Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2013-06-17 06:50 pm
[ SECRET POST #2358 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2358 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

__________________________________________________
08.

__________________________________________________
09.

__________________________________________________
10.

__________________________________________________
11.

__________________________________________________
12.

__________________________________________________
13.

__________________________________________________
14.

__________________________________________________
15.

__________________________________________________
16.

__________________________________________________
17.

__________________________________________________
18.

__________________________________________________
19.

__________________________________________________
20.

__________________________________________________
21.

__________________________________________________
22.

__________________________________________________
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #336.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-06-17 11:04 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-06-17 11:11 pm (UTC)(link)-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I think OP's talking about that bit with John Hurt very probably being an ealier incarnation of the Doctor (between McGann and Eccleston.) Which would indeed contravene the 'unbroken progression' and all that. I guess?
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-06-17 11:08 pm (UTC)(link)Spoilers ahoy
(Anonymous) 2013-06-17 11:12 pm (UTC)(link)It just makes sense.
Re: Spoilers ahoy
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 00:46 (UTC) - Expandno subject
Some explanation would be nice.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-06-17 11:11 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-06-17 11:12 pm (UTC)(link)(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-17 23:18 (UTC) - Expandno subject
(Anonymous) 2013-06-17 11:12 pm (UTC)(link)Spoiler and things
Moffat likes leading you on. He said the Doctor definitely died in the Series 6 opener, and he didn't. People got all worked up over The Name of the Doctor, as though there was any chance they'd actually say it out loud on screen. And The Next Doctor wasn't the next Doctor either. If anything, the over-the-top dramatic introduction that is supposed to leave no doubt whatsoever that John Hurt's character is the Doctor is an indication that he's anything but.
The Valeyard is more likely, imo.
Re: Spoiler and things
(Anonymous) 2013-06-18 01:15 am (UTC)(link)This presupposes Moffat actually
A) Cares about prior canon
B) Paid enough attention to prior canon to address it properly and
C) will be able to resist his trademark move of squatting and defecating over everything that came before all for the sake of a gimmicky twist/tagline/vapid idea that goes nowhere fast. Works for sitcoms and soap operas, but not so much for good SF/fantasy, IMNSHO.
Er, yes, I agree with OP. However, I lost my patience looooooooooooong before Moffat came onboard. And I really really really really really DO NOT WANT to see the Moffat version of "Trial of a Time Lord," thanks.
Re: Spoiler and things
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 08:09 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
vague spoilers for 50th anniversary special of Doctor Who
I didn't realize it until now, but the unbroken forwards progression of incarnations, no matter how the various regeneration scenes are portrayed, is the 2nd most important plot device after the TARDIS that gives this ever-changing show a sense of continuity from 1963 onwards.
Even when I didn't like what the show did, I never got ragey over it. If it made some people happy, that was good enough for me, because it was just one step in a story that reconciled with the past and moved into the future. In the revival, in novels and audios, in my imagination.
I don't suppose I need to explain why I'm finally pissed off now...
Re: vague spoilers for 50th anniversary special of Doctor Who
Re: vague spoilers for 50th anniversary special of Doctor Who
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-06-17 11:23 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
Unless it's a Valeyard reference, that's very much not ignoring previous continuity.
no subject
Gotta disagree there. When he was doing the whole "Who is River?" thing... yeah, she turned out to be exactly what a lot of people thought she was. And, oh, wow, she was astronaut who "killed" the Doctor, which people guessed with the whole "I'm in jail for killing a good man" thing. Mofat's stuff isn't really that complicated, it's more convoluted; he throws in enough Timey-Wimey and "clever" dialogue to make his stories looks smarter than they are.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 01:18 (UTC) - Expandno subject
(Anonymous) 2013-06-18 12:29 am (UTC)(link)Timey-Wimey as fuck, and that was the Classic series long before Moffat so any fan rage over whatever happens in the 50th and beyond would be grossly out of place. Plus in the RTD era David Tennant regenerated into David Tennant again, David Tennant yet again, and finally a David Tennant/Catherine Tate hybrid. When it comes to regeneration, the only rule is there are no rules that aren't fit to be broken dependent on story needs.
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 00:34 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 00:41 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 01:24 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 00:53 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 01:05 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 01:32 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 06:26 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 11:37 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 02:23 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 01:49 (UTC) - Expandno subject
(Anonymous) 2013-06-17 11:33 pm (UTC)(link)Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey
The Doctor has explained multiple times that time is not a linear path, if you think it should be (even for The Doctor (remember, he lies)) then we haven't been watching the same show.
no subject
And no, the Doctor doesn't lie all the time for no reason. Eleven lies, and Seven lies. Moffat made that up out of nowhere and tried to retcon it onto the entire history of the show. And if I hear that goddamn fucking "the Doctor lies" catchphrase parroted out of the blue with no logical character motivation behind it just to excuse some stupid "cool" scene one more fucking time, I'm going to punch a hole in the screen. Didn't we have a whole secret about this a month or so ago?
So yeah, we have been watching different shows. The only show you've apparently been watching (or at least caring about) is Moffat-Who, and there were 46 years worth of Doctor Who before him which I count as being just as canon as Moffat-Who.
+1000000000000000000000000
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 00:20 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 00:21 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 00:50 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 00:59 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 01:07 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 01:45 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 00:36 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 01:03 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 01:35 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 01:59 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 01:37 (UTC) - Expandno subject
(Anonymous) 2013-06-17 11:37 pm (UTC)(link)(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 00:25 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 00:28 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 02:35 (UTC) - Expandno subject
(Anonymous) 2013-06-18 03:56 am (UTC)(link)Sorry OP, but I guess my point is, why would have you explain being pissed? This seems to be a general prevalent attitude in the DW fandom :P
This!
(Anonymous) - 2013-06-18 11:44 (UTC) - Expandno subject