I don't know where the reporter got the idea that he'd already shot any of the episode. He stated quite clearly that at this point he'd read a script, which was now being re-written, but had yet to even meet any of the actors let alone shoot anything.

helcat | July 08, 03:09 CET

I have heard that the 'Torchwood' fans are up in arms: they don't want all those Spike James Marsters fans invading their fandom!

embers | July 08, 03:29 CET

Thats funny.

I belong to several who fan boards, and so far I've only seen one person voice concern. On the whole the Torchwood fans seem to adore the idea!

sueworld2003 | July 08, 03:59 CET

Well,like it or not...here we come! Torchwood is on my "must see" list now. I know James episode will be in Season 2 and Season 1 is only just starting in the USA in September...but I'll want to know all the back story so that I know what James' character is all about. It'll be so great to have him back on my tv screen again.

Berry | July 08, 04:37 CET

It's sounding better and better.

IrrationaliTV | July 08, 04:42 CET

As a Doctor Who and Torchwood fan, I can't wait. Anything to increase the fanbase for these shows in the US is a good thing!

BlueCanary | July 08, 05:14 CET

"Finish themselves off" ? Dirty bugger. Y'all should demand personal 'closure' ;).

Saje | July 08, 05:42 CET

...Mmmm, John Barrowman and James Marsters.

Sorry, what were we talking about again? ;)

deepgirl187 | July 08, 06:02 CET

Oh, great- like the slash writers needed any more fuel!

Given the not-so-great reception to S1 of Torchwood, I really don't think anyone can afford to be picky as to who joins the fandom.

But most Torchwood fans I've spoken to love the idea of James, because of his high profile in the sci-fi world and his loyal following of groupies fans.

missb | July 08, 06:39 CET

It would be nice to see him in a role where he can really turn the chemistry on to full burn. (It doesn't have to be a mixed metaphor, some chemistry burns...)

newcj | July 08, 08:16 CET

For 'backstory' on Torchwood, you really need to see the first 2 seasons of the new Doctor Who and up through "Blink" (a singularly EXCELLENT episode right up there with some of the best of Buffy, Angel and Firefly, IMHO) in season 3. Then watch Season 1 of Torchwood, then watch the remainder of Dr. Who season 3. A good place to catch all those episodes if you don't want to wait for them to come to US Television or wait for the DVDs is here: http://www.tv-links.co.uk/

As for Torchwood, its a decent Idea, but, unfortunately, not realized all that well. Hopefully S2 will be better than S1. Main problem with S1 of Torchwood is that the writers seem more worried about making sure the show lives up to its 'adult' label every friggin episode than telling a mature, intelligent story. Foul language, same-sex snogging and a bare ass or two do more to detract from an episode than they add to it. Besides getting better writers, the other major improvement to the show would be if they got rid of the infantile Owen Harper. This sunken-chest, skeletor of a man-child sucks the life out of every scene he's in.

At present, the only reason I am looking forward to S2 of Torchwood is for its guest stars: James, of course, and the georgeous Freema Agyeman (The Doctor's S3 Companion).

mangydog | July 08, 10:57 CET

The whole "'Torchwood' fans are up in arms!" thing is an unfounded rumor that comes entirely from within factions of our own fandom, who somehow all failed to notice that those "invading" Marsters fans failed to create any trouble whatsoever when we "invaded" Smallville fandom, and who also don't seem to have noticed that not only is Torchwood/Who fandom already just as wanky and argumentative as Buffy fandom, it's been that way since before Joss Whedon was born.

deanna b | July 08, 11:04 CET

Any word that James will be at Comic Con? I was wondering if he would be there since there's going to be a Torchwood and a Superman Doomsday panel.

Simon | July 08, 11:37 CET

Not only no word that James Marsters is going to be there, but the announcement that John Barrowman will be seems rather premature since he's simultaneously filming a quiz show in London that day, which his manager has confirmed. Unless the Doctor has fixed Captain Jack's wristcom again, that's a little unlikely.

