The BBC Is Heading To Court To Hunt Down a Doctor Who Leaker (gizmodo.com) 158
After someone leaked an incomplete scene featuring Jodie Whittaker's Thirteenth Doctor, the BBC headed to court to track down the perpetrator. Gizmodo reports: In fact, the corporation has filed an application in a California court this week in an effort to expose the person who put the leaked footage online -- hoping California's Federal Court would put pressure on Tapatalk, whose messaging service was used to upload and disseminate a non-final, 53-second clip of Whittaker's Doctor in action. The BBC isn't accusing Tapatalk of any wrongdoing; rather, it just wants details on the user that uploaded the clip, so it can attempt to isolate just where in Doctor Who's long line of production the clip got leaked.
In a statement provided to, well, itself sort of, the BBC said that it was taking court action so that fans could "enjoy the final and fully completed version of the episode when it premieres," but it's about more than the integrity of the fan experience here, given that the clip was allegedly pretty clearly unfinished. And while the BBC would prefer that no sneaky footage of one of the most highly anticipated seasons of Doctor Who in a while is out there before it says so, it especially doesn't want it out there if it's footage that's not been edited into the version fans will eventually see on TV.
In a statement provided to, well, itself sort of, the BBC said that it was taking court action so that fans could "enjoy the final and fully completed version of the episode when it premieres," but it's about more than the integrity of the fan experience here, given that the clip was allegedly pretty clearly unfinished. And while the BBC would prefer that no sneaky footage of one of the most highly anticipated seasons of Doctor Who in a while is out there before it says so, it especially doesn't want it out there if it's footage that's not been edited into the version fans will eventually see on TV.
Spoiler... (Score:4, Funny)
The leaker was a Dalek.
Re: (Score:1)
A dalek working for Sony?
Re:BBC twits wasting public money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect the worry is; if whoever leaked it had access to that 53 seconds- what else did they have access to- and could they leak whole shows in the future. This is plugging the small hole in the dam before it becomes a massive hole.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I'd argue that the publicity of this will end up increasing the revenue stream. Many of us who've never watched the show, may finally tune in to see what all the fuss is about.
Re: (Score:2)
British have a gun held to their heads and are forced to pay BBC subscriptions.
Well, you're supposed to pay it and they talk big about fines but it's fairly easy to avoid. Especially as cuts mean less people out checking. Fuck the BBC though, their content is daytime filler crap and the occasional dead horse they won't stop flogging and they want me to pay for it just because I technically have the ability to receive it. No, fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC is worth it for their news alone. It keeps everyone else honest, by providing a reliable source of information that can be compared to bullshit like RT. The benefit to democracy is huge too, especially with programmes like Newsnight.
Where the BBC tends to suck is entertainment. But entertainment is also where it tends to pay for itself through commercial sales overseas and merchandise.
So on that basis I'm okay paying for it, although it might be better done through general taxation rather than a lic
Re:BBC twits wasting public money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The BBC has certainly moved a bit to the right over the last 15 years, but only a little. QT has many problems but with Dimbleby retiring there is a chance it might improve. His brother does a much better job on Any Questions.
I agree that it's frustrating how little coverage the BBC gives to some things, especially the anti-Brexit movement. But there also isn't much else. C4 News is pretty good but that's it really.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-... [bbc.co.uk]
And that's just one small thing among many. Don't even get me started on Kuenssberg.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because the story is actually that Vote Leave admitted to it ahead of publication of the report. When the report comes out there will doubtless be more coverage of what the report says and any action taken over it. Sadly I doubt there will be any real punishment or redress for this.
I think Vote Leave actually screwed up here by jumping the gun. They made the top headlines today, first item on the Radio 4 news, and when the actual report comes out they probably will again.
Kuenssberg is annoying but no
Re: BBC twits wasting public money (Score:4, Informative)
What news? the Big Black Cock is the UK statetelevision channel for the british crown,the last time they did actual news David Kelly had to be murdered.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the US and rely on BBC to give me impartial news IN the US. In the US you have the choice of Fox, ABC, and CBS which all have deliberate right wing bias- or PBS, CNN, and NBC which all have deliberate left wing bias.
It's nice to have news which isn't (deliberately) biased. BBC world service is the only way to get unbiased news about the US from within the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, you are all too right. And we've thanked the Brits by sending them F35s -- the 21st Century equivalent of laying a white elephant or two on them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree with you on Fox. As for the others, including the BBC (which I also enjoy watching), you're viewing them through your liberal rose colored glasses...they're clearly not impartial.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree with you on Fox. As for the others, including the BBC (which I also enjoy watching), you're viewing them through your liberal rose colored glasses...they're clearly not impartial.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
"Pew has basically taken the average viewer/consumer of all of these media outlets and plotted them on a continuum, trying to ascertain which outlets are favored by which side of the political spectrum."
