The rec.arts.drwho Quote File - Dec.'99/Jan. '00

Courtesy of Robert J. Smith

Submissions and comments should be sent to Robert Smith)


Daniel O'Mahony wrote:
>The weirdest thing is his suggestion that the series had started to show
>horrific incidents such as shop window dummies attacking people... there's
>also a reference to a controversial drowning sequence which could be
>'Vengeance on Varos' but might just as easily have been 'The Deadly
>Assassin'. If these were his concerns then it suggests that the BBC
>hierarchy must work at the pace of continental drift, and they should be
>responding to our first lot of complaints about the series being cancelled
>any day now!
>He doesn't mention the death threats from the Mafia though!

Memo: April 1 1985
From: Senior Management.
To: All management and senior production staff
Re: Doctor Who cancelled

This is to inform you all that Doctor Who has been cancelled. Please
note that the official position of the BBC is that the show is not
dead, only resting - that should keep the press off our backs, and
placate some of those loonies.

It is important that you all understand why this decision has been
made, so that the problems with this series can be prevented from
recurring in other programs.

1) Tired.

After more than 5 years on the air, the program has lost much of the
freshness that it once possessed, apparently, and adopted a bit of a
repetitive mosters-in-corridors formula. Senior management wishes to
make it clear to all producers that monsters-in-corridors are now
considered blase. Eastenders staff please take note: we are watching
you carefully.

2) Derivative.

How anyone OK'ed the production of a show which so blatantly ripped
off our own Blake's 7, and that American movie with the asthmatic
black robot, I'll never know.

The BBC wishes to make it clear to everyone submitting new program
ideas: we are looking for fresh and original material, not tired
retreads! Adaptations of Austen and Dickens novels are especially
welcome, even if we've done them once or twice already.

3) Look and feel.

I really think there is just no longer a place in the BBC schedules
for black and white programs. If the producers refuse to make the
series in colour, then they really shouldn't look so surprised when
the ratings come in. The recent trend toward episodes with no picture
at all, or single frames which persist for seconds at a time, has also
been an embarrassing reminder of this show's budget problems.

4) Performances.

Although the casting of the lead may have seemed a good idea tom
someone at the time, it does not enhance the BBC's reputation to
broadcast a program in which the principal actor is clearly incapable
of recalling his lines. Evidently the program's budget does not
stretch to multiple takes!! Possibly a change of actor might have
helped, but such a decision should have been made ages ago. It's
certainly too late now!

5) Coherence.

Many of the stories in the series seem to make little sense nowadays.
Only last week I was looking through some recent productions, and
found that in one episode the Cybermen were about to destroy the
Earth, and in the very next episode this problem was forgotten, and
instead the Doctor was fighting unconvincing fish people in Atlantis.
What's more, makeup had evidently put the wrong wig on the lead,
making him almost unrecognisable! And it goes on - in the very next
episode the Cybermen were back, only now on the Moon and looking
completely different! Please, we are supposed to be makers of popular
entertainment - leave the avant garde nonlinear rubbish to Dennis

6) Sex.

A disturbing trend towards sexual exploitation of the Doctor's
assistants has begun to emerge. In a recent episode I noticed a rather
obvious lingering arse-shot of a mini-skirt clad young woman climbing
a ladder. This sort of thing is just not on in the 1980s. And what is
the idea of dressing the Doctor's crumpet in old-fashioned 1960s gear?
How can our 1980s brats identify with characters who seem to be
decades behind the times?

Another recent episode saw one of the Doctor's girlfriends imprisoned
in an Arab harem. Apart from the inappropriateness of such concepts
for the target audience, please remember that Worldwide are trying to
sell our programs in overseas markets, and it is important to be
sensitive to questions of race, especially when they're nutters who
blow things up when they're riled.

7) Violence.

Another disturbing trend in this series is the increase in violent
content. A recent episode saw the Doctor attempt to brain a savage
with a rock, after the man had been gored by some monster. Is this the
example we want to set for our children?

Really, it's time we started to lift our game people. Over the next
few months we will be seriously reviewing the contination of Z Cars,
the Dick Emery Show and Dixon of Dock Green. These programs will need
to seriously lift their game if they are to be continued. When our
rivals at ITV are producing fine historical adventures such as William
Tell and Sir Lancelot and Robin Hood (isn't Richard Greene just
perfect?), it seems a shame we can't put out programs with the same
kind of public interest.

