HOW TO FIX DOCTOR WHO
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 бер 2021
- Personally I haven't enjoyed the recent two seasons of Doctor Who ever since Chris Chibnall took over as showrunner. So here are my thoughts as to how the show could fix its biggest problems.
Patreon: / rowanjcoleman
Twitter: / rowanjcoleman
Discord: / discord
Facebook: / rjcfilms
Special thanks to all of my Patrons :)
#DoctorWho #RowanJColeman - Фільми й анімація
PSA - READ BEFORE YOU COMMENT.
I have a policy of deleting any and all comments mentioning, "Agendas," "SJWs," "Woke," "Virtue Signalling" and "PC/Political Correctness."
Those comments always lead to horribly toxic arguments and I don't welcome it on my videos.
I don’t suppose you know how you can fix Star Trek or even Star Wars?
Cringe
@@salamander4668 I want asking you.
There is one thing behind everything wrong with recent eg Dr who etc. Don’t post at all ie bring up the puddles on the ground if you don’t wish to discuss/allow discussion of the rain.
Oh, so you're boring? Ok, I'll just move on to a better channel.
I was diagnosed with dyspraxia, same as Ryan, when I was about 3. Learning to ride a bike was much more difficult for me than it was my sister. That said, thanks for recognising that it can be overcome. I still struggle, but I have been able to overcome some of the effects. For example, I have an A-Level in French after my parents were told I would not be able to learn a foreign language.
you were really lucky for being diagnosed so early, I was diagnosed in the 6th grade, thanks for talking about this tho, it's great to see that someone else has overcome it and honestly gives me a little more hope I can too
0
I'm a very forgiving sort of chap, so I tried very hard to give CC the benefit of the doubt. I remember thinking 'Rosa' was a spectacularly wrong-headed episode (suggesting the entire momentum of the Civil Rights Movement would be derailed if Rosa Parks hadn't staged her exact protest on that exact day is terrible for all sorts of reasons) but people seemed to enjoy it and every show has its off-days. Even B5 had that episode with the glowing putty.
No, what had me looking for the pitchforks and torches was the sheer hubris of not only totally re-writing the Doctor's backstory, but destroying Gallifrey, an intriguing setting still criminally unexplored, with little more than a shrug, so relatively soon after the War Doctor 50th Anniversary story restored it. It simply wasn't necessary, and it left a scar on the show that is going to be incredibly difficult to heal. Of course the show has boxed itself into a corner before (Valeyard, anyone?) and got away with it by dint of everyone largely forgetting about it, but in the age of the internet that's a harder stunt to pull off.
BTW, fun fact- I didn't care in the slightest about the gender-flip, but it annoyed my younger sister immensely. Go figure. Still hoping for Chiwetel Ejiofor as the Doc one day!
Personally I think CE's a bit young but - excellent suggestion!
"but it annoyed my younger sister immensely. Go figure."
I'm curious: Is that because it felt patronizing? That's how I feel about characters when the writers go THEY'RE LGBT BTW, DID YOU KNOW THAT, DID YOU KNOW THAT THEY WERE, DID YOU...every...damn...episode.
The Rosa Park one to me screamed Chris Chibnal trying to get his US career back as its just typical pandering to America fare where they have to make Americans feel they are the centre of the universe even if it ignores reality. After all Rosa Parks may have been important for civil rights in America but the US's civil rights movement was a long way behind most of the rest of the worlds so she had no real impact on things outside of the US.
On CE, while I like him I don't want to see a Black Doctor for a while. We need to get back to a white male so it can reset and find its footing again and especially give a new showrunner that is desperately needed time to find his own footing and then from a place of strength they can start to think about a black doctor or another woman and hopefully this time actually put some thought into it (As with Jodie's the big problem seems to be CC decided he wanted a female doctor to take the job but hadn't thought about how to make it work who to make it work, seems by the time they started breaking the stories which was long after Jodie was cast it was too late to blackout but him and his writing team had no clue what a female doctor was all about so what we have is a doctor written as male with the occasional line about clothes, it has no impact on the character she is seen and treated the same and hence acts the same as a man even when its in the past and being female would see he treated as less)
It’s so refreshing to watch a video critiquing Doctor who in a perfectly respectable way and giving some very valid points! Brilliant video 🤌🏻
Man I miss Christopher Eccleston. I wish he did more. He is my second favorite after Tom Baker.
Couldn't agree more. Eccleston was profoundly good as the re-imagining. Helped a lot by Billy Piper (and who'd of thought that when the series kicked off).
I've always wanted a very long woolen scarf.
He's now doing Big Finish stories.
"Which episode of _Doctor Who_ does this remind you of, Mike?"
i do hope him doing the big finish stories could lead to a multi doctor special return for him.
I remember the advertising for Doctor Who before it actually aired with Christopher Eccleston and thinking shaved hair, leather jacket, ah no they are trying to make him cool to appeal to kids. I sat watching the first show very uptight waiting for my suspicions to be proved correct. Then he gave the marvelous speech about how fast the Earth was moving and how he could feel it. I wanted to reach a hand through the TV screen shake his hand and say "welcome home Doctor."
Sadly I have not felt that enthusiasm about Doctor Who for a very long time dating back to the Capaldi era when he was stood on top of a tank in sunglasses with an electric guitar and my fears from season 1 of New Who were realized.
My enthusiasm for the show is just gone and at this point I really don't know if it will ever come back.
I agree serialised episodes would be a big improvement, I really think a hiatus would do it good too. My biggest issue with the past couple of series is how they changed the origins of The Doctor.
Changed from what? They’ve changed the origins at least a dozen times. The show’s been running for 60 years. Continuity isn’t the be-all and end-all, and things like obsession with “canon” seem to be a fairly USA phenomenon. I’m not trying to denigrate your opinion, I’m curious what you think.
@@radkovicbe I mean making The Doctor not from Gallifrey being the biggest issue.
@@flake452 yeah, I know, but it’s hard for me personally to feel indignant because the show is older than my Dad, I grew up watching VHS copies of Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker, then DVDs of William Hartnell and Peter Davidson with my Dad. (Troughton, C Baker, McCoy I saw odd episodes of). We tore through so many of the audio books as a family on long car rides, and wore the VHS out on the 1996 movie. When the new series started I thought it was perfect, but they changed a lot. Like, a lot. I guess what I’m saying is, originally it was an educational program to teach kids about science and history. Easier to take each doctor as a soft reboot, and enjoy the ride 😊
I will admit my zen attitude cracked with Whittaker, and I haven’t seen the most recent season. But the scripts she’s given are miles better than during Colin Baker’s run.
