(Image credit: Marvel) While 2008 is the year the Marvel Cinematic Universe was born with "Iron Man", 2011 is when it began to take real shape with the release of "Captain America: The First Avenger" and "Thor".
(Image credit: Universal Studios and BBC Worldwide)
In March 2005, Christopher Eccleston's Ninth Doctor told Billie Piper's Rose Tyler to "Run!" and the UK was instantly hooked. Gallifrey's most famous export subsequently became a fixture in UK TV schedules for the first time in 16 years.But Russell T Davies' acclaimed reboot wasn't the first effort to return the legendary Time Lord to primetime. Nine years earlier, in May 1996, an unlikely alliance of broadcasters and TV executives from both sides of the Atlantic — including, for a moment, Steven Spielberg — briefly brought "Doctor Who" back to earth.Their TV movie was pitched as a "backdoor pilot", a one-off that could have paved the way for a new big-budget series. It famously failed in its objective, but — while it's no classic — its legacy has lived far beyond that original 86-minute broadcast. Aside, of course, from a famously controversial aside about the Doctor being half human.
(Image credit: Universal Studios and BBC Worldwide)Despite "Who"'s passionate fanbase, the corporation's suits had little time for the show, and — after scheduling the British sci-fi institution in midweek against ITV's ratings juggernaut "Coronation Street" — decided to pull the plug after the ironically titled "Survival" aired in December 1989.But — perhaps appropriately for a show whose main character has the ability to regenerate — "Doctor Who" refused to die. Books, comics, fanzines, and conventions kept the flame alive, while some at the BBC (particularly within its commercial arm, then known as BBC Enterprises) recognized the brand's money-making potential.There was even talk of a standalone theatrical movie — one iteration, titled "Last of the Time Lords" (a name later recycled by Davies for the season 3 finale), considered Donald Sutherland for the lead role.
(Image credit: Universal Studios and BBC Worldwide)The people in charge of the BBC's broadcast channels remained unenthusiastic, however, feeling the show was tired and needed a longer break. But Philip Segal, a young Hollywood TV executive who'd grown up in the UK and was a massive "Who" fan, sensed an opportunity, and — despite the BBC retaining the rights — tried to engineer a comeback.Numerous scripts and ideas were batted around as Segal touted the Time Lord around Hollywood for over half a decade. The BBC favored the return of ever-popular Fourth Doctor Tom Baker (generally regarded as the best Doctor ever) in the lead role, while some treatments featured the Time Lord on a quest to find his lost father. Steven Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment was involved for a while — a development that generated mass excitement in the UK press — before ultimately passing on the opportunity.After numerous false starts, the project eventually became a co-production between BBC Television, BBC Worldwide (the rebranded BBC Enterprises), Universal Television, and the TV movie division of the Fox Network. Rather than a series, it would be a standalone TV movie with a considerably larger budget than "Doctor Who" had ever had before. A side deal was also bolted on so that — should the broadcast be successful in the States — it could also function as a "backdoor pilot" for a full-on, US-funded TV series.
(Image credit: Universal Studios and BBC Worldwide)The problem was that every one of the stakeholders had slightly different requirements. For example, while Segal was keen to maintain continuity with the original series, Fox wasn't keen on the idea of a regeneration. The BBC was also sceptical about bringing Sylvester McCoy back as the Seventh Doctor, reasoning that his TARDIS tenure was one of the least popular in the show's history. (History has since been much kinder to McCoy's portrayal.)"There were so many cooks there that it was impossible to bring it all together," said writer Matthew Jacobs in "The Seven-Year Hitch" documentary released in 2010. "The trick is trying to keep your head while everyone about you is losing theirs. They're
A new time-lapse video from NASA's Curiosity rover reveals years of punishing Martian travel, as its wheels churn steadily across the Red Planet's rugged terrain.
A still image from a video released by NASA/JPL documenting six years of Curiosity rover's wheels while driving on Mars. (Image credit: NASA/JPL)The rover's camera wasn't intended to create a cinematic record. It typically points behind the rover during drives, helping mission teams identify interesting rocks and terrain features after Curiosity passes them. But by stitching together thousands of routine images, engineers created a continuous record of motion and environmental change, offering a rare, long-term perspective on what it takes to explore another world.Now, scientists can even use the footage to study how sand accumulates and shifts across the rover's deck, distinguishing material moved by the wheels from that carried by Martian winds — subtle clues about seasonal patterns in the planet's thin atmosphere.The video also highlights a more hard-won reality of Mars exploration: wear and tear. Curiosity's six wheels, each about 20 inches (50 centimeters) in diameter, were designed to handle sharp and uneven ground. Yet the Martian surface has proven harsher than expected. Not long after landing in 2012, engineers began noticing damage to the thin aluminum wheels, including punctures and tears caused by jagged rocks.
An image of one of Curiosity's wheels, taken on Sept. 22, 2024. (Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS)Over time, images released by NASA have shown the damage becoming more pronounced. Close-up photos reveal dents, holes and large gashes, some cutting through the wheel skin. Photos released in 2024 showed fresh scars alongside older ones, underscoring the cumulative effects of more than a decade on Mars. Despite this, the rover remains fully mobile — a testament to both its design and careful driving strategies developed by mission engineers.Keeping Curiosity on a safe and sustainable course includes plotting routes that avoid particularly hazardous terrain whenever possible. Lessons learned from the rover's wheel damage have not only helped guide Curiosity's mission but have also shaped the design of newer Mars rovers, including Perseverance rover, whose wheels were reinforced to better withstand the planet's unforgiving surface.
