Firesticks are a
thing.
Nobody needs to pay for anything. Everything is
out there.
Somewhere.
But then how do creators get paid?
I was only pointing out there are alternatives for the
free-loaders that think everything should be free... the main
streaming services are going nowhere.
I have Disney+ and Prime Video... whilst we use our daughter's
Netflix via password sharing. The big shows on the streaming
services are better than most things on the free-to-air
channels. Which seem to be full of cookery and reality TV
shows these days... when the football isn't on.
If we don't reward creators, shows won't last. Passion
projects exist, but they seldom last as long or turn out as
well as professional projects.
Some creators need to be rewarded.
I wouldn't reward RTD!
On 19/06/2026 8:38 pm, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
"and shake their fist at the clouds."
.... and what have the clouds ever done to you .... except rain on your >parade, maybe??
--
Daniel70
On 19/06/2026 9:40 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0pr7kmoxvlx9o00a@post.eweka.nl>,Do YOU EVER actually READ the posts that YOU are responding to??
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 18/06/2026 8:57 am, The True Doctor wrote:
if their want to impose their disgusting agender based
on DEI, discrimination, exclusion, and inequity, and
where's the money going to come from?
Yeah, right, Aggy, WE should be ABSOLUTELY disgusted by the
DISCRIMINATION and INEQUITY displayed by the BBC in EXCLUDING
Females from the lead role in 'Doctor Who'
That's why it'll never be openly retconned... as the BBC are
never going to admit publicly that casting a woman as The Doctor
was wrong. It would send the wrong signal in this modern world
that we live in.
The problem now is the Timeless Child Abomination.
EVER??
--
Daniel70
On 19/06/2026 9:39 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <11137pm$396nc$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 18/06/2026 8:57 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 15/06/2026 20:26, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
I have no problem with a low-budget, minimal effects show if we had
decent stories... after all, it's what I grew up on! But
The BBC are not interested in decent stories. They're only interested
in political messages after they were taken over by a bunch of
far-left activist to going the sex offenders the BBC already
nurtured.
Or if they were taken over by a bunch of far-right activist, either!!
Beware Farage!
Why?? Is he living in Canada, now?? Or Australia??
----
Daniel70
On 2026-06-19 10:38:02 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-18 12:59:06 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The True Doctor wrote:
Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever
This is not true, as the 2005 - 2023 era is now streaming on
AMC+ and I have seen plenty of fans discussing some of
those episodes on Doctor Who web forums... AMC only signed
their distribution deal with the BBC a few months ago, so
even in 2026 somebody overseas was interested in the show.
The Ncuti Gatwa seasons are still on Disney+ too... although
I don't see too many people discussing those episodes. But
he's there, strutting his stuff, and weeping those tears
for our overseas comrades.
But bother of those streaming options cost money, which most
people simply won't be spending, so the potential audience is
again relatively miniscule.
Miniscule to you, but Disney+ have millions of subscribers around the world.
And how many BILLIONS have access to free-to-air TV? Paid streaming
services will always have far smaller audiences than free-to-air. :-)
I don't know much about AMC apart from they made "The Walking Dead"
(and its many spin-offs) and own the "BBC America" TV channel in the
US, so they must be reasonably big in the USA. So to say "Doctor Who"
on these services has no
potential audience is clearly not correct...
I didn't say "no potential audience" ... I said they have a far smaller >potential audience.
of course, that doesn't mean all of the Disney+/AMC+ subscribers want
to watch episodes of "Doctor Who", maybe it is only a small
percentage... but the option is there for them if they want to.
AMC+ have the better deal as there are some really good "Doctor Who"
stories between 2005 and 2017... after 2017, not so much.
The two Ncuti Gatwa seasons on Disney+ might be an acquired taste, but
I'm sure some people, somewhere, like them.
Here in New Zealand we used to have old episodes (some really old, not
just the Quitopher onwards stuff) playing on regular free-to-air
channels, as well as Sky TV, which is a much bigger potential audience
than AMC+ and Disney+ combined will ever have here. Same in other
countries that used to broadcast the show.