I have an idea for my own Doctor Who series i am writing just for fun i was thinking wasn't Doctor Who ment to be for families and children so hears a thought what if you had the Doctor regenerate into a school boy say in his late teens imaginge the fun of the Doctor waking up in a bed of a school boy and the Doctor realising he is one and the story then moves to a school where he meets two school kids again they are in their late teens while in the school the Doctor and the two school kids feel the school is a bit mysterious and wounder why the teachers and students are acting like robots and give chase what do you think of my ideas please contact me ASAP to gie me your thoughts
@@douglaswilliams1979 If you are going to write your own story its probably better to use your own characters, it gives you more creative freedom. Its better to have a doctor who-esque character than an established character.
While my interest in Dr. Who is marginal at best, I would like to say that whether someone did not set out to do a bad job or is trying hard doesn't really make for much of an excuse to keep that person in charge of a project. When you're in a leadership position you may not be the one doing all the actual work, but you are absolutely responsible for the quality of the work that gets done under your leadership.
Of course it's wrong to vilify someone as a person or attack their character, but anything aimed at the quality of the work? That's fair game.
Yep. Try running a company with the argument that this creator posits. It is really a nonsense presentation that is divorced from the real world.
I would also like to see a return to the Old Who format, short story arcs told over shorter 4-6 episodes. I would also quite like a spin-off for the War Doctor.
It's nice to hear someone talk about this subject without being toxic. These were some great points.
I agree, these are larger structural issues that could solve a lot of the smaller problems people see
@JFQ read the pinned comment
The notion of toxicity being something to avoid is itself toxic
Kudos for shouting out 'Countrycide'. Killer episode.
You can't take somebody who's written something like that or like Broadchurch and just unilaterally dismiss them as a "bad writer". The internet just loves to evaluate people in the most simplistic way possible and it's good for noone.
"Countrycide"? The most edgelord Nihilism 101 episode in a series full of edgelord Nihilism 101 episodes?
I most certainly can dismiss him as a bad writer because of that.
I would gently suggest that in the USA in particular there may be little crossover between the audiences for the two shows. Also they very deliberately are targeted at different demographics - though that doesn’t explain 30yr olds dumping on Chibnall.
@@n3onkn1ght you’re forgetting that he also wrote some really cracking episodes in Torchwood series 2. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Adrift and Fragments are all stellar and Exit wounds is pretty good despite the lacklustre main villain.
@@EditedAF987 _After_ Davies said he was making the series more child-friendly, yes. So that's really a plus for editorial oversight.
'You can't take somebody who's written something like that or like Broadchurch and just unilaterally dismiss them as a "bad writer"'
Of-course you can, if you read the person's writing and it's absolutely awful you can happily dismiss them as a bad writer regardless of whether they've worked on better stuff.
I struggled to articulate why I didn’t like this but loved broadchurch, and I think you hit the nail on the head. I was excited when they announced Chibnall as showrunner, and I thought Whittaker and Walsh could do no wrong. This was thoughtful rather than angry, and greatly appreciated.
Easy fix: Fire Chibnall ( he is a very bad doctor who writer, none of his stories are standout's and are forgettable ) and the current creative team, install multiple head writers to collaborate on each series to get more imagination and creativity into each script, hire a team of script editors to fine tune the episodes, and focus on sci fi plots than boring companion dynamic boredom
RE: 00:15, may I recommend, from Classic Who, the Tom Baker/Phillip Hinchcliffe/Robert Holmes era? That was the run from "Ark in Space" to "Talons of Weng-Chiang" (though I'd also add "Robot" at the start and "Horror of Fang Rock" at the close, different producers notwithstanding). There was great suspense and overtones of Gothic horror, Tom Baker was funny but not unrestrained, and, respectively, Sarah Jane and Leela were the main Companions. This gets my vote as the best period in the series history, both Classic and NuWho.
The showrunners mentioned don't set out to create "bad stuff", but when they do create "bad stuff", they tend to not want to hear any criticism of their work, and so go on making "bad stuff". I found it interesting that you picked Doctor Who, Star Trek, and, most telling, JJ Abrams--in any franchise!--as examples of targets of fan ire. Where is the unreasoning fan outrage for Battlestar Galactica or The Expanse? It isn't there, because, like Doctor Who in Davies' day, there isn't much to complain about in those franchises. All that said, I don't place all the blame on the shoulders of any one person. I do think that the recent retconning of the Doctor's origin (and the Time Lords as well) is an immense mistake. For good or bad, it is this move that will be Chibnall's Doctor Who legacy.
I think it's also because Battlestar Galactica and The Expanse didn't have fandoms as big as DW, ST and SW. They were based on a tv show and a series of novel which undoubtedly had a lot of fans, but by late 2010's DW, ST and SW has had literally hundreds of thousands of fans across the world. And by having all these fans it's only natural a good portion of those is particularly vocal, passionate and sometimes... yes, toxic (I realize it's a very overused term, but I think in this case it's appropriate). So, the fact that a lot of fan complain, sometimes violently, about "the new stuff" it's also because of the very larger fandom compared to BG and The Expanse
Just to bring a (maybe dumb) example, a recent study showed that a lot of criticism on Twitter toward The Last Jedi was made by fake profiles, bots and profiles with the tendency to confuse the discourse about the quality of the products with discourses about politics (I'm not saying ALL criticism comes from alt-right or similar, of course). My point is, much of the criticism we can percieve from some segments of the fandom may not come directly from an actual "on point" quality criticism
Hey, I'll complain about the _Battlestar Galactica_ remake. Perhaps the most annoying thing was the Cylon's 'plan,' as big a J.J. Abrams-style "mystery box" as you ever will see. Totally forgivable, except that they set that up as so central that the opening credits, for the first couple seasons, brought up that plan as an Important Thing.
Maybe not unreasoning enough. Ah, well.
Trust me, there was *plenty* of fan hatred going around back in Davies' days.
They absolutely set out to create anvilicious political stuff, and succeed
Dctor Who just isnt Doctor Who anymore. It's all so rushed, theres no time to get to know anyone as its too busy trying to shove the issue of the year down your throat. I dont mind being lectured about issues as a lot of shows do it, but they do it in a subtle way while building characters and plot.. I dont need to be spoon fed, i can see and understand what you are trying to do/tell me without you actually physically telling me. It's like they think everyone is just not clever enough to understand.