PS Please note that the canteen will no longer be accepting ration

Daniel Frankham  6/12/99


[Subject: Re: Colin Baker's Top Four]

Matthew Brooker wrote:

> This one's easy

> 1) Revelation
> 2) Revelation
> 3) Revelation
> 4) Revelation

Yup. Largely because Colin's hardly in it, and does next to nothing. And
because of the comedy Dalek.

DALEK: He should be exterminated!

DAVROS: Oh, that's what you think, is it? I don't recall asking *your*
opinion, matey! Besides, what is it with you and extermination anyway?
'Zap', 'zap', 'zap'! That's all I get from you all day long! Change the
bloody record!






DAVROS: Nope! Not a peep out of you! One more sound, and it's straight
off to bed with no mucus.

Ben Woodhams  9/12/99


Tony Velasquez wrote:
>    "Mulder, are you trying to convince me that a thing that looks like a
>police box, found in a junkyard, can travel through time and space?"
>    "Yes.  Scully, I've never told anyone but when I was young, I was
>standing on Wimbleton common.  I saw this dumpy girl run right into a blue
>box and then it vanished with a strange grinding sound>

and then three wombles leapt out and tidied up all the rubbish that was
swirling around.

Orinoco  13/12/99


[Subject: Re: A point I missed.............more problems w/Interference]

M.H. Stevens  wrote:

>How can anything that threatens to destroy 25 years worth of continuity be
>minor, I'd call a change in the Doctor's past major even if in relative
>terms for the Doctor, it only happened last week.

"Doctor....last week you had a chicken salad sandwhich for lunch."
"The Master, my most worthy foe, how ever did you know that."
"Because I've just gone back in time and eaten in 5 minutes before you
have..and replaced it with roast beef!!"
"History is MINE DOCTOR!!! MINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Charles Daniels  14/12/99


[Subject: Re: Nessie: There is room for two!]

Alden Bates wrote:
>There's a really good explanation.

>Skarasen, meet Borad.   *urp*

>Tada!  One Loch Ness Monster.

Good job.  That also explains where the gas that knocked out the Brigadier
and company came from.

Ray C. Tate  15/12/99


[Subject: Re: Curious lack of Silurians ep 2 posts]

Lee  wrote:
>And what was the funny
>vertical line that kept moving about the screen?

That was Jon Pertwee. He was the Doc, y'know!  ; )

Peter Finklestone <> 15/12/99


William December Starr wrote:
> > >At the risk of re-opening a can of worms -- one albeit which has
> > >been opened many, many times already -- I'll ask: _Have_ there been
> > >people who say that the McCoy era was all great?

Orinoco wrote:
> > I thought BULLDOG was the only one. The rest of us just seem able to
> > tolerate several of the stories.Major crime apparently.

The Chocolate Snark wrote...
> Actually, even the bold and brave one has said that he only does so with
> the qualifiers I mentioned... (DB can't accept that maybe he's a trifle
> OTT when it comes to McCoy -- it's not like he's said stuff that's as
> nasty as what Cuddles has said -- about me, f'rinstance...) and I don't
> say that much -- that is, that it's all great. No, only Tom's all
> great|-p

Another pro-Tom troll! Honestly, can't this group have a civilised
discussion about how all the McCoy era was just the greatest
television ever, and much better than all that Shakespeare drivel,
without the pro-Tom trolls popping up to thrust their opinions down
our throats? Honestly, they just can't accept the truth that the entire
tom baker era sucked donkey dick and that the programme was
only truly born in 1987.

Into the quiltfile with you, oh Snarkaciously chocolate one

Joxer  15/12/99


[Subject: The next DVD - revealed!]

LONDON, Dec. 16 -- After months of idle rumour and half-arsed speculation,
BBC Worldwide has finally announced the second title in their range of
_Doctor Who_ DVD releases.  In April of 2000, fans will be able to
experience the classic 1972 Jon Pertwee adventure, "The Time Monster," with
the digital clarity that only DVD can deliver.

'We wanted to make this an extra-special release for the fans,' said Steve
Kroll of BBC Worldwide.  'Time and time again, _Doctor Who_ enthusiasts have
demonstrated their devotion to the programme--complaining about our
marketing decisions, bitching about our video releases, threatenting to sue
us, and so forth--so we decided that nothing but the best would do.  The new
DVD of "The Time Monster" will be a well-deserved reward for all those
years of tirelessly passionate enthusiasm.  Finally, we at the BBC are
giving something back to the fans.'

