Kopic's Doctor Who & Torchwood News |
| Clarke's Adulthood at number one Posted: 23 Jun 2008 06:37 PM CDT Noel Clarke's latest film, Adulthood, has gone straight to number one at the UK box office. Adulthood is written and directed by Clarke who also stars as Sam, released from prison six years after being involved in a killing. The sequel to the 2006 low budget drama Kidulthood, Adulthood is a urban drama dealing with life in the crime ridden slum areas of our major cities. It's set in a location where a life of drugs, crime and violence is often seen...  | ||
| Colin Baker to star in Bath Panto Posted: 23 Jun 2008 01:14 PM CDT Colin Baker, the sixth actor to star in Doctor Who (1984 - 1986), is set to star in the upcoming pantomime "Jack and the Beanstalk" at the Theatre Royal in Bath. Baker stars as Fleshcreep, the baddie in the piece. While he is best known for having been the Doctor, he's also famous for other villain roles, most notably that of Paul Merroney in The Brothers from 1974 - 1976. He also portrayed Bayban the Butcher in the Blake's 7 episode "City at the...  | ||
| Casting Rumour: New Girl for Christmas Posted: 23 Jun 2008 10:23 AM CDT The Sunday Mirror is reporting that supermodel Agyness Deyn is being lined up as the new Christmas companion for the episode that will air on Christmas Day. Below is the body of the article; as always consider this to be strictly a rumour until confirmed officially by the BBC.  | ||
| Posted: 23 Jun 2008 06:51 AM CDT This week: the future. No, the real future this time. I. Control It's strange, for someone who grew up in the days when Doctor Who annuals gave us illustrated articles about lunar rovers, to think that I might need to clarify the subject of this week's lecture. Thirty years ago, it would have seemed bizarre that any article which talked about "the future" would be expected to involve either (a) speculation as to whether the new producer is likely to bring back the Silurians or (b) predictions about what's going to happen in the end-of-season two-parter, rather than tackling questions like "are we really all going to be living in moonbases by the year 2100?". Viewers in the 1970s didn't even (consciously) notice when there was a change in the production-team, and nor would they have expected the last story of any given series to involve a massively over-inflated story-arc, which is why there was no '70s equivalent of Mark Braxton to ask what "answers" we were going to get in "The Seeds of Doom". (I've been critical of the cult of the story-arc before, mainly because it requires the audience to focus on what's going to happen next week rather than what's happening now, which means that competent scriptwriting becomes less important than big revelations. In that light, I'd just like to point out that BBC7's Heroes fanzine-show has been running trailers which begin with the words "we're hurtling towards the end of this series of Heroes…" ever since episode five of an eleven-part run. When nothing matters except the season finale, you know something's gone dreadfully wrong.) The actual future, though - the one where we'll be spending the rest of our lives, unless Bill Gates' new masterplan to save the world involves messing about with tachyons - is no longer in vogue. I'm sure it can't have escaped your notice that with the peculiar exceptions of "Dalek" and "Fear Her", which are effectively set in the present-plus-a-few, modern Doctor Who has refused to show us any vision of the future that's less than two-thousand years away. The reasons for this are less obvious than you might think. Apart from the standard fan-observation that setting a story in the year five-billion stops the current Doctor bumping into Patrick Troughton all the time, the usual assumption is that modern writers prefer "abstract" futures to "immediate" futures because there's less chance of them looking silly in twenty years' time. We've reached this conclusion because, among other things, we've seen so many BBC4esque documentaries about the history of science fiction in which alumni from the Kim Newman School of Smug Punditry point out how utterly wrong most SF predictions have been. However, this argument doesn't hold water. True, it's hard to think of a single SF future that even comes close to the way things actually turned out, although Jules Verne at least deserves special mention for coming up with the fax machine. But the vast majority of science fiction writers have never really tried to be accurate, and over the last hundred years, most future-based fiction has