Doctor who in the modern era has certainly abandoned its focus on sci fi plots that's for sure
i have an idea for my own Doctor Who series i am writing just for fun i was thinking wasn't Doctor Who ment to be for families and children so hears a thought what if you had the Doctor regenerate into a school boy say in his late teens imaginge the fun of the Doctor waking up in a bed of a school boy and the Doctor realising he is one and the story then moves to a school where he meets two school kids again they are in their late teens while in the school the Doctor and the two school kids feel the school is a bit mysterious and wounder why the teachers and students are acting like robots and give chase what do you think of my ideas please contact me ASAP to gie me your thoughts
This is why I respect your opinions Rowan. I personally don't agree with everything you say(like with Final Space), you're not an entitled asshole about it.
have an idea for my own Doctor Who series i am writing just for fun i was thinking wasn't Doctor Who ment to be for families and children so hears a thought what if you had the Doctor regenerate into a school boy say in his late teens imaginge the fun of the Doctor waking up in a bed of a school boy and the Doctor realising he is one and the story then moves to a school where he meets two school kids again they are in their late teens while in the school the Doctor and the two school kids feel the school is a bit mysterious and wounder why the teachers and students are acting like robots and give chase what do you think of my ideas please contact me ASAP to gie me your thoughts
@@douglaswilliams1979 Doctor Who is family show, not a children's show. There's a big difference there. Your idea sounds a bit too close to an actual children's show.
I clicked so fast that I thought this is a The Drinker fixes video. :D
I needed one minutes to realize I am listening to a much more polite and less swearing video. :D
You do realize that the problems you mention are the byproducts of a poor show runner and writing.
Broadchurch is awesome and shows that Chibnall is a good writer (and Whittaker is a good actress). Neither have shown an aptitude for sci-fi though. Any ideas of improving the show need to start with getting rid of both; they’ve had two seasons and ratings continue to get worse and the complaints are getting louder.
With Chibnob in charge it will never be fixed
As if firing one man would magically fix everything.
@@optillian4182 look up what show runner means.
Classic Who had the format of several 23 minute episodes (minimum: 3, maximum: 10, usually 5 or 6), 1 per week, forming a story. In the 70s, during holiday periods, we'd have an omnibus edition, a whole 2-3hr 'movie' (which is where the fallacy of the Xmas Special comes from) of a previous story. There were half a dozen stories in a series, so each season was long in episodic terms, though not necessarily in runtime.
Therefore, a return to sort of the old format may work, as each episode we take for granted these days would've been a four-part story over a month, with maybe another 20mins of material.
And some of those 60s/70s stories were LONG. The Key of Time arc is reminiscent of more modern story-telling, but the Dalek’s Master Plan was 12 episodes (4 hours) and The Trial of a Time Lord was 14 episodes (pushing 5 hours).
@@radkovicbe Trial of a Time Lord is technically 4 separate stories.
Minimum 2 not 3. Sontaran Experiment and Black Orchid.
The rub is that Moffat was incredible at writing standalone episodes but just kept crowbarring in series arcs. Meanwhile, it seems Chibnall is only good at writing status-quo altering stories, which would be benefited by multi-episode arcs, yet he’s made his era episodic. It’s like the show has learned the right lesson, but applied it too late and to the wrong showrunner. Moffat needed more interesting standalones and Chibnall needs more big-swing ‘you need to watch every episode’ arcs.
I agree! serialize the entire season.. That was done with the sixth series starting with The Impossible Astronaut and ending with The Wedding of River Song. The story arc of The Silence story arc lasted from The Impossible Astronaut all the way to The Time of the Doctor. Chibnall needs to go with his strengths, my wife and I loved all three series of Broadchurch, and serialize a season of Doctor Who
Some really great points made, I really do think a serialized approach would benefit Doctor Who. I agree completely with the lackluster character development and rushed story arcs. It kind of boggles my mind that, despite the distinct conflicts each character was introduced with, Chibnall barely managed to follow up on these issues.
I dont think the shows episodic formula is necessarily too far removed from the structure you suggested, or the one adopted by Broadchurch. Most Doctor Who seasons have had some sort of narrative thread they build towards. I'm not sure if the lack of a Series arc was something imposed by the BBC or Chibnall, but considering Matt Strevens said "the only series arc is the growing relationship between the Doctor and her new friends, and how that team builds across the series," it's disappointing that they barely even developed that.
Right? I thought it was weird he had to go back to Classic for an example when Davies and Moffat both did series arcs for most/all? of their runs
I think you were right, Series 13 hasn’t finished yet but it’s almost definitely (in my opinion) the best Chibnall series so far.
Based on filming, it seems likely S13 is going to be primarily 2 part stories so we might be in luck here.
...and yet RTD and Moffatt didn't need to serialize and pulled in millions of more viewers. There are much bigger problems going on here than the episode format.
It's who he is working for that is the problem.
That’s because they were comfortable enough in the formats they were using. Chibnall however seems to operate differently and would probably work better with a change in format
It's interesting one of my biggest issues with Sci-Fi shows these days is the amount of serialization in them (I blame classic Star Trek) but you bring up an interesting point in that some writers do benefit from the format. Gave me a new perspective on Doctor Who and on a few other sci-fi series
I Like the positive aproach you take, personally before series 11 I wanted something more "small scale" from Chris chibnall because I was one of the people who liked what he tried to do with pond life. Greetings from Argentina
Refreshing to hear someone, who doesn’t like something, be critical, but not hating on everything, and everyone
Well done Rowan
Keep up the good work
I never understood why Chibs was given the gig. Before he got the job, the sum total of genuinely great Who episodes he had written was 0. So the problem is not with Chibnall, but with a BBC that thought Chibnall was the right choice despite the total absence evidence that he was up to the job. Broadchurch couldn't have been the only thing that landed him the role?
Going on your point of it becoming one story.. season 5 and 6 did this really well as well.. season 5 learning about the crack in space and time leading up to the pandorica and the big bang. Season 6 learning about how the doctor died at the hands of the astronaut and following the path with a younger doctor with the help of his companions seeing if he could be saved
Obviously it can work with Doctor Who and it does provide a great pay off at the end of the season when it all comes together same as the seasons you mentioned
Cracking points you have put forward and its nice to see someone hoping to fix rather than burn down and start again!
As a child, I watched Pertwee,, Baker and Davidson on my local PBS station. When Dr. Who was revived, I was excited and gave it a chance. While I loved Eccleston, Tennant and Smith's portrayal of their own Drs, I had a hard time getting in to the stories. The show overall felt alien to me and I can blame that expecting a recreation of the older series...
how to fix doctor who, stop watching it and watch football instead
The Matt Smith and Ponds relationship was absolutely spot on.
Arguably, New Who has been about the companions as much as The Doctor. Arguably in the Amy & Roary years, they were *more* important than The Doctor. So, yes, fixing the companions is probably the fastest way to improve the show
great video!
Can you really be said to be a fan of Doctor Who when you write a story which literally makes her story out to be a lie?
Are you a fan of Clifford the Big Red Dog if you reveal that he's really Garfield in a furry suit, and that he's normal sized but Matt Damon shrunk the Earth?
The clue’s in the title- the Doctor doesn’t have a story.
I think Chibnall is just too grounded to do sci-fi/fantasy well. It's why we got so many on-the-nose social commentary episodes that didn't really work. I honestly think the best thing would be to shelve the show for awhile so fresh ideas can develop.