To make the release even more special, BBC Video are going all-out to ensure
that "The Time Monster" looks better than ever when it's presented on DVD.
'There are three major areas of improvement,' said BBC video engineer Steve
Rabbits.  'First of all, we discovered that this particular _Doctor Who_
serial actually looks *better* with MPEG compression artefacts, so we're
cramming all six episodes onto a single disc layer.  Secondly, the film and
video sequences of the original production aren't very well matched to each
other, so in order to give the story a more uniform feel, we'll be adding
plenty of dirt and sparkle to the studio scenes.  Finally, after consulting
with the original script editor of "The Time Monster," we've decided to
alter the Chronovore's appearance, using Paintbox.  As everybody knows, the
colour for monsters is green, and we couldn't think of any reason why a Time
Monster should be an exception to this rule.'

Fans' expectations were heightened recently when, on the Internet newsgroup
rec.arts.drwho, the BBC's Peter Fink revealed that the forthcoming DVD would
include a specially-recorded audio commentary track.  Unfortunately, before
he was able to provide any further details, Mr. Fink was attacked and pecked
to death by a large, eupalet-wearing stork; however, sources indicate that
the commentary track chiefly consists of multiple impersonations of Roger
Delgado's classic line, 'Nobody and nothing can stop me now!' as performed
by whoever the disc's producers were able to round up from the BBC canteen.

Although the final release schedule for future _Doctor Who_ DVDs is still
under consideration, the following provisional schedule has been announced:

     July 2000    - "Time and the Rani"
     October 2000 - "Underworld"
     January 2001 - "The Space Museum"
     May 2001     - "Timelash"
     August 2001  - "Dimensions in Time" (with two-hour bonus documentary,
                                         "The Making of 'Dimensions in

"The Time Monster" will be released by BBC Video on April 1, 2000, at a
suggested retail price of 19.99.

Paul E. Curtis  17/12/99


[Subject: Re: A Bit Of Back Blurb Humor]

"Goodbye, old thing."

At last, the TARDIS takes off into previously unexplored realms of space
and time ... ON ITS OWN!

On the planet Dunedin, the last strand of the race formerly known as
Scotsmen struggle against the natural -- and unnatural -- barriers to
colonisation. Fed up with the Doctor's latest abandonment, the TARDIS
sails off on her own agenda ... but what started as an attempt to find and
hook up with Marie or maybe Bernice in a pinch has turned into a deadly
triangle of fear, drinking and pointless sports as the Y'Bastards begin
returning to their barbarous roots ...

Set between the time the Doctor goes poncing off on another boring
Earth-based adventure and the time he finally bothers coming home like a
worried-over cat wondering what all the fuss was about, BACK IN A FLASH is
the first in what could be a DEAD INTERESTING series of books in which the
TARDIS itself goes to other planets, meets strange and exotic people, and
fights evils old and new -- and the Doctor none the wiser!

Charles Martin  22/12/99


[Subject: Re: A title or a tittle?]

Kelly Robinson  wrote:
> "Four to Doomsday" has several hidden meanings.

> * Monarch the Frog has been to Earth 4 times and is coming a 5th but
> wanting to stay for good and destroying mankind, hence doomsday.

> * Monarch's ship is 4 days from earth.  Monarch is not a good frog so
> that's where the doomsday aspect comes in.

> * This story is 4 stories away from Adric's death:  "Earthshock" - cool,
> huh?

> * There are only three other [Non-Dalek] stories in Dr Who's history
> whose titles have hidden meanings.  The viewership is so thick that
> straightforward titles are almost required as necessity instead of the
> typical straightforward rubbish like "the Ark in Space", "Robots of
> Death", "Inferno", "The Silurians", "The War Games" - it goes on and on
> and on.  ;-D

I think that this proves, persuasively and conclusively, that Paul is dead.

Charles Martin  26/12/99


[Subject: Re: Blue Angel - finished it!]

"M.H. Stevens" wrote:
>>>Pit Magrs couldn't have finished writing it! HA!!!

Ed Jefferson wrote:
>>No, I say to you BWA HA!!!

"M.H. Stevens" wrote:
>Oh no, not this again!

Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why M.H. Stevens
posted that we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe
than we do now.

