Silly little piece drawn after a marathon of Doctor Who Confidentials, which sadly we don't get here in the States (WRYYYYYY???). Just had to wonder if The Doctor pushed any more big red buttons on his travels, and what this might get him into...
Rose just walked out of a bad humor zone, thus her bad jokes. Or at least,that's what I'm claiming. (And if it's not obvious, I ship. Baby Timelords are somewhere in a parrallel universe, just waiting for Daddy to come back. Heee.)
I didn't actually look at Billie or David when drawing this, so forgive the poor renditions.
Just a little fun- although Doctor's wearing my converses here. (And now I can't get the image of David feeling up the Ood. GWAH!)
I've come to the conclusion that this doctor's fake name should be Doctor Tennison. Just to be silly, and allow for bad poetry to be spouted at odd moments.
Billie Piper,proberbly best known as Rose from Doctor Who and my favourite companion. As always done completely in Artrage 2.6 I've even attempted a little background work with this one,for some reason green seemed to work best.
The Fourth Doctor portrayed by Tom Baker 1974-1981.
Another crochet creation by me...however, I knit his scarf; mainly because the crochet was a bit too coarse and didn't move properly and secondly because the Fourth Doctor's scarf is knit...so it worked out in the end
i recently started watching Doctor Who, and I noticed that during all the TARDIS scenes I really loved the lighting. so I decided to do a speed painting of 9th Doctor in the TARDIS, while watching that season finale (daleks, daleks EVERYWHERE)
As a bonus i prove to myself I can totally paint real people and not just animu
And, Because many have sent me messages regarding this, let me clear this up:
"Why do clocks with Roman numerals use "IIII" instead of "IV"? March 7, 1986 Dear Cecil:
I hate to see you wasting your time on the insipid questions your readers have been submitting lately. Permit me to pose a question that will have a meaningful impact on today's social problems: Why do clocks that have Roman numerals on the faces always show the number four as IIII instead of IV?
— Jerry M., Hollywood, California
Finally, somebody with a sense of perspective.
I hate to be a wimp about these things, but I'm going to have to fall back on that old standby: They do it that way because that's the way they've always done it, at least as far back as 1550, and probably earlier. Many clock historians claim that IIII is supposed to provide artistic balance, since you mentally pair it off with VIII on the other side of the dial. (Presumably you see how the otherwise economical IV would have trouble holding its own in this respect.) The only problem with this theory is that the Romans apparently never used IV — it's a relatively modern invention. It's possible, in other words, that old-time clock makers used IIII because it was considered perfectly proper usage for all purposes, horological or otherwise, at the time.
My friend David Feldman, in his book Why Do Clocks Run Clockwise, cites an expert who says medieval clockmakers used IIII so as not to confuse the illiterate. You could count, "One, two, three, four! Hey, it's four o'clock!" whereas having to subtract I from V to arrive at the same result was beyond your mental capabilities.
Well, maybe. But let's think about this. The peasants couldn't handle IV, but somehow the IX for 9 posed no problems? Did only literate people go out after eight o'clock? Actually, as I read Dave more closely, he seems to be saying that at one time clockmakers used VIIII for 9. OK, but why do modern Roman numeral clocks use IIII and IX? Tragically, we may never know the truth. History can be like that."