been a way of examining our concerns about the present. When you remember that, the reason for Doctor Who's lack of interest in the World of Tomorrow (rather the World of the Day After the Day After the Day After Tomorrow) seems a little clearer: unlike the generation of the 1960s, we no longer want to examine our concerns about the present. In fact, we'll go to any lengths to avoid thinking about them, as we'll see shortly. Firstly, though, we have to remind ourselves that we can't lump together all future-set Doctor Who stories as if they're a single sub-species. It should be fairly obvious that "The Enemy of the World" has very little in common with "The End of the World", and the difference isn't just the temporal distance travelled by the TARDIS, or that one of them is a '60s tragedy while the other is a '00s comedy. Sir Big Russell's logic - and it's a perfectly sound logic, in itself - is that since the far, far, far, far, far future is likely to be too alien to be comprehensible, you can use it as a blank surface on which to write rude graffiti about the modern world. No, more accurately, about the modern media: this has always been Davies' favourite approach, and we see it for the first time in Lady Cassandra, who's presented to us as Californian body-obsession made flesh. Or an absence thereof. By contrast, '60s "future" stories tend to be about the kind of world where younger members of the audience might actually have to grow up. David Whitaker didn't literally expect the planet to be run by a Mexican in the twenty-first-century, but he was trying to imagine how the anxieties of his own era might affect his descendants. Stories like "The Enemy of the World" (originally set circa 2017, although the novelisation shunted it back to 2030) and "The Wheel in Space" (clearly set in the early twenty-first century, whatever Lance Parkin tries to tell you) sell the viewers a world they might just live to see. Every schoolchild knew there'd be wheel-shaped space-stations by 2001. And as Tat Wood pointed out in About Time, Professor Eldred in "The Seeds of Death" comes across as a '50s / '60s schoolboy grown old, a Dan Dare reader who's lived to see the wonder of space-travel being replaced by something cynical and humdrum. With hindsight, it almost looks like a metaphor for what really happened, although we got twenty-four-hour TV to distract us from deep-space exploration instead of T-Mat. Even early stories like "The Sensorites" and "The Rescue", set in (ooh, let's say) the middle of the third millennium, have a sense of expectation about them. There was a feeling, as late as the '60s, that Britain might still play a vital part in the Conquest of Space. In the era of the Festival of Britain (1951), the UK prided itself on having the finest technical minds in the world, and it was routinely expected that we'd supply the brains of the future while America supplied the muscle. Didn't turn out very well, did it…? Nonetheless, the Union Jack on the tail-fin of Vicki's spaceship was in no way meant to be "kitsch". We didn't seriously think we'd meet either the Mekon or the Didonians, yet British space-pioneers seemed positively logical at the time. (Oh, and don't try to tell me that it's a Union Flag rather than a Union Jack. It's a spaceship, all right? Naval rules can be expected to apply.) If it was normal for '60s stories to reflect the viewers' anxieties about the future, then perhaps we should take stock of what those anxieties were. There's undoubtedly some kind of sinister subtext behind the slippery-smooth machine-worlds of the black-and-white series - even Innes Lloyd, the dullest producer Doctor Who ever had, seems to have acknowledged it - but to us in the twenty-first century, it's all too easy to miss the context. We know that the original Cybermen turned up at a time when both plastic surgery and the word "cybernetics" were hot topics, but… no, something else is going on there, isn't it? Surely, nobody was that concerned about evil surgeons ripping people's lungs out and replacing them with accordions? Mentioning the Cold War is another dead end, since the programme was much less prone to scaremongery than its nearest US equivalents, and refused to believe that we might be invaded by Communists at any moment (well, apart from the absurd right-wing hectoring in "The Dominators", and arguably the Soviet Zarbi in "The Web Planet"). So what was really preying on the minds of the grown-ups? A key point about this period, without which the stories on Patrick Troughton's watch make a lot less