The Chocolate Snark  29/12/99


Jon Anderson  wrote:
> >> Vague memories surface here of a one-armed Time Lord from the Pit.
> >> How'd he loose his arm?

William December Starr wrote:
> >Oh, the usual, I'm sure.  You know: you put something down, you go off
> >and do other stuff, and then you can't remember where you left it.  (And
> >it's _always_ in the last place you look, too!)

John Pettigrew wrote:
> Yes, think about Omega and his hand.

I started thinking of that, then it occurred to me that Omega has been
trapped for eternity all alone in his own universe-thingummy, and all of a
sudden I don't want to know about him and his hand.

Rufus T. Firefly"  6/1/00


[Subject: Re: Why McGann is the greatest actor to play the Doctor, as
opposed to Tom Baker...]

David Brunt wrote:
> Bollocks.  The only people who acted the role - i.e. by not playing an
> extension of his own personality - were Hartnell and Troughton.

Whether or not you use bits of yourself in the role, it's still acting.
I've done both.

As long as Colin Baker didn't walk on screen in a normal outfit and say
"Hello, I'm Colin Baker.  I'm meant to be defeating that man in a rubber
suit over there," he was indeed acting.

Rufus T. Firefly  8/1/00


The Chocolate Snark  wrote:
>Anyway, how did the Doctor go to Skaro in
>TEW if it was destroyed in RemotD? Someone _had_ to explain it, and the
>end result had to be the one Jon and Lance complain about, or the Doc
>wouldn't have been able to tell the Master's ashes apart from

Time travel. Does it really need an "on-screen" explanation? I mean, is
anyone saying, "But how can the Doctor, Ian, Barbara and Vicki visit the
Roman Empire when it was destroyed centuries ago? We need a retcon to show
that it wasn't really destroyed, but lives on in the Doctor Who

Daniel Frankham  9/1/00


[Subject: Re: Davison (was Operation De-lurk)]

re: Davison and briskness. He seems to start many an adventure with a
brisk, hand-rubbing 'jolly good chap getting on with things'
demeanour... but then things sort of trail off until he ends up like
someone with a bit of a headache trying to hurry a coach-load of
recalcitrant pensioners across the A4... 'come along now there's a good
fellow, watch out for the Myrka'... 10/1/00


Subject: Re: Arcs and filler (was: Caught on Earth...)

Jonathan Blum wrote:
>>It doesn't work that way; your control over the story
>>ends where the reader begins. [WDStarr]

>My control, however, _does_ extend to the point where I can
>tell this particular reader that the information needed to
>understand Joyce's role in this story _is_ in the book, and
>if you missed it that's your own damn fault.

ROTLDMAO!!! Deja vu! Deja vu! You are Dave Becker! BWAHAHA!

*the* Becker  11/1/00


[Subject: Re: Revelation of the Daleks is poor]

Oliver Welsh wrote:
> Why does everyone like it so much anyway?  It's rubbish.

Care to append a little analysis to this sub-Wildean bon mot?

Gareth Thomas"  11/1/00


[Subject: Re: A Sense of History]

Lance Parkin wrote:
> Doctor Who fans have their own view of 'how it
> used to be', a nostalgic, rosy picture, a vision
> of velvet coats, miniskirts and robot dogs.

Ah yes.  Many's the hour I'd while away dressed in
velvet coat and miniskirt, shagging a robot dog...

Finn Clark  12/1/00


[Subject: Re: Peri's best scene]

James Caldwell wrote:
> And I would have to say that though peri was often critisized for only
> a set of boobs, that is the greatest "serious" scene, in my young memory,
> ever to be given to a companion

Actually, I think it's very infrequently that Peri's *criticised* for
only being a pair of boobs.

Daniel Gooley  12/1/00


[Subject: Re: A new look at the Daleks]

OJ quoth:
> In Remembrance of the Daleks, we are given a dalek's eye view more than
> once.   To our eyes, it appears green-screen, with very bright areas
> appearing white and dark areas appearing black, with shades of green
> than grey) in between.   Obviously, this leads to a situation in which in
> artistic terms, the only forms that will be readily appreciated by Daleks
> are those in the starkest light-and-dark contrast.

