You mean speculating about why a writer made certain creative choices for a story none of us have seen? Until we know exactly how the John Hurt Doctor fits in, nobody can possibly tell why Hurt was chosen and McGann was not.
Unfortunately, your speculation tends to paint Moffat as a fiend who's setting out to upset Doctor Who actors and fans.
If you're going to be critical about someone, it's always better to do so with some actual evidence, rather than stuff you guessed or made-up about them.
Unfortunately, your speculation tends to paint Moffat as a fiend who's setting out to upset Doctor Who actors and fans.
If you're going to be critical about someone, it's always better to do so with some actual evidence, rather than stuff you guessed or made-up about them.
and here is the thing. With your claim to have insider knowledge it is almost impossible to debate with you as you just resort to this 'source'. It is entirely unprovable either way. If you are proved wrong you will either not acknowledge the fact or blame your source.
I will be honest. I don't believe you for a second. I don't think you have a 'source'. But either way. None of the rest of us do. So we are all speculating from the same position of general ignorance.
You mean apart from the whole bit about Moffat only hiring John Hurt because Eccleston turned down the role? Oh, of course, that came from "a source", so you know it as a fact.:rolleyes:
Paul McGann may be popular with "fans" but his presence would mean little to the casual viewer, which is probably the majority of viewers. He is just that guy from that awful movie. John Hurt is a big, well respected name. Can you imagine the final scenes of The Name of the Doctor having the same impact with Paul as they did with John Hurt? I can't.
The guy absolutely refuses to cut a single line, no matter how badly written or tautological it may be. It's as if the mass junking of actual episodes has made him OCD about creating a visual record of every abandoned or proposed project.
Crikey, some of that is like Dr Who meets Fonejacker.
not at all, he said IF you are proven wrong that I wouldn't acknowledge too which I responded yes I will actually etc.
Fair enough if you do. Ita nothing personal against you. Its just once you spend enough time on any forums or the internet in general whatever the subject you often come across people who claim to be 'in the know' and my past experience has taught me to be skeptical of such things as ultimately there's no way real way of knowing if its true. You might be the rare example of someone who is truly lucky enough to have some insider sources. In which case good for you. But I think you need to appreciate why some people take it with a pinch of salt. Its only natural. I could claim to have a red shiny WhoPhone direct to Moffat towers...i don't btw. Otherwise we would've had a trailer by now.
In my opinion (which no doubt some will disagree with) the best thing that could happen is to neatly tie classic and new Who together (if anything, to shut DariaM up...). The narrative for classic Who really ended with the TVM, with 7 regenerating into 8, then we see nothing until Rose. I would be very surprised if this wasn't attempted in DOTD, and if the rumours are true, there is some hope that Mcgann will put in an appearance as The Doctor at some point over the next few weeks...
I've just had cocktails and crostini with the Moff and he told me your source is a fibber and John Hurt is actually replacing Bonnie Langford who pulled out to rehearse her panto moves.
Comments
Yes that's exactly what I mean
If you're going to be critical about someone, it's always better to do so with some actual evidence, rather than stuff you guessed or made-up about them.
I haven't guessed or made-up anything
and here is the thing. With your claim to have insider knowledge it is almost impossible to debate with you as you just resort to this 'source'. It is entirely unprovable either way. If you are proved wrong you will either not acknowledge the fact or blame your source.
I will be honest. I don't believe you for a second. I don't think you have a 'source'. But either way. None of the rest of us do. So we are all speculating from the same position of general ignorance.
This.
Crikey, some of that is like Dr Who meets Fonejacker.
I'm not sure I'd buy it on doovde.
yes I will actually and don't tell me what I will and won't do, you don't know me
You might want to re-think your wording to that question , because it makes it look like you're admitting you're wrong.
I believe what you meant was, "If I am wrong, I will admit it . . ."
not at all, he said IF you are proven wrong that I wouldn't acknowledge too which I responded yes I will actually etc.
So... you're saying you won't acknowledge it if you're wrong??
no I'm saying I will, can't you people read
I understand what you are saying. It's a matter of semantics. If you are proven wrong, you will admit it.
that's pretty much what I said why are you repeating me
I was verifying we agreed.
I think that Eccleston was supposed to have the same role as Tennant.
Fair enough if you do. Ita nothing personal against you. Its just once you spend enough time on any forums or the internet in general whatever the subject you often come across people who claim to be 'in the know' and my past experience has taught me to be skeptical of such things as ultimately there's no way real way of knowing if its true. You might be the rare example of someone who is truly lucky enough to have some insider sources. In which case good for you. But I think you need to appreciate why some people take it with a pinch of salt. Its only natural. I could claim to have a red shiny WhoPhone direct to Moffat towers...i don't btw. Otherwise we would've had a trailer by now.
yes it is