The toothpaste isn't going to go back into the tube. Most decent TV
shows are on the big streaming platforms now, free-to-air TV are only
getting the crumbs... and that isn't going to change. No mater how many
people go out and shake their fist at the clouds.
As I've said before. Many shows make it to free-to-air channels*,
albeit it at a later date. If they're going to survive, streaming
services need to learn to share, with each other and with free-to-air >channels. People simply don't want to and can't keep paying out >ever-increasing amounts of money to numerous services just for a few
shows on each one. It's a ridiculous business model that is
unsustainable, as many such services have already discovered.
* "Free-to-air" doesn't mean just broadcast TV. Most free-to-air networks
have their own free streaming service these days. Here in New Zealand,
many shows are first available on the free streaming service and then
on regular broadcast TV when the schedule allows. Big shows like
"Game of Thrones" have played on free-to-air TV here in New Zealand,
even if it was months after they played on subscription Sky TV.
On 2026-06-19 12:21:09 +0000, Blueshirt said:
The Doctor wrote:
There is a backlash towards streaming in NA.
Torrents, binaries, and hacked Firesticks are a thing.
Nobody needs to pay for anything. Everything is out there.
Somewhere.
Almost. It can be very difficult / impossible to find episodes of old
shows though. :-(
On 2026-06-19 13:07:35 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <xn0pr7m3kxxladz00g@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The Doctor wrote:
There is a backlash towards streaming in NA.
Torrents, binaries, and hacked Firesticks are a thing.
Nobody needs to pay for anything. Everything is out there.
Somewhere.
But then how do creators get paid?
If we don't reward creators, shows won't last. Passion projects exist,
but they seldom last as long or turn out as well as professional
projects.
In most cases those creators, actors, etc. have all already been paid
... massively over-paid ... for doing their job. The fact that they
want to still get "residuals" decades later is simply pure greed. Do I
still get paid when a computer program I wrote for a company I no
longer work for is used? Nope.
It similar to the pure greed whereby ex-politicans are still paid an
annual salary and get perks for life!
People are paid to do a job. They shouldn't get "bonuses" and they >definitely shouldn't continue to be paid after they finish the job.
On 2026-06-19 11:27:07 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 18/06/2026 8:15 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 16/06/2026 13:57, Daniel70 wrote:
On 15/06/2026 10:41 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
THE DOCTOR: I've fallen from far greater heights in my past and survived.
Yes, SHE has fallen from Outer Space back down to Earth and through >>>>> the roof of a Bus!! ;-P
It was a train. It was Rosa Parks who fell through a bus.
"Six of one, ...."
Well... unless you are waiting at the bus station for the train to arrive. >>
:-)
If you waiting at the bus station, then you'll be lucky if a bus even >arrives ... or six will arrive 45minutes late. :-p
On 2026-06-19 11:05:23 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 18/06/2026 8:57 am, The True Doctor wrote:
On 15/06/2026 20:26, Blueshirt wrote:
<Snip>
in a lot of 'spare' cash to throw at "Doctor Who" ... or they'd be
making it!
Unfortunately this is not like licencing Doctor Who to a company like
Big Finish or Virgin Publishing where they pay a fee for the right
to make and distribute Doctor Who audios or novels and take all of
the profits. Doctor Who has no international audience whatsoever and
will not make the licence any money whatsoever after it went woke.
After the BBC turned the Doctor gay no one will touch it or watch
it.
If the BBC insists on keeping the degenerate wokery, Timeless Child
monster, and the fake regenerations after Capaldi any company paying
for the rights will not have the freedom to make any money from it
since wokery destroys profits.
The BBC will have to pay producers to make the show, usually the
lowest bidder,
... but if the BBC selects the lowest bidder, they will probably drive
even MORE viewers away!!