Good point.  And indeed, perhaps we should ask ourselves what is the
effect on the mentality of the Daleks of seeing the world only in shades
of green.  How can we expect moral complexity of creatures who can only
see life in terms of black and white (tinted green); creatures who must
indeed have difficulty making sense of any situation which does not
feature extremes?  And it's certainly easy to see why supreme Daleks have
traditionally been sleek black: like the bright white favoured by various
breakaway factions, it distinguishes then from the murky, hard-to-
distinguish grey or blue camouflage typically adopted by rank-and-file
Daleks.  Makes you wonder about some of those multi-coloured film Daleks
though, dunnit?

Of course, when you consider the Daleks' complete inability to see things
coloured red (as per the Dalek Book), you really do have to pity the poor
things.  Imagine the red movie Daleks' surprise and disappointment when,
chuckling to themselves and creeping quietly up on their prey, they
discovered that their special "invisibility shell" completely failed to
work.  It's no wonder the Daleks are such misery-guts all the time: if
they ever saw the world through rose-coloured glasses, they would
suddenly find their vision was im-paired! they could not see!  their
vision was im-paired! they could not see!

Things are particularly dire if you consider that a sizeable proportion
of the male Dalek population are probably red/green colourblind, and
hence can only see things in various shades of nothing.

When you stop and think about it, Daleks really are rather good role
models.  Okay, so you may not have the use of your arms and legs; you may
be noddy no-friends, you may look like the end result of some over-
enthusiastic nose blowing, your conversation may be stilted and
enormously dull, you may be a homocidal maniac and you may be mostly
blind, but you can still aspire to rule the universe forever!

Daniel Gooley  12/1/00


[Subject: Re: I'm watching "The Silurians" episode 5]

dbf wrote in message ...
> Not sure about the incidental music though

>Yeah, my pet peeve about SILURIANS is the kazoo....sometimes, pretty
>original for TV music, I suppose, but considering the music that came
>after in AMBASSADORS, I find it a bit distracting and unserious.

Ah, the concerto for Car Horn and comb-and-paper.  They don't write 'em
like that anymore.......

David Brunt  12/1/00


>I'd love (I think) to hear the theory tying 'Withnail & I' into DW

It's part of the upcoming EDA arc with the Doctor stranded in the 20th
century... "The Turing Test" is set in the 40s, "Father Time" in the 80s -
"Withnail and I" will be released in November, set in the 60s, and concern
Doctor's descent into alcohol and drug abuse and acting. He will refer to
himself simply as "I", and befriend an upper class actor with a gay uncle,
proove once and for all that the Doctor is rather boringly heterosexual. The
book will conclude when the Doctor suceeds in dragging himself out of his
and gets a job in the theatre.

John Elledge  12/1/00


[Subject: Re: Daily Mirror item]

Edward Funnell wrote:
>>>Germany has invaded Poland - the swines

David Brunt wrote:
>> Early arrest anticipated in Abel murder.
>> Police say a stalker was not involved.
>> Jehovah a witness.

The Chocolate Snark  wrote:

Experts warn Y0 bug may have dire consequences.

Daniel Frankham  13/1/00


[Subject: Re: Daily Mirror item]

Chris Cwej wrote:
>Okay, here comes the spoiler space for those people who haven't
>read the other threads in the series.
>Let's look at the main points:
>Doctor travels in a woman. Well this just smaks of BBC sensationalism.
>Also probably true as we got the female TARDIS in "Alien Bodies".

It does, at least, have the likelyhood of a scene at the end of every book
where the Doctor saves the world and enters the woman to celebrate.......

Or the inevitable...
"Hello, I'm the Doctor. I came in that woman over there....!"
"But how did you arrive here?"
"Well, that was afterwards....."

The Doctor skillfully manipulated the workings of his woman. She softly
hummed in response. The Doctor smiled and licked his lips.


David Brunt  13/1/00


[Subject: Re: The War Machines Part 1]

Keith Brookes  wrote:
> How could you laugh???????????????  THEY KNOCKED OVER
> BOXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  BOXES!!!!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
> *Runs for the hills*

What I worry about isnt the War Machines, but what sick, evil mind
would randomly stack boxes around the city like that????

Charles Daniels  15/1/00


[Subject: Re: The War Machines Part 1]

David Brunt  wrote:
>>>I think he says "when the Daleks were near...."

>>>With hindsight, it's worth remembering that the Daleks were in London at
>>> the exact same time - sic 'Evil' taking place on the same dates.....

