Comments for Little Storping-in-the-Swuff

Comment on Are O2 Giving Out My Phone Number Without Permission? by Jonmaclean

Jonmaclean — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:55:00 +0000

Just so you know, there’s a better link for checking whether you are affected here: http://mobilenetworkcomparison.co.uk/httpheaders/

Comment on Are O2 Giving Out My Phone Number Without Permission? by Rose

Rose — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:22:00 +0000

I’m on O2 and don’t see my details on that page… but I’ve been with them since BT Cellnet, with a BT Cellnet mobile number? No idea if that makes anything different.

Comment on Are O2 Giving Out My Phone Number Without Permission? by Greg Marshall

Greg Marshall — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:05:00 +0000

I checked using my phone on a Vodofone SIM (WiFi off) and my mumber did not appear in the header,,,

Comment on Are O2 Giving Out My Phone Number Without Permission? by Dunhamzzz

Dunhamzzz — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:40:00 +0000

Just to confirm, this also happens with their subsidiary network, Giffgaff, and most probably Tesco as well then.

Comment on Doctor In Distress by Simon Wood

Simon Wood — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:33:00 +0000

I try to resist the negativity. I was certainly delighted at the news of the 2005 series. And I love David Yates’ work, so I’m excited at the prospect of anything from him. But that would be true, of course, even if it wasn’t Doctor Who.

The show does seem to have less influence, but it’s hard to put my finger on why it seems so. Perhaps it’s the Private Eye stories. I find it hard to believe the BBC (unlike the Daily Fail) place too much importance on the overnight ratings (I presume it’s these that you refer to as declining – the consolidated ratings are holding up, aren’t they?) And the only two-part Christmas special was in the year of specials, and it wasn’t very Christmassey, the four previous Christmas episodes were one parters of around the same length as The Doctor, The Widow and The Wardrobe. Yet I share your feeling that the show has less influence at the BBC. My theory is that it’s not actually a decline in influence, but that the turmoil in the production team means it’s being weilded less effectively. Without Julie Gardner there isn’t the same powerful advocate for the show, with Piers Wenger and Beth Willis leaving Steven Moffatt is having to provide the continuity. But he’s got to find time to write the thing, as well.

Regarding smart shows, I have an alternate theory that it is possible for a smart show to achieve popularity, the televisual equivalent to President Bartlett beating guvn’or Ritchie. But that may be wishful thinking, owing a lot to the fact that I’m enjoying Doctor Who more than ever before: I thought the last series was the most consistent in its history and it contained one of my favourite epsiodes. Still, it is unashamed about getting complex and yet the ratings are holding up, so maybe it is possible? Certainly, like every Doctor Who fan, I’m wary of a break. It didn’t do the show much good in the ’80s, merely postponing the inevitable as well as prompting that terrible single…

Comment on Doctor In Distress by Foomandoonian

Foomandoonian — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 23:43:00 +0000

I seem to remember that there was a lot of fear and negativity surrounding the news of what would become the 2005 series. My ‘fear’ about this new movie is that a rebooted Doctor Who could be an amazing thing to behold, but there are countless ways it could be done badly. Of course, even if it’s truly excellent, there will still be those who hate it.

Putting the BBC show on pause strikes me as a distinct possibility. I have no insider knowledge on this, but I think ratings may be in decline. Certainly, the show doesn’t seem to have the influence it once did: The Christmas specials used to be epic two-parters, but now they are single episodes; the Children in Need specials were magnificent little stories in their own right, but the last one was reduced to a raffle. My theory is that the show has become too smart for a mass audience. A break may be a good thing.

Comment on “Holy Flying Circus” Review by Simon Wood

Simon Wood — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:42:00 +0000

Agree, Steve Punt’s already a bit Eric Idleish, especially in appearance. I guess they reckoned that was enough. Worse was the lazy reliance on a pipe or an American accent to identify other team members. The actor doing Cleese had moments of Cleesiness (uttering the words “jolly good”) that elevated the performance above basic moustache wearing. I read Jones’ tweet that the Rufus Jones looked more like him when he was doing Helen Palin before I saw the show and thought it was a joke – turns out it wasn’t – he really did look Terry Jonesey as Mrs P.

Though I thought the actor doing Palin looked more like Wilson from House, it really was extraordinary the way he picked up all the Palin speech patterns and characteristics – I’d love to see him in something else now, to know how much is natural similarity and how much was studied mimicry.

Comment on “Holy Flying Circus” Review by Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:09:00 +0000

The bloke playing Palin was really extraordinary. I assumed the joke with Steve Punt playing Eric Idle was that he wasn’t. He was playing Steve Punt. I decided that was deliberate.

Comment on “Holy Flying Circus” Review by Simon Wood

Simon Wood — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:57:00 +0000

I think the reactions of the other Pythons might have worked. I’m not so sure using original footage would have meshed… could have been jarring. Although, when Barbara Windsor appeared in Cor Blimey it took me a few moments to realise she wasn’t Samantha Spiro anymore.

Comment on “Holy Flying Circus” Review by Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:09:00 +0000

Agreed. Might have been better to have included footage from the original show. I bet it was the one big debate they had behind the scenes. Another way would have been to have simply played it on the reactions of the other Pythons. But the show had the Palin figure as the spine and not showing him in there would have been like not showing Rocky fight. I suspect it wasn’t helped by the repeat of #snsm afterwards.