sense: social control was one of the big issues of the future, and not because the populace was worried about the Kremlin turning everyone into tractor-factory workers. The 1960s was a boom-time for rioting. These days, we're primed to think of specific decades as being made of pop culture, since we're usually only shown the archive footage when we're being sold a nostalgia-piece. The very mention of "the '60s" immediately makes us think of the Beatles, which is rather unsettling, when you consider everything else that was going on. Ergo, talk of "rioting" makes us think of fun-loving long-haired students protesting against the Vietnam War. But we shouldn't forget that this was the era which made the term "race-riot" so popular, and as we've already seen in the article SF Iconoclasty 101 [about halfway down this page], the starting-point for Nigel Kneale's Quatermass and the Pit (1958-59) was his belief that the ongoing tribal conflicts in America and Europe were proof of something profoundly evil in humanity's nature. Furthermore, the educated audience of this period was instinctively aware - more than we are today, although we'll return to this later - that we're an ever-growing species on a planet with finite resources. Even if the pundits were more concerned with the thought of food-riots than all-out ecogeddon, it seemed obvious that if the people of the world refused to stop breeding, then the violence would become… no, not even worse. The violence would become ubiquitous. It also seemed obvious that in the event of us making it to the end of the twentieth century without triggering World War Three (and anxiety about this began to wane after the flashpoint of the Cuban crisis, which may explain why alien worlds in Doctor Who tend to treat nukes as a historical detail rather than an ever-present threat), then we'd only survive if someone or something kept us properly organised. This was accepted by all political persuasions. Just look at the Doctor Who stories made between 1967 and 1968, the clump of episodes now known as Season Five. In the space of a single year, five out of seven stories are set in the future - I'm counting "Fury from the Deep" (deliberately pitched as a near-future scenario), but not "The Web of Fear" (since the idea of the UNIT stories taking place in the '70s didn't emerge until "The Invasion") - and every single one of those five involves a "Controller". In all but one case, "Controller" is given as the individual's official rank. We'll ignore the suspicion that the writers expected all futuristic institutions to be run like the BBC, and concentrate on the broader issue: it was taken as read that if our species isn't going to get into a terrible muddle, then somebody has to make cold, rational decisions about the distribution of resources, whether those decisions affect a single space-station or an entire continent. Typically, this isn't portrayed as a bad system, but there's a belief that the human element will always be required to temper the Controller's clinical logic. The Controller of the ioniser ("The Ice Warriors") fails because he lacks imagination, yet he's fundamentally a decent man, while the Controller of the W3 station ("The Wheel in Space") fails because he's emotionally unbalanced. The Controller in "Fury from the Deep" fails for numerous reasons, although it doesn't help that his only superior in the organisation is a grudgeful ex-girlfriend who clearly wants to go at him with a strap-on. Less positively, we have the Cybermen, and we're left in no doubt that their Controller is meant to be a two-fingered salute to anyone who goes on about "cold, rational decisions" all the time. You'll note that the Brotherhood of Logicians, like most science-nerds in the Mark One series, want to take over the Earth because humans are soft-headed and untrustworthy rather than because the Brotherhood's members want all the money and girls. But even in the case of "Tomb of the Cybermen", we're not being told that it's wrong to have a Controller per se, just that it's wrong for the Controller to ignore his touchy-feely side. Let's not forget, everyone "knew" that computers would be part of the decision-making process in the world of tomorrow. Before the age of the ZX81, it was believed that all computers would be mega-brains capable of telling us how to avoid extinction, not mindless tools that sit in the office and regularly need to be switched off and on again. Some SF writers, most notably Isaac Asimov, made compelling arguments that organisation by computer would free