The reason his on-the-nose social commentary episodes don't work is because he's a shallow gadfly. He plucks topics from the zeitgeist _du jour_ to push buttons. Fifteen years ago, on the first series of _Torchwood_ , it was all "I have to do bad things and now I'm going to ANGST about it" as a War on Terror allegory. Now, the political zeitgeist _du jour_ is "Did you know there's racism everywhere _and it's bad?!_ " so he writes about that.
He rips things from the headlines without having anything to say. No wonder they put him in charge of _Law & Order: UK_ .
0:57 You speak the truth that “none of these people set out to make bad stuff”. They have their vision, their re-imagining. My position though is that if there is a long history of lore and canon that is ignored, it takes away from the original, and it may as well be a totally different series.
Doctor Who under Chibnall did just that and re-write the lore and canon. Didn’t have to do all that just to have a female Doctor. Hartnell is no longer the first Doctor, the Police Box chameleon was stuck and around before (how??), regeneration of the time lords was not a natural physiology. The first two certainly I think destroy the core of Doctor Who, where as the third can be an acceptable scenario. These things can never be fixed and that is the primary reason for a group of fans switching off, despite there having been some retcon during its life, this goes too far for many. Telling the stories better or having completing characters, will fix the show generally and hopefully make it more engaging, but won’t necessarily have fans switching back on for the other reasons.
RDM’s Battlestar Galactic kept very much to the core of what Battlestar was, advanced and evolved it in a way that didn’t disregard the essence of the original.
Star Wars Ep 7-9 should have carried forward the Lucas universe. Instead, canon gets shelved, and as fun as the films are and as much as they can be viewed and enjoyed stand alone, they shatter the “known” universe and are not even subtle repeats of Ep 4-6. For those who grow up on Ep 7-9, the originals probably don’t fit.
R.I.P DOCTOR WHO 1963 - 2017
1963 - 1981
This is a very good video and I like your balanced approach of including the positives as well as the negatives. My own view is that Chris Chibnall may be a lifelong Dr Who fan but I do not necessarily think he is the right person for the job. I have not seen Broadchurch but your description does make it sound appealing. I have always thought his episodes amongst the weaker shows. The issue I have is that you indicate his strengths are in writing drama rather than science fiction. Whilst I do accept that there is a major crossover, writing science fiction and writing drama do require a slightly different skill set. That said, your point about the introduction and set up of good sci fi stories is well made. I do, however, like the idea of a single story arc series as opposed to individual episodes. The Key of Time and the Trial of a Timelord show it is possible. Hopefully you are right and, with luck, some of your advice might reach the BBC.
As I was scrolling around...and saw the title...I was all set for yet another screed about THE EVIL CHIBNALL !!...and THE NOTDOCTOR !!...
...but...while I'm not sure I fully endorse that there is a NEED to fix Doctor Who...
I fully agree with every word you said.
I must add, as a long time fan ( mid 70s)...I fully endorse the idea that EACH of the seasons, since Eccleston (not just the Chibnall ones) could use a bit the same thing.
Great job ! (not that you needed my approval or anything...carry on, carry on...)
Sigh
Look Chibnall has a lot of pressure on him from the BBC and Fandom and it can't be easy to work on the show with so many people criticising your every move. That said Chibnall has made some serious mistakes in his short time as show runner and he needs to step down.
There's too much bad blood right now. He might have some great ideas coming but they aren't going to work. He could write the best series ever for 2022, but there's just too many people that have it in for him. Sadly though that's also incredibly unlikely.
Put simply he's not got the skill or the talent to really bring Doctor Who back. you mentioned country-cide, a reasonable episode of Torchwood. This is fair as it wasn't that bad. Unfortunately he also wrote Cyberwoman. An unmitigated disaster of an episode. And if you were to look at those episodes of Doctor Who he wrote before taking the role of Showrunner they are mediocre at best.
Not terrible, but no where near the best the show has presented. It might be too far to call him an unimaginative hack that recycles old plot lines, badly, but there is some evidence of this. Direct parallels can be made to both Classic and new Who stories that his work has been "Inspired" by.
As show runner all of the problems that you raise can be left at Chibnall's desk. It's his job to recognise problems and course correct. Instead he's consistently doubled down on his mistakes. Ignoring obvious solutions while at the same time making more and more new ones.
If the BBC is to rescue the show from the downward spiral that is the audience figures AND the critical mauling it is getting from the public a hard reboot is the only way. Hiring a new show runner and recasting the Doctor, drawing a line under what has happened so far, is a high risk manoeuvre, but the only one left to them.
Otherwise the show will slide inevitably closer towards irrelevance until it is cancelled once again
What's wrong with cyberwoman? I mean other than the questionable costume design for the cyberman. I thought it was really great and tense
I just remember that one episode with dinosaurs on a spaceship that Chibnall wrote. I remember watching it when I was younger and being like "what? what was the point of any of that? why are there so many characters I just don't care about at all?"
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 Dinosaurs on a spaceship was an interesting experiment, but Chibnall took all the wrong lessons from it.
The Doctor was one of the few people, in the episode, that could keep track of what was happening because they had a backstory with everyone involved. We, and the audience surrogate, Amy / Rory were just along fro the ride.
As a once every so often adventure where we see the Doctor has adventures outside of what we see it was interesting, but we should still be involved enough to understand. Instead we got what we got, snippets of adventures with hints of something far more impressive just outside of shot.
I disagree. Coming from a large circle of friends and family that no longer watch it at all (for different reasons) I’ve come to the conclusion it’s simply no longer fun to watch anymore.
Maybe sci-fi isn’t his bag. I don’t know, but thinking that giving the same guy who’s consistently lost viewership for a show that had a solid fanbase prior more chances to fail is asinine and intellectually disingenuous. He can be great at whatever but he’s clearly shown he’s not good with Dr Who but very good at alienating much of Dr Who’s built in audience.
Whether you enjoy his work on Broadchurch or not is irrelevant to how well he can write/direct/produce Dr Who. I’ve come to realize much of the entertainment industry is clearly not merit based. When I still worked, if you couldn’t do your job well or at all you didn’t get to keep doing it. Weird world.
I gave up halfway through season 12, just wasn't taken with the plots or the characters. 3 companions and trying to balance them is just too much I think. Can't say I'm sold on Jodie either, good actress maybe, but that isn't always the case for every role, she just hasn't had the presence of the Doctor for me, in the way someone like Capaldi did. I'll have to check out Broadchurch.
Once again, I find your thoughtful commentary totally spot-on. I have been disappointed by the last two seasons of DW, but really couldn't put my finger on exactly why. All I could say was, "I really WANT to love it but I just walk away from each episode feeling MEH." -- Thank you for explaining to me why that was happening.