Charles Daniels wrote in message <>...
>>Yeah it has ALWAYS struck me as somewhat silly that on 20 July 1966
>>the War Machines were attacking London, the Daleks were working behind
>>the scenes in London, and the Chameleons were abducting 50,000 young
>>persons from London...AND NO ONE ever mentioned it!
>>I mean July 20th, 1966 must have been the most important date in human

>>In an interesting way it might be worth a shot to combined The War
>>Machines as maybe a part of some Dalek Masterplan.

David Brunt  wrote:
>While people were too busy laughing at the War Machines, the Daleks would
>take over.

"I voted for the Daleks myself, Mildred, what about you?"
"Oh, yes, dear. They're much sleeker than those clunky War Machines.
"I agree completely. I mean, really, if we have to live under the yoke
of an oppressive alien regime, you don't want to look silly in front of
the  other slave planets, do you. 'Oh, look, there's Earth. They're
overrun by  'War Machines' ' "
"Exactly. Everyone I've asked has voted for the Daleks as well. When's
the final count going to be announced?"
"At 6, I think."
"Oh, well, I guess I'd better get myself ready to be exterminated."

Misha Lauenstein  17/1/00


[responding to complaints about an upcoming development in the books]

Jonathan Blum  wrote
> What matters is the execution.

I agree! String up the Authors!! Have the editor beheaded!!! It's the
only way to be sure!!!!!!

Paul Harman  17/1/00


[Subject: Re: Revelation of the Daleks]

>>Has everyone forgotten?  Of course Davros knew what the 6th Doctor looked

>Doesn't take that long to mould a block of polystyrene.

So, Davros's plan hinged on being able to mould a decent likeness of the
in Polystyrene from the time the scanners first caught sight of him until
time he got to the cemetary.  Whew, good thing for Davros that the TARDIS
didn't arrive closer, or else he might not have had time to complete it.

Davros: Ack!  The Doctor has arrived and my polystyrene sculpture hasn't
been started!  Call the Special Artist Dalek!!!!


Davros:  Never mind!  I need you to sculpt a likeness of our enemy, the


Davros:  No!  In Polystyrene!  And it has to be done in TEN MINUTES!


Davros:  Fine, fine!!!  Just make sure to fill it with fake blood and topple
onto him when he gets here.


Davros:  Sigh.

Michael K. Anderson  19/1/00


Steve Roberts  wrote:
>'Dalek Cutaway', my arse.

Sounds painful. Have you seen a Doctor about it?

Orinoco  21/1/00


[Subject: Missed opportunities]

Seeing the early episodes again on UKTV has got me thinking...

What if, at the end of _An Unearthly Child_ episode 4, our heroes had
arrived back in the TARDIS and taken off... and then the Doctor and Susan
realised that they'd accidentally left their companions behind at the cave
of skulls, and somehow brought Za and Hur with them? "All these humans look
alike to me, Susan. Are you sure?"

What fun they could have had...

Za, to the Thals: "Your tribe will join our tribe. We have big cave. We
have rock that food comes out of. You have blonde women."

The Doctor: "Zarg, my dear fellow, you may be a thoughtless savage, but
that really was a remarkably clever plan you came up with there, dragging
that young woman off, to teach the Thals the value of violence."

Za: "I am leader. The leader is the one who makes plans. I will try again
later, when they sleep."

Hur gets mistaken for an Aztec god... "You do not gather enough plants?
You have no meat? You must make more sacrifices to Orb!"

Hur kills Vicki's pet Sand Beast, then guts and skins it, offering the
bloody entrails to Vicki as a sincere gesture of friendship.

Sir Za gives advice to King Richard the Lionheart... "You want to join
your tribe with their tribe? I have good plan. Give woman to their
Richard: "You know, that's not such a bad idea."

Lost in the maze of The Space Museum...
Za: "Hur, give me your bearskin".

Hur: "You have plan, Za?"

Za: "Yes."

Doctor: "Ah, Vicki, I think we would be wise to wait around this corner
for a few minutes."

Vicki: "But you say that every time! They don't mind, you know."

Then of course, the heartwarming scene when Za and Hur finally make it back
to 99,998BC: a sequence of still photos of Za and Hur running out of an
exploding cave, riding on a mammoth's back, meeting a very pissed off Ian
and Barbara, having Ian's stone scrabble board smashed over their heads...