us rather than enslaving us. Not everyone was so sure, of course. We in fandom tend to forget that despite its title, "The Ice Warriors" is really about the machines-versus-men debate, not about the monsters: the real climax of the story isn't the final assault by the Martians, but the moment when hardware-fetishist Clent finally makes his peace with free-thinking genius Penley. Yet until the RAND corporation made it clear to the world that computers made catastrophic mistakes because of the way humans programmed them (see especially "The Armageddon Factor" and "Destiny of the Daleks"), it was still widely agreed that a form of technocracy might be our salvation. It was certainly felt that the world needed some apolitical organising principle, if we were going to be saved from self-destruction and / or cannibalism. This is why it's almost touching that in "The War Machines", everyone on Earth trusts a single computer in the Post Office Tower to run all the world's technical systems, and doesn't expect the programmers to fiddle about with its solutions for their own benefit. Or cripple the French economy, just for a laugh. II. The Gravitron of the Situation Whoahhh now… we're actually getting to the heart of the issue. Ask yourself this: can you imagine any modern programme claiming that autocratic, ultra-rational rule might possibly be a good thing, even if it stops us wiping ourselves out? The answer is an immense "no", which might seem perverse, given that we're now even closer to an extinction event than we were when Kennedy was facing off against Khruschev. But there you have the nub of it. The people of the '60s assumed that there had to be a centralised control element in the world of the future, because they were prepared to accept that it's reasonable to give up part of your own individual freedom for the good of society. In fact, as things turned out, the West found a way of controlling the populace that didn't involve computers or moonbases: neo-liberalism, of which both Thatcherism and neo-conservatism are manifestations. (I know, I know. You'd expect something called "neo-liberalism" and something called "neo-conservatism" to be polar opposites, wouldn't you? They're not. "Neo-conservatism" involves the use of conservative rhetoric and an aggressive foreign policy to prop up a neo-liberal economic strategy, although that's admittedly the bonehead version, and a hardcore political theorist would chin me for saying it.) Here comes the politics, then. Neo-liberalism is the ultimate creation of right-wing economic thinking, which assumes that there's no such thing as society; that as a result, nobody has a responsibility to society, or to any other human being beyond his or her own household; that any plans for the future of a society are therefore pointless; that all political philosophies should be discouraged, other than the promotion of self-interest; that a population will remain placid if you give it enough affordable consumer goods, without any need for the kind of state intervention that might get in the way of big business (essentially a more carefully-calculated version of the Roman "bread and circuses" concept); and that as a side-issue, it's reasonable to keep producing those goods even if it does destroy the planet's biosphere and lead to the mass exploitation of dusky-skinned natives outside the Western World, because anything else would be an affront to "freedom". Well, to be fair, it did work. Which is to say… without any need for a big central cyber-brain, without inventing the Gravitron or T-Mat, and without the intervention of Ramon Salamander, we're now a lot less intent on rioting than our forefathers were. Of course, this passivity requires a constant flow of cheap mobile 'phone attachments and a reliable source of energy: the '70s generation was brought up to believe that power-cuts were perfectly normal, but if you took away this generation's electricity supply for more than a few hours, then they'd burn down half of London. The other problem is that on a global scale, it's killing millions and consigning millions more to intractable poverty. Still, since the victims are all (excuse me) wogs and darkies, we don't have a responsibility to them. Besides, the last thirty years have seen a conscious effort to push the neo-liberal agenda in all areas of the media, to the point where anyone who argues against it is viewed as a deluded agitator who probably wants to bring back Stalin and force us all to eat Spam for every meal. One of the key strategies of neo-liberalism is