- Awards
- 18
I just want to be surprised, as surprised as Dr Who and co are when they open the Tardis doors and don't yet know where or when they are.
Art (or whatever you want to call it) is not a democracy, nor should it be.
Watching NuWho
- Thread starter Willie Oleson
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
I just want to be surprised, as surprised as Dr Who and co are when they open the Tardis doors and don't yet know where or when they are.
Art (or whatever you want to call it) is not a democracy, nor should it be.
- Awards
- 27
There's always a plan but sometimes a lever gets jammed and then the Tardis travels to the only part of outerspace that the Doctor doesn't know.
Or they find the planet they're looking for but it's not exactly the way the Doctor remembers it i.e. the lovely aliens have grown hostile and they want to destroy the timeline or London.
I wonder what the "Doctor Who has become a parody of itself" looks like...I mean, was it all supposed to be very serious? I've lost count of how many times River Song retconned her story arc.
I always thought "hey, she's back!" after her final-final-final goodbye. And I've never trusted her, of course she would tell everyone that "the Doctor always lies".
But it's not true, he's not liar. He only withholds information in order not to give the plot away in the first 10 minutes.
- Awards
- 18
I read an interesting interview with one of the old producers of Who who said that, in the old days when stories unfolded over several weeks, there was time for Dr Who to arrive somewhere, not necessarily know anything about where he was, blunder about a bit and then gradually figure stuff out. In New Who, because the whole adventure has to take place in 45 minutes, s/he automatically knows loads of stuff straightaway, which they usually then explain at great speed. So the personality and behaviour of the Doctor has been affected by the running time of the show.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 8
A partial explanation since it would take all day and all night, at least to explain.
Franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek have coherent fictional narratives. Even soap operas that always change backstory, do so in a manner that is somewhat (at least) plausible (although unlikely, granted) and expands the narrative, rather than openly dismisses it.
Star Trek established a different timeline that expands rather than contradicts the show's history
Not all ST fans care for it, but it at least respects the continuity.
Dallas and Dynasty had many changes over the seasons, but those changes were in the attempts to expand the narrative. Dallas was an outlier, in that the dream season was a choice to dismiss a disastrous season and reset the narrative. The exception to the rule.
I am not sure that River Song retconned her story Arc. In a show about time travel, there is some flexibility, and even so, RS had knowledge of the Doctor's past and future, so she was in a unique position to advance and expand the narrative. Moffett was the first showrunner to address time travel distortions, contradictions and more detailed scenarios on a larger scale. It expanded the narrative without contradicting it. Granted not everything was clear, but it was dealing with somewhat underused scenarios, surprising for a show about time travel. "Day of the Daleks" "Mawdryn Undead" "Trial of a Time Lord" "Father's Day" and Multi Doctor Stories were the best approaches up to then.
I was not a fan of the McCoy era and the Cartmel master plan, but it expanded the narrative without destroying it.
The assertions that the Doctor had a dark, mysterious past was explored, but the basic continuity of the narrative remained intact.
No"fact" was established that contradicted over 20 years of continuity at that time.
Chibnall introduced a false origin story, and multiple elements that openly contradicted over 50 years of continuity
If Chibnall is to be believed, the Doctor is never in any real peril since he can regenerate endlessly.
Matt Smith's Doctor's speech to Clara when he thought that he was in his final life was one of the most powerful events in the series
It now doesn't matter according to Chibnall's version
Chibnall 's approach seems to be that anything goes, ignore everything that happened Hartnell to Capaldi, that it didn't matter
When a series has no foundation, no continuity, etc is no different from a silly sitcom where it is just the foolishness of the week
That undermines the entire series
I could talk endlessly about the content post Capaldi/Moffett, the horrendous writing and directing (many if not most writers and directors had little or no sci-fi background), the horrible casting and the loss of millions of fans but that has been mentioned extensively in many places.
JW and Gatwa - horrible casting choices, the scripts increasingly prioritized silliness and identity politics
There is a HUGE difference between expanding a narrative and contradicting it
Chibnall has openly contradicted it, and the show has been in a downward spiral ever since
In one story the Dalek is defeated by sticks and stones? Contrast that with the Eccleston Dalek story when a single Dalek is destroying everything right left and center
Sutek, arguably the most formidable adversary in the series history defeated by a dog collar? "
Just two examples of the show becoming a parody of itself
Literally everyone I know who watched Doctor Who has a similar view
Last edited:
- Awards
- 44
Moderation comment:
Before things get off-course, again, a little reminder of our terms for anyone who may need it.
Critical and judgemental personal comments (being uninformed or having no idea, etc.) are not acceptable ,and reinforcing these with repeated use of certain reactions (or “Likes”) such as the “Haha” laughing reaction reads as passive-aggression which is covered by the following:
As a general pointer, it is more productive to discuss one's own point of view rather than speaking on behalf of a fandom made up of individuals.
Not everyone is happy with the direction of the series. This has been made abundantly clear and is very well-documented in this thread. Criticisms about ratings or job cuts or producer choices or other factors removed from the subjective experience of the series - while valid and even helpful sometimes - have been hammered home more than enough and really do not bear repeating at this stage. Different views are held and there are members who would like to use the thead constructively and positively, so an insistence on repeatedly covering the same "objective" ground is proving a block to constructive discussion. At this point I ask if things can move on without raking over old ground.
The thread began in a lighthearted and positive manner as a member’s subjective experience of watching the revival series for the first time. As has been requested - and attempted - in recent posts, let’s please continue to post in that spirit.
Before things get off-course, again, a little reminder of our terms for anyone who may need it.
Critical and judgemental personal comments (being uninformed or having no idea, etc.) are not acceptable ,and reinforcing these with repeated use of certain reactions (or “Likes”) such as the “Haha” laughing reaction reads as passive-aggression which is covered by the following:
As a general pointer, it is more productive to discuss one's own point of view rather than speaking on behalf of a fandom made up of individuals.
Not everyone is happy with the direction of the series. This has been made abundantly clear and is very well-documented in this thread. Criticisms about ratings or job cuts or producer choices or other factors removed from the subjective experience of the series - while valid and even helpful sometimes - have been hammered home more than enough and really do not bear repeating at this stage. Different views are held and there are members who would like to use the thead constructively and positively, so an insistence on repeatedly covering the same "objective" ground is proving a block to constructive discussion. At this point I ask if things can move on without raking over old ground.
The thread began in a lighthearted and positive manner as a member’s subjective experience of watching the revival series for the first time. As has been requested - and attempted - in recent posts, let’s please continue to post in that spirit.
- Awards
- 6
Well it seems that this year's Christmas special may be postponed until Easter 2027. Various rumours suggest that this is due to actor availability, such as Billie Piper currently filming Wednesday season 3. There are also rumours that the role of The Doctor is now a role very few would want to play, which personally I think is rubbish. It is still a prime role for an actor, it just needs good writing and plotting - which will hopefully happen once the new showrunner and production team are announced....though when that will be is anyone's guess!
>>Moffett was the first showrunner to address time travel distortions, contradictions and more detailed scenarios on a larger scale. It expanded the narrative without contradicting it.>>
I disagree entirely. Moffat's approach to time travel in fact contradicted the established approach of the series up to that point, in particular the Doctor's ability to "move within his own timestream" which The Three Doctors clearly established was contrary to the "First Law of Time" and could only be condoned in an emergency. That said, The Two Doctors (prior to Moffat) had also contradicted this. But Moffat took it a lot further, undermining most of the established time travel conventions of the show and papering over these with lame assertions about some points in time being "fixed" and others apparently not so - depending apparently on the requirements of the plot!
>>I was not a fan of the McCoy era and the Cartmel master plan, but it expanded the narrative without destroying it.
The assertions that the Doctor had a dark, mysterious past was explored, but the basic continuity of the narrative remained intact.
No"fact" was established that contradicted over 20 years of continuity at that time.>>
I disagree with this too, I think the Cartmel era contradicted a lot of the established continuity prior to it. As one example, the suggestion that the First Doctor had laid a trap for the Daleks with the Hand of Omega (in Remembrance of the Daleks) makes no sense when you bear in mind that the First Doctor had never met the Daleks while he was in Earth, with the TARDIS in Totters Lane and Susan was going to Coal Hill School. It's perfectly obvious when the First Doctor meets the Daleks in The Daleks that he knows nothing about them and has never heard of them, and that occurs after he left Earth with Susan, Ian and Barbara and therefore after the events alluded to in Remembrance of the Daleks.
I could go on and on with examples like this. Doctor Who's established continuity was pretty good and reasonably consistent up to the end of the Pertwee era. After that, contradictions started entering the narrative.
I disagree entirely. Moffat's approach to time travel in fact contradicted the established approach of the series up to that point, in particular the Doctor's ability to "move within his own timestream" which The Three Doctors clearly established was contrary to the "First Law of Time" and could only be condoned in an emergency. That said, The Two Doctors (prior to Moffat) had also contradicted this. But Moffat took it a lot further, undermining most of the established time travel conventions of the show and papering over these with lame assertions about some points in time being "fixed" and others apparently not so - depending apparently on the requirements of the plot!
>>I was not a fan of the McCoy era and the Cartmel master plan, but it expanded the narrative without destroying it.
The assertions that the Doctor had a dark, mysterious past was explored, but the basic continuity of the narrative remained intact.
No"fact" was established that contradicted over 20 years of continuity at that time.>>
I disagree with this too, I think the Cartmel era contradicted a lot of the established continuity prior to it. As one example, the suggestion that the First Doctor had laid a trap for the Daleks with the Hand of Omega (in Remembrance of the Daleks) makes no sense when you bear in mind that the First Doctor had never met the Daleks while he was in Earth, with the TARDIS in Totters Lane and Susan was going to Coal Hill School. It's perfectly obvious when the First Doctor meets the Daleks in The Daleks that he knows nothing about them and has never heard of them, and that occurs after he left Earth with Susan, Ian and Barbara and therefore after the events alluded to in Remembrance of the Daleks.
I could go on and on with examples like this. Doctor Who's established continuity was pretty good and reasonably consistent up to the end of the Pertwee era. After that, contradictions started entering the narrative.