Re: Doctor Who [10]

by Bluebottle Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:24 am

Ah, things are back to normal. #contentment

by Bluebottle Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:26 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And its absolutely true that back in the 70's and into the 80's you would be very hard pushed to find female Who fans- I got the fanzines of the time- all by males- I went to the conventions- only women you saw there were peoples mums.

It's interesting that it was quite different in America where Who took off in late 70s and early 80s with college aged kids.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:37 am

Im not so sure took off is the right phrase Blue. Got a dedicated niche following is more like.

"things are back to normal"- Blue

Its only ever a matter of time Blue (although this time I think Figg may have bitten off more than can she chew as I dont believe for a second she really believes this conspiracy, Gaiman lying to cover up for Moffat stuff- at least I hope not! Shocked

)

by Bluebottle Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:44 am

Well, there's a reason for this.

And this.

And this.

So, it did have quite a cultural impact. Shrugging

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:48 am

Yeah it did have a out of proportion effect considering how small its audience was at the time. But then there is nothing else quite like it on TV anywhere.
The Baker thing is easily explained mind you, it was shown on PBS in the States and they just kept looping the Baker stuff (I suspect they thought the US audience weren't used to the concept of the lead changing but staying the same person so opted not to show it- although there as a little Pertwee too, it was insignificant compared to the Baker stuff they showed).

Also interesting that the top 10 US famous fans who watched in their youth are also, all men.

by **Orwell** Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:29 am

What an Ozzie likes more than anything than a good stoush, and as Mrs Figg and Petty are the best fighters here, all I can say is: Forumshire is as sure as hell Gender Inclusive! cheers

by Mrs Figg Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:43 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Shrill-
1. (of a voice or sound) high-pitched and piercing.
"a shrill laugh"
synonyms: high-pitched, piercing, high, sharp, ear-piercing, ear-splitting, air-rending, penetrating, shattering, strident, loud, strong, intrusive, screeching, shrieking, screechy, squawky
"a shrill scream rent the air"

1.
high-pitched and piercing in sound quality:
a shrill cry.
2.
producing such a sound.
3.
full of or characterized by such a sound:
shrill music.
4.
betraying some strong emotion or attitude in an exaggerated amount, as antagonism or defensiveness.
5.
marked by great intensity; keen:

Two different definitions randomly gleaned from the net- fits perfectly with what I was describing.

Nice to see your own narrow definition however trumps all those, and my use of the word, in favour of your own predetermined agenda. Ive handily highlighted the definition I was aiming for.
And of course its a minority- on a good day Who gets 10 million viewers, and if you include overseas god knows what the total is- unless you can find me more than 5 million people claiming he is sexist and keeping woman off the show then its a minority.

Your description of a completely hatstand, makes no sense at all, cant be explained, mad as a march hair conspiracy theory says it all about your views on Moffat.
They come form a place of utter madness that contrary to all the evidence. I am still waiting on an explanation for why a writer and strong backer of women like Gaiman would be lying his arse off to help Moffat keep women out of writing Who. But you cant answer that because the whole idea is plain crazy.
It might be water of a ducks back but that doesn't make it any less crazy.

right lets just get things into perspective shall we?
first off you are disingenuous in the extreme. gobsmackingly so. You know very well that you deliberately used the gender specific word 'shrill' to illicit a response, lets make this even clearer, you know that many haranguing and shockingly aggressive attacks on feminists for the last hundred years or so have included the description of 'shrill feminist' its just another way of trying to get us to shut the fuck up about 'guys stuff' specially stuff to do with sci-fi, or trainspotting LOL. These people object to some woman coming along and criticising their cozy clubs with horrible nasty words like 'sexism' so they go on attack mode and call said woman, 'shrill' and other worse things. Another tactic is to call the woman 'mad' 'bonkers' insane' or other insults calling into question the womans state of sanity. its another pretty lame way to shut her up. So instead of accepting there could be a problem, its insults, made up conspiracy theories, and denial. The facts are that Moffat has the power to employ anyone he chooses, and he only employed a female after fan backlash, not before. Are you telling me in all the years he has been head of Doctor Who there has never been ANY female writers wanting to write for one of the most famous tv programms in history? I think the problem is that no female would want to work for Moffat and they are waiting for him to go before they ask for a job. They probably know that writing for Moffat means compromising their beliefs that men and women are equal. They may be waiting for better times when they are not told that actually women don't like sci-fi and to go home do something useful like washing the dishes.