And yes, the fears about Marsters fans in this case came entirely from a couple of ex-BNFs in his own fandom whining. JM's been welcomed with open arms by most of Torchwood's fandom because they're all dirty beggars who are hoping he'll snog the Captain because, hot. See above: deepgirl ;-).

roadrunner | July 08, 14:36 CET

You call that leaking? Heh, a totally non story. Of course there is going to be gay sex, what do you expect, its Russell T. "We could have brilliant Whedonesque dialog or gay innuendo ...hm naa who needs dialog" Davies. They say he's leaving Dr.Who after next season, wonder if that means he is full time on Torchwood(y).

Pumps | July 08, 16:37 CET

At the NJ con James gave his chances of being at Comic Con as about 10% while his manager said it was definitely not going to happen.

helcat | July 08, 16:55 CET

f course there is going to be gay sex, what do you expect, its Russell T. "We could have brilliant Whedonesque dialog or gay innuendo ...hm naa who needs dialog" Davies.

LOL! You so need to read this . . .

keithtopping.blogspot.com

Ruadh | July 08, 17:57 CET

I've seen Season One Torchwood, and I can't wait to get my hands on S2... I'm not so much about the slashy, but I can see Captain Jack having his way with James's character.

Also, JM is an actor. I don't expect he'll be Spike at all on the episode, just as Tony Head was not Giles on Doctor Who.

Nebula1400 | July 08, 20:16 CET

Hmmm...'omnisexual' ????? Is that like 'pansexual' ???
Oh the hell with it...who cares!
I have never seen Torchwood, but if James is making an appearence, I'm going to have to check it out somehow. Just may have to look into premium cable to get it though...sigh.

kathylovesspike | July 08, 20:33 CET

I've never seen Torchwood either, but I will definatly be watching now. James, sex, "...finish themselves off"? I'll be in my bunk......

luvspike | July 08, 20:52 CET

kathylovesspike, I think "pansexual" refers to people who like to get to know the paraphernalia in their kitchen and/or the Greek god of mischief -- you know, the one with the hairy legs and the pipes -- while "omnisexual" refers to people who like to have sex with that science fiction magazine. I've never understood why everyone's so interested in that facet of Captain Jack ... wait, what? ... okay, that's not what "pansexual" and "omnisexual" mean ... um, yeah, they do mean the same thing, not what I said ... but hey, the definition could still *include* kitchen paraphernalia, Greek gods and magazines ...

Shapenew | July 08, 22:00 CET

Shapenew.....heee...your rendition of 'pansexual' cracked me up!

Once apon a time I think I knew what that word meant...or I heard it or read about it ...or something. Anyway...I think it means something like 'someone who is obsessed with or focuses everything on things of a sexual nature'.
I suppose it would be prudent to get a dictionary and find out huh?
But, that said...omnisexual or pansexual...it sounds good to me.

kathylovesspike | July 08, 22:21 CET

I wonder if the rewrites are to include Martha, that they're not really rewrites, just that they didn't want it to leak out that Martha was involved before they wanted to announce it, and therefore put out scripts for her episodes without her in it.

Ghost Spike | July 08, 22:44 CET

And what leaks have we had about the script prior to the rewrites? I think the TW folk are actually good enough with keeping their stuff away from fans to not go to such lengths to hide casting info. Hell for all we know Martha was in the original script.

helcat | July 08, 23:56 CET

As with the return of Lost, it's going to be a long wait to even see said episode. Durn.

Tonya J | July 09, 07:40 CET

Guh. I keep freaking out over this. I'm just a little scared of the Crazy Doctor Who Fans (I'm borderline).

I'm also scared, because after stealing our premises, our characters, and our trenchcoats, they are now apparently trying to collect our actors.

BrightShiner | July 09, 08:09 CET

Hate to tell you this, BrightShiner, but Who started in 1963. It's highly likely that Joss watched it as a boy in the UK... now who's stealing what?

roadrunner | July 09, 13:41 CET

In fact, Joss has said before that he didn't see 'Doctor Who' when he was over here as a lad (though apparently he's watched some of the new show).

And anyway, i'd guess Brightshiner was talking about 'Torchwood' which of course wasn't on in 1963 (most/all of the character's appearing in it are post-Angel inventions). Whether RTD actually did borrow - or even steal if he's good enough ;) - characters etc. is impossible to know but being as he's such a big Buffy/Angel fan i'd suppose he was influenced by them to at least some extent.

