New Doctor Who

[Factotum]

Tennant isn't coming back full time. The rumour is there will be 1 off episodes with previous Doctors leading to something. The whole point of Doctor Who is renewing it. It isn't 2010 anymore. Capaldi was great. Season 10 is up there with 5 as being one of the best 'new Who' series we've had.

Whitaker just has never convinced me. She's playing it like an excited primary school teacher doing a Tennant impression. Doesn't help that Chibnall writes awfully.

40 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

I seem to be in the majority, but I was never a fan of RTD as showrunner, so I'm pretty pessimistic about whatever comes next anyway.

I agree with most of his writing for the show, but what he was good at was overseeing others scripts. Moffat for instance thrived under him, as did a lot of the others. Though it still sits uncomfortably with me how he treated Christopher Ecclestone.

Doctor Who is easy to get right. Make it simple. No more ridiculous backstory or love bollocks. Just make it the Doctor and his companion go on adventures that are creepy and fun. And cast Ben Wishaw.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Factotum

[David]

17 hours ago, jazzygeofferz said:

I'm amused by the number of people who are looking forward to the end of this era and its "wokeness" who pretend that they didn't act the same way during Capaldi's run., and as if RTD didn't manage to get LOADS of representations and "woke" politics into his last time as showrunner.

I'm even more amused that those people assume that the "wokeness" is some sort of temporary fad and isn't just a sign of progress in everyday society.

What are they actually waiting for happening? The next Doctor being played by Leonard Rossiter? 

Edited April 21, 2022 by David

[BomberPat]

1 hour ago, Factotum said:

I agree with most of his writing for the show, but what he was good at was overseeing others scripts. Moffat for instance thrived under him, as did a lot of the others.

That's a good point - a better showrunner than writer, perhaps.

What stands out from RTD's run for me was twofold - first was cliffhanger episodes where "THE FATE OF ALL OF TIME AND SPACE IS IN THE BALANCE!", and actually, how is that worse than the last time that was the case? Nobody watching ever believes that you're going to end everything, so there's no real tension by making the threat bigger - when RTD and Moffat were both at their best, it was small scale threats based on relationships; you believe they might kill off a beloved character, you don't believe they'll destroy the Earth. It's bad sci-fi writing to think that taking an existential threat and making it bigger makes it scarier - like making the Death Star bigger, it's already too big to comprehend, so it makes no difference. The problem, particularly in Moffat's later years, was that he wanted to have his cake and eat it too, so the likes of Clara never fucking stayed dead.

The other is that RTD was absolutely dire at paying off a cliffhanger. I don't think there's a more underwhelming drop in quality of any two-parter than The Master as Harold Saxon being set up in episode one, and episode two's resolution being all of the Doctor's mates doing an, "I do believe in fairies, I do!" to bring him back. That, combined with a lot of how he wrote the Doctor as quite a messianic figure at times, never really sat well with me, nor did his use of the Time War as a constant deus ex machina.

They could really do with getting back to basics - Moffat, and Davies to a lesser extent, played around a lot with ideas of Doctor Who lore, with ideas like "what if the word for 'doctor' actually comes from The Doctor", and how he would be a sort of mythological enemy to some of the races he's encountered before. That's a fun sandbox to play around in, but spend too much time there and you get The Timeless Child or that Moffat series with the astronaut on the beach and all that bollocks. Your ideas can get too big.

At its heart, Doctor Who should be the easiest and most fun thing in the world to write. It's a character you can slot into any situation, any genre, any location, time period, anything. Want to write a historical romp? Do it. Want to write folk horror? Do it. Want to write a World War 2 story? Do it. Want to write space opera sci-fi? Knock yourself out. It's all there. Someone once said that Doctor Who is ultimately a bad mystery story that exceeds in spite of itself - every episode ultimately has a mystery to it, or a problem to be solved, but while a good mystery story should give the reader/viewer all the clues they need in order to solve it, the solution in Doctor Who is almost always technobabble and space magic that the viewer couldn't possibly have figured out for themselves. It shouldn't work, but it does. That's all it needs to be, get the anniversary out of the way, then leave the high concept stuff at home for a year or two.

[Vamp]

9 hours ago, Factotum said:

Doctor Who is easy to get right. Make it simple. No more ridiculous backstory or love bollocks. Just make it the Doctor and his companion go on adventures that are creepy and fun. And cast Ben Wishaw.

I can't see the love stuff going anywhere. That said, probably the best thing RTD did at the start was using the Time War to basically start afresh. Of course by now everyone's probably more sick of Gallifrey being destroyed over and over again then stuffy actors in funny robes. 