'which is the realm of conspiracy nuts'.
'coming at it from such a mad start'
'Its completely bonkers'
'mad as a march hair'
form a place of utter madness
'the whole idea is plain crazy'
'doesn't make it any less crazy'

do you even know how this makes you sound?

by Mrs Figg Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:00 pm

''WTF is it with this “shrill” shit? “Shrill” is reminiscent the high-pitched whine of a drill bit. We are not shrill.

We feminists emit seismic rumbles, deep-chested battle cries, and full-throated roars.

We are not shrill.

And the misogynists of the world need to use a damn thesaurus every once in a while. I mean, at least give us some *variation* in the dumbass adjectives you use in your pathetic attempts to dismiss us.''

Ancrene Wiseass.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:14 pm

You can try all you like Figg to put a meaning into my words that was not in my thoughts when I wrote it all you like- it wont make it any more true.

As to me using 'nuts, bonkers, mad, utter madness and crazy' there is a good reason for those words- your claim that Moffat is deliberately and actively out to prevent women from writing for Who and has coerced all his staff, male and female alike from set dressers to producers, and even writers like Gaiman to go along with this scheme and even to lie in public for him is indeed mad and crazy.

It makes no sense, it doesn't stack up with any of the evidence and its really all about you asserting your unfounded certainty that Moffat is out to stop any women working on Who.
I'm sorry, but that is bat shit crazy however you cut it.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:18 pm

Moffat - "There are fewer female directors and female writers -- it's a statistical fact -- it's shameful but it's true. Most of the people who are desperate to do 'Doctor Who' are men.
It's not that I care particularly what brand of reproductive organs you wear to work," he says. "There's very little reproduction that goes on on the 'Doctor Who' set. The reason we want women is because some of the best people for the job are women.
Even Tregenna wasn't an easy sell for Moffat. "She's turned us down in the past, but I talked her into it with an idea she really liked," he says. Though the new season isn't in production yet, Moffat adds, "There's already a female director on the books for next year."

As for why females turn down the chance to do the show, Moffat has an idea why. "There's a slight tendency to think 'Doctor Who' is not for them. Catherine was happy to write 'Torchwood' -- she had a very good 'Torchwood' run -- but wasn't as keen to write 'Doctor Who,'" he says.

Obviously that's changing. "I'm doing my best, despite what people say about me. There's very much a culture of thinking about 'Doctor Who' as a boys' show," Moffat continues. "But I'm always going to conventions and looking at fans and thinking there's practically more girls than boys.
Moffat sees a very different future for the show: "I think in 10 years when 'Doctor Who' is still triumphantly successful, a lot of those [women] will grow up to be writers and directors who are desperate to do 'Doctor Who.'"

So basically exactly what I have been saying, and no I hadn't read any of those quotes beforehand. Its just obvious.

by Mrs Figg Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:53 pm

you keep using Gaiman as an excuse for something. I think he was actually telling Moffat to get his shit together. At no point did I mention anything to do with a conspiracy. Moffat doesn't need mafia tactics, all he needed to do was NOTHING. That's the problem, it wasn't a massive sinister plot as you seem to suggest, but a tacit, quiet understanding between Moffat and basically himself, that this was a job for the boys because the boys were more passionate about such things. The implications that over many years, not ONE female could spare the time to write for Who is laughable at best, worrying at worst. Moffat just let it slide because he was comfortable doing so, he did nothing, maybe a female writer approached him, maybe he flim-flamed, maybe he said 'we will let you know, don't ring us, we will ring you, thanks for your wonderful story, but it doesn't quite fit just at this time' maybe he didn't, ever, interview a female writer. Who knows, but he only caved in after lots of negative criticism, flagging reviews, maybe he thought it was politic. But the inference I get from Gaiman isn't exactly on Moffats side,

from the Telegraph newspaper,
''Author Neil Gaiman, who is best known for his fantasy novels and for his comic book series The Sandman, has noted the fact that Doctor Who has no female writers. Since 2011, Gaiman has written two episodes of the popular BBC show.
In a response to a question from a Tumblr user about which Doctor Who writer he would most like to hug, Gaiman wrote: "I would like to hug all the women who have written for Doctor Who since 2008. All of them! I would start with..."
He then concludes: "What, nobody? That can't be right (goes off, puzzled)".