(the premise surely owes much more to Who than anything else though - Torchwood is basically a clandestine version of UNIT - and Joss certainly didn't invent aliens/the supernatural or even the 'tortured immortal' archetype. He did invent the trenchcoat though ;)

Saje | July 09, 14:56 CET

Well if people go leaving their actors lying around, then they have to be prepared to share!

embers | July 09, 18:07 CET

Other than a few classic Who fans who are completely opposed to kissing, much less actual sexuality, in the Who universe, I'm not really sure where the idea that Torchwood had a not-so-great reaction comes from. A few snobby critics? Yeah, fine, okay. But it has a large and thriving fan community, on LJ and elsewhere. It broke ratings records for a digital channel in the UK and was promoted to a terrestrial channel for series 2.

The idea that JM fans are unwelcome in TW fandom is nonsense, btw. I've seen nothing but squee in TW comms since word got out of his appearance.

For those who haven't seen it, my caution against watching on BBC America is that the episodes are sure to be cut for time, anywhere from 2-8 minutes per episode. Wait for the DVDs if you can, or get hold of the UK versions.

BTW, I'd disagree that watching all of Doctor Who first is absolutely required. Torchwood was meant to stand alone, and it does, although a few references have more meaning if you've seen Doctor Who. But it's really not required in general, and definitely not if all you want is some background before James's episode.

whitearrow | July 10, 21:34 CET

Err, not liking 'Torchwood' can have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality in the Whoverse. I don't mind sexuality in that world, even on 'Doctor Who' itself (so long as it doesn't directly involve The Doctor since it'd be such a huge change to the character) but, for me, 'Torchwood' substituted sexual content for good writing. Dialogue is frequently clunky, characters make incredibly stupid choices purely to move the plot forward (leaving holes you could get the proverbial bus through in their wake) and the tone is inconsistent.

And of the people i've asked - ranging from folk that've barely watched either classic or new Who to folk locked in battles with their other half to display a full size inflatable Dalek in their lounge ;) - none of them have had higher praise than "It gets better after 'Cyberwoman'", to which my response would have to be "It could hardly get any worse". So perhaps, despite the record ratings, there's more to criticism of 'Torchwood' than "Gosh, naughty bits, must be rubbish" (and, lest we forget "Big Brother" gets even better ratings - which is to say, popular approval isn't exactly a guarantee of quality).

Each to their own of course but it irks slightly when valid points of criticism are swept under the carpet and those making them accused of snobbishness or prudishness. I might as well accuse those that like it of doing so purely because they're all sex fiends ;).

Saje | July 10, 23:02 CET

Hear, hear, young Saje, I think whedonesque itself has amply demonstrated that there are a variety of responses to Torchwood that come from neither prudes, homophobes nor snobby critics: here, and f'rinstance here.

I've now watched all thirteen Torchwood episodes and I do hereby swear and affirm that it does get better after "Cyberwoman" -- but it'd hafta go up, as down had been fully achieved with that little stinker of a TV bomb. I don't think it has fully redeemed itself with the subsequent episodes, but enough so that I'd give it another shot when Season Two begins...



Whereas, F-Y'alls-I, RTD has quite clearly stated that Torchwood was inspired by both Buffy and Angel.

"The twenty-first century is when everything changes, and you gotta be ready..."

QuoterGal | July 10, 23:42 CET

Yes, agreed -- but the original comment wasn't about an individual not liking the show, but some broad "not-so-great reception," that isn't borne out by either the show's ratings when it aired, or by its current popularity in fandom. The two main groups I can actually think of that did have a bad reaction overall were those two.

I never said nor implied homophobia had anything to do with it, btw. The subgroup of old-school Who fans to whom I was referring do not like *any* sexuality in the Who universe, straight or gay, and they react just as badly to the Doctor kissing a woman as they would a man. It has nothing whatsoever to do with homophobia, or, for that matter, prudery -- it's just their view (totally wrong, in my view, but they're entitled) that the Doctor is an asexual being and must be kept far away from nasty human emotions like lust.

