The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

What's currently on the box
User avatar
Juswuh
D-MAC
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:04 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Juswuh »

I watched again, and thought how unnecessary the whole "timeless child" business is, a pointless complication of a simple setup. If the Doctor's dying, he can survive by changing into a new body: that's all you need, and it's an idea that has served the show well. (If they'd just replaced William Hartnell with someone who looked like him, it's quite likely that An Unearthly Child would be the only surviving episode today.)

It wasn't helped by the timeless child's total lack of interest as a character. Why do shows do these flashback scenes with big setups and sweeping camerawork, only to have the thing centre on a child actor who looks nothing like the adult they're supposed to grow into, with the glassy-eyed expression of someone waiting to be told what to do next?

User avatar
spflog1
625 lines
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:26 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by spflog1 »

I don't mind it if they're trying to put a bit of mystery back into the Doctor's identity/origin. Maybe it was just felt that the whole Gallifrey/Time Lord thing had been rather overused (and abused) and consequently had lost some of that mystery. Good luck to them on that. Maybe The Timeless Children will be looked upon in the future much like The War Games has been since 1969, as a pivotal landmark moment in the show's history.

I just hope the Cyberman Time Lord hybrids don't make a reappearance. They looked utterly ridiculous, even worse than those New Paradigm Daleks from 2010 and that takes some doing! I'm also not keen on seeing Cybermen led by a member of another unconverted species, such as the Master. Cybermen should be in control of their own destiny, otherwise they just become uninteresting rent-a-monster puppets.

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3293
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

The Cybermen in Nu-Who have never been used very well, not helped by the fact they are still stomping around like toy soldiers.

The new 'Old style' masks were quite good though.

Also not keen on the way the Master's victims flip about when he uses his TCE on them.
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

User avatar
paul.austin
625 lines
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:22 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by paul.austin »

[With apologies for stealing - erm, borrowing, this from Australian children’s’ author Paul Jennings]

[at an Australian shopping mall one Christmas in the alternate universe where the Eleventh Doctor travels with seven-year-old Amelia Pond]

Young Amelia [in pink t-shirt and white shorts]: “You promised you’d take me to see Australian Father Christmas!

Eleven: Amelia, we’re shopping for presents!

Young Amelia: If you don’t take me to see Australian Father Christmas, I’ll pee on the floor! [starts lifting leg end of her shorts]

Eleven [defeated]: OK, we’ll go and see Australian Father Christmas.

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

Working my way through Series 12 now, having seen the first 2 episodes at the time. I apologise if I repeat what someone else has already said, but I haven't read comments for episodes I haven't seen yet.

Orphan 55: Started pretty well, then quickly devolved into the ultimate cliche. Still, Nu Who has lifted stories from the novels and audios. Wasn't there a World Distributors Annual story like this?

Nikola Tesla's Night of Terror: I actually enjoyed this one. It just never felt like Doctor Who. Rather more like a generic American sci-fi time-travelling show. I was half expecting Commander Data to appear any moment. And, how clever was it to make everyone expect the 'monster of the week' be the Zygons, only to make them the vastly inferior. Skithra as well.

Fugitive of the Judoon: It probably would have been nice to not know the twist in advance, but that was probably impossible in this day and age. I have been steering clear of Dr Who websites, and Dr Who topics on forums etc. deliberately, yet somebody still felt it necessary to mention it, on a sports website of all things. As for the episode itself..I have no feelings about it really. It just sort of happened. And I can't say I would have been shocked, giddy or angry if I had not known the 'reveal'. Still, I am curious to see where it leads to, although I have had people 'reveal' things from the last episode before I've seen that either. Hopefully there's still something to be got out of it.

What I do find interesting is the way Chibnall made a point out of having 'no returning monsters' and 'no story arcs' for his first year as Showrunner. That flopped rather disastrously. So, 5 episodes in, we've had the Return of the Master, the Return of the Judoon, a Big Mystery, and clear hints that we're getting the Return of the Cybermen as well(I see that the name of the penultimate episode says as much.) We've also had more Time Lords, including an other Doctor.