And over the course of his years with these early human companions, the
Doctor slowly, subtly transforms from the amoral, antagonistic figure of
episode 1, into the primitive, simple-minded maniac he is today.

Daniel Frankham  21/1/00


[Subject: Re: Flexihistory: A request to Who authors]

William December Starr wrote:
>> >> When the book is marketed as part of an ongoing series, where/whether
>> >> it fits in that series _is_ one of its merits, or lack thereof.

Paul Harman  wrote:
>> >Er, but it wasn't (as such). It wasn't a book in "the continuing
>> >of the Eighth Doctor". it was abook starring "the Doctor" with no
>> >classification. That the fans decided that it was a PDA or an EDA and
>> >rejected it based on that false assumption is hardly Lance's fault.

Lance Parkin wrote:
>> We went out of our way, I thought, to distance it from the ongoing
>> range - it even had a different cover design.

David Shepherdson  wrote:
>Was it deliberate that the cover design could be interpreted as
>representing the cover 'themes' of both ranges - i.e., a circular
>object for the E.D.A.s and a swirl for the P.D.A.s?

I think it can be interpreted as Black Sheep liking circles
and swirls. They must be the sort of people who sit in the
bath watching the water go down. Perhaps even sticking
stock photos of Patrick Troughton over the plughole.

Lance Parkin  21/1/00


Steve Day wrote in message ...
>>>Jesus Christ, what sick, twisted people have we got on this group?

Jonn Elledge  wrote:
>>I'm sexually attracted to Krotons.

Keith Brookes wrote:
>I find myself wanting to lick a Zygon.

Then see if it would stick to a window ?

rIcHaRd-G   22/1/00


[Subject: Re: Beltempest- bad bad bad!!!?]

Robert Smith? wrote:
>>I mean, if Charles Daniels wrote an EDA, this would be it. What more
>>could you want? :-)

Chris Cwej  wrote:
>A plot I could understand and that flowed nicely. Characters I cared

These things a Jedi craves not.

 - Yoda Daniels

Robert Smith?  23/1/00


[Subject: Re: The Infinity Doctors - Could the continuity BE any more

J2Rider wrote:
> I also think that ID is NOT what continuity is.

That's right, it's EGO.

Robert Smith?  26/1/00


[Re: Time Tunnel episode 1]

Allen Robinson  wrote:
>The Senator, now that he sees the thing works but that
>our heroes are trapped in time, promises to continue funding the

"So what you people have got here is a machine for getting rid of
stuck-up congress-questioning dissident scientist-types who keep
harassing and harassing and haranguing us to pour more and more money
into this dang scientific research thing while we're fighting a
goddamn losing war against the commies in every corner of the globe?
You put the scientists in, and they disappear, to die lonely and
horrible deaths at famous historical events?

"Well, you suckas have got yourself a grant renewal!"

Daniel Frankham  27/1/00


[Subject: Re: Parallel 59 . . . and observation - no spoilers]

Jonathan Blum  wrote
> On the other hand, while I can't comment on how well "Parallel 59"
> supports its length (rassin frassin distribution), I'll just point out
> that 15,000 or so words off the similarly massive "Deceit" wouldn't have
> been missed...

Me be serious, Ha!

But your wily observation concerning Deceit is 100% correct.  Which doesn't
bode well for the upcoming Independence Day - or whatever its called.

In fact I can see it now.  Justin and PDE arguing over the editing of the

PDE:  How dare you, Justin, edit all those wonderful words from my
masterpiece, my opus, my exquisite symphony of words.

Justin:  But Peter -

PDE:  Hush man, don't you hear her, Calliope . . .  whispering, speaking to
me, invigorating me with her sweet, sweet words.

Justin:  Please Peter -

PDE:  She wants me to add more.  Daleks, she has said, and Absalom Daak and
angst . . . she needs more angst . . .do you hear me Justin!

Justin:  Yes, Peter, I hear you.  But I really think the book would be
better served if the Dr appeared before page 143.  I mean, he is the title

PDE:  Tosh.  Tosh and pash and tosh.  You know nothing of suspense my boy,
of conflict, of keeping the reader waiting.  I think I shall return back to
my infernal Babbage inspired machine and add a few more pages to my work.
Yes . . . she needs more angst!!!!!!!!!!