(I also think all the talk about sexuality in Torchwood is, frankly, overblown, but that's another issue.)

whitearrow | July 11, 01:12 CET

It didn't occur to me that homophobia had anything to do with what you were saying whitearrow and yep, i'm well aware of how some feel about The Doctor being portrayed as sexually active (at least with humans) - I remember the furore that erupted after the kiss in the '96 movie for instance. In fairness, he hasn't been since about William 'Grandfather' Hartnell so I don't really see how they're 'wrong' (if it's your opinion he should be you're obviously perfectly entitled to it but I think a case that he has been is harder to make).

(full disclosure: as said above, in my view it'd be too big a departure for the character of The Doctor - as he's been depicted on TV it'd basically be bestiality as far as he's concerned and i've said on the .org that it'd also just be, well, mundane, it'd reduce his 'otherness' - but i've no issue with anyone else jumping in and out of bed with whomever they want provided it makes sense for the story)

Just wanted to make it clear that plenty of people (i.e. not just a few classic Who fans) have issues with 'Torchwood' and many of them have nothing whatsoever to do with sex. I guess whether that's the consensus would depend who you asked and where you hang around online - before I saw people on here defending it for instance I would have assumed the majority of sci-fi fans thought it was rubbish because the majority of sci-fi fans I knew did. Fair point though, broad statements about its reception being poor aren't borne out by the ratings, we'll have to agree to differ about the quality ;).

(which fandom is it you mean, BTW ? I'm assuming you don't mean the 'Torchwood' fandom because obviously that's a bit like pointing at Whedonesque and saying "See, everyone loves that Whedon guy" ;)

Saje | July 11, 02:28 CET

By "fandom" I mean the fact that there is a large and ever-expanding Torchwood fandom. There are Torchwood panels at cons, Torchwood vids, fanfic, communities springing up all over the place, etc. Contrary to the post I first responded to, while JM fans are of course welcome, they aren't needed to bolster a fandom of 4 people or something.

As for the Doctor, I do not sprechen sie classic Who, and nothing of the clips I've seen in the Confidentials makes me want to, if I'm honest about it. My understanding is that the whole classic series rather lacked the realistic emotional underpinnings the new one has, and that sort of show is Not For Me.

In the new series, however, it seemed pretty clear to me that the 9th Doctor was in love with Rose from the moment he really looked at her in The Unquiet Dead. He had reasons for never taking it further (which I think were made pretty clear in School Reunion) but yes, I do believe he was in love with her, and the fact that he mourned their separation to such an extent that he never quite saw Martha as she really was until it was too late says an awful lot about that, IMO.

The 10th Doctor certainly fell hard for Reinette, too, certainly infatuation if not love. I don't believe for a second that if he'd been forced to say with her that their relationship wouldn't eventually have become sexual. He enjoyed kissing her far too much.

[ edited by whitearrow on 2007-07-10 23:58 ]

whitearrow | July 11, 02:57 CET

Yep, as said, it's hard to defend the position that 'Torchwood' has no fans (so I won't). And we seem to agree that that says absolutely nothing either way about its quality so there we are, common ground ;).

Classic Who was often focused more on plot/ideas than emotional truth (in that sense it's more truly science fiction) which isn't everyone's cup of tea, personally i'm a huge fan of both series.

Without having seen much classic stuff you might have formed the opinion that The Doctor falls in romantic love pretty quickly and often which isn't really the case. As you say though, with the new incarnation they've walked a very fine line of giving him a stronger emotional attachment to his companions (in the past he's sometimes seemed to view them almost as sort of dancing monkeys ;) while not betraying the 40+ years of his character's treatment. In keeping any love he may feel for e.g. Rose or Madame de Pompadour (and I agree he seemed to feel it for both of them) strictly unconsumated or finding ways to work around the "limitation" (e.g. have him kiss Martha purely for 'mission-based' reasons or fall in love while in human form) I think they've done a reasonable job (classic fans can fanwank it away as platonic or not actually The Doctor or at least as character development rather than character inconsistency) and as long as they manage that delicate balance (or come up with a compelling reason to break it) i'll keep watching.

Saje | July 11, 13:21 CET