Which may be Chibnall's way of admitting without saying straight out that he can't just create good stories with strong characters and interesting plots. He needs the gimmick stories.

(Although the ratings for Series 12 seem to have gone down and down...)
Great News Inside, Chums!

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by drmih »

I'd prefer not to be preached to regarding the issues of the day (plastic; environment;sexism etc) but I've realised the issue is the Doctor and (too many) companions - the acting just seems to leave much to be desired and it's often very obvious because of the calibre of the supporting actors. When Jo Martin turned up I just thought 'that's a proper Doctor'.

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

Now reached the end..

Praxeus : This was made much funnier by the continuity announcement at the end of the episode saying I could pre-order the boxset of the entire twelfth series. Otherwise dull and preachy.

Can You Hear Me?: Started off well, and I thought it was going to be good. Instead, it quickly fell apart. Utterly disposable, just not in the Indian Ocean. After all, that's what the previous episode was supposedly saying, right?

The Haunting of Villa Diodati: Another annoyance. I was really enjoying this for the first 20 minutes or so, and was intrigued as to what was going to happen next. And then, Nu Who Cliche set in. Why do this nonsense? These writers know how to write an opening scene that can pull you in, and make you want to see more. But they can't write a proper episode. Moffat's Era had the same problem. Some really strong opening scenes, followed by 40 or so minutes of complete rubbish. But, the "good" part lasted longer than normal.

Ascension of the Cybermen: Yet another "Last humans left". Ooh, look it's JNT-Era Cybermen! And the Master makes an appearance at the end. And Gallifrey! Speaking of the JNT Era, this is the EXACT thing that people like Chibnall accused 80's Who of, with that smug look on their faces. And now Chibnall does his Shopping List Episode. What, Chibbers, no Sontarans or Rani? I'm disappointed!

The Timeless Children: And then the very worst kind of fan fiction that makes Lungbarrow look like Shakespeare by comparison. Just. No. Contrary to the little preach there, this enhances nothing. It reduces it to dung. And of course, both the "timeless child" and the "discoverer" both HAVE to do male-to-female or female-to-male regenerations. If the Brain of Morbius faces are now real, that means that the Doctor had a straight run of males of those eight faces, then Hartnell through Capaldi(adding in Hurt and Tennant II), of what? Twenty-two consecutive male forms. Surely that would be the anomaly then? Or was there some Gallifreyan Dark Age when Time Lords kept regenerating into the same gender? This episode was just wrong on so many levels. Yes, he got his wish. And he probably really believes that he's a better Showrunner than JNT, and a better writer than Robert Holmes or Terrance Dicks, as well. Just atrocious. This is exactly why fanboys should never be allowed to run anything.

Image
Great News Inside, Chums!

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3293
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

The fact that I can't even remember much about these episodes, demonstrates their quality ( for me) as it was only a couple of months or so ago.
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

Good article here from someone. (I don't agree 100% with all of this, but mostly do agree):

https://burrunjor.com/2020/02/18/what-r ... ho-part-1/

https://burrunjor.com/2020/03/27/what-r ... ho-part-2/
Great News Inside, Chums!

User avatar
paul.austin
625 lines
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:22 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by paul.austin »

To be fair, Chibnall's shopping-list episode was a set-up for the destruction of humanity and the Time Lords and a revelation about thousands if not millions of hitherto-unsuspected Doctors and you just didn't get that sort of thing in the '80s.

Brian F
625 lines
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Brian F »

I think the new team were just trying to find a way round the 12 regenerations problem if/when they had to recast. However in The Five Doctors the master said that the Time Lords had got his co-operation by promising him a "New regeneration cycle" so wither they were lying or the new idea didn't have to happen.

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by drmih »

Brian F wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 4:21 pm
I think the new team were just trying to find a way round the 12 regenerations problem if/when they had to recast. However in The Five Doctors the master said that the Time Lords had got his co-operation by promising him a "New regeneration cycle" so wither they were lying or the new idea didn't have to happen.
Didn't they give Matt Smith a whole new set of regenerations, so it's going to take quite a time to get through 11 more.