The bigger issue for me is the story arcs. The nadir is absolutely that Moffat series when there's the eyepatch lady and Amy's baby is stolen and all of that bollocks happens but they've been pretty dismal for a while. The "Timeless Child" one (for all that it's current resolution has pissed people off) at least had a destination (unlike the Hybrid one which clearly didn't) but they've been pretty poor for a while.

Its so bizarre that there was this general consensus that the regeneration limit didn't make for an interesting story when we've had so much lore heavy bollocks. 

The problem with Moffat's time as show runner is that he can write moments and witty dialogue but he can't write women or plots. I think he at least knows the latter because he does have a tendency to present stories in an overly complicated way. 

I think I've said this before but (armchair producing time) I'd be tempted to do a time jump between Whittaker and the next Doctor. I wouldn't even show who she regenerates into. Do the multi doctor story, end it with a reveal shot of the next Doctor (similar to how they smuggled Capaldi into the 50th) and then make it clear when the next series starts that this new Doctor has been around for quite a while and hint at the adventures they've had in between. But create as much of a clean break as you can.

[Factotum]

13 hours ago, Vamp said:

I wouldn't even show who she regenerates into. Do the multi doctor story, end it with a reveal shot of the next Doctor (similar to how they smuggled Capaldi into the 50th) and then make it clear when the next series starts that this new Doctor has been around for quite a while and hint at the adventures they've had in between. But create as much of a clean break as you can.

I think you're actually quite close to what they probably have planned if rumours are to be believed.

My issue with new WHO is that its trying to reinvent something that didn't really need changing. Sylvester's last season for instance as Doctor Who is pretty much perfect. It has a bit of an arc but it doesn't affect every single story. Its creepy and fun. If you look at the history of the show everything is there already. Stick to the formula, it works!

23 hours ago, David said:

m even more amused that those people assume that the "wokeness" is some sort of temporary fad and isn't just a sign of progress in everyday society

I think my issue with modern Sci-fi in general is the very obviousness of what its talking about. In Star Trek etc things were allegories. It treated its audience as smart and knew they would understand it. Now, and this may just be modern writers, everything is a huge signpost over it. It really doesn't need to be. Be smart and make it part of the show.

[BomberPat]

13 minutes ago, Factotum said:

I think my issue with modern Sci-fi in general is the very obviousness of what its talking about. In Star Trek etc things were allegories. It treated its audience as smart and knew they would understand it.

Is this true, or were you just younger when you watched it? Star Trek was very heavy-handed with most of its allegory, and I'd argue often rightfully so: if most social media criticism of films and TV, or any right-wing interpretation of popular culture, is anything to go by, there's a significant part of the population that can barely be trusted to understand text, let alone subtext. 

[Lorne Malvo]

21 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

there's a significant part of the population that can barely be trusted to understand text, let alone subtext. 

[Factotum]

1 hour ago, BomberPat said:

Is this true, or were you just younger when you watched it? Star Trek was very heavy-handed with most of its allegory, and I'd argue often rightfully so: if most social media criticism of films and TV, or any right-wing interpretation of popular culture, is anything to go by, there's a significant part of the population that can barely be trusted to understand text, let alone subtext. 

I don't think I put into the correct words what I was trying to say so apologies for that. I suppose what I meant was that in modern sci-fi, what used to be the allegories of the episodes (heavy handed or not) are now just throw away stuff in episodes so that it makes the writers and makers look like they care and are 'right on' (80s phrase klaxon) PICARD recently is a horrible example of this.

[d-d-d-dAz]

Mad they’ve just chucked this out on a Sunday afternoon. 
 

I don’t really have any opinions on it, as I only know him from Sex Education - a role I imagine that won’t have any crossover.

It doesn’t strike me as a very ‘Doctor Who’ casting yet, but without a trailer or sizzle reel to gauge aesthetics, tone or style it’s very hard to say.

I’m interested at least.

[Keith Houchen]

I imagine there are some people who don’t watch Doctor Who are enraged about the casting for some reason or other. 

[DavidB6937]

Very little to judge him on which I think is probably the right way to go. It worked with Matt Smith.

[d-d-d-dAz]

20 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

Very little to judge him on which I think is probably the right way to go. It worked with Matt Smith.

Yeah, this is where I am. I have no idea, which could be a great thing.

A lot of industry people are saying he’s the next great Scottish actor, so it’ll be good to see what his vision for the role is.

[ReturnOfTheMack]

Thank fuck it wasn't James Corden.

[Merzbow]

Sex Education was a pretty massive hit IIRC, there's definitely going to be a lot of younger people that recognise him.

Has there ever been an openly gay doctor before? I'm sure I've heard about bits of queerbaiting at times but nothing concrete.

Edit: actually, I think that was Sherlock but it's practically the same thing...

Edited May 8, 2022 by Merzbow

[SuperBacon]