NASA's Mars Perseverance rover acquired this image using its onboard Left Navigation Camera (Navcam). The camera is located high on the rover's mast and aids in driving. This image was acquired on Feb. 22, 2021 (Sol 2) at the local mean solar time of 15:46:50. (Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)What makes the new time-lapse especially striking is the sense of time it conveys. Since its landing, Curiosity has traveled more than 20 miles (32 kilometers) across Gale Crater, climbing the lower slopes of Mount Sharp and traversing layers of rock that record billions of years of Martian history. The battered, dust-coated wheels seen turning in the video are physical evidence of that journey — each rotation marking another step in a mission that has far exceeded its original two-year lifespan.That longevity has paid off scientifically. Curiosity has fundamentally reshaped our understanding of Mars, confirming that ancient environments in Gale Crater could have supported microbial life. The rover has identified evidence of long-lived lakes, measured key chemical ingredients and, in recent years, detected increasingly complex organic molecules preserved in Martian rocks.The new time-lapse video offers a mesmerizing record of endurance and discovery — a reminder that even the simplest perspective, a camera aimed at a set of worn wheels, can capture the scale of a robotic mission that continues to push the boundaries of exploration on another planet.
Samantha Mathewson joined Space.com as an intern in the summer of 2016. She received a B.A. in Journalism and Environmental Science at the University of New Haven, in Connecticut. Previ
(Image credit: Marvel)
While 2008 is the year the Marvel Cinematic Universe was born with "Iron Man", 2011 is when it began to take real shape with the release of "Captain America: The First Avenger" and "Thor". Strangely, though, the origin story for the God of Thunder doesn't receive the plaudits it merits; instead, it's lost to the annals of time and has become a footnote in comic book movie history.When it comes to choosing a "Thor" film to watch, the original movie is often swept aside for the chuckles of 2017's "Thor: Ragnarok", or the cackles of 2022's "Thor: Love and Thunder". (Obviously, no one picks 2013's "The Dark World"; we pretend that one doesn't exist, and for good reason).Article continues below
(Image credit: Disney / Marvel)This is a different version of the character than most fans are familiar with these days. He's arrogant and entitled, believing he is owed his father Odin's (Anthony Hopkins) position as the ruler of the realm of Asgard. After one mistake too many and a little Machiavellian interference courtesy of his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Thor is stripped of his divine powers and banished to Earth, sentenced to live among the rest of us unworthy mortals.The journey of his arc is obvious here. He needs to humble himself to prove he's worthy to be a leader and the rightful wielder of Mjolnir, and it's through his interactions with humans like Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings), and Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) that he learns about the importance of nobility and sacrifice. It isn't a moment too soon, either, since Loki gets up to his old tricks after finding out he's adopted.A reborn Thor, along with his Asgardian pals who rally behind him, put a stop to the God of Mischief's nefarious plans. Mature and more thoughtful than before, Thor admits he isn't ready to become king – an act that convinces Odin that his boy has finally become a man.
(Image credit: Disney / Marvel)What stands out most about "Thor" is how deftly Branagh oversees the character's introductory story. Unlike other superheroes who are bitten by radioactive spiders or take Super Soldier serum like it's anabolic steroids, the God of Thunder is already born powerful. There is no path to him gaining his abilities, then finding a greater purpose to attach himself to. This film strips an almighty hero of his gifts and forces him to find what really matters most in life: character. All the power in the world doesn't matter if your heart and head aren't right — and this is something that Thor comes to understand.Bringing his experience of all things William Shakespeare, Branagh also elevates the stakes through the crafty addition of family drama. Like Shakespeare in space, the Odinsons have many problems and underlying tension between them. There's everything from resentment to jealousy, favouritism, and deceit swirling around in a boiling-hot cauldron where fair is foul and foul is fair.There's a gut-punching element of tragedy, too, as Loki kills his real father, Laufey (Colm Feore), then appears to plummet to his own death in the final act. However, the latter is revealed to be a ruse on the part of the trickster god.
(Image credit: Disney / Marvel)It's remarkable to consider everything that "Thor" achieves in its 114-minute runtime. Yes, there's action, romance, and the typical MCU superhero shenanigans every fan expects, but the film has as much soul and curiosity about its characters and world as your average A24 production.It's a sweeping story that takes audiences from the celestial planes to Earth, questioning divine authority and exploring the human experience. Unlike most Marvel movies that have the complexity of a shopping list, this film is refreshingly deeper and boasts rare transformative arcs for various characters — and not just the lead.The real tragedy here is to see Thor's fall from grace in the MCU. Oscillating between a bumbling brute and an ironic ignoramus, Marvel Studios sees the God
20 Strongest MCU Characters, Ranked Comic Book Resources
Chris Hemsworth's Thor Video Scares Avengers: Doomsday Fans Gizmodo
Discussion (0)