Brian F
625 lines
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Brian F »

Again sorts of negates the current version as they wouldn't have needed to if this version of regeneration origins was true. Strange. Back to Terrance Dicks ideas on continuity "What we remembered".

User avatar
paul.austin
625 lines
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:22 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by paul.austin »

Terrance Dicks also wouldn't have tolerated getting back Michael "i now look like a sumo wrestler" Kilgariff for Attack of the Cybermen just because he had been in Tomb of the Cybermen. Terrance was right that the audience should not be expected to remember a story that was over two years old.

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3293
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

I doubt anyone could piece together the mess of the last few years in continuity, good luck to them in trying!

Has there been any mention of when they might be filming the next series? ( I know the Dalek special was already completed) but If they do get started later in the year, that may mean an Autumn 21 start.
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

User avatar
paul.austin
625 lines
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:22 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by paul.austin »

You have to wonder when DW in any form will cross the line into an entry in the Holocaust genre and just how bad will it be

Take this possibility:

If Young Amelia Pond was captured by the Nazis, I think the Doctor would refuse the offer of a Swiss passport and accompany Young Amelia on the train to Auschwitz. Fortunately, like in the movie "Jacob the Liar", Soviet soldiers intercept the train and we don't have to see Young Amelia given a shower to "de louse" her.

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

Didn't some of the 'Wilderness Years' books do something like that, where it was revealed that the National Socialists were being controlled by aliens?

Actually that sounds very Nu Who, doesn't it?
Great News Inside, Chums!

User avatar
paul.austin
625 lines
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:22 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by paul.austin »

Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote:
Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:01 pm
Didn't some of the 'Wilderness Years' books do something like that, where it was revealed that the National Socialists were being controlled by aliens?

Actually that sounds very Nu Who, doesn't it?
Timewyrm: Exodus by Terrance Dicks, one of the earliest New Adventures.

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

Someone made an interesting point on something I read. The reason the current show is in such a mess is because the same people have effectively been running it since it returned.

Davies, Moffat and Chibnall(plus acolytes like Gatiss, Cornell, Briggs and Roberts(until recently)) are all cut from the exact same cloth, and seem to belong to a hive mind collective. So, for 15 years, the show has basically been adhering to the exact same formula. And the only flashes of anything good are when someone from outside the hive, like Jamie Mathieson, gets to do something.

If we take the spin-offery into consideration, then remember that Cornell was basically the conductor for the ghastly Virgin Books(1991-1997), where nothing outside that mentality was allowed to be published. The Big Finish Audios originally were co-ordinated by Gary Russell, until Briggs took over in 2006.

Outside of a few small gaps, we've effectively had the same incestuous group of people pushing their preferred version of Doctor Who for 15 years now(or 30 if we include the books and audios). That makes John Nathan-Turner's stint look like a cup of tea by comparison.
Great News Inside, Chums!

User avatar
Juswuh
D-MAC
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:04 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Juswuh »

Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:18 pm
Someone made an interesting point on something I read. The reason the current show is in such a mess is because the same people have effectively been running it since it returned...
I think there's a good deal of truth in this. Especially after Davies*, so much of it has had the feeling of playing to the clique, to the obsessives. And the big continuity implants have all had a proprietary feel - the whole Clara-was-always-there business, the Timeless Child, even the Time War**; a sense of "This happened and now Doctor Who's MINE!"

*Davies was aware that the new show had to appeal to people who'd never watched Doctor Who before. I think if anyone else had been in charge of the revival it very likely wouldn't have lasted more than a year or two.

**At least the Time War only went back to 1989 (or 1996) rather than rewriting everything from 1963 onwards.

Mark
Committee
Posts: 3293
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Mark »

All this present stuff on Gallifrey with the Time Lords and wandering around the Panopticon, general viewers don't really care about that, which is one of the reasons it's largely down to the core audience of fans with overnights of 4 million.
"A cup of Tea....Tea...Tea"

Brian F
625 lines
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Brian F »

Yes, at least in The Deadly Assassin there was a good story to justify doing that, it would have held your attention set anywhere, unlike the latest visit there.