That's measuring audience (who watches) not how biased the media is. Those are two different things. I'm also not a "liberal", I'm a centrist, so no "liberal rose colored glasses" for me.
Re: (Score:2)
" I'm a centrist..."
Most of us, myself included, who think so, probably are not. But then, it also obviously depends upon your viewpoint regarding what that means. From a mostly worldview, the vast majority of America is right wing, and I'd certainly fall into that category. But solely from a typical American POV, I'm pretty centrist, except in fiscal matters.
Re: (Score:2)
I was slightly right of centre when I lived in the UK. Moving to the US I realized I was centrist here. (I think the UK itself has moved to the right quite a bit in this same period of time too- I think UK's centre is a lot closer to the US's now- but the difference is you don't have as many people far off centre over there. Most people in the UK are fairly centred as opposed to one end of the spectrum or the other here).
It's hard to measure because it really depends on the topic to me- but in general I
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certainly to the right of you, but also couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump. On many issues though, I find myself at odds with the right,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think CBS and ABC have right wing bias? Maybe compared to the New York Times or Slate. Compared to anybody else, not so much.
They at least used to when I had cable. It is possible they've moved to the left over the last 7 or 8 years- but yeah, they at least used to be to the right. Not like fox- crazy propaganda right, but certainly had a right wing bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Examples of what you call "full of shit" would have helped your post; link to specific stories and clearly explain how they are so severely bad that the entire channel is rightly dismissed with such a criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't feed the Russian trolls
A good test of any VPN (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canon is what keeps fans returning to an old series. Change that and people find a new series. Go back to old classics.
Want a new totally new series with a modern plot? Create a totally new science fiction show and populate with new roles as needed in 2018.
The new series will be accepted or not.
Totally altering an existing series is not going to create a new show and fans will notice the needed deep plot change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only did it go off air than come back on again did the snobs try to stake ownership of Doctor Who and imagined a past that never was.
Nobody cares (Score:1)
You assholes erased many hours of old video already, and now you care about a 53 second clip somebody shared online.
Fuck.
You.
Important things are important (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and make a lot of publicity...
ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. Vote parent up. The show is getting free publicity from this, and will certainly grab more viewers.
Indeed (Score:3)
Quite what the fuss is about Dr Who I have no idea. The storylines are childish (but then it is really a kids show I suppose), overblown and never live up to their promise - the season denouement is usualy more a "meh" that a "wow!", the dialogue is often amateur to say the least, the special effects are dire (and there's no excuse for that in 2018 when even a standard graphics card can do some pretty impressive stuff), and now the BBC have bowed to feminists and made him a woman. Hint - there's a reason he
Re: (Score:3)
>"Now this is a reason for bothering courts, unleashing lawyers and inquisite online activities: finding out who dared to desecrate a few unfinished seconds of a silly show."
+1
I was thinking the same thing. Seriously? One *PARTIAL* SCENE? Who cares??? I understand it might be annoying and could be worse later. But I would think there are far better "witch hunts" to be performed. Consider it free marketing as a trailer and move on.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, just because it's one part of a scene now, doesn't mean it's a complete s
Use of capitals in titles (Score:1)
When I first read the title this is what I thought it says: "The BBC is heading to court to hunt down a doctor who leaker". A doctor who what? When I read the summary the correct interpretation turned out to be: "The BBC is heading to court to hunt down a Doctor Who leaker". This is a nice illustration of why I dislike the habit of capitalizing almost every word in a title. The information normally conveyed through correct use of capitals is lost.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I did almost exactly the same, not being a fan/viewer of the show, I thought it was just a typo, or some quack with an odd fetish.
BLINK (Score:2)
What says you?
Even crazier (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Woman can be doctors and men can be nurses. They're not gender specific jobs.
But you're right, how dare a TV show adjust its stories to align with their target demographic!
Re: (Score:3)
Woman can be doctors and men can be nurses. They're not gender specific jobs.
But you're right, how dare a TV show adjust its stories to align with their target demographic!
This doctor isn't that kind of doctor, or any kind really as far as I can tell but there is a big difference between adjustment and pandering.
Re: Did series creators or writers ever... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Did series creators or writers ever... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Some would argue that keeping the doctor male would have been pandering to demographics that prefer women be inconsequential sidekicks that required rescuing all the time.
Completely ignores a number of the female companions from the original run of the series in the 70s,80s, and 90s. Also ignores female antagonists from the same time period.
Modern token female characters actually tend to be WORSE than their 70s counterparts. The Last Jedi is a great example of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that is not factual at all. The Doctor's first companions were Ian and Barbara (and his granddaughter.) Throughout the classic Who run the Doctor had many male companions: Ian, Ben, Jamie, the Brigadier, Sergeant Benton, Mike Yates, Harry Sullivan, Adric, Turlough. New Who had Adam Mitchell, Jack Harkness, Mickey Smith, Jackson Lake, Rory Williams.
The real problem isn't that the Doctor will be female, but the reason the Doctor will be female. No one would have blinked an eye if a female had been chos
Re: (Score:2)
The Doctor will be female not because it makes any sense in the story, but because of Political Correctness.
And how can you possibly know that unless you were in the casting meetings? Peter Capaldi was leaving; they needed another Doctor Who. According to you they picked a female because of political correctness. Do you know what criteria was used? For sure the only criteria I can be certain is that Doctor Who should be from the UK. Do you know that the show didn't audition both male and female actors and Whittaker was the better actor?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Did series creators or writers ever... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well if they're target audience is all of the people who never watched Who before I guess you're right. If they're target audience is all of the people who have been watching Who for the past decade or so or the decades before that, then I think they've really screwed the pouch here.
Lucasfilms seems to have had the same ideas about Star Wars and the audience numbers for Solo pretty much showed them how that worked out.
Amazingly people don't want to watch entertainment that lectures to them. I suspect Jodie
Re: (Score:2)
Then apparently it seems they're trying to expand their fan base.
The diehard fans will always be diehard fans. Not even Jar Jar Binks could scare away Star Wars fans.
Re: (Score:1)
And your problem is...? Other than that you seem to think women can only be nurses, but not doctors?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sure. We already had one called The Rani. We've also had other female Time Lords. They must all be just "chopped liver" including River Song.
The last transgender regeneration they had came complete with entirely inappropriate sexist nonsense that doesn't really fit the context of supremely powerful aliens with huge livespans from the other side of the universe.
That nonsense is jarring to just a regular human who lacks a strong gender affinity.
These idiots don't really understand what they are toying with. A
Re: Did series creators or writers ever... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Doctor, at one point, was given a choice about the body he would regenerate with. At the end of The War Games, the Timelords punished Patrick Troughton's Doctor and forced him to regenerate. They offered him several possible appearances, all of which he declined. After that, the Timelords chose for him.
Doctor Who has a much bigger problem than a female Doctor, which I'm not sure is a problem at all. The real issue is that the stories just haven't been that interesting the past few series. The format of the show doesn't help here. Classic Doctor Who told longer stories, allowing for more complex and more interesting plots. That was part of the appeal of the show, at least for me. The stories were simpler under Davies due to the shorter length, but were at least still interesting and compelling. When Moffat took over, the writing seemed to decline and the plots became increasingly confusing and less interesting. I don't have a whole lot of confidence that the new showrunner will improve things, and that's unfortunate. I don't care that the Doctor is a woman. I do care that the writing sucks.
Re: Did series creators or writers ever... (Score:5, Informative)
How it became a cult hit in the UK, I will never understand.
Because we love how shit some things are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The show jumped the shark when it became all about Clara. Especially the episode where Matt Smith spent a thousand years at the Christmas planet? What the fuck?
Re: Did series creators or writers ever... (Score:4, Insightful)
The show jumped the shark when it became all about the Doctor.
The show was at its best when he was a clever resourceful time-traveller who landed unexpectedly in interesting situations and helped people. Then Moffat retconned him into an omniscient god who was literally the reason for the existence of the Universe.
Re: (Score:2)
There were some good stories about the Doctor and the Time Lords back in the classic era.
The problem is that the new era keeps hinting at interesting stories about the Time War and what happened to that race, but then never delivers. I guess they are trying to keep the Doctor mysterious but eventually you get fed up of being teased.
Re: (Score:2)
There were some good stories about the Doctor and the Time Lords back in the classic era.
The problem is that the new era keeps hinting at interesting stories about the Time War and what happened to that race, but then never delivers. I guess they are trying to keep the Doctor mysterious but eventually you get fed up of being teased.
They've covered what happened a few times now.
Re: Did series creators or writers ever... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The show jumped the shark when it became all about Clara. Especially the episode where Matt Smith spent a thousand years at the Christmas planet? What the fuck?
I liked Clara in the beginning but he saccharine tones and voice really grated on me by the end. I was glad to be rid of her. There again, that Scottish guy was annoying. Electric guitar, sonic sunglasses... how do you make doctor who annoying by trying to make him "cool" to youngsters- and not even understanding what youngster even think is cool these days. Capaldi the worst doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked Capaldi because hew as kind of grumpy like the first doctor. He plays guitar in real life so I guess that carries into the show.
