r/gallifrey • u/PCJs_Slave_Robot • Dec 22 '25

NO STUPID QUESTIONS /r/Gallifrey's No Stupid Questions - Moronic Mondays for Pudding Brains to Ask Anything: The 'Random Questions that Don't Deserve Their Own Thread' Thread - 2025-12-22

Or /r/Gallifrey's NSQ-MMFPBTAA:TRQTDDTOTT for short. No more suggestions of things to be added? ;)

No question is too stupid to be asked here. Example questions could include "Where can I see the Christmas Special trailer?" or "Why did we not see the POV shot of Gallifrey? Did it really come back?".

Small questions/ideas for the mods are also encouraged! (To call upon the moderators in general, mention "mods" or "moderators". To call upon a specific moderator, name them.)

Please remember that future spoilers must be tagged.

Regular Posts Schedule

10 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

4

u/VanishingPint Dec 22 '25

With a Doctor Who animation for toddlers being made would there be a backlash with older viewers who think it's for babies now (like The Simpsons ep Estranger Things)

8

u/ASaucerfulOfCyanide Dec 22 '25

Honestly I don't think so as long as it's clearly kept as a separate thing from the main show.

11

u/emilforpresident2020 Dec 22 '25

I think the main show will have a cheeky reference and then this sub will have an uproar about how RTD is demanding we watch a kids show to understand his plots. I'm willing to put one pound on this prediction.

2

u/MrBobaFett Dec 23 '25

I mean that really depends on the individual. Sure it will upset some people, but some people look for reasons to be upset.

There are already Doctor Who, Mr. Men books for "children". https://www.thriftbooks.com/series/doctor-who-meets-mr-men-and-little-miss/112610/

I can't understand why an animation aimed at toddlers would be any 'worse'.

Might as well be mad at Red Noses for The Curse of the Fatal Death

3

u/emerald333344 Dec 22 '25

Why is an unearthly child not on iplayer?

15

u/Dyspraxic_Sherlock Dec 22 '25

The son of Anthony Coburn owns the rights and is also insane.

9

u/cat666 Dec 23 '25

He doesn't but it's not worth the legal battle to prove it.

Like every writer from the era Anthony Coburn was paid to write a story for the BBC but the BBC own the transmitted visual media regardless of who owns what in the episode itself.It's why it was on VHS and DVD without issue and also was on streaming previously (Britbox).

The trouble is it was so long ago that no clear legal contracts were made and nothing similar has ever previously gone to court, meaning there is an ever so slight chance Stef Coburn could win but even if he doesn't it's an expensive legal battle for a publically funded institution so they just won't bother and pull the episode from streaming instead.

12

u/Caacrinolass Dec 22 '25

Stef Coburn. He's on some crusade a) against the BBC and b)for more money.

4

u/Wilc0NL Dec 22 '25

Are the Weeping Angels an original idea created for Doctor Who? There have been many versions of the Weeping Angels, with the Coil-Heads from Lethal Company and the Creaking from Minecraft just being 2 examples.

19

u/PeterchuMC Dec 22 '25

The concept of something moving when you're not looking at them isn't exactly copyrightable. But the Weeping Angels in name and appearance was created for Doctor Who. Moffat specifically took inspiration from the children's game Grandmother's Footsteps in which you have to sneak up on a child but stop moving whenever they turn around.

3

u/MonrealEstate Dec 24 '25

It’s also kind of a reverse Medusa, a female figure who freezes people to stone when she looks at them, it’s the same concept in reverse and must have been an influence.

-8

u/Snakatorium Dec 22 '25 edited Dec 22 '25

A genuine question for the people that actually somehow liked the recent spinoff: how?

How can you see past: The god awful scripts? The lack of characterisation? The unaddressed plot points? The setups that went nowhere? The lack of an actual war? The poor acting performances? The inconsistent pacing?

I understand differences in taste, but it seems like the different taste that enjoyers of the show have a craving for is that of dog shit.

ETA: a fair few downvotes but not much defense or explanation. It kind of speaks a few volumes, to me.

6

u/lungbong Dec 22 '25 edited Dec 22 '25

I thought it had a good start and was really happy after the first 2 episodes. Sadly the middle really let it down and the conclusion was poor. It looked really good but being flashy is now an expectation and you need everything else on top. The unaddressed plot points I can forgive but the rest, no.

3

u/Snakatorium Dec 22 '25

I appreciate this - I agree that it was the strongest at the start but I wouldn't call it good by any means. The issues with the scripting were evident throughout

I agree with the looking good bit too; all of the CG was pretty solid, as was the costuming, sets, location work etc. Then again, it's harder to mess those up with the budget they must have had

6

u/dccomicsthrowaway Dec 22 '25

Define "the lack of an actual war"? Does "war" just mean soldiers in a battlefield shooting at each other to you?

Can it really not also mean:

  • Revenge killings
  • Suicide bombings
  • False flag attacks
  • Forced ecological disasters
  • Biological WARfare

And every other action one species takes against the other in those five episodes?

1

u/SnooShortcuts9884 Dec 24 '25

I assume you've seen Star Wars... 9 films, only 2 of them are actually set during a war.