User avatar
paul.austin
625 lines
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:22 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by paul.austin »

It's a toss up as to who's worse to endure - Et Hamster or the T*m* L*rds

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

Someone on another Forum I'm on made another excellent point about the stupidity of recasting women as the Master, Doctor etc.

Is it "transphobic"? No, in fact the way it's been done could be said to be bigoted.

Essentially, someone knows their own gender identity. Most of us are born in the 'correct' body. So, speaking personally, I identify as male, and I have a male body etc.

Where someone is "Trans", they feel and understand that they have born into a body of the wrong gender. Thus, they may have a male body, but know themselves to be female.

Now, with Doctor Who, both the Doctor and the Master very clearly always knew that they themselves were males. In fact, both showed signs of sexism and misogyny at times. The Doctor is a "he". The Master is a "he". Changing the gender of their bodies should NOT have altered the fact that the essences, the mindsets, the self-identities of the Doctor and the Master were undoubtedly of two men.

When the Master ended up looking like Michelle Gomez, it should not have been portrayed the way Missy was. It should have been more akin to the 1991 American movie 'Switch', which sees a sexist man suddenly inhabiting the body of a woman. Yes, the body may now be female, but the identity, the self-awareness etc. were still the same person as before...a man.

In The Timeless Child, this is taken to extremes. We see a woman called Tecteun, who identifies as female, and is referred to as "she" and "her". Then, she injects something into herself. She suddenly takes on a male form. And then the narrator continues, "he...", "he...", "he...". But what actually changed? The body. It's still the same person in there, isn't it?

Are these "liberal" types saying that someone absolutely must be defined by what dangly bits they have? If the Master was always a sexist man, then does getting a bust demand that he must start calling himself "she"? Is getting a winkie wankie woo all it requires for the female Tecteun to suddenly be called a "he"?

If the Geoffrey Beevers Master had stolen the body of Nyssa instead of Tremas in The Keeper of Traken , would that have changed the personality? If the Deathworm/Morphant had taken the body of Dr Grace Holloway rather than Bruce the Ambulance Man in The TV Movie, would the Master's personality have then had to be totally different?

What makes it even more bizarre is to point this out is to be called a "hater".
Great News Inside, Chums!

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by drmih »

I think the biggest hole in this argument is that quite clearly during a regeneration, as well as the body, the personality changes as well - a couple of the cases you mention are fine, where there was a possession of another body by the same 'personality', but each Doctor has been significantly different from the previous one, and in actual fact this has always been the fascinating thing, not the appearance. Totally ignoring the period in time when each Doctor was recorded (and thus how society changes), there is still no reason why the essence of the Doctor can't be gender fluid, regardless of the physicality. I'm not sure why some people are still rallying against a female Doctor, as it's just done. I don't like Jodie Whitaker's portrayal, or the Timeless Child nonsense, but would be quite happy to have another female Doctor if written well - I'd have Jo Martin in a shot.

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

I'm not in agreement with you there.

The personality doesn't really change. All the Doctors were supposed to have the same personality traits. It's just that each Doctor had one or another of those traits being more pronounced than others.

Same with the Master. Every Master shared the same personality/character traits. It's just that different ones came to the fore depending on which Master it was.

Or, at least, that's the way it used to be.
Great News Inside, Chums!

brigham
HD
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by brigham »

Richard Charles Skryngestone wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:35 pm
Someone on another Forum I'm on made another excellent point about the stupidity of recasting women as the Master, Doctor etc.

Is it "transphobic"? No, in fact the way it's been done could be said to be bigoted.

Essentially, someone knows their own gender identity. Most of us are born in the 'correct' body. So, speaking personally, I identify as male, and I have a male body etc.

Where someone is "Trans", they feel and understand that they have born into a body of the wrong gender. Thus, they may have a male body, but know themselves to be female.

Now, with Doctor Who, both the Doctor and the Master very clearly always knew that they themselves were males. In fact, both showed signs of sexism and misogyny at times. The Doctor is a "he". The Master is a "he". Changing the gender of their bodies should NOT have altered the fact that the essences, the mindsets, the self-identities of the Doctor and the Master were undoubtedly of two men.

When the Master ended up looking like Michelle Gomez, it should not have been portrayed the way Missy was. It should have been more akin to the 1991 American movie 'Switch', which sees a sexist man suddenly inhabiting the body of a woman. Yes, the body may now be female, but the identity, the self-awareness etc. were still the same person as before...a man.

In The Timeless Child, this is taken to extremes. We see a woman called Tecteun, who identifies as female, and is referred to as "she" and "her". Then, she injects something into herself. She suddenly takes on a male form. And then the narrator continues, "he...", "he...", "he...". But what actually changed? The body. It's still the same person in there, isn't it?

Are these "liberal" types saying that someone absolutely must be defined by what dangly bits they have? If the Master was always a sexist man, then does getting a bust demand that he must start calling himself "she"? Is getting a winkie wankie woo all it requires for the female Tecteun to suddenly be called a "he"?

If the Geoffrey Beevers Master had stolen the body of Nyssa instead of Tremas in The Keeper of Traken , would that have changed the personality? If the Deathworm/Morphant had taken the body of Dr Grace Holloway rather than Bruce the Ambulance Man in The TV Movie, would the Master's personality have then had to be totally different?

What makes it even more bizarre is to point this out is to be called a "hater".
I'm impressed.

User avatar
spflog1
625 lines
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:26 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by spflog1 »

The Doctor's personality changes with each regeneration. That's always been the case. There are often some echoes of previous incarnations and in that Jodie Whittaker's portrayal completely conforms to type.

I understand and have some sympathy with the concerns raised by Peter Davison regarding the loss of a positive male role model. I don't think that role model has been lost however. The Doctor can now be a positive role model for both males and females. It's been widened, not diminished.

The idea of the Doctor becoming a woman has been floating around since Tom Baker hung up his scarf. I honestly think it should've happened years ago. The insufferably political correct nature of current BBC output can sometimes be a bit much but a female Doctor is not an instance of that. It's something that was long overdue and this long-time fan was glad to see it happen.

User avatar
Richard Charles Skryngestone
625 lines
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by Richard Charles Skryngestone »

But it's not supposed to be a complete personality change. If it is, and the personality changes, the appearance changes, and now even the body gender AND the gender identification changes, how is it even the same character?

Will we find out there isn't even a single "Doctor" after all, and no regeneration either? Rather there are a succession of replacements waiting in the wings to be teleported in when one Doctor dies, and take on the name 'Doctor'? Because that's what you're making it sound like.

When The Three Doctors originally aired, Patrick Troughton made the point that the three actors weren't playing three characters. They were playing three different sides of the same character. Which is why certain Doctors, as well as certain actions committed by the Doctor at various points, get such negative reactions from many viewers. Because the character of the Doctor should never behave in such a manner. Yes, Pertwee may have done things that Hartnell never would have done, but nothing remotely like what has happened more recently.

Simply Jodie Whitaker is playing a character called "The Doctor" who travels in a TARDIS that looks like a police box. But, for many people, Jodie Whitaker's character called 'the Doctor' is very clearly not the same character as the 'Doctor' character who was played by Hartnell et al.
Great News Inside, Chums!

drmih
625 lines
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: The All-Purpose Current Doctor Who (2005-) Thread

Post by drmih »

Jodie Whitaker is far more of a 'Doctor' than, for instance, the awful version played by Colin Baker - I'm not keen on the current Doctor but there are plenty of ticks in boxes for the principles shown across the years.

I can't help but feel that, as ever over the last couple of years, it's all about a refusal to accept a female lead. If you go on YouTube or the like there are just lots of angry folk who can't accept change, whether that be the new Star Wars (esp Last Jedi); Star Trek spin-offs (esp Picard); any number of superhero titles which have tweaked the gender or sexuality of the leads; or going back further the disgraceful behaviour regarding Ghostbusters. In the current political / health / economic climate it does seem rather trivial.

Post Reply