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:03 pm

The implications that over many years, not ONE female could spare the time to write for Who is laughable at best- Figg

Again you are viewing it only through the prism of your own agenda- dont take NuWho as Moffat years RTD years- take it as a whole, its in its 10th year and in 10 years it has had 2 female writers- one under RTD one under Moffat.
Now unless you are saying RTD had the same agenda the reason for this is much more likely that its hard to get female writers- this is what everyone involved say.
For you to be right they all have to be lying.

"I would like to hug all the women who have written for Doctor Who since 2008. All of them! I would start with..."
He then concludes: "What, nobody? That can't be right (goes off, puzzled)". - Figg

That quote from Gaiman was immediately followed by the clarification I posted, which I will now repeat for the sake of clarity-

"“In the six years I’ve been working with the 'Doctor Who' team, the producers and script editors I’ve directly worked with [four out of six of whom have been women] have had a lot of attention on getting women writers onto the team. They’ve reached out to a lot of women writers -- I know that Steven Moffat has personally been in touch with a lot of female writers and been defeated over and over by scheduling problems, and people saying no, and been as frustrated as anybody [probably much more frustrated as he’s the one reaching out]. It’s a priority for them, too.”

Note he makes it explicitly clear that he personally knows it to be true- "I know" - he is putting his own name to it and his own reputation. He would not do that if he was not telling the truth and he did not know personally how hard Moffat was trying.

For you to claim that Moffat actively is out to stop woman writing for Who therefore does involve a conspiracy- right here it involves Gaiman making a clarification to his earlier post in which he would be lying to cover for Moffat- and that is ridiculous.
It also means the producers who have said the same are also lying to cover for him.
Why would they do this? Why would the BBC which has liberalism and political correctness embedded in its modern DNA keep him on and let him away with it? It just doesnt add up, it doesnt square either with all the comments everyone involved has said. The only thing it does square with is your agenda.

'we will let you know, don't ring us, we will ring you, thanks for your wonderful story, but it doesn't quite fit just at this time' maybe he didn't, ever, interview a female writer.'- Figg

Again this contradicts what everyone involved says. And where are all these female writers?- there is plenty copy about Moffat and woman in Who so why has there not been one single female writer who has come out saying "Ive submitted five stories to Moffat for Who and he doesnt even reply, or he fobs me off". That has never happened. Whats keeping all these female writers quiet? Where are al these female writers that you imagine have been submitting numerous stories to Moffat and being ignored? Why would they not publicly say this?
The reason is its not true and never happened.

RTD asked to list his favourite writers- 'I love Sally Wainwright, I loved Happy Valley! I love my old friend Chris Chibnall, and I’m absolutely loving this second series of Broadchurch. My lovely friend Paul Abbott I love. Steven Moffat, my old mate from Doctor Who. And Kay Mellor.'

Asked if he would ever write for Who again- “Wouldn’t that be nice? The lovely Steven [Moffat] invites me every year to come and write one. And I love him and I love them and I love watching it, but here I am, moving on. I love Doctor Who with all my heart but nothing is more important to me than my own stuff. I made 60 episodes and did 40 Torchwoods and 40 Sarah Janes and there are an awful lot of ways to destroy the world in there.””