As someone who for the most part gave up on Dr Who after Amy and Rory left, and having only seen the episode with the pre-Hartnell Dr for the current run along with a few clips, i've got to agree with your comment about the current companions just seeming like gophers and sound boards. Donna and Rory didn't have a problem calling the Doctor out on some of his actions (and it was so refreshing to see a companion not in love with the Doctor). The current companions just seem to have a lack of urgency to their character. If I had access to a time machine and was worried about my cancer returning, I'd be asking if I could pay a visit to a hospital in the future and get a look over, especially if I'm with someone called the Doctor (I'd be asking if she knows a good oncologist at least). Even the bits and pieces I saw of Clara, she did her own thing at times, had her own agency. She even left the Doctor to travel with Anya Stark. The Fam? Nothing.
Also, I am left with not having an impression not knowing who this doctor actually is as a person. Even with bits and pieces of watching Capaldi, especially the trailers, I has a sense of his identity. 9 was suffering from PTSD, 10 was resigned over the fate of the Time Lords and was a hipster wanderer with a vicious streak, 11 was a joking madman with a time machine who occasionally could be terrifying. 12, I had the sense he knew he was reborn with his new life cycle and could start anew, but had a history of darkness that he wanted to redeem himself of, while being stuck in a not-so-young body. Even the War Doctor with the little we saw of him, was a man resigned to abandoning the role of a doctor and acknowledging the idea of the atrocities he'd perform, and he's only in one episode. With 13, I get nothing.
My problem with with the Chris Chibnall version has been the relentless "music" - From beginning to the end of each episode the "Aural Cloud" of sound made it hard to hear the dialog and never enhanced the emotional state of the characters.
If you feel the need to delete this comment then by all means do. I enjoy your analyses and believe that there are structural issue with the show. But there are also issues of tone and target. I do not know to whom this show is targeted. But I don't think this show appeals to either men or women in the way previous iterations of the Doctor did.
My wife _enjoyed_ Doctor Who because it appealed to her fantasy of being swept way from her otherwise mundane life by a mysterious and powerful stranger, the Doctor, just like Bill, Clara, Amy, Donna, Martha, Rose and Sarah Jane. She liked the dynamic of the characters and how the women more often than not were the ones to suggest a solution or to prod the Doctor into doing the right thing. In her own words she said, "Nothing is more satisfying to a woman than to take a man and to make him just that much better."
And I think a lot of female fans of Doctor Who agree with my wife. One does not need letters in psychology to understand the female desire to be the object of affection (even platonically) of a powerful and competent man. Nor is the concept of women wanting to improve upon a man a foreign one. And I believe the unrequited (love) nature of the Doctor and his female companion's relationship was a big part of the appeal for women. The Doctor is the ultimate unattainable alpha-male.
Likewise, men enjoy Doctor Who because they fancy themselves as powerful and competent. Like any heroic character men aspire to emulate them. And although few of them will actually be as brave, competent, intelligent or suave as the Doctor that does not prevent them from trying to see themselves in the character.
Now it is not all Jodi Whittaker's fault but her character is not someone that my wife would want to emulate. She said it herself, "The character is insufferable. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to be in a room for 30 minutes with this woman much less actually be so obnoxious themselves." And I think she is correct. I don't think it is a fantasy of most women to be the Doctor. But even if it was I don't think they would want to be the Doctor as portrayed by Jodi Whittaker.
Likewise, I don't think many men would want to be a _companion_ of Whittaker's Doctor. I think most men have pity for Bradley Walsh and feel Graham is by far the most likeable character stuck in an impossible situation. As for, Ryan, I do not believe there are many young Black men who envy Ryan's position of being subordinate to this older White woman. It's just the wrong dynamic.
Like I said before, I don' t know to whom this show is targeted. As a life long Doctor Who fan it is not for me. Nor does my wife find the juxtaposition of a female Doctor appealing. So, in the end New Who or Doctor WTF is targeted to some other group of individuals and from the ratings it is not appear to be a particularly large group.
Sounds like your wife and mine agree, LOL :) My lady has been a fan of Who for decades but couldn't get through the first season of Jodie's Doctor. She thought she was weird and annoying, lol. I also agree Bradley Walsh made a great companion, he was the most engaging out of the lot, Doctor included.
@@ukmediawarrior Yeah. The dynamic works well when David Tennant's Doctor Who attempts to speak down to the lowly human Donna Nobel or Martha Jones and they bitch slap him a bit. It is both fun and funny. We chuckle when it happens. But when Whittaker's Doctor does it the dynamic is not the same. It's not enjoyable. It is cringe worthy. And I cannot imagine one of Whitakker's companions given her a dressing down that the male Doctors received from their female companions. Going all the way back to Sarah Jane, she was constantly the Doctor's conscience. Whittaker's companions just seem like they are their for the sake of filling a quota.
"'Nothing is more satisfying to a woman than to take a man and to make him just that much better.'"
What's that proverb or whatever, men build civilization and women civilize men? Or something along those lines; reductive and generalized yes but still.
Regardless your post is level-headed. I'll pin it in my browser to see if it _does_ get deleted. XD
@@liesdamnlies3372 Thank you. I'm not sure if it is a proverb but it is certainly a truism. And I understand why RJC would not want political debates in his forums. It is just hard to talk about anything today which does not touch on politics and in New Who there is a lot of gender politics at play. But one does not have to discuss the "power" struggles of modern day gender politics to discuss how its presence in New Who has ruined the story and characters. I could also easily point out that the present ideology of post-modernism which infects much of popular culture from Star Wars to Ghostbusters rejects the idea of grand narratives, like the hero's journey, and individualism. So, is it any wonder that they cannot write compelling stories or interesting characters? But to be respectful to RJC I won't go into that too much further.
I will say this for anyone who thinks people like me (or my wife) are misogynists because we don't like a _female_ Doctor that we love _strong female characters._ Donna Noble is by far our favorite of the newer companions. She's quirky, she's fun and she's not afraid to open her mouth and tell the Doctor that he's being an ass. Whether you are a man or a woman you can see yourself in Donna because you too would like to be the Doctor's _buddy._ Donna loves the Doctor but it is a platonic love. He is her passport to this strange new world and she is the audience's. Can any of Whittaker's Doctor's companions be described this way? Are any of them her _buddy?_
@@robertanderson6929 For some reason that reminded me of DS9. All the women from the main cast were great characters. The fact that they were women rarely, if ever, entered into the writing, because it's just not important in Star Trek's vision of the future. (Er, well, at least until Discovery.) They could stand themselves up with their competence and confidence, without any need to prove their superiority over anyone else. (Uh...well...except Dax at tongo...man my post is coming with a lot of "well actually"...)
ST did the same with race; it just didn't matter. Heck, even the Orville does this, to a lesser extent.
Forgive my waffling-on. Guess I just feel old now even though I'm really not so much. Bring-back the good ol' days.