Re: Did series creators or writers ever... (Score:4, Insightful)
Moffat's biggest problem is that he never gives you the pay-off. Every episode feels like it's building towards something big, but it never comes. The end is always just some nonsense deus-ex-machina and setting up the /next/ big thing for next season.
Anyway, he is gone now so maybe things will improve.
Re: (Score:2)
As a counterpoint, the Marvel stuff is turning out to be coherent beyond expectations, even though they don' t need to.
Re: (Score:2)
I think after Lost writers realized they can succeed by making things confusing, instead of having an actual plot. Keep it confusing enough and then come up with a Deus ex machina at the end. As a bonus, you can keep it going as long as people keep paying. I'm looking at Mr Robot and the new Star Wars here specifically. As a counterpoint, the Marvel stuff is turning out to be coherent beyond expectations, even though they don' t need to.
I'll admit I haven't seen all the old Doctor Who, but I've seen all the new ones. The series basically got three choices:
1) Ignore the implications of time travel and every episode is some random time/place disconnected from the rest of the universe. This is possible, but kinda boring because there's very little story arc and character development. It worked before the age of VHS/Netflix because you had to wait a week and forgot most the show, as a binge watching experience it's terrible.
2) Take time travel
Re: (Score:2)
The classic Who had the problem that these stories needed to last 3 or more episode in length (each episode was 1/2 hour) vs 1 hour today.
This put in a lot of filler with the bad guys drinking tea, or just normal office politics. A lot of it didn’t do much to the story except express the bad guys weren’t actually evil people but just doing shortsighted or evil things.
Re: (Score:3)
Doctor Who has a much bigger problem than a female Doctor, which I'm not sure is a problem at all. The real issue is that the stories just haven't been that interesting the past few series. The format of the show doesn't help here.
This, its down to lazy writing and larger FX budgets being used to compensate. Just throw in another Angel/Dalek/Cyberman story and move on. Its become as bad as Star Trek. It doesn't bother me about the Doctor's gender, what bothers me is that it was thrown in to compensate for crappy writing.
Re: (Score:1)
One of his early reboot companions was just that kind of guy. Basically Captain Kirk for the new millenium who quite literally hit on EVERY thing that crossed his quarterdeck (and not just the girls).
Not that the Doctor should view any of his companions as much more than house pets. The current writers don't seem to get the intellectual distance between Time Lords and humans.
Re: (Score:1)
have people started using the expression Nurse Who yet?
I'm sure a number of childishly sexist right wing nutjobs have, yes.
Re:Did series creators or writers ever... (Score:4, Informative)
1. Doctor Who cannon had time lord (the fictional species that Doctor Who is) regeneration where Sex change was a possibility. It was casually brought up in the old series. Then in the new series with the start of the Matt Smith Doctor he first thought he regenerate into a woman because of his long hair. Then The Master (a reoccurring villain who is also a Time Lord) had regenerated into a woman. Then a random Time Lord General had the same thing. Writers have been preparing the viewers for this for over a decade.
2. I work in a teaching hospital about 2/3 of the student are women who are going to be doctors. Also male nurses are on the rise and are being more common.
Re: (Score:3)
Other, of course, than cynical opportunism, cashing-in on the mood, as it were, and demographic shifts of the audience?
Or maybe they've just gotten with the times and realised sexism isn't as acceptable as it once was?
Also, have people started using the expression Nurse Who yet?
Why would they? Last time I was in hospital my nurse was male and my doctor was female. I also used to dive with a doctor who was maleish ,... I do wonder if she got her surgery yet I haven't seen her in 2 years.
When you're ready to grow up, come join us in 2018.
Re:BBC said WTC7 fell BEFORE it did (Score:4, Informative)
The BBC has long since addressed this error [bbc.co.uk]. Quit wasting your time--or at least quit wasting ours.
Re: BBC said WTC7 fell BEFORE it did (Score:2)
It was Reuters fault is not an official explanation, and wtc7 is the least of the problems with the pre written scripts they were all reading from. Osama Bin Ladin anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
They are all shameless party rags and you are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise. You're just drinking a different flavor of Kool-Aid and belong to a different cult.
Re: BBC is true news, Sinclair lies (Score:2)
Because if different sources do not present a unified message, its much harder to manipulate public opinion to run illegal wars and not let people question why a single family gets hundreds of millions of pounds a year in state benefits and exemption from inheritence tax.
Re:BBC said WTC7 fell BEFORE it did (Score:5, Funny)
Still no official explanation. ae911truth org
Does it really have to be spelled out for you?
Okay, fine: who do you know who lives in the UK, is frequently seen on the BBC, and has the ability to send information backwards through time?
Re: (Score:2)
Neither do I.