The tender process doesn't pick the 'winner' simply because they're the >cheapest. If it did, you would have bridges and buildings all over the
world collapsing because the cheapest company picked from the tenders
used sub-quality concrete. :-)
Verily, in article <1114f52$3ksla$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
In most cases those creators, actors, etc. have all already been paid
... massively over-paid ... for doing their job. The fact that they
want to still get "residuals" decades later is simply pure greed. Do I
still get paid when a computer program I wrote for a company I no
longer work for is used? Nope.
It similar to the pure greed whereby ex-politicans are still paid an
annual salary and get perks for life!
People are paid to do a job. They shouldn't get "bonuses" and they
definitely shouldn't continue to be paid after they finish the job.
If piracy becomes the norm, there won't be studio income to invest in
new shows. The system falls apart. It can tolerate some piracy and even
use it as a kind of advertising, but not if it becomes what most people
do.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
In article <MPG.449f8c0455f5c7f898a0a4@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If piracy becomes the norm, there won't be studio income to invest in
new shows. The system falls apart. It can tolerate some piracy and even >use it as a kind of advertising, but not if it becomes what most people >do.
What about Youtube?
Verily, in article <1114r5d$9aa$34@gallifrey.nk.ca>, did >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca deliver unto us this message:
In article <MPG.449f8c0455f5c7f898a0a4@news.eternal-september.org>,
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If piracy becomes the norm, there won't be studio income to invest in
new shows. The system falls apart. It can tolerate some piracy and even
use it as a kind of advertising, but not if it becomes what most people
do.
What about Youtube?
The classic Who channel has ads, so I suppose a trickle of revenue is
going in to reward them for licensing it.
----
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
On 2026-06-19 13:07:35 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <xn0pr7m3kxxladz00g@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The Doctor wrote:
There is a backlash towards streaming in NA.
Torrents, binaries, and hacked Firesticks are a thing.
Nobody needs to pay for anything. Everything is out there.
Somewhere.
But then how do creators get paid?
If we don't reward creators, shows won't last. Passion projects exist,
but they seldom last as long or turn out as well as professional
projects.
In most cases those creators, actors, etc. have all already been paid
... massively over-paid ... for doing their job. The fact that they want
to still get "residuals" decades later is simply pure greed. Do I still
get paid when a computer program I wrote for a company I no longer work
for is used? Nope.
It similar to the pure greed whereby ex-politicans are still paid an
annual salary and get perks for life!
People are paid to do a job. They shouldn't get "bonuses" and they definitely shouldn't continue to be paid after they finish the job.
On 20/06/2026 8:17 am, Your Name wrote:
On 2026-06-19 13:07:35 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <xn0pr7m3kxxladz00g@post.eweka.nl>, did
blueshirt@indigo.news deliver unto us this message:
The Doctor wrote:
There is a backlash towards streaming in NA.
Torrents, binaries, and hacked Firesticks are a thing.
Nobody needs to pay for anything. Everything is out there.
Somewhere.
But then how do creators get paid?
If we don't reward creators, shows won't last. Passion projects exist,
but they seldom last as long or turn out as well as professional
projects.
In most cases those creators, actors, etc. have all already been paid
... massively over-paid ... for doing their job. The fact that they want
to still get "residuals" decades later is simply pure greed. Do I still
get paid when a computer program I wrote for a company I no longer work
for is used? Nope.
It similar to the pure greed whereby ex-politicans are still paid an
annual salary and get perks for life!
I left the Australian Army in Jan, 1993, .... and have been on a
reasonable pension ever since .... because my terms of Employment when I >signed up stated such.
Whilst I was in the Army, to save money the Government offered members
the opportunity to switch to a 'new, improved' Pension fund to get a
much better pension from Age 55 .... but nothing between Date of
Discharge and Age 55.
I bet THAT offer wasn't to show how generous the Government were.
--People are paid to do a job. They shouldn't get "bonuses" and theyThen, perhaps, they should be paid more WHILST doing the job!
definitely shouldn't continue to be paid after they finish the job.
--
Daniel70
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:23:33 |
| Calls: | 949 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 281,474 |