to portray anyone with different ideas as an enemy of "freedom", if not actually a terrorist. The "freedom" in question is the freedom to build yourself a bigger DVD collection than your neighbours and choose whether or not you want fries with that haemorrhage, but then, that's the only kind of freedom we now understand. Planning for tomorrow is forbidden, since it might involve telling people what to do, and that would destroy the illusion of consumer choice. But as we've seen, the first-time viewers of Season Five were perfectly happy to accept that it was all right for a central authority to control the Big Picture. It was the application that could cause problems, not the principle. Nobody jumps in at the end of "The Ice Warriors" and says "right, now we've stopped taking orders from the computer, let's put control of the ioniser out to tender and make this society more 'democratic' by introducing corporate sponsorship". Instead, they treat everything that's happened as a lesson in the importance of human instinct. No writer in 2008, not even a vaguely left-wing writer with dim memories of a time when we had "social responsibility" instead of "individual consumer freedom", would be satisfied unless the machine ended up being blasted into tiny pieces as an enemy of everything that's right and proper. Yet the irony is that our idea of "freedom" is far more mechanistic than the world/s we see in any of the '60s tales about cybernetic overseers, since a society free of state intervention will always do whatever makes money for the shareholders, regardless of the human cost. As I've said before, nobody other than the BBC would even consider attaching this sort of budget to a programme as stubbornly eccentric as Doctor Who, but even this series has found itself compromised. As we all know, Doctor Who is a product of the Licence Fee. And neo-liberalism hates the Licence Fee, because it's a form of socialism (no, really… Thatcher said so herself, and almost uniquely, she was right). Yet it's being made in an otherwise wholly consumer-driven culture, and this is bound to put pressure on its creators, as well as the BBC as an entity. Since I'm not the type who believes that cattle mutilations are part of a federal plot to control the minds of decent Americans, I'm not going to claim that the series is caught up in a deliberate conspiracy to eradicate all non-neo-liberal politics from the media - although that would be true if it were made by Fox Television - yet the very nature of modern TV is inevitably going to change the programme's agenda. In the '60s and '70s, any decent writer working for the BBC would be aware that experimentalism was an important part of the job, and the best of them stretched the medium even if (or especially if) it made the audience uncomfortable. Today, making the audience uncomfortable is a TV no-no on a par with pro-celebrity kiddie-fiddling. It may not have been a conscious effort, but the astonishingly staid nature of this year's stories can be thought of as a consequence of this. Only "Midnight" is an honourable exception, and whether you like the finished work or not, it's closer to an "old-fashioned" BBC drama than anything else the series has attempted in the last four years. As David Troughton pointed out, his dad would've liked it. Now, d'you remember what happened in Week Three…? We've established that neo-liberalism has perverted our language, in such a way that it can happily talk about the greatness of "freedom" (i.e. consumer pseudo-choice) while indulging in forms of exploitation that would have made the Victorians blush. In "Planet of the Ood", we have a story which depicts slavery as being unequivocally wrong, yet which treats the subject-matter as an abstract: slavery is just the kind of thing that happens in sci-fi shows, it's not a real issue. And then, suddenly… the Doctor asks Donna who makes her clothes. It looks, for a moment, as if this story actually has a meaning. Nope, false alarm. Even though he's just said the most sensible thing we've heard in the series for months, Donna snaps at him for making cheap shots, and the Doctor immediately apologises. Once again, we'd be daft to believe that Keith Temple is deliberately trying to stop the audience thinking about the issues, but we do need to understand that this sort of thing is inevitable in a consumer-era TV series which thinks it's competing with ITV. The Doctor might as well be apologising to the viewer rather than his sidekick. Sorry, might have made you feel a bit awkward there. Might