|
Which season should the next animated reconstruction be from? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Season 1 (Marco Polo) |
|
13 | 18.57% |
| Season 2 (The Crusade) |
|
1 | 1.43% |
| Season 3 (Galaxy 4/The Myth Makers/The Daleks' Master Plan/The Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Eve/The Celestial Toymaker/The Savages) |
|
25 | 35.71% |
| Season 4 (The Smugglers/The Highlanders/The Underwater Menace/The Evil of the Daleks) |
|
16 | 22.86% |
| Season 5 (The Abominable Snowmen/The Web of Fear/The Wheel in Space) |
|
11 | 15.71% |
| Season 6 (The Space Pirates) |
|
4 | 5.71% |
| Total: | 70 votes | ||
|
2house2fly posted:Don't know what everyone saw in that, to be honest. The plot was mostly "person who seems like a paedophile is actually misunderstood" and then the killer just phoned the cops up to confess at the end. It seemed mostly to be a way to show women crying a lot on the TV Speaking of Chibnall's portrayal of women, it might be overly cynical of me, but while the casting of the show (first female Doctor, a very racially diverse cast) is really quite admirable on the surface...there are times I wonder if it was also done as an easy way for Chibnall to deflect criticism of bad writing/boring stories/very sketchy political ideas. In sort of a Ghostbusters 2016 "if you don't like the show, you're probably just a racist/sexist chud" sort of way. The general opinion seems to be that while people love Jodie as the Doctor, they also feel her particular Doctor hasn't been very well served by the writing thus far, not just in terms of stories, but in terms of who her Doctor is supposed to be. I freely admit this may just be me being overly cynical, but I don't really get the sense that Chibnall is trying to give her Doctor her own personality, and is relying largely on Jodie's charisma to carry the role forward while using "it's the first female Doctor" as a shield against criticism of how bad his tenure on the show has been thus far.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:13 |
|
|
Would Time and the Rani be improved if the Doctor was a woman? These are things to think about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
To be fair to Chibnall, based on the very little public speaking he's done on the subject, his mindset seemed to be very much,"I'm doing it because people who agree it would be perfectly fine for the Doctor to be a woman are always coming up with excuses for why it can't be done NOW! and I don't want to do the same", and he'd worked with Jodie before and knew she was a good actor so why not offer her the role? I certainly haven't gotten any kind of impression that he did it as a scapegoat/preventative measure, if he didn't feel confident in his ability to run the show I don't think he would have taken the job. For better or worse, I feel like we're getting exactly the kind of show he wants out of Who, and that he's not trying to distract or obfuscate stuff with stunt-casting or faux-wokeness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:To be fair to Chibnall, based on the very little public speaking he's done on the subject, his mindset seemed to be very much,"I'm doing it because people who agree it would be perfectly fine for the Doctor to be a woman are always coming up with excuses for why it can't be done NOW! and I don't want to do the same", and he'd worked with Jodie before and knew she was a good actor so why not offer her the role? As I say, that may just be me being overly cynical. Also I want to reiterate that I am 100% in favor of the casting choices, I just have these nagging doubts that he might have had other reasons beyond just wanting to shake things up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:It's why I say that elevated fanboys shouldn't be running the show. Back in the day, working on DW was just another gig for the producers, script editors, and writers. As the show went on it was at times considered a very prestigious gig, but it was still just another job. With perhaps the exception of the Cartmel era (which was tempered by JNT reining in their more excessive ideas about the Doctor's history), the bulk of the people that worked on DW during the show's original run were not fanboys, they were just people working a job. You keep saying this, and I know you don't like Moffat, but do you not even like RTD? Cause he was as fanboy as they come. Thay would mean you don't like any DW since '89 or maybe '96, at which point you're really looking for them to do a totally different show than they've done the past 15 years. As I see it the track record is: 1) RTD: great, brought the show back, gave us Tennant and worldwide mainstream popularity, could get a little twee 2) Moffat: continued the popular run, gave us Smith, nailed the 50th, had a tendency to go up his own rear end and was obsessed with ticking boxes of his fan plans 3) Chibnall:  I agree with you 100% on the reasons you give as to why the Timeless Child reveal sucks for the character, and this: Sydney Bottocks posted:I think we can safely say now that Chibnall was Always Bad, and that whatever show he worked on that everyone loved (Broadchurch) was the exception that proved the rule. The casting is definitely not the problem. Jodie is not being served by the writing. She has flashes of brilliance but it's like those first episodes of a new Doctor where everything is rough and the actor and the writers are trying to figure it out and then it's iconic: this is 2 seasons of first 2-3 episodes. Graham is great. The idea of an older companion is great. Having a practical down to earth companion is great. His emotional arc and relationship with Ryan is great. Yaz has shown that she could have been amazing, and in a single companion role she would be brilliant. This season has shown definitively that more than 3 in the TARDIS is bad despite what I always thought and if I wax nostalgic about Ben/Polly/Jamie or Tegan/Nyssa/Turlough ever again feel free to beat me over the head with a bag of the Fam action figures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 06:10