Ian Mond  27/1/00



J2rider  wrote:
>PLACEBO EFFECT: fIRST what's a PARAD? Anyway, lots of action and gore but
>so with the Wiirn and right at home...not a bad story at all. Pretty good
>with lots to recommend it especially at the end. I also like that Gary
>(who wrote the best Virgin novel, COLD FUSION)

You're claimed.

Lance Parkin Let's face it, if ever there was "proof" either way, half of us would deny
>it, listing 10 favourite reasons why that could not possibly be so. Half of
>us would see it as perfectly acceptable but list 20 favourite reasons why
>we thought the author was a cunt anyway, and DBurns would flame us all
>for not mentioning McCoy was crap.

We finally have a description of RADW we can advertise with...

Jonn Elledge  30/1/00


Exorse wrote:
>The "creative" professions always tend to be made up of people who behave
>in a pattern that is not considered to be normal mainstream.
>Plus they tend to only socialize with a small group of "very close"
>thus making the perfect atmosphere to spawn homosexuality as well as other
>non-comformative forms of behavior.

I *was* going to compose a lengthy reply to this, my dear, but the houseboy
was so busy rubbing me down with a blend of absinthe and linseed oil that it
quite slipped my mind. And now the doorbell's gone, and seeing as it's bound
to be the lovely de Sade family from next door bringing round their hamsters
Joe and Kenneth (we're "very close"), I'm afraid it'll just have to wait.
Oh, the agonies and the ecstasies of a non-conformist lifestyle ...

Alan Barnes  30/1/00


Jonn Elledge  writes:
> Worst possible crossover?  With HGWell's Time Machine, I think.
> Great book, but somehow, it just wouldn't gel with Who...  Some
> tinsel might brighten it up, mind.

Yes, the books appearance in the TVM really ruined it for me.  It was
out of character for a hardback novel, and should have been presented
in paperback form.

Ed Jefferson  30/1/00


[Subject: Re: I've not been here for a while. Where's Azaxyr?]

Exorse  wrote:
> Why would I do that?  That would just make me as bad as you.  I don't
> see Azaxyr doing any of the things you claim to be upset about, since
> there hasn't been a post from Azaxyr for a *month*.  What I do see is
> you and a few others who seem to feel it necessary to continue this
> discussion, and trying to drag down everyone into the dirt with you.
> Why should you expect me to be upset about being compared to Azaxyr
> when your behavior is much worse?

Well either you're Henry "Azaxyr" Vizi or you're an innocent bystander
who happens to be totally insane.  I'm not sure it really makes any
difference which.

William December Starr  31/1/00


[Re: Silly Thought About "Shadows of Avalon"]

> Found a copy this afternoon, will finish reading it by Monday I suspect.
> gives a damn about Chaucer anyway.

Whan that the mille's Avalian booke
The droghte of Cornell hath oertooke,
And bathed every vaine and lost readour
In taste long soughte since Human Natour;
Whan Angel Bloo and Angel Hydes
Are left wi Woorlds Fronteer and Fyve,
And since yet Shadowing Fyve-nyne,
Though 'fore Declyne of Yqatyne
Thise tales begann unnaturalie
End Miles from hence hir historie
(so placeth him booke in hir propre plase);
Thanne weken folk as from a dase,
And say "Al that we feard was noughte
For wee have found what wee have soughte
This tale sygns no Unhappy Endyngs,
But happy new pilgrimage wendyings:
Tis yet what started far away,
Long ago, in an English day"

Daniel Gooley  31/1/00


[Subject: Re: Hell]

>What's everyone's idea of Hell, Doctor Who style?

Sixth Doctor falls off exercise bike, hits head on console, regenerates.
Into the *same man*.

Krang  31/1/00



is pleased to announce an appearance by
tickets 10 pounds in advance
Limited servings
Tom will be talking about his work, answering questions from fans and
signing autographs! in the comfort of our cafe bar LOUNGE. and he will
TREEROT will also be giving customers a unique opportunity to purchase
a limited edition olive, signed by gardener JUNE HUDSON and of course
Tom himself.
You can also take the opportunity to have Tom with a slice of PICKLE
and some CHIPS. As well as some NAPKINS.
No purchase is necessary and customers who book are welcome to bring
along two luncheon items of their own to be signed, and of course Tom
will also be available as a SIDE DISH.

Rufus T. Firefly  1/2/00


Continue onto the next Quote file (Feb/Mar 2000)

Go back to the previous Quote file (Nov/Dec 1999)

Go back to the Quote directory