Personally I don't understand why Mr Chibnall decided to ditch the almost 60 year mystery surrounding The Doctor's past. Until recently we knew very little about the Time Lord who called him/herself The Doctor, or why they left Gallifrey in a stolen Tardis to travel the universe. The show still has fans, unfortunately (and with the greatest respect) I'm not one of them.
Except...he didn't really ditch all the mystery: there's still TONS to be explored.
He, quite astutely (imho), shed a little light and, in doing so, helped explain a lot of why the Doctor is/has been so stabdoffish, even distant, to his 'home' planet and it's denizens.
There's still lots of history, and mystery, surrounding our Doc.
@@peterconlon8234 Personally I would have liked to keep the full mystery going (that was to me what made the character interesting), but I respect the BBC have decided to take story in that direction. I don't really like it, but we all have our own opinions.
I get that mark...but, on the other hand: Doctor Who has actually revolved around that mystery since 11/63...letting in a wee bit of light once a decade or two probably won't hurt.
Plus...it migh just give them new avenues of mystery to explore, as well.
But...to each his own, right ?
It was nice sharing thoughts for a moment in time...and space ! ;)
Moffat pretty much answered the question years ago.
Lots of people saying the same thing but I'll add my comments - I really like this wave of new UA-camrs who are making nuanced constructive critiques of media. It's probably too much to hope that the creators of said media are watching and taking note, but perhaps one day :)
Absolutely agree with serialization. I have thought this from the return of the series from the start. It has always felt rushed to me and compared to the best mini-series it's been missing the benefits of what TV has always done best - long form story telling. BTW - really well written and expressed commentary and very even handed. Your opinions seem very well thought through, grounded and justified and expressed particularly well. Very rare many UA-camrs. Thanks for broadcasting this. I enjoyed it immensely.
You make some good points but lets not forget that Chibnall might be getting directives from elsewhere on which direction to take the show
1:21 So many people need to hear this!
Well done ....very wise words ✨Broadchurch was amazing ...let’s hope Chris follows your advice
Interesting that the next season has now been confirmed to be serialised
Watching Doctor Who has become a chore. The stories are just not that interesting.
The Tom Baker's Doctor serialised season of 'The Keys of Time' (1978) was one of my MOST favourite Dr Who set of stories ever - great idea; it's about 'time' (see what I did there) that Who moved toward 10 episode story arc!!!
This Doctor has hardly spent five minutes away from Earth. The word is that only one episode of next season will leave this planet. Inability to transpose political and social issues onto alien worlds and species shows a chronic lack of imagination in the writing team, who are clearly only concerned with current year Earth bound issues. It just doesn't feel like a sci-fi show anymore. Why do the Daleks/Cybermen/Sontarans invade Earth so many times? A good writer could come up with at least a plausible explanation rather than just using them as avatars for the "alt-right". Maybe the Doctor keeps saving Earth to protect the aliens from the humans; if he/she didn't, people would learn to fight for themselves and then watch out galaxy.
Wishful thinking, what if the last two season just took place in the mind of the Valeyard. That is the only way to fix it.
I'm sad that Yaz is staying and that Graham left because Graham is the best companion easily.
THANK YOU! Finally a review that actually brings up valid critique on how improve DW that isn't blantant racism or sexism!
i haven't heard new about doctor who for a while did the show got cancelled?
Once again you hit the nail on the head. Great video. I really enjoyed broadchurch & even liked most of his previous doctor who & torchwood episodes & the fact that his era isn’t that great is really disappointing to me.
I very much miss Moffat's high-concept sci-fi approach, and also, to be frank, his fairy tale kind of stories. Apart from that, there are some very interesting seeds in the current companions, but too little is done with them. It feels as if most of the current scripts would have benefitet from simmering a year or so into a more refined form before being shot. I actually adore Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor, and she really shines when the script gives her something Doctor-y to do. Unfortunately, it seldom does. Her "'Cause sometimes this team structure isn't flat. It's mountainous, with me at the summit in the stratosphere, alone, left to choose." is amongst the best lines of all Doctors, but overall, there is so incredibly little else for her in the scripts.
it's not just format but none of the characters have personality or motives. They don't make decisions. They don't interact or have conflicts. They just run around aimlessly. I don't even know what this doctor or anybody on this show wants.
I know this is really late, but I can’t agree with you more regarding everything you’ve said. To include Broadchurch, which was a phenomenal show. But yes, multi-episode archs are exactly what this series needs to help develop the characters further.
I can’t find many videos of people saying they like this era of the show
Is no one going to mention that HE ACTUALLY DID IT!?? (the thing at 8:18)
Oh yeah, and doctor who is also good now (in my opinion) so I think you were completely right, but we'll only know until the whole series is released I guess.
Ok never heard of your channel but I love seeing people who don't catastrophize about chibnall bein the worst thing ever and are actually giving constructive criticism. I agree with you with almost anything but hope you are finding flux as fun as I do cause it seems pretty good so far.
Every year or so, around August, I hear someone pronounce his name and think, “I always thought it was chin-ball!”
So, your solution to fixing modern Who is to return to its roots and use the structure that Classic Who used (which is to say, sweeping, multi-part stories that focused on a small set of characters over multiple episodes). Sounds good to me!
I have to agree, if he would have done as he had in Broadchurch it would have been way, way better. Honestly I went in to the first season thinking "Ok I'll give this idea a chance" but by the end of the second tale in that season I was like "Ok this is dead/ dying" as there was no real link between going from A to B it was more like going from A to D to X where in all the years before you'd go from A to B to C before getting an X or S thrown and going back back for D to E and so forth letting the new doc and companions grow and us watchers getting to know them before going to a one off and back and keeping the story to making sense between an over all theme for the season with spots that skew away to show something else that may or may not make sense until the season ends (or even not until the next season). And when they did show a chance for the characters to grow it was reset to 0 the next set of episodes
How to fix Who,.
1: Have Less Earth adventures. If the seasons 10-12 episodes, then half of them should be Non-Earth or Mutter Spiral ones.
2: Get away from the Modern Day companion (I don't mean Temporally Displaced). Just like the Earth adventures, this is getting Old.
A good enough writer could set it up where the companion is From an era prior to the series return, the main Antagonist could be there, but Not even a 2nd thought.
3: Classic Companions, Enemies, and Aliens. Use 2 out of those 3 in an Episode or Cameo.
There, I fixed Doctor Who. (hell, the companion could even be alien, like the Doctor now and again.)
4. Stop doing standalone 45-50 min episodes... It doesn't work. Classic Who knew what it was doing with serialization. It is WAAAAY harder to tell a compelling narrative where the location, plot, and supporting characters change episode to episode when you have such a short timespan to deal with it all. Leads to what I have termed Davies ex Machina Syndrome. Where the show just cannot escape deus ex machinas because there isn't enough time to make a satisfying resolution when you have less than an hour to work with. It also promotes shitty storytelling shortcuts like overuse of the sonic. Series 9 was the perfect format for the show... But then Moff had to go and screw with it again... And I love series 10, but it falls into a lot of the same pitfalls of previous nuwho series, and we really need to move away from that.
A round of applause for points 1 and 2 👏👏👏👏 I don't object to _some_ stories set on Earth but not the majority of them, this and the propensity for modern day companions is so, so tired and contradictory to a TV series about travels through space and time. After 15 years surely we can take a leaf out of Classic Who and go with a different companion for a change....
@@hotdog1214 Same here, I don't mind a few Earth adventures. But this First week-OO Cool Earth.
2nd Week. Oh 😕 cool-Earth
3rd Week- 3-2-1-North, South, East, West, Where or When?
i have to disagree with you here. chibnall is an average writer at best and his 2 seasons in charge are the weakest since it returned in 2005. i agree about the charachter development, a missed opportunity. best way to fix who is a new production team and a new doctor, someone with a clear idea of how they want to play it backed up with consistent & solid writing.
In moffat and Davies first seasons they knocked it out of the park and proved to be strong writers for the show, Chibnalls had two seasons and has done nothing to prove himself
I would say, this is the best criticism of the show as a whole I've seen. This is especially true because it doesn't go into the weeds with episode by episode minutia.
My personal belief is that there is a different answer given to the question, "What is Doctor Who to you?"
To Chibnall, The current state of Doctor Who is his best approximation of the Doctor Who he enjoyed; The episodic, space swashbuckling, chaotic good hero (to borrow from a TTRPG I've never played).
But, Doctor Who changes, and with each era the different Doctors and stories are the answer to the question, "What is Doctor Who to you?"
As with you, My Doctor Who started with Russell T Davis. Personally, Doctor Who is a show about a war weary, old soul living with survivor's guilt, trying to salvage the remnants of the life they had before everything went to pot and finding comfort in first a lover, then a carer, and then a friend.
I also love Stephen Moffat's run with two versions of, "eccentric super-powered brainy alien who is spending time with these sapient pets called humans."
Yes! Serialisation. Great idea, Mr. Coleman, and well presented. _Broadchurch_ is pretty great (although I must admit I only watched the first series).
The previous commenter, madjamjar, says, "Dctor [sic] Who just isnt [sic] Doctor Who anymore." I'm sure this is the same thing many viewers said when William Hartnell's Doctor regenerated into Patrick Troughton's Doctor. This show is based on the idea of radical change, and the show itself (in terms of tone, characterisation, every darned thing) shifts depending on the star and on the show-runner (I know the original BBC series would not have used the term "showrunner," but the script editors of those days would be roughly equivalent to today's showrunners). If you're not cool with change, then how you can you be cool with Who? If all you want is Davies era, you are free to just watch Davies era. If all you want is Moffett era, you can watch the heck out of the Moffett era. I'm a Tom Baker guy--he was my first Doctor. I don't judge every new Doctor based on him. Doing so would be madness, from my view.
You're making some great points. Now, I've actually enjoyed these two last seasons, despite the problems. And really I don't think Chibnall is worse than Davies or Moffatt. As much as I love the show in general, and as much as I have loved previous shows of every showrunner, it's clear to me that they haven't brought their full potential to Doctor Who. And I wonder why that is. It struck me when you mentioned in this video that Chibnall is a long time Doctor Who-fan. The same goes for the other guys. Maybe at least part of it is that they're just to big fans to run the show in a way that's necessary to reach true greatness. Maybe they lack the distance to the material. Not that I want a non-fan to run the show, it does need someone with respect for the property, but maybe respect and distance is the combination to reach for. And Chibnall, Moffat and Davies only really got the respect (and of course love) for the Doctor. I don't know. It's a theory.
Overreaching arcs have always worked well in Dr Who and made my childhood great.
Forget new Who for a second, the idea of a connected season was being done way back in 1975 (the real season 12! 😁) and it was widely accepted to be one of the best seasons ever.
There's a 16 episode run across 4 serials, from The Ark in Space to Revenge of the Cybermen that is a single journey to, from, and back to the Ark (aka Space Station Nerva).
The Ark in Space ends with the Doctor needing to transmat to earth to repair the Transmat beacon, so the colonists can leave the ark.
In the Sontaran Experiment, a Sontaran is experimenting on humans to decide if they should invade Human space (delaying the repairs).
In Genesis of the Daleks, the Transmat beam back to the Ark is diverted to Skaro by the Timelords to try and prevent the creation of the Daleks (lets start a time war, why don't we)
Finally in Revenge of the Cybermen, shonky Timelord Tech drops the Doctor & co in the right place but at the wrong time, putting them down in the middle of a Cyberman revenge raid following the cyber wars.
It may be too late to fix it unless you un write the timeless child nonsense. You can't have any real tension in the show (even rewatching old episodes) if the main character is immortal and can't ever really be defeated. And now the Cybermen are immortal? And The master might as well be a timeless child as it seems he/she has a million lives.. Sloppy writing and easy plot devices are the Albatros around the neck of Dr Who.
But how to fix it? 1- Chibnal gone, 2- Whittaker Gone, 3- Timeless Child gets un written, 4- Kill off The Master once and for all (and aging Tegan or Nyssa can kill him). 4- Go back to the 12 regenerations/13 lives rule. This means the doctor is near the end. You can maybe add one or two more with some good writing but the Doctor should eventually die. Once dead his daughter or another family member can take over (maybe Susan). You can make it a new show. It's boring if it goes on forever. 5- If you want to keep Dr Who going film several season with Paul McGann (why this hasn't been done already is beyond me) or hire actors who look like classic series Doctors and tell more of their stories. 6- You can just re-boot the show and start over from Doctor #1.
7- Never hire actors who don't care about the show or openly mock the show's history (Eccleston and Whitaker). 8- And this is the most important one....STOP thinking of Doctor WHO as a children's program. Stop calling it a child's program. Make it for adults. get it off TV and into the movie theater or onto Netflix.....AND AMAKE IT FOR ADULTS!!!
Though I do like the current Dr. Who, especially Jodie Whitaker and Mandip Gill, I still pretty much agree with your overall assessment. And, though Simm and Gomez are going to be difficult for anyone to follow, I’ve also liked Dhawan as the Master. But, to your point of an overarching storyline, I only have two words: Bad Wolf. You can’t have watched previous seasons and not appreciate an overarching storyline, or theme, woven into a series’ tapestry. So, good job on the video. Hopefully, we’ll see more of what you proposed.
Well, Russel T. Davies is now back as a writer. Let’s see if he still has it for the series.
Story Arcs Rule!
This line of thought always makes me think of B5 which had Arcs in spades…
Broadchurch was very good, only seen the first season though.
I think you have a point, and RTD's era showed that there was just one central arc, but there was a huge amount of growth instead of rushing around dealing with a single case, waving sonic screwdrivers around pointlessly. The only problem is will the BBC learn from their mistakes, or not?
Broadchurch is a Gallifreyan Matrix simulation gone rogue!
I’ve always loved multi-parters. They just give characters time to breath. The classic series had (mainly) 100 minutes per adventure and NuWho multiparters of 90 mins give it the same advantage.
I’ve always felt that the single 45 min format was too constraining. By the time The Doctor has arrived and discovered the problem there is only time for the solution... no time to inhabit the episode’s world.
I’m not a Chibs fan but agree that letting him write to his strengths and not force his style into a format he isn’t used too is a good idea and would be worth a go.
I agree the storyboard is need some adjustments, I want to give the 13th doctor a chance.
You know what, you've actually totally convinced me that Doctor Who could have some real potential under Chibnall, which I wasn't expecting. The problem with your suggestion, however, is that one of the big selling points in the marketing in the leadup to Series 11 was that the long, overarching plots that defined a lot of the Moffat era, and were often a bit crap and difficult to follow, were being dropped. The shift to more standalone episodes wasn't a simple creative choice that can be corrected, it was a conscious mandate from the BBC to move away from Moffat's tenure as showrunner. As a result, I really don't know if it's going to be possible for Chibnall to get the kind of format his writing needs to follow the Broadchurch formula. Maybe when Jodie leaves, we'll see a shift in order to indicate a clean break from the previous era, but if previous Who is anything to go by, I'm not sure that'll happen.
I totally agree. Doctor who used to be groups of serialised episodes way before American TV had the guts to do the same. Now the opposite is true. Let the story and characters breathe. Stop trying to come up with 8 short stories that you can't land and just do one that you can spend the necessary time and effort to write and execute well.
The problems you mentioned are largely problems Chibnall always has. Outside of the Doctor Who universe stuff I've watched a fair bit of Chibnall stuff ranging from all of Broadchurch, the US remake Gracepoint and the US show Camelot (And L&O UK although as he just rewrote the scripts from the various US L&O shows to put a UK spin on them I won't count these) and outside of season 1 of Broadchurch those two issues always seem to be there. There are two things that make Season 1 of Broadchruch stand out and these are
1) The length of time he had to work on Broadchurch. He started working on it as an idea in 2003 while working on other shows and was still working on it when Camelot was cancelled in 2011 which is when he put everything together in a pitch and when it was picked up he still had 2 years to work on it. You don't get that kind of time usually on TV. It's telling that with DW he has constantly been pushing for more time between seasons and has been hesitant on doing holiday specials
2) That he was familiar with what he was writing about. He lives in a Dorset village-like broadchurch. He knows what life is like in these places, he knows the kind of characters that exist etc so he was writing what he knew. In other shows he isn't an alien going around time and pace and he isn't a Wizard in medieval times so he isn't writing from experience
I just don't think he is really cut out for TV, especially as a showrunner. I think he would be better off actually working in novels or perhaps something like on stage where he would get longer to develop and maybe more chance to do something that he has more personal experience of and can write from that place. So while your suggestions would improve it I'm not sure he has whats needed to pull it off. I think we probably need a new showrunner for things to change for the best
I would disagree. Chibnell has not only failed in his own scripts, he's failed as a facilitator for others and never has anybody in the involvement of the show (classic or new) functioned less as a custodian, or in such opposition to the notion of it.
Nine and Rose: Father and Daughter
Ten and Rose: Couple
Ten and Martha: Just Friends
Ten and Donna: Siblings
Eleven and Amy and whathisname: Couples Counseling
Eleven and Clara: ?
Twelve and Companions: ?
Thirteen and Companions: Not that Family Cliche. Isn't that Fast and the Furious? I was hoping for a Mother-Child or Daughter-Father dynamic with a companion, but, they went with a family dynamic. Too soon.
Eleven and Clara: Mystery Plot and Romance? (Yeah Series 7B isn't good though still would take it over Series 11)
Twelve and Clara: Good Friends
Twelve and Bill: Teacher and Student
Eleventh, Amy & Rory: Family.
Twelve, Bill and Nardole: Cool teacher and his students.
In just TWELVE minutes?!? 😮
i have an idea for my own Doctor Who series i am writing just for fun i was thinking wasn't Doctor Who ment to be for families and children so hears a thought what if you had the Doctor regenerate into a school boy say in his late teens imaginge the fun of the Doctor waking up in a bed of a school boy and the Doctor realising he is one and the story then moves to a school where he meets two school kids again they are in their late teens while in the school the Doctor and the two school kids feel the school is a bit mysterious and wounder why the teachers and students are acting like robots and give chase what do you think of my ideas please contact me ASAP to gie me your thoughts
Huh. You make a really good case here. Loved Broadchurch. Had not considered that Chibnall might not have short form as one of his strengths. Two thing bother me under Chibnall - 1) there is no sub-text. Everything is text or (if there is such a thing) super-text. They don't trust me the viewer to get it without having everything spelled out to me in detail. 2) I feel like they are often writing for previous actors - mostly Smith or Tennant. Rather than allowing Whitaker to find her own level and her distinct Doctor persona.
This is the most intelligent, fair minded, well reasoned discourse I have yet heard about the Chibnall era. Well done.
For the record, I too, am very disappointed in Chibnall era Who. In fact my annual rewatch of NuWho, which I have been doing since 2011, for the first time is not including the new episodes, mainly because until series 11, Doctor Who never had a wholly bad or disappointing season. True, season 6, 7 and 8 of the Moffat era were a mixed bag, and I don't feel series 2 has aged particularly well (great 2 parters, only a couple of good one parters), but even series 7 would have something worth watching in it.
That all said I think Internet vitriol needs to be tuned out or toned down for the sake of collective sanity. I don't think Chibnall is a force of malevolent stupidity or evil. The first season of Broadchurch? Some of the best goddamn television I've ever seen (I did, however, loathe season 2). I *know* as a fact Chibnall can write good, solid, entertaining television. For whatever reason, that's simply not happening yet in the Jodie Whitaker era.
Your argument starts with the wrong question: we are judging him as show runner (and therefore over-arching guardian of character and continuity) not just writer. The contrast with Broadchurch is mystifying but ultimately one has to judge on results. I'd find your argument more persuasive if there was some small kernel of evidence that he could write character in Dr Who if only it had a different format. If there were an array of overly-terse scenes in which he is seeming desperately to try to develop character in a too-rushed way I could buy into the thesis, but I struggle to spot them.
OK. So I cant watch this until I watch broadchurch. Im sorry but you demand too much.
I agree, I wish the BBC would see this