If Moffat is a serial sexist out to prevent woman from joining Who why would RTD still call him 'mate', 'lovely' say he 'loves him' and refer to him on first name terms and rate him as a writer?
Or do you think that RTD, being jut a poor sad confused male like me, just cant see the rampant sexism?

by Mrs Figg Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:38 pm

your arguments are desperate attempts at deflecting blame from Moffat. What about all the writers from Torchwood, Merlin, and the hundreds of new writers out there. The bottom line is they didn't want female writers, they prefer their mates getting the jobs. Seven long years and not ONE female comes along with a good story? come on its ludicrous and you know it.

by Mrs Figg Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:50 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The implications that over many years, not ONE female could spare the time to write for Who is laughable at best- Figg

Again you are viewing it only through the prism of your own agenda- dont take NuWho as Moffat years RTD years- take it as a whole, its in its 10th year and in 10 years it has had 2 female writers- one under RTD one under Moffat.
Now unless you are saying RTD had the same agenda the reason for this is much more likely that its hard to get female writers- this is what everyone involved say.
For you to be right they all have to be lying.

Under RTD people were not so concerned about the lack of female writers, seeing as he was writing well rounded and positive role models, however people started to notice once the standards dropped and suddenly the companions were two dimentional bird brains

"I would like to hug all the women who have written for Doctor Who since 2008. All of them! I would start with..."
He then concludes: "What, nobody? That can't be right (goes off, puzzled)". - Figg

That quote from Gaiman was immediately followed by the clarification I posted, which I will now repeat for the sake of clarity-

"“In the six years I’ve been working with the 'Doctor Who' team, the producers and script editors I’ve directly worked with [four out of six of whom have been women] have had a lot of attention on getting women writers onto the team. They’ve reached out to a lot of women writers -- I know that Steven Moffat has personally been in touch with a lot of female writers and been defeated over and over by scheduling problems, and people saying no, and been as frustrated as anybody [probably much more frustrated as he’s the one reaching out]. It’s a priority for them, too.”

well he has to be careful if he wants to work for Moffat. it was a negative comment qualified by a bit of ass kissing.

Note he makes it explicitly clear that he personally knows it to be true- "I know" - he is putting his own name to it and his own reputation. He would not do that if he was not telling the truth and he did not know personally how hard Moffat was trying.

idem

For you to claim that Moffat actively is out to stop woman writing for Who therefore does involve a conspiracy- right here it involves Gaiman making a clarification to his earlier post in which he would be lying to cover for Moffat- and that is ridiculous.
It also means the producers who have said the same are also lying to cover for him.
Why would they do this? Why would the BBC which has liberalism and political correctness embedded in its modern DNA keep him on and let him away with it? It just doesnt add up, it doesnt square either with all the comments everyone involved has said. The only thing it does square with is your agenda.

as I just explained in some detail its got nothing to do with a conspiracy, that idea is coming from you.

'we will let you know, don't ring us, we will ring you, thanks for your wonderful story, but it doesn't quite fit just at this time' maybe he didn't, ever, interview a female writer.'- Figg

Again this contradicts what everyone involved says. And where are all these female writers?- there is plenty copy about Moffat and woman in Who so why has there not been one single female writer who has come out saying "Ive submitted five stories to Moffat for Who and he doesnt even reply, or he fobs me off". That has never happened. Whats keeping all these female writers quiet? Where are al these female writers that you imagine have been submitting numerous stories to Moffat and being ignored? Why would they not publicly say this?
The reason is its not true and never happened.

theres such a thing as covering your arse with the boss. theres no way we will know the truth unless they leak office diaries etc, but tere is such a thing as passive resistance. you don't need to actually DO anything. you have no idea how many people have submitted work, they all probably get the same reply. no thanks.

RTD asked to list his favourite writers- 'I love Sally Wainwright, I loved Happy Valley! I love my old friend Chris Chibnall, and I’m absolutely loving this second series of Broadchurch. My lovely friend Paul Abbott I love. Steven Moffat, my old mate from Doctor Who. And Kay Mellor.'

Asked if he would ever write for Who again- “Wouldn’t that be nice? The lovely Steven [Moffat] invites me every year to come and write one. And I love him and I love them and I love watching it, but here I am, moving on. I love Doctor Who with all my heart but nothing is more important to me than my own stuff. I made 60 episodes and did 40 Torchwoods and 40 Sarah Janes and there are an awful lot of ways to destroy the world in there.””

whats RTD got to do with anything? apart from him being a nice bloke.