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:As I say, that may just be me being overly cynical. Also I want to reiterate that I am 100% in favor of the casting choices, I just have these nagging doubts that he might have had other reasons beyond just wanting to shake things up. Even if casting of women and PoC is done for deeply cynical reasons, it still gives acting opportunities to them and serves as a valuable form of representation. Much as I loathe Chibnall, he would need to gently caress up hard to turn casting Whitaker, Cole, and Gill into a net negative, and the show has come nowhere close to that. That being said, I get where you're coming from. I've been kind of iffy about Whitaker from the start and have felt really uncomfortable about saying that simply because the other people saying that are all alt-right shitheads. The scripts give her absolutely to do, admittedly, but even on the occasion when somebody gives her good dialogue, she delivers it... fine. I'd put her around the same level as Tennant (whom I also don't really care for), maybe a little lower. It hurts even more when Jo Martin shows up and immediately owns the role of the Doctor. We could have had so much more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 06:11
|
|
|
I'm not completely down on the entirety of Chibnall's run, even if the finale was extremely underwhelming. Season 11 was... a retrenchment sorta. Moffat's last few seasons had kinda gone overboard with how tricky and timey-wimey every story was, and while it was neat to have Capaldi's Doctor be self-examining and not sure of his own morality, every so often I was hoping we could just have an episode where the Doctor and the companion save a planet or something. So Season 11 comes along and it is mostly just these straightforward romps, sometimes with a twist or two but with the focus always on the Doctor solving a problem. Part of this was the team finding its feet, some of it was a kind of "kinder, gentler" atmosphere, and I suspect it was also popular pressure, which was reflected in the ratings going back up. So, second season under Chibnall, they decide to get more ambitious. Let's have a metaplot again, let's have some two-parters, let's shake things up! Make the Doctor less happy-go-lucky, give her some darker notes, makes sense right? And then... yeah the retcon. Which again, I don't think is a huge problem in and of itself, so much as it manifested as a big infodump and a finale that, overall, was a stone cold bummer where the Doctor doesn't do much of anything. Which I guess does sorta line up with Chibnall's other works- I liked Broadchurch but I stopped at the end of the first season and from all accounts there is no good reason to go any further. Torchwood was... always sorta troubled but S2 had more of a going-off-the-rails feel than the first. Like I'm not even sure Season 12 *as a whole* is terribly bad. There are really only two episodes that strike me as particularly weak, it's just that one of them was the season finale, and was meant to be a payoff to so much stuff, so that left a horrible taste in all our mouths.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 07:17
|
|
|
Astroman posted:You keep saying this, and I know you don't like Moffat, but do you not even like RTD? Cause he was as fanboy as they come. Let me put it like this: I think Eccleston's run (apart from a few dud moments here and there) was great. I would have loved a full season of Nine/Rose/Jack (and I say this as someone who got pretty tired of the Ten/Rose "will they/won't they" thing). And if RTD had left the show at the end of Eccleston's season, I'd be perfectly happy saying he did a really great job bringing the show back. Tennant's run, however...well, I think that's where RTD really started to disappear up his own backside (and I'd go so far as to say he pretty much phoned it in a lot of the time). That said, he delivered some really great moments, but that was RTD's problem: as Tennant's run went on, he seemed really focused on delivering moments rather than a cohesive story. I would say that by the time RTD left, he'd very much overstayed his welcome. WIth all that said, though, he was responsible for some really good stuff: the creation of the revival series' best companions, namely Donna and her granddad Wilf. I also thought he did a great job bringing back Davros, and the moment Professor Yana becomes the Master again is probably one of the greatest reveals of the series ever. But yeah, RTD overall had a lot of duff episodes during his run and I'd say he did his legacy on the show more harm than good the longer he stayed. quote:Thay would mean you don't like any DW since '89 or maybe '96, at which point you're really looking for them to do a totally different show than they've done the past 15 years. I'll freely admit that I think the classic series is the superior series for a variety of reasons. That said, though, I did like the majority of Eccleston's run, there were some Tennant episodes I quite liked, and to give Moffat his due, I really enjoyed the 50th anniversary episode (as well as the mini-episode where Eight regenerates into the War Doctor, which I appreciated that he wanted to get all the Doctors' regenerations finally filmed). Rochallor posted:Even if casting of women and PoC is done for deeply cynical reasons, it still gives acting opportunities to them and serves as a valuable form of representation. Much as I loathe Chibnall, he would need to gently caress up hard to turn casting Whitaker, Cole, and Gill into a net negative, and the show has come nowhere close to that. Yeah, I definitely don't want to come across as "NO WOMAN IS MY DOCTOR  ", I'm perfectly fine with Jodie being cast in the role. Really, I never think any of the actual actors playing the Doctor are bad, it's just the writing does them no favors. And I think the Jo Martin thing kind of bothers me because it felt like Chibnall going "look, we cast a black woman as the Doctor" like he was checking off a to do list, giving him a sort of veneer of "diversity" without actually having to cast a black woman in the lead role (and it also feels like sort of giving a future showrunner a way to "avoid controversy" by not actually having to do that casting, because they can just go "well we've already done that before").
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 07:37
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:(I appreciated that he wanted to get all the Doctors' regenerations finally filmed). Looks like it might take longer than he thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 07:58
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:
Yeah, I think it's hard to not let the finale color how we feel about the rest of the season, but there were some really good episodes in season 12, especially the Mary Shelly one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 14:21
|
|
|
Doctor WHO Oh, The Timeless Child... Well, I guess that answers that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Yeah, I think it's hard to not let the finale color how we feel about the rest of the season, but there were some really good episodes in season 12, especially the Mary Shelly one. I'd agree. The season was a mixed bag which, divorced from the finale, I'd probably say averages out as "mediocre". But the finale was SO BAD its hard to remember the good bits, and the finale of any season is naturally going dominate the discussion between seasons. Let alone one which tries to retcon so much established show history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
Where is the easiest place to even watch class Who? I tend to think of it as a more extreme Star Trek TOS, it exists, folks like it, but generally have very little interest in sitting through it. My stepdad liked them when I was a kid and I saw random parts of it but was very confused on the whole concept and usually just fell asleep. I wonder if I'd appreciate them more now. I am skeptical they could be "better" than the stuff I'm familiar with, but it's a pretty fuzzy bar to begin with, "good" and "bad" become deeply flexible when applied to Dr Who.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
Britbox has been available in the US and Canada for a while now and has recently been made available in the UK, and they have I think all of the existing classic Doctor Who episodes, with maybe a few exceptions. You could also get some DVDs or blu-rays but if you're not sure if you'll like them, streaming is probably the better choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
Andrew Ellard, a working script-editor usually does pretty good "tweet-notes" where he tackles scripts (from Who and other nerd stuff) from his professional pov "rewrites" Bad Wolf/Parting Of The Ways in the Chris Chibnall style. It's...harsh https://twitter.com/ellardent/status/1238488092199264256
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
I think it speaks volumes they didn't include anything about the Daleks interacting with the Doctor
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:Andrew Ellard, a working script-editor usually does pretty good "tweet-notes" where he tackles scripts (from Who and other nerd stuff) from his professional pov "rewrites" This is a really good read. Thanks for linking it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
Yeah, I normally don't truck with Ellard -- his stuff is kind of interesting, but it's super prescriptive, so when an actually weird show pops up like Avenue 5 all he's able to do is say "Those sets are a bit much, eh?" rather than realise that's the point -- but that was a pro click.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2020 22:09
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:Andrew Ellard, a working script-editor usually does pretty good "tweet-notes" where he tackles scripts (from Who and other nerd stuff) from his professional pov "rewrites" Harsh... https://twitter.com/ellardent/status/1238490471296569344?s=20 ...but fair. I mean, 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
quote:On Pointless, Graham answers a series of questions of policework correctly. Ouch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:Andrew Ellard, a working script-editor usually does pretty good "tweet-notes" where he tackles scripts (from Who and other nerd stuff) from his professional pov "rewrites" https://twitter.com/ellardent/status/1238591110622203905?s=20 Gosh, that idea of his sure sounds familiar... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
An Ounce of Gold posted:Doctor WHO Yes, instead of being a mysterious time-traveller who can regenerate 12 times, and then a mysterious time-traveller who can regenerate more than 12 times, she's now a mysterious time-traveller who has already regenerated a lot more than 12 times. I always wondered what it would have been like to be a Doctor Who fan when The Deadly Assassin first aired (and came in last in the season poll of the DWAS). Now I know. I do think The Deadly Assassin is better written than The Timeless Children, but it's hard to appreciate all of the risks that the former was taking because they've been canon for so long now. In the immediate context of the Four/Sarah seasons preceding it, it's completely mad. The Ellard thread is amusing but he's both being unfair to Chibnall and ignoring Chibnall's greatest weaknesses, which aren't about the main characters but all the side characters. For reasons that continue to baffle me, he is terrible at establishing characters and characterization quickly. Compare the shaping of the characters in Praxeus, where we get a strong sense of who most of these characters are in mere minutes, to Chibnall's inability to give shape to his side characters even across multiple episodes. He does OK with already established characters but you can point to maybe a single scene, sometimes a single moment in a single scene, that characterizes most of his other side characters. When you're starting to long for the characterization of Pip and Jane Baker, you know things are pretty bad. And I'm not sure that Deus ex Davies is the best go-to guy to provide alternatives to Chibnall's wet-fart episode endings. I'm not complaining too much about Timeless Children's ending (which makes a point and immediately renders it moot) given that at least there's some supposition that the villains of the piece are supposed to be defeated instead of being allowed to walk away without comment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
You fools can't you see if you reduce the point to be vague enough it's all the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
First the Doctor was a character on TV, then the Doctor was a character on TV. Huge change. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 04:08
|
|
|
Dabir posted:First the Doctor was a character on TV, then the Doctor was a character on TV. Huge change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 04:29
|
|
|
There's good retcons and bad retcons, and you can really only say whether it's good or bad in retrospect I think. This one seems to contradict too much stuff to be good, but hey maybe Chibs has got something up his sleeve that's good enough to make it worth it
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
The thing is, even if he fixes it, since everybody loving hates it, everybody's going to think he's back-pedaling because of the fan reaction whether or not that's what he's actually doing. So no matter what, this makes him look like a loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 04:41
|
|
|
WSAENOTSOCK posted:So any change made to any character in fiction doesn't matter? Why enjoy art, then? I could read your post, but as it's fundamentally no different from mine (i.e. they are both text in a database) I can safely assume you agree with me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
Dabir posted:I could read your post, but as it's fundamentally no different from mine (i.e. they are both text in a database) I can safely assume you agree with me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 05:00
|
|
|
Maybe this is Chibnall's attempt to reintroduce mystery to the character (by ripping off LeGuin, basically) rather than keep telling the same old stories about Gallifrey over and over. The Doctor was always special, something that RTD struggled with and Moffat just flat out loved. I don't see how this is all that different. It's just lore cruft. It's all bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
Open Source Idiom posted:The Doctor was always special, something that RTD struggled with and Moffat just flat out loved. I don't see how this is all that different. People hated Rise of Skywalker for the exact same reason. It's a message that flies in the face of everything we need to be accomplishing as a society right now in particular, and always as an ideal. Calling themselves The Doctor was a promise they made to themselves upon becoming a time lord. Now it's something they already were, for unexplained, though undoubtedly not as interesting, reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
WSAENOTSOCK posted:I legit don't understand the point you've been trying to make, so you can be glib and sarcastic about it to make yourself feel clever, or you could further try to explain the thing you thought was important enough to say to a group of strangers. I'm pretty sure Dabir was just making fun of Narsham's post, which over-generalized the change to the Doctor's history to try and make it look indistinguishable from some other minor change that didn't get people up in arms. Their response to you was just making fun of Narsham's post again, not taking a shot at or arguing with you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
Get Matt Smith back for one episode so he can wake up from the Dream Lord again (Amy & Rory having frozen to death) and thus instantly wash away all the garbage since. Jodie_doctor ends by hearing birds chirping "tweet tweet, time to sleep". DancingShade fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Mar 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
WSAENOTSOCK posted:Because under Moffat, The Doctor was special because of things they chose to be and do, and now they're special by divine right of birth. This is what it all comes down to. It's a stupid retcon, but there have been stupid retcons before. But this one actively damages the character of the Doctor. By making her more special, she becomes less special. Past that, it's just another bad episode. Also, let's talk about The Deadly Assassin. What does it have in common with whatever this recent episode was called? It takes place on Gallifrey and there's a retcon (though I'd argue that since Assassin doesn't really change anything it's just... continuity.) How does The Deadly Assassin differ? It's a good use of your time. It's well-written. It's funny. It's a timely riff on 70s conspiracy fiction. It has a chalk outline of a Time Lord with his big silly hat. It understands that the Time Lords having an organization called the CIA is a joke, and not something that should be taken seriously and brought back for future stories.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 10:07
|
|
|
To be honest, pros with a fandom background worked pretty well with Davies and Moffat, for all their faults. The program was hugely successful under Davies and even moreso under Moffat during the first Smith years. It wasn't until later that there was a decline in viewership. Besides, Chibnall was probably chosen, among other things, 1) because, y'know, he showed he had a willingness to do this really time-consuming, tiring job 2) because he clearly has skills, the show looks great right now, the new musical direction is great, the casting is consistently very good (everybody seems to love Sacha Dhawan's master) 3) there's a non-insignificant chance other people refused 4) he had been a showrunner on several shows before. So, I do think the choice makes sense from the point of view of the BBC, and while I really dislike this retcon, I think it's giving ammo to people who absolutely want to be proven right in their pet theories in this thread, and that's a little questionable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 10:20
|
|
|
As much as I really enjoy the cartmel masterplan - and as a faction paradox fan I really like that sort of mystery a lot - such a narrative works best by hinting and not defining. Let the audience imagination run rampant and they'll conjure up a thousand stories by themselves. Tell or clearly define a mystery and frankly you "done hosed up". Defining (badly, or perhaps "shittily") some official fanwank "I got hired by the BBC!" fanfiction.net trash as official backstory is inherantly the TV equivalent of jerking off on livestream by accident because you left the camera rolling. Whoopsie. It's okay though. Whoever gets the license in the far future once the BBC sells it off once the antenna license goes away (that's going to be a glorious meltdown unrelated to DW once it kicks off) will do what they want anyway. If Mickey Mouse can eject all the Star Wars EU bullshit on a cocaine fulled whim then whoever gets the rights to the blue police box can do what they like to fix it up too. Don't expect anything on "TV" (lol its all on a streaming service now, lets be honest) to matter in a few years time anyway. In the meantime we have whatever classics we like to enjoy. Plus some very good Big Finish productions. Incidentally I highly recommend the War Doctor series "Only The Monstrous". Great plot and incredible voice work by the actors including the late John Hurt and Jacqui Pearce. DancingShade fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Mar 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 10:23
|
|
|
In the interest of positivity, let me point out one thing I absolutely adored about The Timeless Children. The Master tells this big story, all this so-called super important history and back-story and secrets that are supposed to be really really fascinating and big-time mind-blowing etc.... and the Doctor's first reaction/thought/concern after all this is revealed is (paraphrased): "Yeah but was the kid okay?" That's... perfect. I loved that, it fits with the Doctor's character so much that this would be her primary focus, and that it was probably also the last thing the Master would have thought to ask.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 10:46
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Ouch. C'mon son, the game show Graham should be on is obviously The Chase.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 12:48
|
|
|
Voting Floater posted:C'mon son, the game show Graham should be on is obviously The Chase. I want to be in the Alternate Reality where Bradly Walsh Joesph Joestars his way through the gameshow he's most well known for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 13:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:13 |
|
|
Dabir posted:First the Doctor was a character on TV, then the Doctor was a character on TV. Huge change. 23/11/1963 – Doctor Who begins. Doctor Who dies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 17:52
|
|