Doctor Who (SPOILERS)

[Gargamel]

Thought the first 60th special was ok/good.   The second one was amazing, if it had been a standalone episode during a season, not in a series of specials.     They should have benched that storyline for the next season, and expanded the toy maker storyline to span two episodes.    
 

Spoiler

As for the “bi-generation”…..  hate it.    Hate it.  HATE IT.     They mucked around enough with canon with Jodi’s Doctor, now this?!   No.    

 

[GluttonyReaper]

Yeah, I think the first and third specials both felt really rushed to me? Like I feel like they both could have used an extra 10-15 minutes to explore some of the more unique concepts that they brought up. The third special in particular feels like the actual conclusion to the story got pushed aside to accommodate... well, that. I dunno, it feels like an older RTD episode would have come up with a more clever and satisfying wrap-up to the whole Toymaker thing.

No complaints about the second special though, loved it. Gave me shades of 'Midnight', which is still one of my favourite episodes.

Spoilers ahead:

Spoiler

I actually quite liked that they briefely acknowledged all the big canon-changing stuff from Jodi's era, if only because they genuinely managed to squeeze in more of an emotional payoff to all of it than they managed in 13's entire last season and associated specials. A nice little pat on the head for all of us who for reason decided to sit through all that, to make it feel like it wasn't totally wasted time.

The bi-generation was definitely... something that happened. I'm still holding out hope that we'll get a proper explanation for that in the series proper, and again I can't help but compare it to another previous odd regeneration - the Metacrisis. That was properly set up over a two hour special, with a convincing reason given as to why, and the consequences made really clear, which... which this just wasn't. It's a shame because there's a throwaway line or two in the episode which suggests there might be a reasonable mechanic behind it, but there just didn't seem time to properly explore it at all.

That said... I do like the idea that Tennant's Doctor is just permanently associated with really weird regenerations. Poor guy's had three of them now.

 

[Nuke]

doctor who was canceled when 13 finished his run.  at least that's my head canon. 

[boriz]

Doctor WHO died with Capaldi. Chris Chibnal saw to that with his simpering ideology driven retconning.

Spoiler

According to cannon, regeneration changes the body, not the mind. So really, all versions of The Doctor are actually superficially different variations of the brilliant William Hartnell, and who could ask for more?

The Doctor is, always has been, and always will be, a flawed, cantankerous, arrogant, sometimes condescending, but loveable middle aged white male grandfather figure (sometimes in a younger body where acting skill allows), with a '1000 year stare'. Presumed hetero, but written as asexual and apolitical because it's a story-driven kids show, and it's irrelevant.

If you have a problem with that, you're not a WHO fan. You're, like Chibnal, something else. Which is perfectly fine, just go and do it over there please. Keep your hands off established characters that people love, and have loved for over fifty years, and you won't upset anyone.

For example. I have been a life long WHO fan. I have paid my dues. I have hidden behind the settee, and had nightmares about green goo, and I never, EVER, once thought that Davros was disabled. It just would never occur to me. It makes no sense. He's clearly part Dalek. Something Davros would see as an upgrade. Closer to "perfection". What Davies has done to Davros is unforgivable. Like pretty much everything Chibnal did.

 

Now that Disney is calling the shots, things can only get worse. RIP Doctor WHO. We miss you.

[DDE]

On 12/11/2023 at 11:11 PM, boriz said:

The Doctor is, always has been, and always will be, a flawed, cantankerous, arrogant, sometimes condescending, but loveable middle aged white male grandfather figure (sometimes in a younger body where acting skill allows), with a '1000 year stare'.

...which wouldn't have been a hard blocker for a female Thirteenth, but it would've required a conscious and incredible effort across the whole board to make it work. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be the acting and directing capacity across all of Greater Hollywood* to pull this off, heck, we're at a point where there's only one actress (Emily Blunt) who can pull off a serious action girl type that isn't a character-less sociopath. A character of such complexity as the Early Revival-era Doctor is simply beyond existing capabilities.

Across the whole industry, the politics seem to be gasoline poured onto a preexisting dumpster fire of somewhat inexplicable decline in quality and cognitive empathy.

Spoiler

*term deliberately chosen to make Brits cringe, but Americanization may also be a significant factor

 

[Gargamel]

9 hours ago, DDE said:

...which wouldn't have been a hard blocker for a female Thirteenth, but it would've required a conscious and incredible effort across the whole board to make it work. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be the acting and directing capacity across all of Greater Hollywood* to pull this off, heck, we're at a point where there's only one actress (Emily Blunt) who can pull off a serious action girl type that isn't a character-less sociopath. A character of such complexity as the Early Revival-era Doctor is simply beyond existing capabilities.

Across the whole industry, the politics seem to be gasoline poured onto a preexisting dumpster fire of somewhat inexplicable decline in quality and cognitive empathy.

  Hide contents

*term deliberately chosen to make Brits cringe, but Americanization may also be a significant factor

 

That seems a bit harsh, Jodi Whitaker is an excellent actress, I’ve enjoyed her in a number of other works.   She was let down by the shoddy writing, as proven by the plot lines they gave us.    I just watched an interview yesterday with Ecclestein where he said “You’re only as good as your writers”. If your show runner is trying to run the franchise into the ground, all the talent in the world isn’t going to make it worth watching.   

[Just Jim]

26 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

That seems a bit harsh, Jodi Whitaker is an excellent actress, I’ve enjoyed her in a number of other works.   She was let down by the shoddy writing, as proven by the plot lines they gave us.    I just watched an interview yesterday with Ecclestein where he said “You’re only as good as your writers”. If your show runner is trying to run the franchise into the ground, all the talent in the world isn’t going to make it worth watching.   

I totally agree. I liked Jodi Whitaker's version of the Doctor. She was quirky and fun and reminded me a lot of David Tennant.  And I had nothing against Peter Capaldi.
(But I still think Ecclestein is my favorite.)

The writing lately, however....  yeah. It's just  gotten worse and worse from season to season, IMO. There have been so many missed opportunities. I have to wonder if the current writers/producers have ever watched the early episodes. You can't really blame the actors when they don't have anything good to work with.

[DDE]

2 hours ago, Gargamel said:

That seems a bit harsh, Jodi Whitaker is an excellent actress,

(a) which is why I specified "across the board";

(b) I doubt the excellence is ever all-around, and a shoddy casting process can easily overlook competency gaps for "name power" (I imagine being bad at writing further compromises your ability to detect a poor fit for the role - or to notice that no-one can play your shoddy script well). The Wiki quotes Chibnal as saying that Whitaker was his first pick, and that even without any context also sounds like a rather bad sign.

I am fully cognizant of the fact that acting quality can swing quite violently between individual productions as a result. But I'm also rather bitter that perfectly fine people are being shoved into roles they have no business handling, sometimes due to quite immutable characteristics, and too often it doesn't even seem to be about making bank or personal interest. Is there a miscasting conspiracy these days?

Spoiler

I'm sorry for picking on a person's height, but who in hell thought a Sarah Connor who needs a triple Scully box for such a shot to work was a good idea?

 

[Nuke]

8 hours ago, Gargamel said:

That seems a bit harsh, Jodi Whitaker is an excellent actress, I’ve enjoyed her in a number of other works.   She was let down by the shoddy writing, as proven by the plot lines they gave us.    I just watched an interview yesterday with Ecclestein where he said “You’re only as good as your writers”. If your show runner is trying to run the franchise into the ground, all the talent in the world isn’t going to make it worth watching.   

it wasnt jodi, it was the bad writing (and retconning a show that's been on the air since the kennedy assasination). no character development on the part of the companions. failing to follow up on story lines set up during the capaldi run. not to mention using the beloved jack harkness character as a quota fill. inclusion is fine but it cant come at the expense of the story. just another case of nerd culture being appropriated to push a political agenda. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Nuke