have, y'know, made you consider the consequences of your actions. Sorry. Very sorry. It's okay, nothing's wrong. You can keep buying the sweat-shop produce if you want, it's no big deal. Please don't turn over to Ant and Dec. So the answer to the original question, of why recent Doctor Who has steered clear of the near future, begins to seem rather ominous. It's not just that consumer society is obsessed with the now, it's not just that corporate interests have spent the last few decades urging us to buy into the present without thinking about the aftermath. It's that even under the auspices of Russell T. Davies, who's not shy about occasionally prodding the status quo, any half-credible depiction of life in the rest of the twenty-first century would horrify today's viewers rather than scaring them in a living-statues-and-gasmasks sort of way. Just try to imagine a new story set in 2030, or 2050, or 2070. Never mind trying to imagine what life might actually be like, just try to imagine how a television programme might depict it. Well? What comes to mind? It's a tough assignment, I know. So here are some facts - and I'm going to try to stick to facts, not speculations - about life in the rest of the twenty-first century. Point One. The oil is going to run out. Politics may be chronically unfashionable now that we've all got iPods to keep us quiet, but at the very least, anyone who claims to be "not political" should bear this in mind: during the lifetime of your children, or at best your grandchildren, there's not going to be any more petrol. Even US institutions with a vested interest in the oil business, after years of pooh-poohing anyone who points out that it's a finite resource, have now admitted that "production" (meaning, the act of sucking it out of the ground) has passed its peak. We've also learned that the OPEC countries are lying about the amount they've got in reserve. Since our entire culture is founded on oil, and since saying "all right, let's switch to nuclear" doesn't even begin to solve all the problems this entails, our civilisation must at the very least undergo a catastrophic change over the next few decades. Naturally, our current leaders aren't preparing us for this, since they're infor  | ||
| Posted: 23 Jun 2008 03:25 AM CDT Another week, another Star Wars: Clone Wars trailer. But we'll let them off, as each trailer is more exciting than the previous one. Come on, feel the Force. The film is out on 15 August in the UK. Visit the official Clone Wars website for more info. ...  | ||
| Doctor Who star Billie Piper in TV mystery - Telegraph.co.uk Posted: 23 Jun 2008 02:52 AM CDT
 | ||
| Turn Left - AI and Digital Ratings Posted: 23 Jun 2008 12:34 AM CDT Episode eleven of series four, Turn left, scored an Appreciation Index of 88, again one of the highest scores of the week and firmly in the excellent category. Sunday's football just edged ahead of Saturday's Doctor Who making Turn left the 7th most watched programme of the week. This position may rise when corrected figures, including numbers for those recording the programme, are released by BARB in 9 days time. Sunday's BBC3 repeat got an overnight...  | ||
| Bet On Who The New Doctor Will Be - io9 Posted: 23 Jun 2008 12:22 AM CDT
 | ||
| Posted: 22 Jun 2008 11:48 PM CDT Anybody who saw the latest episode of Doctor Who ("Turn Left") on Saturday night will be aware that team Torchwood were referenced during Donna Noble's nightmare alternate reality. During the Sontaran invasion (seen in "The Sontaran Stratgem" and "The Poison Sky") both Ianto Jones and Gwen Cooper were killed in battle - with Captain Jack teleported to the distant planet Sontar; home of the Sontarans! Of course, we know this didn't really happen; such is the beauty of alternate reality episodes!!
 | ||
| Posted: 22 Jun 2008 11:45 PM CDT SFX's sister magazeine, DVD and Blu-Ray Review has a brief but interesting interview with Hancock dircetor Peter Berg about his plans for another attempt at filming Dune. We would nab all the good quotes but, hey, we're sure they'd like the hits.  | ||
| A Virtual-Reality Racetrack Turns Into A Death Trap For Speed ... - io9 Posted: 22 Jun 2008 11:04 PM CDT
 | ||
| Posted: 22 Jun 2008 09:06 PM CDT X-Files 2 Snippets SCI FI Wire has a report from the Los Angeles Film Festival this past weekend where new clips were screened from X-Files: I Want To Believe, and David Duchovny, Chris Carter and Frank Spotnitz answered fans' questions. The piece contains...  | ||
| UKTV's new entertainment channels - UKTV Posted: 22 Jun 2008 08:24 PM CDT