If Moffat is a serial sexist out to prevent woman from joining Who why would RTD still call him 'mate', 'lovely' say he 'loves him' and refer to him on first name terms and rate him as a writer?

he's a nice bloke

Or do you think that RTD, being jut a poor sad confused male like me, just cant see the rampant sexism?

probably

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:57 pm

10 years and only 2 came along- its been five years for Moffat and he has 1 onboard- exactly the same record as RTD.

Clearly the more likely reason than half of Wales is lying to cover up for Moffat is that its hard to get quality female scifi writers and when you do its hard to get scheduling to match up which is exactly what everyone from Moffat, the producers down to the his female script editors and Gaiman have all said.

Why are you so insistent all these people are lying and what do you base it on other than your own preconceived anti-Moffat prejudice?

To be honest I had assumed you had simply let your crabbit get away from you, it happens, and made a claim you didnt really believe- now I am starting to wonder, and worry slightly, that you really do believe this.
I would view similarly someone who came along and told me WW2 didnt happen but was a big conspiracy afterwards- it seems that unlikely, contrary to all evidence and ideologically driven.

And I am not just defending Moffat, I am defending the show and everyone involved from Moffat down, including Gaiman, from what seems unfounded claims against them.

'Under RTD people were not so concerned about the lack of female writers'

Untrue the matter came up at the time often on Who forums.

'it was a negative comment qualified by a bit of ass kissing.'

Since when does Neil Gaiman, international award winning writer of books, plays, tv, and comics do ass kissing for a job?- and when does he personally put his name on the line to lie to cover up someone's sexism? - now you are slandering Gaiman just to make it fit your own agenda.

'I just explained in some detail its got nothing to do with a conspiracy'

But it is - if what you say is true then all these people are lying to cover it up- and thats the very definition of a conspiracy.

'you have no idea how many people have submitted work, they all probably get the same reply. no thanks.'

And you have absolutely no evidence to base that remark upon, none what soever, and what evidence there is contradicts every word of it and comes from multiple sources.

'probably'

Well thats speaks volumes on your views on men. And you have the cheek to call me sexist.

by Mrs Figg Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:13 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:10 years and only 2 came along- its been five years for Moffat and he has 1 onboard- exactly the same record as RTD.

Clearly the more likely reason than half of Wales is lying to cover up for Moffat is that its hard to get quality female scifi writers and when you do its hard to get scheduling to match up which is exactly what everyone from Moffat, the producers down to the his female script editors and Gaiman have all said.

''is that its hard to get quality female scifi writers'' you mean like the award winning writers of Torchwood and Merlin? yeah right and as for the scheduling tripe, why do only women have a problem?, its funny that, maybe he makes it impossible for women with children to schedule in the school run, maybe he puts them off at the interview stage, but saying there are no quality writers is ridiculous even for you

Why are you so insistent all these people are lying and what do you base it on other than your own preconceived anti-Moffat prejudice?

oh its not preconceived, its based on logical observations.

To be honest I had assumed you had simply let your crabbit get away from you, it happens, and made a claim you didnt really believe- now I am starting to wonder, and worry slightly, that you really do believe this.
I would view similarly someone who came along and told me WW2 didnt happen but was a big conspiracy afterwards- it seems that unlikely, contrary to all evidence and ideologically driven.

is it me or do you not actually read my posts but just carry on regardless? that's the worrying bit, whats with the conspiracy stuff?

And I am not just defending Moffat, I am defending the show and everyone involved from Moffat down, including Gaiman, from what seems unfounded claims against them.

Gaiman again? you keep referring to him, not sure why. it doesn't lend your argument any weight.

'Under RTD people were not so concerned about the lack of female writers'

Untrue the matter came up at the time often on Who forums.

it was probably a few Rose haters wasn't it?

'it was a negative comment qualified by a bit of ass kissing.'

Since when does Neil Gaiman, international award winning writer of books, plays, tv, and comics do ass kissing for a job?- and when does he personally put his name on the line to lie to cover up someone's sexism? - now you are slandering Gaiman just to make it fit your own agenda.

nah its just good business sense, he loves Who and criticised Moffat through the back door.

'I just explained in some detail its got nothing to do with a conspiracy'

But it is - if what you say is true then all these people are lying to cover it up- and thats the very definition of a conspiracy.

not really, this sort of thing is institutionalised

'you have no idea how many people have submitted work, they all probably get the same reply. no thanks.'

And you have absolutely no evidence to base that remark upon, none what soever, and what evidence there is contradicts every word of it and comes from multiple sources.

'probably'

Well thats speaks volumes on your views on men. And you have the cheek to call me sexist.

not really. I was referring to you, not all men.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:35 pm

you mean like the award winning writers of Torchwood and Merlin? - Who

So why did RTD not succeed either? Why would the producers, editors, Gaiman and Moffat all say this is the case?

'its based on logical observations.'

I dont think logic has made an appearance in your arguments yet. Prejudice plenty, logic, no.

'whats with the conspiracy stuff?'

Ok lets make this nice and plain- you claim everyone is lying about why they have a hard time getting female writers, when the real reason is Moffat hates all woman. People lying to cover somethng up is a conspiracy- thats what the words for. Simple.

'Gaiman again? you keep referring to him, not sure why.'

Because what he says completely contradicts your claims. And the chances that someone like Gaiman is lying to cover up for a sexist in the hope of getting work from said sexist is barmy and insulting to everyone involved. But mainly because it shows your argument is nonsense.

'it was probably a few Rose haters wasn't it?'

That depends on how many feminists hate Rose! But no it was the same sort of thing as now but less so- where re all the female Who writers- why has there only been 1 writer in five years, why did she only get 2 stories?
All the same stuff you come out with in fact only they were talking about RTD.

'nah its just good business sense'

So just to be absolutely clear, you are saying Neil Gaiman is lying, putting his own name on the line all to cover up Moffats sexism for a few bucks he doesn't need?

'this sort of thing is institutionalised'

I think thats insulting to all the women who work on the show- you are basically saying they are too blinkered to see the rampant sexism being perpetrated upon them- and only you can see it.

'I was referring to you, not all men.'

Ah so just stooping now to personal insults is it. Thoug not quite sure how a reply to a comment specifically about RTD is referring to me.

Not that I care, I dont have anything to hide- anyone is free to go read any of my works that I have posted on the forum. I dont remember anyone accusing me of sexism in my writing in the past. But hey maybe all the women on this forum are just institutionalised against that too!

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:45 pm

Keep dry with a Who umbrella! (for some reason the TARDIS one is only available in the UK)-

Doctor Who [10] - Page 20 Image.php_zpsnz0laj6h

Doctor Who [10] - Page 20 Imagej.php_zpsmxxccorj

Doctor Who [10] - Page 20 Imagge.php_zpsb554qiwg

Only £34.99

by azriel Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:07 pm

I like the 1st one tho I dont think Id pay nearly £35.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:08 pm

My only issue with the first one is that its one of them pop up ones- and they aint worth 35 quid and they instantly break in a Scottish wind Mad

(especially after a curry)

And why the hell is the 7th Doctors question mark umbrella not there? Mad

by azriel Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:11 pm

My brollys come from "poundland" Very Happy

& I know what you mean about a curry pale

Tho these days anything starts me off Very Happy

"wednesday" was sitting on my lap tonight, all curled up & asleep, then I Ffftt & you dont often see a cat sneezing............ or was it, fighting for breath scratch

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:14 pm

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:15 pm

Wonder why they didnt at least give the second one the 7th Doctors umbrella handle- thats the iconic bit anyway the rest was just a normal black umbrella? Odd decision not too.

Doctor Who [10] - Page 20 Picture-18-300x243_zpssr7nf7do

Doctor Who [10] - Page 20 Picture-18-300x243_zpssr7nf7do

by azriel Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:17 pm

I was always amazed how the Dr didnt trip arse over head with that mega long scarf ? That was Tom Baker wasnt it ?

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:20 pm

Yeah, and the answer is he did- several times in episodes but many more times by accident when filming.

There is an interview somewhere where he talks about tripping over "that fucking scarf" for the millionth time Very Happy

Might be in this interview but its 45 minutes long and I cant be arsed trying to find the bit if it is!