Talk:History of Doctor Who
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
This article in the Arts category is being tracked by the Work via WikiProjects group at Wikipedia 1.0, as part of our plan to organise and build a collection of articles for offline release. |
| A | This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale. |
|
|
|
Note: both adviser and advisor are acceptable spellings. Changing that wasn't necessary. markm 11:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Lambert had in fact strongly advised against using Nation's script by her direct superior Donald Wilson, but used the excuse that they had nothing else ready in order to produce it.
Shouldn't this be had in fact been strongly advised? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Pilot
I think this is wrong:
Doctor Who predates Star Trek: The Original Series as one of the first TV series to be given two chances at producing a first episode. The very first episode of the series, "An Unearthly Child", had to be refilmed due to technical problems and errors made during the performance. During the days between the two tapings, changes were made to costuming, effects, performances, and the script.
I was always under the impression that a) taping pilot episodes as test runs (as the term meant, it was only later it came to mean a broadcast special to launch the series) was relatively common in those days; b) the pilot was always planned as not for transmission; c) the changes were naturally expected.
Does anyone know for sure? Timrollpickering 15:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I believe it was certainly the case that the pilot was made with the *possibility* that it might be transmitted, but with the knowledge that they would be allowed to re-do it if it proved not up to scratch. This proved to be the case, and after various elements were changed it was re-done as had always been allowed for. Angmering 17:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Error?
Something's gone wrong here: "Mere hours later, tabloid newspapers The Sun and the Daily Express ..."
Hours later from what, exactly? It's the beginning of its own paragraph, titled ==Departure==, and the content of the previous paragraph appears to refer to an article by CNN concerning the series. Did the Sun and Express publish their articles hours after the CNN article, or what? - Vague | Rant 06:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- You're right. I'll try and fix it up. --khaosworks 10:30, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Out-of-date?
The link to the May 27th CNN/AP article seems to be broken, and I've searched the CNN website for an archive copy to no avail. Maybe someone here is a better searcher than I am. :) Or maybe we should hit the Internet Wayback website? --Jay (Histrion) 19:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Paul McGann
"McGann's Doctor was a combination of boyish glee and wonder at the universe with occasional flashes of an old soul in a young body,"
NPOV? Sickening? Definately Unencyclopedic.
- Descriptive, though. How would you describe the Eighth Doctor's personality? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] US ratings
Although this is probably covered in Doctor Who in America, I wonder if there should be something added about the ratings for the 2005 series on Sci-Fi Channel? Apparently they've been slipping badly, with the critically acclaimed Dalek scoring quite low. This in apparent contrast to the high ratings the show received in the UK and Canada. 23skidoo 05:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