 | ||
| Supermodel Deyn to star in 'Doctor Who'? Posted: 22 Jun 2008 07:32 PM CDT Agyness Deyn is reportedly being lined up for a role in a Doctor Who special.  | ||
| Doctor Who: The Stolen Earth - The Sun Posted: 22 Jun 2008 07:17 PM CDT
 | ||
| Posted: 22 Jun 2008 07:06 PM CDT I'm not talking about the Doctor, Donna, Rose, Martha, Jack, Sarah, Mickey, Ianto, Gwen, and whoever else should turn up in the next few weeks. No, I'm talking about the new team here at Kasterborous.com! That's right, hot on the heels of our warm and functional new design, we've made some editorial changes too. First off, we've got the news; no longer the realm of "Christian Cawley and his RTD-baiting" (a someone nicely put it), a four-man team of Brian A. Terranova, Anthony Dry, Simon R Mills (of Kopic's Doctor Who News Service) and newcomer Chris Davids all guided by myself will bring you the latest Doctor Who, Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures news. Next up, say hello to Nick Brown - he's a regular contributor whose articles have been tickling our readers for some months now. Basically he's so good, that when he writes an article, I publish it. And finally - with just two weeks of Doctor Who remaining for a good 18 months at least, look out for a distinct gear change on Kasterborous as we revisit classic Doctor Who in a series of articles over the coming months...  | ||
| MP BEN 24TH ON PINK LIST - Express & Echo Posted: 22 Jun 2008 06:55 PM CDT
 | ||
| Oh David, where were you when we needed you? - Liverpool Echo Posted: 22 Jun 2008 06:29 PM CDT
 | ||
| Everybody’s ready for the big night - Huddersfield Examiner Posted: 22 Jun 2008 06:10 PM CDT
 | ||
| Timely recovery for ailing 'Doctor Who' - Herald.ie Posted: 22 Jun 2008 06:09 PM CDT
 | ||
| What to watch instead of Wimbledon? - guardian.co.uk Posted: 22 Jun 2008 06:02 PM CDT
 | ||
| Feds' 'IT shared services initiative' under fire - Ottawa Business Journal Posted: 22 Jun 2008 05:12 PM CDT
 | ||
| Torchwood season 2 DVD boxset review - Den Of Geek Posted: 22 Jun 2008 04:30 PM CDT
 | ||
| The weekend's TV: On the Ball: The Story of Sports Commentary - guardian.co.uk Posted: 22 Jun 2008 03:13 PM CDT
 | ||
| 9AM UPDATE: MP BEN 24TH ON PINK LIST - Express & Echo Posted: 22 Jun 2008 03:09 PM CDT
 | ||
| MCHS boys hoopsters take their lumps - Craig Daily Press Posted: 22 Jun 2008 01:13 PM CDT
 | ||
| Posted: 22 Jun 2008 12:46 PM CDT Let it be known that we don't actually pay Mark Watson, and have been attempting to evict him from Kasterborous Towers for some months now. Anyway, he wrote a review, here it is, etc... There are two lifts in my building, one on the right and the other, unsurprisingly enough, on the left. Coming back from snorkeling yesterday and eagerly awaiting this weeks episode of Who I was presented with a unique problem. I pressed both lift buttons as always and both arrived at the same time, now the...  | ||
| AA-S Best Bet - My Education: - Austin 360 (subscription) Posted: 22 Jun 2008 10:54 AM CDT
 | ||
| Conor Dignam on Broadcasting - Independent Posted: 22 Jun 2008 06:05 AM CDT
 | ||
| Doctor Who Trailer Confirms Mega-Reunion Finale - Wired News Posted: 21 Jun 2008 05:39 PM CDT
 | ||
| Russell T Davies: A Better Take - New York Times Posted: 21 Jun 2008 08:24 AM CDT
 | ||
| The IoS pink list 2008 - Independent Posted: 21 Jun 2008 06:04 AM CDT
 | ||
| ‘Doctor Who’ blogging: “Silence in the Library” - Flick Filosopher Posted: 21 Jun 2008 04:30 AM CDT
 | ||
| Posted: 21 Jun 2008 01:00 AM CDT In this weeks Doctor Who on BBC One Donnas entire world collapses but theres no sign of the Doctor.  | ||
| Tony was our Northern light - Manchester Online Posted: 20 Jun 2008 03:16 PM CDT
 | ||
| It's not reality, it's entertainment - Globe and Mail Posted: 20 Jun 2008 02:00 PM CDT
 | ||
| Doctor Who: Silence in the Library - TV Squad Posted: 20 Jun 2008 09:07 AM CDT
 | ||
| Full results from the Royal Highland Show at Ingliston - Scotsman Posted: 20 Jun 2008 07:22 AM CDT
 | ||
| Who Will Be Next Dr Who? - Casino Beacon Posted: 20 Jun 2008 04:53 AM CDT
 | ||
| Woman Of The Week: Catherine Tate - DollyMix Posted: 19 Jun 2008 05:37 PM CDT
 |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Kopic's Doctor Who and Torchwood News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner |
Inbox too full?  Subscribe to the feed version of Kopic's Doctor Who and Torchwood News in a feed reader. | |
| If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Kopic's Doctor Who and Torchwood News, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment