When I saw this was from the Chronicle, I went downstairs to get the relevant section of the print edition so I could clip the article and save it. I was really tired, so I misremembered the section as C4, and then was really confused when I didn't find the article on that page but found an advert that said "SHARK!" in big letters instead. XD
lol at "the time-traveling lord."
This article seems obsessed with his age.
Also: "Smith, by contrast, was relatively unknown when he was cast and five years younger than anyone who had taken on the role." This is wrong, if Peter Davison was 29 at the start then that's only three years older to Matt's 26.
And the writer spelled Moffat's name wrong all three times.
NGL, this article feels like it was written by an American who knows nothing about Doctor Who and had to use Wikipedia to find interesting facts to pad the article with. :P
Yeah, some glaring and amateur research errors, but not too bad.
I found an article in Matt's home town paper today that quotes Moff saying Matt is ugly. It's a joke (we all know he thinks Matt is sex on legs), but at first read, it doesn't come across that it's tongue in cheek. :|
Yeah, at least it's not like, Daily Fail level of wrong. But it's really apparent that this person knows nothing about Doctor Who, and wasn't using the right sources to learn. THEY SHOULD HAVE HIRED ME INSTEAD.
I just read that article where Moff jokes about Matt being "ugly" -- I know he's joking, but it's just so very inappropriate. Granted he goes on to say lovely things about him, but I have major problems with anyone calling Matt "ugly". He is not ugly, goddamit!
Yeah, they really should have gotten someone who either cared, or at least did his job well. American or not, there is no excuse for spelling the creator's name wrong....three times.
Comments 10
lol at "the time-traveling lord."
This article seems obsessed with his age.
Also: "Smith, by contrast, was relatively unknown when he was cast and five years younger than anyone who had taken on the role."
This is wrong, if Peter Davison was 29 at the start then that's only three years older to Matt's 26.
And the writer spelled Moffat's name wrong all three times.
NGL, this article feels like it was written by an American who knows nothing about Doctor Who and had to use Wikipedia to find interesting facts to pad the article with. :P
Reply
Yeah, some glaring and amateur research errors, but not too bad.
I found an article in Matt's home town paper today that quotes Moff saying Matt is ugly. It's a joke (we all know he thinks Matt is sex on legs), but at first read, it doesn't come across that it's tongue in cheek. :|
Reply
Reply
Reply
*Happy Dance!*
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment