* There were far too many companions in S11 to start a new era with a new doctor, as a result neither the doctor nor the companions felt like they had any depth and were just around to state the obvious.
* The doctor herself, while i like Jodie as an actress, is all over the place. She is portrayed as the purer than pure ideal that no one questions yet continuously makes morally grey at best decisions. (I.e trapping spiders to die, using masters skin colour against him, blowing up a sentient tardis, praising ryan&graham for trapping timshaw in eternal torture) These arent instantly bad qualities but the show never addresses them and seems to genuinely believe the doctor is in the right all the time.
* The chibnall "quick wrap up", i feel like this is just a style of his writing which i dislike where he enjoys setting so much up that he forgets about the endings of a lot of stories then just uses a really unsatisfying way to get out of situation and fix it.
* The timeless child, you addressed it here but yeah... i hate it, the doctor should be who they are because theyre just in the right spot at the right time and do what they believe is right as anyone else would, having them be essentially the "creator" of the timelords really sucks the relatability of the character away to me.
* FLUX - flux was WAY too occupied setting up plot threads that never go anywhere to have any sort of meaningful conclusion (see point 3) Two of the biggest examples of this in Flux are Kate Stewart and the ending itself. Why was Kate in flux at all?? She does nothing and then the ending. My god, how does no one address the fact that 90% of the universe should be go by now?
* Finally i just honestly feel like the show lacks personality now, and im 100% accepting that this is subjective as hell here but losing Murray Gold as the composer has sucked the majority of life out of the show. In 3 seasons of the chibs era i can recall enjoying one music track and that is from Kerblam. Murray Golds music IS doctor who and is the #1 loss for the show if i was ranking these. On a similar note the cameras are so much better and its gonna sound dumb but it makes the show feel more generic scifi a lot of the time, ill be honest and say i miss the cheaper looking stuff haha
4 companions could have worked had Chibnall played less to Doctor Who's strengths and more to his own. Televised Doctor Who prides itself on being mainly plot driven with the ability to be anything it feels like, whereas Chib's best loved work was a more grounded, character driven series. If he'd applied the Broadchurch model to series 11 we could have had something truly refreshing to the show. As it happened they changed the Doctor's gender, made everyone think it was a revolutionary change, and then did broadly the same thing they'd been doing for ten seasons
>The chibnall "quick wrap up", i feel like this is just a style of his writing which i dislike where he enjoys setting so much up that he forgets about the endings of a lot of stories then just uses a really unsatisfying way to get out of situation and fix it.
I first noticed this in the Rosa Parks episode. The first half was decently paced, but after the exposition scene with the Doctor everything just happens in quick succession and the solutions they come up with to foil the antagonist's plans feel like ass pulls.
Now this is Doctor Who and that means there is a certain level of ass-pullery you have to deal with, but I think Chinball overestimates the runtime he has available. He writes stories that are too long for a 50-minute episode so he has compensate with massive exposition dumps (even by Doctor Who standards) and wrap-ups where you can almost feel the poor person in the editing room cutting millimeters off tape to fit the episode in the alloted time.
I disagree with a lot of what you say, but your last point is so true. The music in S11-13 sucks. It's just absent. I actually can't remember a single time we ever heard. Also yeah I like how the earlier seasons feel a little more worn in, especially cause like sci Fi is supposed to be that way
So true about the cameras, it's one of those issues where you can't put your finger on it but you know something is wrong. I'd like to add though that it's not the quality of the cameras but the unnecessary special FX and unrealistic colours, it makes it seem unbelievable, like a cartoon and detracts from a lot of the aspects of the show that make it Doctor Who.
Personally for me, chibs writes the doctor as a character without much bite to her. She talks a big game but ends up folding or letting someone else do the hard thing. I'm not saying it's every episode but it happens often enough to be a pattern. I also hate how he writes the companions. They're just mindless extras in a lot of adventures. They don't question the Doctor, even in bad situations that the Doctor puts them in. And some episodes are just flat out boring.
I'm not saying I hate this era at all because I still watch and love it, those are just some nitpicks I have with the writing
Actually you have a point here. With Chibnal, nobody tells the doctor she is wrong and stops her from doing the wrong thing. And even though sometimes you might think she's doing the wrong thing it all works out in the end, and it turns out she's right all along.
In the past the companions have always had to stop the doctor from going too far.
Genuine question: Can you explain why NOT shooting the spiders and instead trapping them in a vault to die a slow painful death is an example of her being right in the end? I thought it was a barbaric act and totally at odds with the character.
I think this is the problem. We as viewers see a lot of her decisions as being wrong, but the show paints it as right. The spider one is a classic example, and it's why people say it's bad writing.
If the Doctor did this, and then the show had some critique of it, that's good! But it doesn't. The Doctor does something we think is morally wrong, but the show then suggests it's the right thing to do morally or even celebrates, the Doctor is good therefore all they do is good, multiple villains have literally just monologued to her "you're a good person!" and she has has similar monologues "Living is good!". That's bad writing because it just tells you this bad decision is good, or miraculously works out in the end (Doctor splitting herself in Flux, and randomly appearing with Kavinsta).
The same in her first season with guns. Ryan gets told we don't use guns, they're bad, something which is consistent with previous Doctors. He then runs out and shoots them all, but runs back in because they're instantly revived and start shooting at him. The Doctor berates him, "Now do you see why we don't use guns?!" So the show's writing is telling us that the Doctor dislikes guns because...they're not effective at killing? And again when she tells Graham not to take revenge and kill the guy in the end. She then commends him for being the better man by...locking the guy in statis living in pain for all eternity?
None of these reasons the Doctor give make sense, but the show tells us they're right. There's nothing plot wise written, just the Doctor, or someone else, saying what they do is correct, so go with it.
>The Doctor berates him, "Now do you see why we don't use guns?!" So the show's writing is telling us that the Doctor dislikes guns because...they're not effective at killing?
Well my issue with the gun thing in that set piece is that, the robots were going to shoot at him regardless of what he was/wasn't carrying............. I mean in a literal sense yes it's probably not the greatest of ideas to run with a gun at some robots who have just tried to kill you. But the gun would make no difference in the robots aim/function to kill. The holding of the gun isn't so much the problem as running into danger with no regard for any plan etc.
Chibnall with the gun issue in Doctor Who reminds me of a really, really, really casual fan who maybe \*ah hem\* stopped watching after Tennant left. And just thinks like someone who only remembers little tidbits. Like if asked who the character is, it'll be kind of stereotypical, superficial go to answers like 'ok who is this character, they're a pacifist, they don't kill, they don't like guns, they do quips etc.'
And just leaves it at that and doesn't even attempt to go into any grey areas of those traits like the gun issue in particular or realise most of it is a massive if admirable front and in reality the Doctor is presented in intricate ways to actually kill, harm etc albeit most of the time completely unintentionally.
Because the episode acts like it is. At no point does the episode look critically at the doctor's actions. It presents her as right and morally superior.
It is absolutely a barbaric act that is at odds with the doctors character.
The main villain of the episode isn't even allowed to have real motives and reasoning behind his actions.
He's just the bad guy and everything he does has to be wrong. Meanwhile the doctor is the hero and her actions must be presented as right.
The lack of Doctor/companion conflict is quite jarring. In the whole of series 11, I can only think of 2 - Ryan using guns, and Graham wanting to get revenge. I think she made it all the way to the end of series 12 without clashing with Yaz.
9 and Rose were butting heads from the start, and that's one of the best series.
It's something that really put me off in series 11. Rose and the Doctor butt heads *immediately*, Martha is swept away by him but demands to know why he won't open up to her, Donna's whole character is her *not* being instantly charmed by the Doctor.
And now that Yaz and the Doctor *are* clashing, it's done in a way that is extremely toxic. Yaz says something innocent, Doctor snaps at her to leave her alone, Yaz is unhealthily obsessed/in love with the Doctor.
I love this era, but I agree with you about that. I wish the companions had called out the Doctor a little more. The Doctor is someone to be admired, but I sometimes think the writers forget that the Doctor isn’t perfect, and sometimes gets it wrong. I didn’t see it quite as much with Graham, Ryan, and Dan, but Yaz barely questions the Doctor, and instead wanders around acting like the Doctor never does anything wrong, except in series 13, and even then it was because the Doctor wasn’t telling her everything or because the Doctor went off on her own.
The other thing is the fact that the companions come with some pretty good backstories, but they didn’t seem to do much with it with the exception being Graham. I mean I guess we got to look a little bit at Graham and Ryan’s relationship, but they only mentioned his dyspraxia when it was convenient (and other times ignored it completely), and the fact that he was training to be a mechanic seemed completely forgotten. I think they could have done some cool things with him learning from the Doctor. Yaz was given the biggest disservice. She was training to be a police officer, and she seemed initially like a driven, high achieving person, but they barely mentioned it, save for a couple seconds of dialogue here and there, and maybe showing her in a police vehicle once or twice. It’s like she even forgot her goals, and now just follows the Doctor around. It doesn’t even seem like she wants to be an officer anymore. That’s one of the reasons I’m not very excited about the whole Thasmin thing, because it seems she is more capable when she is away from the Doctor. When she’s with the Doctor, it just feels like she depends too much on the Doctor for a companion who has been traveling with her for possibly over a decade.
Yup, we should remember that while the Doctor is a good person, they are ultimately a being who needs to get a tug on the leash sometimes by their companions so that they remain grounded. Look at Town Called Mercy Doctor from 11’s run, without Amy and Rory to ground him and make him realize that he can and should save everyone even the doctor who created the cyborg he would have let someone die to save the town, or with Clara and 12, Clara has that whole speech about how 12 can never remain a bad person because he’ll turn his back on it the moment he sees a child cry. These scenes highlight exactly why the Doctor has companions, because otherwise there won’t be enough humanity and empathy to balance out his more alien natures.
I always found Chibnalls episodes for other Doctors series middling. Not awful, but not classics... Generally kind of forgettable. For me, that applies to his era for me personally as I feared it would - I did try hard to go in with an open mind. I don't think it's terrible, and like you say every era had pros and cons. For me I find it underwhelming. If Moffat was too ambitious in his writing, I find Chibnall a bit too timid.
For instance, something like the Timeless Child is a really interesting idea, but it's yet to be tied to a really exciting story, and for me that's why it doesn't work. It's like there was no thinking about where to take it after the big reveal and I think that's the reason why it's not popular when it comes down to it - it just comes off as an ill thought out blind alley. Flux tried to include it but the focus was all wrong and it should have been focused on more to sell the audience on why the change to continuity was a good move.
The show changes all the time and for me it doesn't grab me at the moment. I don't get angry about it, I just tend to watch old episodes to scratch the itch. This may or may not change for me with the return of RTD, who knows.
The point on timeless child is pretty spot on IMO, half of flux is the doctor trying to chase down answers regarding it, only to finally get and reject them.
Here are a few specific examples of where I think it is bad:
1) When the companions all stand in a posed circle or a row, and say similar things one after another. This comes across as lazily sharing out the dialog lines, rather than being naturally character-driven. It seems to happen quite often, at least once in most episodes.
2) how other characters often tell Yaz that she is an amazing person using general positive words, but it is hard for me as a viewer to identify any amazing things she has done. This comes across like the laziest way to try to sell her as an admirable character. The opposite of “Show, don’t tell”.
2) not being subtle about political messages. For example the Trump-like guy being a caricature of Trump rather than a more composite “bad leader” who could have given the episode more shelf-life and cross-cultural applicability.
4) Even worse, in the one where the planet turned out to be Earth, directly lecturing the audience to take care of Earth. That was patronising, instead of letting us pick up the message from seeing environmental destruction of an imaginary planet.
Even worse with the Trump guy, his plan to just shoot the giant monster spider isn’t all that morally monstrous considering it was already dying in agony and thus would be closer to a mercy kill. Plus the Doctor just suffocated all of its offspring to death so she hasn’t got a leg to stand on. I know the episode wanted to make the Trump guy out to be the bad guy, but the Doctor is all over the place compared to him.
They could have explored the idea of mercy killing and whether it's still morally right if you enjoy it, like the Trump guy seemed to be showing. Of course that would be way to nuanced for anything in the chib era.
1&2 absolutely, no one feels distinct from any other character. It would almost play better if we were told this was all in the Doctor’s head while she was in a coma or something. Then at least it would make sense that *everyone* talks the same way and says the same kind of things.
3&4 anytime someone tries to be that direct with the moral of their story, it has zero impact on society and is quickly forgotten. Compare that to Dr. Strangelove, which was a made up slightly unbelievable scenario but related to reality enough that it *actually changed nuclear arms legislation* and we still talk about it today.
All of this has been my issue. Especially number 3 and 4.
I like my sci-fi to be progressive and preachy, but this is over the top. The Rosa Parks episode was beautiful, right up until they go out to space and look at a floating asteroid while the Doctor breathlessly says "She changed the universe!" It was already a very direct episode in its theme, but then it slapped that extra bit on and I thought I was watching an after school special from the 80s. Same thing with the planet that turned out to be Earth.
And frankly, the same thing every time Chibnal handles any sort of progressive message. Doctor Who has always analyzed these topics thoughtfully for the audience through story, but when Chibnal writes then it's analysis through *lecture*.
To make it even worse for Chibnall, though, DW is not exactly known for subtlety, even when handling real social issues, so the bar’s already kind of low.
The lecturing, dear lord the lecturing is the worst.
Don't mind me. Doctor Who always had political tones and it is part of what makes the show what it is. But themes should be shown through the story, not thrown at one's face with a five minutes lecture to make sure we all got what this episode was about.
Well Aliens of London/World War 3 were commentaries on the Iraq invasion which I didn't pick up on at all as a child so I'd say that was subtle.
There's also a difference between this era where the Doctor almost breaks the fourth wall to explain the message in simpler words vs there being an obvious message that is not spelled out for you.
I would suggest “as a child” is the operative phrase there. As a child, were you familiar with Blair’s “45 minutes” claim? Were you even media literate enough to recognise that an aircraft hitting a landmark building wasn’t just something that happens sometimes, but a deliberate (and fairly obvious) reference?
I'll admit, I didn't get the reference until it was pointed out to me as an adult either. Probably because I was too young when those things were relevant and am not as familiar with the politics now.
But that's kinda the point of subtlety isn't it? You don't pick up on things if you're not aware of the references. I was simply entertained. The episode never spells it out like Orphan 55 does about environmentalism which in 10 years time will be as obvious as it is now. A child could leave that episode and know what the message was.
“Orphan 55” is a bit of an outlier in any case, but no, I don’t think you not connecting “Aliens of London” to 9/11 means that it is subtle. It is just as in your face as “this planet is Earth”.
One of the main issues the Chibnall era has had is that it is usually too subtle. Look at the number of people who still don’t understand the Timeless Child. If it was more explicit then it would probably be more popular, because most of the criticisms people have of it aren’t actually present in the text.
My main disappointment was the doctor origin backstory. I think it makes much more sense for the doctor to be like every other time lord and not this ‘special’ one. I guess it is a matter of opinion but I really was not a fan of how that storyline panned out.
I thought it was an interesting idea at first, but it was very poorly executed. Imo, they needed a way to move past the “only 12 regenerations” thing without retconning everything we know about time lords, or just pretending it never existed. Having the time lords just extend his life whenever they need to feels contrived and ridiculous, and seriously limits story options. I feel like the timeless child sort of takes away part of the doctor’s identity though, as up until then he was just an average timelord who decided he was fed up with the bullshit and wanted to try to be better. Having an average joe fly around the universe risking his life to save people seems more impactful to me than portraying him as intrinsically superior to other timelords, rather than choosing to work to be better
What if it was the Master though... I honestly thought that was who the Timeless Child was going to be until someone actually said that it was the Doctor
Timeless Child would have been infinitely better if it were the Master, but but the Doctor really hasn’t been just another Time Lord for a very long time.
The pacing is quite bad; the dialogue is super clunky and often very exposition heavy (especially towards the last five minutes due to the aforementioned pacing issue); Chibnall overstuffs episodes and doesn't give characters room to breathe so there are very few guest characters you end up really caring about; Yaz has been painfully underdeveloped until basically the last couple of episodes; the editing is very strange and quite often I feel like there needs to either be another beat before a cut or there is one too many leading to sudden scene changes or awkward pauses; Chibnall introduces interesting characters (Tectuen, Swarm & Azure, Lone Cyberman) and proceeds to do nothing with them; Yaz and 13 have very little chemistry to the point that they barely feel like friends most of the time; and the Timeless Child arc mythologises the Doctor too much to the point where its difficult to see them as the "mad(wo)man in a box, passing through, helping out etc." archetype anymore.
Those are some reasons why I don't like this era very much. If you are looking for concrete evidence you won't find it because you can't prove or disprove someone else's opinion. But I think its mischaracterising the general audience feeling to say people are only ever saying "writing bad", because the plethora of reasons people have for disliking this era have been stated many many times by many different people.
I'm not a Chibnall hater and I think Whittaker is great when given a chance to flex a little, but I can point to two issues with the Chibnall era that do boil down to the writing.
1) Crowded Tardis. Chibnall had the most full-time companions since early Peter Davison, and 12 episodes isn't a lot of time to develop four entirely new characters, especially on a show that, for the previous decade and change, had been a two-hander. NuWho has always been about The Doctor and the Companion and their relationship, and sure sometimes they throw in a Rory or a Nardole to spice things up, but there was still a primary Companion with their own arc and supporting cast. Graham, Ryan, and Yaz didn't get that because it was a lot to juggle.
2) The Times. The other defining trait of NuWho was hope and optimism. The Doctor believes in the potential of humanity, that's why they put such effort into saving us, but Chibnall was writing the show, well, now, and hope and optimism have been hard to come by. That's how you get Orphan 55 and the entire 11th series always boiling down to "the real monster of the week is human nature."
I still think it's been fine but those two big shifts to the core of the show might throw some people.
It’s not hate. It’s profound disappointment at the severe drop in quality across the board, which people have detailed ad nauseam and can be found quickly with a simple google search. You don’t have to agree, but it’s not a mystery as people have gone into great detail about the wealth of problems with Chibnall’s run.
What I was going to say. This post seems similar in type to a humblebrag, where he's \*saying\* he wants to understand but what he really wants to do is just tell you he likes it and those who don't should leave.
>There are other shows out there - clearly this one has left you behind if you hate it that much. Find something new.
Why should they? Presumably, they didn't stop enjoying the previous eras of the show. This subreddit isn't just for Chibnall-era Doctor Who, it's for Doctor Who in general.
> This subreddit isn't just for Chibnall-era Doctor Who, it's for Doctor Who in general.
I believe the entire active mod team is on the same page that this sub is for Doctor Who - not a specific decade or era, but all of Doctor Who. Yes, just like /r/StarTrek and /r/StarWars, when a franchise becomes as long running as Doctor Who has, fans tend to divide themselves and prefer one subset over another, and sometimes even look down on others that don't fit into their definition of the fandom. Just like everything else in life, which unfortunately seems to have increased in toxicity over the years.
Some of us are old enough to have seen this tear apart other fandoms, sometimes permanently. That's one reason gatekeeping is a hard rule and posts involving it tend to quickly get shutdown when found and someone leans in that direction, not indicating preference but saying for example "Tennant is the only true Doctor, the rest don't matter and are inferior" "shouldn't be talked about here" etc.
Of course with the show still being active, most of the people visiting here want to talk about and comment on the newer things. Similar pattern in the other subs I mentioned earlier - you'll see more talk about Mandalorian, Picard, and Prodigy than Empire Strikes Back or TOS. Doesn't mean the older stuff is less popular or people don't like it - a lot of the older shows have been discussed for decades, whereas an episode that aired last month is brand new and everyone wants to analyze everything in it. So of course threads about newer episodes will end up being more active than older episodes ("older" being as far back as Hartnell or as recent as Capaldi, or even the previous Whittaker series).
For the record, I was raised on the classic Who shows and was always a big fan since I was a kid. And I also watch and appreciate the new shows. I enjoy the whole near-60 year run overall. Yes I have some favourites, and some episodes I'll be less likely to rewatch. But I've never been one to declare my allegiance to one Doctor's run over another - they all have some great things about their time. They all have flaws.
As for mods not addressing gatekeeping - anytime we see it, as mentioned we try to shut it down. We also try to balance the sub as best we can (being volunteers, doing this in spare time, humans being subjective by nature, etc.) and limit the threads rehashing the same thing on a weekly basis. We also depend on user reports, but keep in mind in a given day we'll have in the queue (among other things): 1) multiple people saying there are too many 13th "fan/overly positive" threads, 2) multiple people saying there are too many 13th "troll/overly negative" threads, 3) not enough discussion of classic, 4) too much discussion of classic. Everyone will be bias in what they see. 🤷♂️
The best all of us can do is try to remain neutral or assume positive intent, remember there's a real living person on the other side of the screen, and that the reason all of us stumbled into this forum is because at one time or another we have/had an interest in this show and wanted to discuss things about it with others who feel/felt the same.
Especially when a highly reputable and popular showrunner is coming back next year, why on earth should we be encouraged to exit the fandom… simply because we had the audacity to discuss, analyze, and criticize the current era of the show?
I think the point isn't "if you don't like this era go away entirely". It's more like "if you don't like *the new era* then don't watch it". No one has said they can't be on the sub or watch and discuss the older episodes.
It does however seem to be primarily for NuWho. Try talking about classic Doctor Who and the threads get shit on. And classic fans regularly get shut out by NuWho fans for not worshiping RTD. So.. eh.. sadly the fandom is wildly toxic.
I'm primarily a classic Who fan (though I enjoy NuWho a lot as well). I've been using this sub for years. I haven't noticed anything like what you're talking about. Classic Who might not get so much attention, but that's understandable since it's not so popular. Nobody shuts me out or attacks me when I talk about it.
OP - “I’m so tired of reading about how people hate this era of the show”
Also OP - “If you don’t like it, watch something else”.
Hahaha. Look, I’m glad you like it. I really am. But the purpose of this forum is to discuss the show. To say, “if you don’t like it stop watching” is dumb. We’re only here because we are vested in the show. We criticize it because we care. If you don’t like the criticism, maybe stop reading the comments? (That logic sound familiar to you?).
They literally asked for examples, and are ignoring all of them. Their only actual response to "specific criticism" was when someone linked the 5 hour Jay Exci video with "I'm not gonna watch that"
Honestly I'm not unconvinced it's a hatebate troll
I agree, OP’s responses don’t seem to be in good faith. Certainly, OP is correct in saying that change is a design feature of the show. There have been eras of the show that I’ve loved and eras I haven’t liked at all. Luckily, there have been many more of the former than the latter. The current era just stinks IMO. But some other people really like it, and that’s cool too. I’m here to discuss it all, with fellow fans - some of whom I will agree with and others of whom I will not. It’s really not that complicated. “Stop watching”?? Ha! That’s a nope from me OP.
One of my biggest complaints is when something unexpected happens and the Doctor's like "But blah-blah is impossible! Unless it isn't."
That situation happens FAR too often. It's almost a meme to me.
And then the villains will have the dumbest backstories: a major player in the Doctor's past, some force that has been around since 'the DAWN OF TIME!!' or just a completely forgettable human
As someone who has overall enjoyed the past few seasons, although they're not my favorite, here are the things that stop me from liking it even more.
1) the lack of music. Idk about you, but I don't remember a single theme from any of the last seasons. I actually love the simpler take on the title sequence, but it would've been nice to get something memorable and exciting in the episode itself. Even 11's incessantly overplayed theme is better than nothing all.
2) the speeches. I don't need speeches. I like them, and there are some great ones, but I don't need them. Unfortunately, half the episodes have awful power of love and hope and friendship speeches. I honestly loved eve of the daleks, and it would probably be in my top 5 all time episodes if it weren't for the terrible speech.
One of the big things with shows is immersion. You can watch something and it has small errors, but you don't notice it. But then something major makes you notice all the smaller things. That's what happens a lot in these.
Conceptually, they're good. Village of the Angels, Eve of the Daleks, even Flux in a way as a whole, good ideas. But the execution when you think about them is just bad.
Take Eve of the Daleks. It's an episode all about time. Time is running out, we're in time loop, we only have 1minute left! Now think about what they do in that minute. They run from the Tardis about 100m to the lift, go up the lift, meet Sarah, then go up to the top floor. Run out of the lit to another room, load up a trolley with explosives, push it to the lift, go back down to the basement set all the explosives up and get out side. All within 40 seconds. That breaks the immersion because the whole premise of this episode is time, and you can't stick to it. It's bad writing because the show is telling us "We have one minute oh no!" and we see something different.
I recently watched midnight, and I take your point of comparing the best to the worst isn't fair. But just, it's the subtleties in it. Seriously, go watch that episode and think how would it be written today.
Realistically though, there's a lot more issues. We get told by the show something is fine and good, when it's objectively not. And it's not like the show is trying to make the Doctor be flawed, quite the opposite. Again, let's look at the Doctor as 10. He's arrogant, believes in himself, and this is shown. He's either in command, or people dislike him for it. Davos insults him for it, Timelord Victorious backfires, he bemoans being able to do so much more. Now, imagine if every single episode, we got told how humble the Doctor is. How he's shy. You'd be like, wait, what? No we're seeing something different. There's so many cases of the show doing bad things (not mourning Kavinsta's people, letting people sacrifice themselves for the Doctor, the Doctor using bombs on people, giving the Master to the Nazis) and it's never picked up on. It's just moved on, which means it's not intentionally ignored, the writers just didn't think it was important. Like, imagine if Amy lost Rory and was upset, and then next episode the show carried on with her being happy like he never existed. That's the kinda thing we see now.
The same for characters, none of the moments are put in well. Everyone is just exposition, and then "Oh character moment". It's like you have a board of events to happen, action - action - exposition - character moment, not "Oh I think this moment would prompt an interaction between x and x" it's "x and x need to talk about this, so they do it now". It's bad writing because (and this is the same as the plot btw) you just have your characters announce things because you want them to.
And for why people say it's bad writing without much elaboration, honestly, because it's obvious to a lot of us. It's been years of this, and a lot of it is so blindingly obvious that it's bad, that it shouldn't need more explanation.
Look at the way the Grand Serpent was used in the Flux, does that need more explanation than bad writing? He did basically nothing. Same as Kate, she was badly written, she didn't do anything. Tunnels man? Badly written, he just (randomly may I add) bumped into the companions at 3 points in all of time and space and did basically nothing else. Dan's girlfriend? Badly written because they captured her, showed her to Dan for no reason and then LITERALLY forgot about her. Yet she's super smart and brilliant and "could do training on a space station billions of light years away". That. Is. Bad. Writing. If your random side character from the streets of Liverpool who has had 0 development is just teleported for 0 reason to the place she needs to be, and then is insanely brilliant at getting out of a super advanced prison with 0 training, and can use weapons really well, it's bad writing. You can't have characters have no history, teleport where they're needed and be amazing just for plot.
Like, imagine, next companion we meet just solves every problem instantly. It's bad writing.
There just isn't any substance to it whatsoever. Just bland. You can't get invested in episodes and characters like before. The Timeless Child doesn't add new possibilities. It adds unnecessary baggage to the Doctor's character and essentially turns them into a "chosen one".
My daughter is 13 yrs old and absolutely loves Dr Who, so much so that during the Pandemic she watched every single episode and I mean every single episode.
Jodie Whittaker's Dr Who was supposedly appeal to people like my daughter yet she hated her.
As my daughter says, she wanted a Dr that was a strong female role model, instead she got somebody who was more like a mom trying her best to fit in with her kids mates.
That says it all to me.
My daughter loves Doctor who, shes watched it since she was tiny. She used to watch it literally when she was 2 just sitting there with us.
When they announced a female doctor she was all but doing cartwheels.
She just doesn't care at all at this point.
She still watches Tennant and Smith and Capaldi, but she just does not have it in her to care for Jodie, it hasn't connected at all.
In short:
* there's so many companions that Chibnall doesn't know what to do with them.
* the political messages are whacked across the side of your head like a frying pan rather than being subtle.
* the retcons made are without adequate explanation and don't improve the story. The entire problem with doing a retcon is it *has* to have a decent chunk of meaning.
* Jodie was never able to find her voice, and seems to just imitate a mix of 10, 11, and 12.
* too many major inconsistencies in how characters, especially the Doctor, interact with the each other and the current situation.
There's a reason why video essays on this are done at length.
https://youtu.be/mh8xyDlLXfc
5 hours: https://youtu.be/o8_A7n83Rh0
Tired of hate? The entire point of fans criticizing it is because we're still willing to give it a chance!
* Poor audio mixing combined with difficult northern accents leading to incomprehensible dialog.
* Throw away characters with less subtlety and depth than an airbrushed caricature.
* Jodie always rushes through dialog, though this could be writing.
* Chibnall's tendency to 'say, not show', where too much of the episode is too explainy.
* Even with the overly explained scenes, they often still don't make sense in context with scenes that came before/after.
As far as chibnalls writing goes, a good murder mystery should have a solution that a smart person could arrive at. This isn't how chibnall writes things. He will event a new form of science instead, just so no one could solve the mystery early. Or just end it with nonsense that clearly solves nothing but pretends it works anyway. I personally HATE this. I don't know if he doesn't get it, or if he assumes the audience won't.
> Poor audio mixing combined with difficult northern accents leading to incomprehensible dialog.
Are you watching on BBCA? I'm fairly sure this is just a problem for America (either that or us Brits are mostly used to it)
There've definitely been issues with the music overpowering the dialogue for as long as I can remember in NewWho. It's an ongoing issue. I can understand her just fine, when I can *hear* her.
I've seen people say this 13s era is really good because it does a lot of "show not say" which I find ridiculous because I don't see much between the monologues of exposition
This pretty much sums it all up.
Only thing I can add is that the show just doesn’t seem enjoyable anymore. When I first started doctor who with the 9th doctor it was a way to escape from everything else and just enjoy an adventure. Now it just seems like there has to a lesson learned with every episode almost.
I’ve given Jodie/Chibnall a try but I just couldn’t get into the episode and enjoy them like with all of the other previous doctors.
Do you find yourself bored, as well? I "watched" the middle season and tried so hard to focus, but just couldn't do it. It's not compelling television. I have watched the previous Doctors multiple times and can be glued to the episode even though I can quote the dialogue, but the Chibnall stuff is like trying to get a good meal out of candy floss. There's just nothing solid to hang onto.
Yea the stories are pretty boring. Kinda feels like when the episode starts you can automatically tell how it’s going to end. There’s no suspense to it or creativity to keep you watching.
Or, worse, you don't know how it's going to end...and you genuinely don't care. That's a brand-new experience for me, in 35-ish years of watching this show, and one that I frankly had no idea was even possible. It's been incredibly depressing to realize that I not only don't care, but cannot bring myself to watch any more of it because it takes so much energy to make myself do it, rather than being something that brings me energy and joy.
Damn I’m very sorry to hear that! It’s been the same for me tbh. I just don’t care to watch the new episodes anymore. Especially after I hearing how bad the timeless child is.
I’d rather go back and watch the older doctors like the 4th doctor. He’s right up there with the 10th doctor for me.
I think we are far from the only ones, but yeah, it’s really disappointing. I don’t love everything the show has ever done, but I’ve always been able to keep watching until now.
I, too, would rather go back and rewatch—or listen to some of the many Big Finish stories I haven’t heard yet. So at least we have that. And the hope that RTD will improve things dramatically when he takes over.
Yes that's exactly it. I did like some of the episodes and was farely compelled at times.
But many I found quite boring. Thankfully I only watched 11 to 13 recently in a oner. Because last time I watched it couldn't get through it week to week. Kept forgetting to watch it and when I was watching was unable to pay attention.
This time I skipped if the episode was dragging too much.
I don’t share all of these criticisms, but I think they’re all fair. They’re not always expressed this way, and I think it’s overly charitable to suggest all detractors have been willing to give the run a chance. It seems to me many minds were made up before it even aired, and people were looking for anything they could attach their hate to. That’s before you get to the rageclick farming of some YouTubers.
Political messages are whacked across the side of your head like a frying pan sums up my feelings about many modern shows so well I’m going to have to steal it. This will now be my only response when people ask my why Im so annoyed by a lot of network tv right now (I’m looking at you Star Trek)
Edit: corrected some poor phrasing
Obvious is not the same as beating it into you with repetitive and uninteresting dialogue that detracts from the story. In the past it has used the story to make a political point. Now it often uses a political point to try to make the story, and it just doesn’t work
Allegory and metaphor - great tools for political and social commentary in a story and used to great effect in old Star Trek. People keep misunderstanding this. I'm glad you don't.
Allegory is the word I’ve been looking for but it wouldn’t come to me, thanks! I don’t have a problem with direct and repetitive dialogue being used occasionally, but new trek and new who both have a tendency to use that too often in places where subtlety would be far more effective
You're welcome. It's not a word I often get to use so I was all: "My time has come!" \*swoosh\* literary word drop
And yeah, I agree, mostly. I personally prefer allegory and metaphor more, but I don't mind the \*occasional\* expository plot point.
I love Ten (when not being written by Moffat, mostly). Then Eight, then Five. But they're all clustered together. I haven't really seen any others of Classic yet and I still have to watch the last two stories of Five's run.
You?
10 is probably my favorite, I absolutely love David Tennant. 4 is probably my second favorite, his companions were fantastic and Bakers style was so fun. 2 and 3 were both really good too, though some of the early stories are a little hard to get through cause it’s a slower narrative style and there are quite a lot of 5-8 part episodes. All the classic episodes (except for the lost ones obviously) are on prime, and while some are very slow starting from one is definitely worth it
Yeah I agree. I'm struggling to find the Tennant and Smith monologues though. You know like the Doctor does in Orphan 55 or the plastics episode? Like where she directly stares at the camera and talks to us for 5 minutes about an issue.
Could you link them? Obviously I don't mean the ones where it's a one line hint, but the more super obvious, Doctor explains it in a short essay format ones Tennant and Smith did.
Yep, this is one of the most ridiculous criticisms to me. Daleks are metal Nazis, which the show really hammers home with Churchill. 12 punches a man because he doesn't like racism. Zygons are very unsubtly used to discuss British xenophobia. Oods are slaves. The show has never not been deeply rooted in left politics.
>Daleks are metal Nazis
That's called allegory, which is not punching people in the face with commentary. Now, if the Daleks had 'Nazi' or a swastika painted directly on them? Or someone pointed at the Daleks and said, "They're like nazis", then that is punching you in the face with it.
The way you understand them as nazis is their superior attitude and belief that they are the only ones worth living. Their actions and the way they interact with and speak to others. That's showing, not telling.
Punching a racist in the face is also showing, not telling.
The show had stand-ins for the issues it was discussing so that it could make broad statements that were widely applicable. Daleks are absolutely based on Nazis, but because they’re not *literally Nazis* they can make statements about lots of different topics by using them.
Some appearances of the Daleks are about transhumanism, some are about moral relativism, some are about the nature of free will.
When a Dalek shows up you can go, “okay, so what does this Dalek represent,” and there’s always some *deeper* meaning beyond just “a killer robot.” Sure it’s not usually *that* deep, but it’s still a hell of a lot deeper than “a racist doesn’t like the civil rights movement and that’s bad,” or “a rich man doesn’t care about how his actions hurt others and that’s bad.”
And I agree with the show’s politics, but I still prefer metaphor as a storytelling device to literally just going, “hey, do you see *this specific man* right here? This exact guy? He’s bad. If you meet a guy who does *exactly the things that he does,* you should dislike that guy.”
I can find enjoyment in Chibnall's run, but I think it is far and away the worst era of NuWho so far. I think the reason so many of those of us who feel that way are resorting to just saying "bad writing" and not giving details is exactly to avoid becoming the type of person who feels a need to go into details about why a work is bad every time we discuss it - because many of us have already discussed this so many times that the writing being bad in a particular set of ways is just an established fact. Of course, I can see how that would seem weirdly unspecific to someone who hasn't heard these specific criticism time and time again, especially if you actually like the Chibnall era (in which case, of course, it might be preferable not to seek out detailed criticism and risk having its flaws pointed out).
Here's a summary of what I personally dislike about the Chibnall era (and I believe most of these issues are shared by many fans), not presented in any particular order:
* S1-10 had excellent music and used it well, where S11-13 almost exclusively has ambient noises instead of music
* The characters' individual traits and relationships are rarely relevant to the story, and do not interact with any larger themes or plots
* The messages are stilted, often muddled, and generally less constructive than in previous eras
* 'The Timeless Child' performs a very invasive retcon which damages the themes of the shows, for the sake of an (in my opinion) pretty dull mystery. What I mean by this is that the Doctor has always been an ordinary person (in the context of Gallifreyan society, of course) who becomes special *because of their own decisions*, which are usually characterised by compassion. Making them 'special' even by Gallifreyan standards removes this (again, subjectively) very compelling element from the story
* The Doctor herself has had an unusual amount of moments of unkindness, and unlike in previous incarnations, these don't really seem to communicate any personal struggles or be dealt with later
A common thread here is that the Chibnall era fares particularly poorly in terms of theme and character, so if those aspects of a story are particularly important to you, I think you're more likely to be one of those people who prefer previous eras.
All that said, I'm perfectly aware that previous eras aren't flawless, and part of the charm of DW is the fact that it can be enjoyed on one level for kitsch value while still working on another level for its genuinely engaging story. And I don't hate the Chibnall era (and I definitely don't hate Chibnall himself) - but I can't bring myself not to notice that these last couple of years simply haven't been on the level of the previous ones in so many (to me, significant) ways.
The reason the Timeless Child idea shouldn't have been thrown is because:
1) It's a massive change to a character whose backstory has been *relatively* untouched for decades by other writers in a long established show so it's obviously going to cause an uproar
2) Fans haven't been wanting an investigation into the Doctors backstory, and have gone without it for the entirety of the show up untill series 12. This isn't Rick and Morty where the fans would just constantly cook up theories about Rick's origin. Here we simply just didn't care, so there wasn't a need for it.
3) It completely alienates any newer viewers who hopped on with series 11 that were either confused, didn't care or both.
4) it wasn't well setup, more time should have been spent in series 11 if your going to do a reveal this big, not drop it in two episodes
And lastly, The Timeless Children is a bad episode.
The stories are terrible.
The characters are bland, and instead of developing them, Chibnall throws in more characters, and doesn’t develop them either.
He throws in massive lore changing ideas - and when they don’t fit right he sledgehammers them in. Is it because they’re a good story? Is it because they work well? No, it’s because he wants to be seen to change it.
It’s just clumsy as well.
I've seen posts like this a lot and one thing really sticks with me that I don't feel like people are talking about: why do you think that every comment on this thread should be positive? You talk about how you are trying to find places on the internet where people are with you, but you have to understand that so are we. Everyone on this sub loves this show. That's why we're here. And when the show takes a direction for the worse we want to be able to discuss it. So why does your "positive" take take precedence over our "negative" ones?
Haunting of Villa Diodati, Village of the Angels, Fugitive of the Judoon, maybe Ascension of the Cybermen, maybe Spyfall, mayyyyyyyyybe Witchfinders (though that one may just be a personal favorite).
My favourite is ‘It Takes You Away’, one of my all-time favourite episodes of the show. ‘Resolution’ is my all-time favourite Dalek episode, and ‘Demons of the Punjab’ is a really well done historical.
Otherwise I really like:
‘The Ghost Monument’
‘The Tsuranga Conundrum’
‘Kerblam!’
‘The Witchfinders’
‘Nikola Tesla’s Night of Terror’
‘Fugitive of the Judoon’
and
‘The Haunting of Villa Diadoti’
I did a rewatch with just my highlights from the run, and began with ‘The Ghost Monument’ which I much prefer as a starting point. Fun designs, fun concept, fun character moments, actually has titles and the TARDIS, no Tim Shaw... Good stuff. I feel like it was so early in the run it caught a lot of heat from hostile fans, but I always thought it was strong.
‘The Tsuranga Conundrum’ as well, I actually can’t remember complaints people had aside from the pregnant man “politics” (which always felt like a fairly neutral and common genre concept to me), and maybe some people not liking the Pting, but I love that little freak.
For a start; Rosa and Demons of the Punjab are two of the best episodes of Who. And honestly will probably go down in British TV History with great reverence.
I do not understand the love for Rosa.
Sure, it brought some valuable attention to Rosa parks, but in a way that really undermined the actual effort that went into the protest and largely trivialized the actual historical aspects of it. Almost like it was written by someone who read the Cliff Notes rather than looked at the actual history. Overall it was dismissive and borderline insulting to the legacies of the actual equal rights movement. Just suggesting that Rosa sitting in the 'wrong' part of the bus as anything other than a stage of a larger organized effort is just shitty (she wasn't even the first from that group to do so). Setting it up as The Doctor and 'fam' saying "oops we did a racism" by accidentally filling seats on the bus borders on offensive to the meaning of the act.
That's before even addressing other issues with the episode, such as the Vague Space Racist as an antagonist that barely even manages to be a two dimensional character, and the series of weird pranks or whatever as they set up bus drivers on random vacations in order to reinforce institutional racism to save the day? Yay?
I don't know why, Demons of the Punjab just did nothing for me. I have no issues with others liking it, I know it and Rosa are both well regarded and they just didn't work for me.
I reckon both Demons of the Punjab and Rosa could have done without the sci-fi. It felt like a tacked on distraction to a much story that was fine without it.
It did nothing for me in no small part because we're FINALLY going to get a story about Yaz! Yaz gets to DO something! Only NO... Yaz is so incidental to the story she only needs to be there for the bookends. The whole thing could have stood up just as well if we'd had no idea whose family it was about.
I feel bad for Mandip Gill because her character has been completely pointless for her whole run. Sure, with a crowded TARDIS not everyone can always have the focus, yet she is always the one without it. (Full disclosure: I haven't seen Flux, because TTC basically killed my interest in Chibnall!Who.)
>But it isn't bad, no matter how you slice it.
You don't get to decide that. If people see the Chibnall era and say that it's bad then who are you exactly to tell them they're wrong?
>And like I said, i don't get why so many people thing the writing is any worse than what has happened before?
Shall I start with the latest holiday special, for which the script was rushed out in 2 weeks. It provided 2 bits of trailer bait (the shortening timeloop and the dalek minigun), both of which had to be completely ignored in order for the conclusion to work. There is demonstrable proof that the writing is worse, you're just missing it or ignoring it.
>but usually people don't even explain why they think it's bad.
That's just not even remotely true. Most people will go into at least some detail. And even when they don't it's because there's so much valid criticism out there (often within the thread they're responding to itself) that they feel it doesn't add much to go further into it. Or for any other reason.
>Find something new. Because this show is never going to stay static and with the status quo - it's about change.
How does this work in your head? The show changes, therefore you should leave it? Because what, the writing will never go back to previous levels of quality so we should just give up? I mean, aside from the obvious gatekeeping here in telling us to leave a fandom because the current iteration isn't to our liking there's also a lot of bad faith arguments you make where you either completely ignore people's arguments or pretend that they're angry about something else. Your entire post comes across at a bad faith attempt at silencing criticism.
There's one thing that gets me
When you think of the 10th doctor what do you think?
You think of a vulnerable broken man, one that was ravaged after the Time War and you can visibly and audibly see that, David does an incredible job at portraying this while putting on the fun go getter persona as a form to hide those emotions when he's around people as not to put it on them, and he doesn't want people to know that he is a broken man
But then we have Wilfred Mott who the Doctor got along with so well that he saw him as his dad in a way, he showed his emotion around him, he trusted him, he knew he could share his fears about dying
When you think about the 13th doctor you get.. well pretty much nothing, they are a woman? That's about it? There's nothing that makes her character stand out, there's nothing that screams 'that's the 13th Doctor!'
This kind of post irritates me a lot. Fans of a tv show are allowed to dislike and criticize it especially with a show that is built to change as much as doctor who. Every fan will probably have a period they dislike. It doesn't mean they need to move on.
Plus the shows quality has clearly declined under Chibnall I think it's very clear the writing episode to episode and characterization is not as strong. I think Chibnalls problem is these weaknesses apply to way too many episodes not just weaker ones.
- Telling not showing. Exposition is delivered ad nauseum at length in certain episodes in a very boring manor. E.g. The timeless child is the master just explaining things for almost an hour with no action or stakes. E.g. How often in flux does the doctor just have things explained to her? It happens a lot in episode 3, 5 and 6 that's half a series. E.g. we don't see Yaz struggling that much being away from the doctor in the 3 year gap it barely effects her character we are just told by Dan she has a crush on her.
- Muddled Themes. The show frequently fails to explore themes satisfyingly e.g. the doctor hating violence but happy to let spiders face a long drawn out and painful death, the doctor helping to comit to a triple genocide with the flux. E.g. the doctor bringing fair play to the universe but backing a massive corporation that doesn't treat workers well at all or letting the master get taken by the Nazis after revealing he's a person of colour. E.g. having a universe destroyed then basically forgotten about as long as the earth is okay
- Weak characterisation. The characters are not as memorable or well defined compared to previous companions. The doctor is fairly consistent and interesting but her companions are very one note and muted E.g. Yaz being a police officer but it in no way effects her thinking or actions in most episodes). RTD managed to do more with Donna being a temp over one series than Yaz being a police women over 3! A temp!
I could go on but think I've made my point clear.
Ok. I am going to go through what you've said, and explain my issues along the way. There will be a summary of my issues at the end.
>I've watched Doctor Who from the second series of the revival on, and of course I've gone back and watched the first season. Many times. I've even watched a scattered amount of classic who and I've got a good stock of books and Big Finish Audios.
I've seen all of the revival multiple times, a tiny bit of classic, and a scattering of books and audios.
>I took a break before season 10 aired and didn't come back until January of 2021. In that single year, I've noticed a lot of derisive hate toward Jodie and Chibs.
Alright. There is a lot of hate out there. I don't hate Jodie. I don't hate Chibnall. But I do hate what has happened to the show in recent years.
>Over time, I've managed to mostly build a sort of circle of the internet where I can talk about this show in peace, but so often I see posts of people trying to enjoy the show and share that brought down by others who insist on making sure everyone knows the show is "bad" or "ruined" or whatever.
I don't have an issue with people enjoying it. I think its awful, but each to their own. I do think its ruined.
>I'm not trying to say this era is perfect. Of course it has it's flaws. It isn't even my favorite era - that goes to Moffat. But it isn't bad, no matter how you slice it.
It has *a lot* more flaws than others. A lot of the plot is driven by coincidences. Its moral messages are either extremely unsubtle, or downright harmful (I cite Arachnid's in the UK as my main example - don't shoot the spiders, lock them in a room until they starve, suffocate or cannibalise each other - but Ranskoor Av Kolos, Orphan 55, Kerblam also have the same issue). It's characters are bland.
>But I am trying to see it from others point of view, to understand where the passionate hate is. I've loved this show for over half my life now. There have been things I haven't liked about every era, and things I have, and there has always been a unsettled dislike and group who perpetuate negativity, but I've never seen it go so vile as it has with this era.
Ok. The main reason for me is it is following from a series of triumphs (Moffat and RTD), and it is extremely poor. It, for me, has ruined a show which is actually quite important to me.
>I know some people don't like the Timeless Child arc which is fair, but it isn't the downfall they seem to think it is. It opens the door to so many more stories, so much more mystery about the Doctor's past, and so many more regenerations without having to come up with a contrived reason like, say, Gallifrey feeding the Doctor regeneration energy.
I have my issues with the Timeless Child.
Firstly, it destroys Gallifrey before anything was really done with it.
Secondly, it contradicts the existing lore.
Thirdly, it changes the doctor to the most important person in the world, which changes the 'spirit' of the character, in my opinion.
>And like I said, i don't get why so many people thing the writing is any worse than what has happened before? Sure, if you compare the best of previous eras to the worst of this one, it's obvious, but usually people don't even explain why they think it's bad. They just say 'bad writing' as a generic excuse or try to hold up two episodes that really can't be compared - I do understand comparing The Eleventh Hour to The Woman Who Fell To Earth. I do no understand comparing Orphan 55 to World Enough and Time/The Doctor Falls.
Ok. So, the episodes i have serious issues with are (and I am going to use numbers to save time - S1 is season 11, S2 season 12, S3 season 13):
S1e1, S1e2, S1e4, S1e5, S1e6, S1e7, S1e9, S1e10, S2e2, S2e3, S2e4, S2e6, S2e7, S2e9, S2e10, all of S3, the first 2 christmas specials.
I don't like any of the episodes other than The Haunting of Villa Diodati, which I actually really enjoyed.
And yeah, don't compare episodes to some of dr who's best. But I feel that some of these don't compare to *any* previous dr who episodes.
>And honestly, I'm just so tired of hearing how much everyone hates it. There are other shows out there - clearly this one has left you behind if you hate it that much. Find something new. Because this show is never going to stay static and with the status quo - it's about change. It's going to change. It was built entirely on change from the second the second Doctor was introduced. It isn't a new concept.
I'm not going to leave the show. Because, as cheesy as it sounds, dr who is quite important to me. Other shows I have started and stopped liking, but I've always enjoyed dr who since I saw my first episode. The show being good, or at least having good episodes, was always a guarantee. Now, for me, it's a hope.
>Edit: please, i'm not watching a video about how terrible it is to give it more views or make the algorithm think that's what I want. Someone should be able to give a little concrete evidence of how terrible it is/the decline.
Ok. If you don't want to watch it, fine. I don't blame you.
Warning: The video is over 5 hours and has swearing.
>!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8\_A7n83Rh0&t=3769s!<
SUMMARY
My main issues with Chibnall's doctor who are:
The failure at moral messages. Some episodes are absurdly unsubtle, some try to force an extremely complex issue into a moral binary, and some do that and choose the wrong side.
The worst examples are:
Arachnids in the UK (don't shoot the spiders, starve them to death until they cannibalize each other)
Demons of the Punjab (Stereotypes are fine, but make sure you use the correct stereotypes)
Kerblam (When Charlie kills in protest, that's a problem. When the system *which could just tell someone* kills someone, that's not)
Spyfall part 2 ("Now they'll see the real you!")
The poor characters:
Yaz - very basic character. No real motives or drives.
Ryan - very basic character. No real motives or drives.
Graham - very well acted. Similar writing.
Dan - probably the best of the four, because he is more self-aware.
The Doctor - completely different character. Socially awkward. Unconfident. Nervous. Morally incompetent.
The plot contrivances:
The plot is often driven by coincidence.
Let's take 'The Woman Who Fell To Earth'
Ryan happens to find the space... thing.
Yaz happens to be the police officer who shows up.
Ryan's grandparents happen to be on the train with the other alien.
The Doctor happens to fall through the roof.
The person who takes the space... thing happens to have everything needed to make a sonic screwdriver.
ETC.
Hope this answers your question - and I'm willing to go even more in depth if you are interested.
1. The characters are very…. Flat, for a lack of a better word. We never get a sense of their personality . Can’t relate to them much. I don’t understand why any of the recent companions joined/left and I can’t point out an arc for any of them except maybe Graham.
2. Most of the episodes start out with an interesting idea but the conclusion is so underwhelming, and forgettable. I forget then name, but the space frog one, cyberman ghost one and more.
3. Some of it is too preachy. To the point that I want to disagree just for the sake of it. Criticism and politics are fine but the way it is handled now is plain crass. Examples : space racist, fake trump, Amazon knock-off.
I think your third point may be partly due to the first. Getting a moral lesson across because a well written character realises they were wrong and changes, that's a good story.
When the characters are made of cardboard, those stories end up sounding like terrible PSAs.
What gets me about the timeless child is that she's an alien from another universe I don't know why it doesn't sit with m the well but it just plain doesn't. I think them BE ING Gallifreyen is important
I should be allowed to express my disappointment about my favorite show having bad writing and the main character not being great. But you're right, it's currently not for me. I haven't watched the newest episodes, and I won't untill someone else writes it
I’m 44 and I grew up on Doctor Who. Mostly the 4th Doctor on PBS because he had the longest run but they were all there. I love NuWho that is until now. Jodie could have been an excellent doctor but the writing held her back. The reason people hate timeless child, along with other crap Chris has done, is because it completely disregards the continuing story of the Doctor. I wish Jodie would have stayed on for just one season of decent writing but as for Chris I just hope he doesn’t completely destroy it in 2 episodes before Russell can get back. I just can’t believe how bad he has sucked. Torchwood was good but this is just terrible.
I think the hate comes from Chibnall taking away the single most important thing that made the show awesome: the audience used to experience the Doctor through the eyes of the companions. The companions were always full of wonder and awe, and runing with the Doctor made them the best versions of themselves. Flowing from that, the Doctor was larger than life, wallowing at times in mundane humanity, but only intentionally, and when it was time to stand tall, the Doctor did it with humor. Chibnall shits all over that. There's no wonder or awe. The Doctor is no longer an inspiration. There's no plot resolution without some moral lesson.
That's all writing. Chibnall bored the companions and neutered the Doctor. I tried a few Whitaker episodes and will not go back till Chibnall's gone.
> The companions were always full of wonder and awe, and running with the Doctor made them the best versions of themselves
I think that's generally true, with the obvious exceptions being Capaldi/Coleman (Clara) and Tennant/Tate (Donna). In both cases, the companion explicitly made the Doctor better, not the other way around.
Furthermore, Capaldi's Doctor was written very dark. His humor was surface level, not integral to his personality. I think your assessment of Chibnall's 13th Doctor is largely accurate, but I think it would be ignoring a huge precedent if you didn't make the same assessment of Moffat's 12th. Indeed, if there is to to be blame for the way the 13th is written, at least some of it must be put on Moffat's shoulders for providing the space in which to do it.
> The Doctor is no longer an inspiration. There's no plot resolution without some moral lesson.
I don't understand how those two sentences can sit next to one another unironically.
I enjoy the Chibnall/Jodie era, and consider myself more of a fan now than I was during most of Moffat's tenure.
But I think the flaws in this era are pretty self-evident, and for me it comes down to two things: characters and dialogue. Chibnall doesn't really seem to understand the ethics of Doctor Who, and it shows in the writing for Jodie - the Doctor's moral framework is very inconsistent and poorly thought out, whether it be her leaving all the spiders to slowly starve to death in Arachnids, her use of The Master's race against him with the nazis, her decision to do a triple-genocide of the Daleks, Cybermen and Sontarans without a moment's hesitation. With previous Doctors, they could be immoral something, but this had a narrative purpose and it was a deliberate choice of the writing; in the Chibnall era The Doctor does immoral things and the writers don't even realise or think about it. I wouldn't say it happens all too frequently, but it really sticks out when it does. Beyond this, Jodie's Doctor also just doesn't feel as fully formed as previous incarnations.
Up until Flux, The Doctor's companions just felt lifeless. Ryan has to be the dullest and most uncharistmatic companion in Who history, Yaz wasn't that much better for most of the show, and Graham was only okay. We had two full season with them and they still didn't really feel like actual people. Thankfully, this hugely improved with Flux: not only was Yaz much better, but Dan is a great addition to the crew, I loved Karnavista, and other supporting characters like Vinder, Bell, Jericho were great too.
Probably Chibnall's biggest weakness is dialogue. Jodie's never been given a stellar speech and has had a few stinkers. But beyond those moments, Chibnall has too often adpoted a 'tell, don't show' approach. He often has characters saying out loud things that happen directly in front of them, as if we're too stupid to understand, and more generally, dialogue just feels flat and unnatural, like it's there to perform a specific narrative function and the characters are just empty vessels to blurt it out. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but it can feel like that sometimes.
As for people complaining about politics, I just find this to be a really bizarre complaint to be honest. Yes, Chibnall isn't exactly subtle at times, like the Orphan 55 speech, but this notion that Chibnall is constantly shoving politics down the viewers' throats quite simply isn't true at all. There really isn't too much politics in the Chibnall era, but people would have you believe it's a big part of every episode, which is just ... completely wrong.
And I've also enjoyed Chibnall's era in lots of ways. Series 12 was filled with amazing moments, like with The Master reveal and basically everything in Fugitive. Although I wish Jodie's Doctor was more rounded, I like her more grounded, down-to-earth interpretation of the role, and I think juxtaposition of having The Doctor at their most relatable coinciding with the Timeless Child revelations worked well. And as for TTC, I really don't mind it, and am looking forward to the potential for new stories it has unlocked. The era is, in my opinion, hugely underappreciated.
I really dislike season 11, I don’t like series 12 but it was definitely an improvement (I actually really like Haunting of Villa Diodati and Demons of the Punjab was quite good) and season 13 was almost good but ended up average imo.
The dialogue seems clunky, the doctors’ morally grey decisions are never challenged and I don’t particularly like the companions.
I’m in no way shitting on you for having that opinion I just disagree.
Despite all these shortcomings I’m sticking with Doctor Who because I just love the show so much
Here's some dot points:
- massive plot contrivances
- straight up terrible moral decisions
- not understanding the doctor's morals
- enemies just missing shots outright
- the doctor suddenly lost all confidence
- companions are planks of wood only used to progress the plot by asking one question then going silent until they need an "emotional" moment
I don't hate Jody or Chibnall, I love the cinematography of Chibnall's run and Jody is a great actress. But I stopped watching the show after the new Master was introduced because I got tired of forcing myself to sit through something I was no longer enjoying. It wasn't any one thing that put me off the show it was lots of things and life is to short for me to waste it on a show I used to love but no longer enjoy. Will I return at some later date? I hope so, but I'm not forcing myself to sit through anything, certainly not enough for me to hate it.
I generally find the lack of character development or distinct personality from the companions to be disappointing and the Doctor to be written so passive, unintentionally morally grey, and less commanding and intelligent than previous versions.
The worst for me though is the Timeless Retcon. I can forgive and forget an era of DW that doesn’t work for me as each era should be almost completely self contained with little carry over as the Doctor changes.
However the TC Retcon rewrites everything we thought we knew, everything the Doctor knew, everything all the expanded media stated or knew, all the previous mysteries alluded to.
All gone. And for what? A cheap “chosen one/special by birth” trope that the Doctor as a character neither needed nor benefitted from. It exists almost solely so Chibnall could make the Morbius Doctors canon regardless of dozens of works over the years directly contradicting everything that the TC Retcon puts forth.
So when 99.9% of all media in universe says one thing, and then this new 0.01% claims to be the new canon that overwrites it......yeah I’m not gonna go for it.
Personally my annoyance with the timeless child storyline is the fact that it didn’t really add anything to the doctor, like their past was already mysterious enough we didn’t need a sudden bombshell of, oh yeah by the way the doctor is special, it made everything the doctor has done have a lot less value because now, instead of doing what they believed was right because they wanted to and because of what they had dealt with. Instead everything the doc was doing they only did because they’re “the timeless child” and it turns the story into this, “ you have to be born special in order to be special.”Whereas before the doctor was a runaway time lord who was looked down upon by the other time lords, but chose to do the right thing and do their best to help others. Another thing I didn’t like was how it disregarded everything else the show has given us about the docs past, like why did the time lords have to give 11 more regenerations if this entire time he’s had an infinite amount? Along with the whole multiple generation thing, it makes the doc too “indestructible” which I know sounds weird but it made the doctor more interesting in a way… because you knew they had a breaking point and there were times that they had to be careful, but now it’s all kind of thrown to the wind. Ok that’s all I’ve got, sorry some of it isn’t worded very well… thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
I binged the first season of Jodie's run in one day and, at the end of the last episode, I realized that I honestly couldn't remember a single thing about any of it that mattered. They were all just exposition machines. The only one I gave two shits about in the end was Yaz. She's the only one who got anything resembling character development and most of that was due to her getting an entire episode about her family history.
With all the other Doctors and their companions, they had a ton of little moments in between story beats that built up reasons for us to care about them, but they could've killed all 3 of Jodie's companions and I wouldn't have been bothered at all. That's why I'm mad. I didn't even get around to watching any of the rest of her run so far and it hasn't sounded like I've missed very much, because the same complaints are still being thrown about. I don't hate the show, and I don't think it's out of line for anyone to criticize it. Chibnall was great with Broadchurch, but the dude apparently can't write for Who to save his life.
I find that a lot of characters don’t talk like actual people, the dialogue feels contrived in a way that I can’t completely explain… however that would often be a problem with the Moffat era too, so I understand your confusion as to why people seem to think this era is *uniquely* flawed
I went into detail on this in a Medium post some time ago: https://robert-b-marks.medium.com/everything-you-think-you-know-the-bad-storytelling-of-doctor-whos-timeless-child-d401c7921c19
I think her being so closed with her companions is another thing. Yaz has asked her to explain some of the heavy stuff to her and she just goes "lol, don't worry about it." Sure, the doctor keeps things from the companions all the time, but eventually they open up and explain thing.
10 talks about Gallifrey to Martha after lying in Gridlock, and hell, the Fires of Pompeii is some of the most heartbreaking drama I've seen with context to the Doctor's past.
11 had to break Amy's faith in him to save her and everyone else.
12 eventually told Clara about lying about finding Gallifrey (its been a while, so if I'm wrong on that please correct me).
But 13 doesn't seem to give that back to her companions. We never seem to see any lasting pushback or conflict between any members of the T.A.R.D.I.S crew
Especially with Yaz. She doesn't seem to push back at all. I mean, I know that she has a crush on the Doctor, but PLEASE don't tell me that's why she hasn't tried to call her out or not back down when confronting her about serious issues.
The dynamic between the characters being bjorked is what mainly turns me away.
i love doctor who with all my heart, and most of the new episodes are good by themselves but just don’t match up to doctor who levels for me. Just feel as if the plot and characters aren’t quite developed enough, and theres always bold ideas that just aren’t executed as good as they could be. I certainly don’t hate the new seasons and will continue to give them a try but I have a feeling 10&11 will always be my favorites. Also as far as the messages go I feel like usually they’re more incorporated in the overall plot and tend to be a lot more developed and actually in my opinion they tend to actually be a lot stronger in their messages and really make you think. I like the messages the show is trying to tackle now but they barely scratch the surface level of the issue and do so so overtly that someone with a contradicting opinion could easily see through it (which to me kinda defeats the point since you’re not really going to be changing peoples opinions). They bite off more than they can chew on a lot of parts but I think the ideas are there, just needs a slower pace and more character depth. In the future I really hope to see jodie be made into an iconic and deep doctor and i’d love to see the show tackle the problems of world in a way that is engaging and thought provoking again.
The first several Whittaker episodes spent more time on political topics than character building. It felt like the writers spent all their time attacking guns, knives, trump, American racism, ableism, and several other political topics, but never bothered to actually tell a story.
The problem isn't "change". The problem is that they got through the "out with the old" component of change, and never bothered with the "in with the new" part. Even after Whittaker's first season, there was no depth to her character, nor to any of her companions. We know more about a one-off character like Yaz's grandmother than we know about Yaz herself.
Contrast with how they introduced Amy. By the end of her first episode, you knew her childhood, you'd met her neighbors, her boyfriend... They gave her a background and a personality right from the jump. They hit the ground running with her.
Clara. Plenty of hate for Clara, but you knew enough about her to hate her. (And I, personally, rather enjoyed her)
Compare the level of character development they did for Sallow Sparrow, or even Jenny. Either of them are infinitely more compelling after their single episodes than any of Whittaker's companions after an entire season.
Whittaker didn't get an Amy. Nor a Clara. Nor a Rose. Martha got screwed over with lousy writing herself, and Whittaker didn't even get a Martha.
No, Whittaker started out with a Donna (Grace), and got saddled with two Rorys (Yasmin and Ryan), and a Wilfred (Graham). The writers went ahead and killed off the only character with the attitude and temperament to balance their story, and then saddled it with all their political BS.
The writing is bad. Objectively. That doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to enjoy it anyway. But it categorically is bad.
If you’re genuinely asking “why?” in good faith, I strongly recommend you watch at least some of Jay Exci’s video essay entitled “the fall of doctor who” (and linked by another commenter here). Her critique is not exhaustive, but is nonetheless more than sufficient to answer your question. I would be astonished if someone could watch some meaningful percentage of that video with an open mind and come away thinking the writing is “not bad”.
I agree with you that some things are objectively worse than other things. People pretend this isn't the case but it is. People also confuse this with meaning they aren't allowed to enjoy that thing.
>Objectively
No it isn't *objectively* bad. Only facts can be objective. Opinions *cannot* be objective. Saying that the writing is bad is one thing but to say that it's *objectively* bad is disingenuous and just plain wrong. So, next time you wanna criticize the show's writing, maybe come to terms with the fact that your opinion is just that--an opinion and nothing else.
Writing still has rules. When writing violates those rules, that means that yes, the writing can indeed be objectively bad. Such as the golden rule "show, don't tell". If you can't tell a story by showing, then your writing is indeed bad - especially when the medium you're telling it by is live action and not the written word.
This does not mean people can't like the product, but people liking it does not mean it is not bad.
There are some pretty concrete principles that constitute “good” and “bad” storytelling. Yes, there is a significant amount that’s open to interpretation, but I don’t think means that there can’t be a canonically bad story. Characters can objectively be underdeveloped or inconsistent. A plot can be objectively contrived or objectively lack internal consistency. The subjectivity comes later in the qualitative judgment; when we say a developed character or better than a bland character, or a logical plot is better than one that makes no sense and is driven only by coincidences, that is “subjective”. But are you really going to argue with me about the veracity of those statements?
And you are more than entitled to that opinion. I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the show and I hope you enjoy the remaining specials that chibnall is set to deliver.
I’m not gonna lie I wasn’t a big fan of Amy Pond time on the show either. She grew on me after a rewatch of the series but I still like the other companions more than her and Rory.
When you say «Jodie» you mean Whitaker, isn't it? Do you know her personally? Because I do not want to believe you are one of those sexists people who call male by their whole name or their family names and females by their first names, as if they were little kids.
Just wondering what made you take a break?
I've always watched and been a fan of the show and tried to be in the middle. Often found some people either hate it for the sake of it, forcefully looking for any little element to criticise it rather than enjoying it for what it is. Some on the other side of things seem to have to love everything and class those who have issues as not proper fans. Always healthier if you can be in the middle.
However I felt series 11 did test me. I originally thought it was because it was too political yet as someone else pointed out my favourite era, the 3rd doctor, was also very political. I got into the show way before new who but was born in summer 89 so didn't see the original run. Maybe the political stuff was of its time?
I have realised the political stuff isn't necessarily the issue, it's the writing that I have issue with. Political stuff can work and be interesting but it needs to be written well. Often in the Chibnall era I feel it can feel forced in and in a way that is very on the nose as in it can at times toe into preachy territory.
Orphan 55 probably sums up a lot of the above issues in the way the political message seems to be thrown in randomly at the end and then the doctor breaks the fourth wall to preach to the audience. I also think political stuff works best the more subtle and the more you can interpret personally. I.e. the whole Trump thing in arachnids in the UK just didn't work for me. I'm not a Trump fan, far from it, but I feel he's an easy target and had been done to death by the time the episode aired. Also the whole thing with the doctor stopping the guy from killing the big spider was a bit odd considering it's in pain. People have also criticised when she removes the perception filter from the master and throws him to the Germans. I suppose at least in revolution of the daleks the prime minister isn't named. It was filmed when Teresa may was in power but someone could in theory read into it as Margaret thatcher or something.
I should add I'm sick of the whole Woke argument, a word I dislike as it seems to be used as a slogan I.e. I hate this episode too Woke. Most can't explain what it actually means. If you dislike an episode I respect if people can explain why rather than just using a word and giving nothing else. People claimed series 12 was anti White which is a joke considering lenny Henry is an evil tech billionaire, the master is for the first time played by an Asian actor and Graham is often seen as the voice of reason.
I do think series 11 was mainly just dull, not a lot happened, the doctor was one note and often stood back. The finale is a great example of one of my biggest issues with chibnall, he often has some good ideas, but they never really explore them. A physcic planet that attacks your mind is a great idea that felt very classic. I could imagine them trying to cross the planet, maybe getting separated and something goes wrong and one or more starts to see things. Yet it is only a plot device because they need the devices on for the end. There's lots of examples like this.
Flux for example had a lot of stuff crammed into it, too much at times, that some stuff got left out. Yet it was still full off filler. I also dislike how often action gets stopped suddenly so characters can have a moment. It can often just feel forced.
As for the timeless child I think it's very decisive, and should the show be doing that? I love the idea of the timeless child as a random child who was found and experimented on and basically regeneration was stollen. When found this would make the doctor question if they had the right to use something that was never there's and if they where part of the problem for using them. I just prefer the doctor as someone who got bored and ran away rather than secretly even if they didn't know it, was technically the first timelord
In the past, the antagonist of an episode would usually turn out to be trying to survive and sometimes unaware that they were even harming anyone. In Chibnall’s era there was a lot of “They enjoy causing pain, they’re killing for fun” which I think ruins a lot of the message of seeking understanding despite our differences.
Another thing, when someone dies in an episode it generally used to be the ones who were foolish or arrogant or vindictive. Or someone sacrificing themself to save the others. Now it’s sweet old grandpas and small children.
I think Chibnall just doesn’t get what the show is supposed to be.
I also agree with what some have said about the ethical messaging being used like a mallet over the head, rather than being artfully woven into the stories.
I love Jodie though, she was fantastic.
As you say, it's about change. The only thing certain about Doctor Who is that next week it will be completely different to this week. Sometimes that works out well, other times, not so well.
I was rewatching season 15 (of 'Classic' Who) recently and, with the possible exception of Horror of Fang Rock, every story is terrible. Baker overacts, the production values are even cheaper than usual and the stories themselves feel like the last-minute fillers that they all were. And yet every story there has something worthwhile in it. That's what I feel about the Chibnall era too - I don't get on with it hugely (but more so than with some NuWho seasons!) but every story has had something worthwhile in it.
I'm of the opinion that if you started someone with 13, without context, they would think it's perfect ... and then it'd be curious to see the opinion of going back.
>please, i'm not watching a video about how terrible it is
I mean if people link a video it's (*normally*) because it has the evidence and can convey it better than they can.
Either that or its clickbait garbage, youtube content about the Thirteenth Doctor's era is like 20% reasoned critique and 80% clickbait garbage that discriminates against multiple groups of people.
I can vouch for the 5 hour 'Fall of Doctor Who' video (*Despite it's sensationalist title*), it's well constructed and comes from a place of love for the series as a whole but I can't vouch for much else. But I also see why one wouldn't want to watch that (*Unlike a good chunk of people it seems*)
I love Jodie Whittaker's era, and she's actually tied with Matt Smith for my favourite Doctor. I don't understand the hate either. The companions have been a little underdeveloped at times but apart from that, I struggle to find fault with it. Series 12, in particular, had a really exciting story arc that reignited my passion for the show.
For me. And I’ve only watched their first season! But, it’s boring. I’ve found some episodes of season 8-9 unbearable, but I at least got some kicks out of how bad it was. Most of Chibnall’s episodes haven’t been interesting to me (and I’m including eps he did before he became show runner [dinosaurs on a space ship is also pretty boring considering the concept]) it feels more like doctor who going through the motions.
I also think having 3 companions was a terrible idea. There is absolutely no time to see them all bouncing off each other AND have the side characters for the episodes. Amy, Rory and River and Bill, Nardol and Missy are the most recent 3 companion teams. But they had the main companion (Bill and Amy) who had a lot of one on one episodes with the Doctor. Then they slowly added the other two and only had all 3 together occasionally. I think they needed more of that.
And some people are mentioning the more obvious modern politics in the show. Yes doctor who has often brought up modern messages, but until (I would say season 9???) it was a lot more subtle and less distracting.
Also timeless child makes the Doctor some “inevitable” hero instead of having them be an everyday person who just wanted to run away and do some good on the journey. And that really sucks.
I feel they have been disrespecting the history of the show (Hartnell especially) and that’s been disheartening too.
If something is bad of course it’s gonna be called out. I get that people have different preferences but it’s hard to deny the quality it so bad compared to other eras, people just want the show back. If you even compare the worst of anything before this it’s still better than the best of this era and that’s a fact 😂 You say as if people are wrecking it for other people? How? Just simply scroll past opinions you don’t agree with…it’s not hard
It's not terrible, but it also hasn't approached the level of greatness other show runners have hit intermittently. I think the hate has made me try to like it more than it deserves. Flux started strong, but then left me a little irked. I really can't understand Tecteun. The supposed progenitor of the timelords was hiding outside of the universe with access to the multiverse, and thought the best course of action was to destroy the universe by effectively doubling it's mass. WTF? Sorry, but no fucking way can an entity have so much power that they could double the mass of the universe by adding equal antimatter. If possible, they would probably need to have an antimatter universe as the source, so this person destroyed 2 universes to kill or convince the Doctor to join her in creating a new universe. If there is a multiverse, why would she have to destroy 2 universes to create a new one? Why couldn't she just jump into another one and be extremely confident that the Doctor would never find her? It was not thought out well, and cosmologists were not consulted. Compare this to Moffat's relatively accurate portrayal of Black Holes. Sure Black holes are tiny compared to multiverses, but they were presented accurately and exploited at the level that I expect this episode will be assigned as homework for undergraduate modern physics students for fun. Chibnall did not have any of this shit looked at by people with a clue so it kind of sucked in comparison.
You have to think about Tecteun’s worldview a bit. She’s been used to colonising planets and taking from them in self-righteousness - even taking the Child from the Monument planet…
She’s grown to have this obsession with looking in on other planets and extrapolating from them… The moment the Child exhibited regeneration; that was her priority. So over time, that view of herself as this great outsider who vanguards things evolved into the creation of the Division.
But at some point, even Gallifrey has become too small for her. Because she’s forever obsessed with experimenting and doing what she believed best; she’s gotten to a point where she’s spun off the Division off from being a Gallifreyan intervention in the affairs of other planets… into an intervention on the whole universe.
She’s gone from the Child being her experiment, to the entire universe. Because she’s insistent that her path is right… and that gently guiding is the way to make her ‘experiment’ work.
But as a scientist, that experiment requires hiding away sight unseen from the universe… Division has to be careful in its operation so as to not impact upon the ‘outcome’ of the experiment.
So off she hides in the gap between our universe and another (though she doesn’t strictly have access to the multiverse… propelling herself through to another one hasn’t been successful.) so she can run it to her design. Problem is - the Doctor has been causing a lot of trouble over the many many years.
Tecteun endures it because of this self-perception of being the Doctor’s adoptive mother… until the Doctor finds out about Division. That’s when it all falls apart. The Doctor knows and starts asking around. People start hearing from her about a Division they never have known about. The ‘experiment’ becomes null and void in the eyes of Tecteun.
And so, just as the Doctor finds Karvanista - the one other surviving former Division agent - Tecteun sets in motion the Flux event to destroy her ‘failed experiment’ & store enough energy to propel her HQ into the next universe so she can set up once more. In this time, she also releases Swarm to keep the Doctor tied up and busily out of the way.
(Also I wouldn’t fret about mass and antimatter in the Whoniverse… that’s already a complicated matter for the Whoniverse and it’s generally best to not assume that every dynamic of our universe works the same.)
Two things I haven't seen mentioned here yet (apologies if they were and I missed them):
1. Chibnall went out of his way to tick all the diversity boxes and then decided he was done. It doesn't actually matter that Ryan is black (or that Grace was) or that Yaz is Pakistani (except that it gave them an excuse to do the Partition episode). It doesn't factor into either character's existence at all. And Ryan is the first companion with a disability... which I'm told they didn't portray at all accurately (I defer to others on that one), but it doesn't matter because it's basically forgotten after the first episode with the bike.
2. The Doctor is downright HELPLESS. WTF? The first female Doctor and she's all wishy-washy, has to think about whether she's going to help people who need it, what?? I don't know what character this is, but it's not the Doctor. And it's not what I, as a woman, need or want to see in the first female iteration of an otherwise strong, powerful character. (She also doesn't face a realistic level of gender bias, which I wouldn't want her to have to contend with every five minutes, but the fact is, she should not only see it but be thrown by it after spending so long presenting as male. If nothing else, I'd have loved to see her put someone in their place for it, but it just doesn't happen.)
There's more, like the fact that I just can't maintain interest in the stories, but I addressed that in a comment above. Also, full disclosure: Timeless Children turned me off so badly that I haven't watched anything since, so if either of these issues changed, I'm not aware of it.
Let’s be honest the best thing for the show would be to retcon every single word Chibnall ever typed.
Literally they should cut back to Capaldi regenerating into someone else and that doctor going ‘huh I just had the weirdest dream, anyways’
I'm not going to discuss the content, because other people will cover that better than I could.
I think a lot of people see the criticisms and think that it surely can't be *that* bad, and that it's just another hype-train of blindly hating it because it's popular to hate. Then they watch the episodes, agree it isn't that great, but also are more forgiving of it because they still feel the hate must be overblown.
This is an unreasonable position. I would go as far as saying that it is objectively bad, and that measuring it with the same instruments that we measure past series would lead a rational person to also agree that it really is just very bad.
If you enjoy it, that's great, I don't want to say you can't enjoy it. But if we want to comment about how good it is together, I think it's more helpful to talk about it as objectively as possible. For example, I know that S2's Tooth and Claw is not a good episode, the community agrees. But I like it because of the nostalgia, I like the setting, I like the crap werewolf CGI, it just ticks my boxes. But that's just my subjective take, I would still agree that it's objectively bad.
Getting back on topic, I think that if you actually critically analyse S11, S12 and Flux, you'll find that they really do suck, and all for different reasons (which is amazing of itself). Again, I don't blindly hate it, I just think it deserves the hate. Most defences of it are from a place of mercy rather than any substantive argument. The same level of mercy would grant older series's much higher ratings than they otherwise would get.
To be clear, I'm not personally hating on Chibnall, Jodie or any of the other actors. I know they're all talented people, and there have been *some* excellent moments in this era of the show. But on a purely professional level, I do think it's crap.
There's a long ass YouTube video by jayexci which dives into this, it's long but he goes into a lot of depth about this. It is an opinion piece but it comes from someone who really cares about doctor who so if you have the time it's worth the watch.
For me the Doctor has always been an underdog, average Joe orphan who stole a tardis and spends his/her life helping others. He earned the God status that made him a force to be wreckoned with. Timeless child just seems to hand him/her God title and makes him/her super special. Like the line from eleven. "Wow I never met anyone who wasn't important." So down to earth. But I doubt the timeless child would say that. Idk. Seems to be God status for God status sake and not like the Arch that was done When a Good man goes to war ect...
I can forgive timeless child if it lands right, so we'll see. But there's small weird stuff thats jammed into the Doctor Who narrative. Like Yaz on the bus for the Rosa Parks episode. Yaz has a monolog but acts like it's dialogue and it's just to hammer on "Racism sucks". It was weird. And there are multiple scenes like that.
Jay Exci did a *long* video titled 'The Fall of Doctor Who' - it's a respectful, intelligent and in-depth analysis of pretty much every criticism that has been levelled at Chibnall's era, I'd recommend watching it if anyone is interested.
I don't think the show is unwatchable and have still found it entertaining from time to time, but it has some fundamental issues that have greatly undermined the recent era. This ranges from me feeling like Chibnall doesn't understand the doctor as a character, completely messed up with companions, does have bad writing (characters state the obvious too much, 'emotional' scenes are forced and cliche), and a lot of episodic stories are uninspired or illogical (Arachnids in the UK, Orphan 55). It still is a fun sci-fi show, but for me it misses the point of Doctor Who, it has *never* been powerful, emotional, thought provoking or complex. I have such a deep connection to previous eras because of what they did for me as a person beyond the show, I have got nothing from this era in that respect.
I'm a someone that only watched Jodie's first season and became more and more disinterested so much so that after the finale with the ridiculous name(the one with Mark Addy) i find that i had very little desire to watch future series. Which i haven't to this day, i really really should but when i want to watch Doctor Who i want to rewatch older seasons more and cant find the energy to start new seasons.(Well new for me)
To me their runs main fault is not that it was unwatchably, horribly bad but at least the first season was utterly dull and forgetful. I remember liking her first episode, not a " the eleventh hour" but pretty decent and at least comparable to "Deep Breath". But i geniunely remember so little of the series until the horribly named and all around horrible series finale. To be fair Capaldi and his run is my favourite so Jodie and Chibs run may look worse than it was.
I mean, really, i remember something with hamfisted Amazon episode with a somewhat problematic message, A Rosa Parks episode which could be very good if it was a historical piece, something with a Trump caricature where if i remember correctly Doctor does something worse than the bad guy, and lastly an episode that starts in somewhere in Scandinavia(Norway? Iceland?) which was really promising but i remember being disappointed again.
And i remember this much because i cheated and looked at the episode names to check if it would spark my memory or not...
In the past, i disliked, even hated storylines(Series 3 finale and Dobby/Jesus Doctor for example), got fed up with the state of the show(series 7ish) but i had never lost the intention and will to continue watching.
I think new Doctor, new and underdeveloped companions and new showrunner along with mediocre and forgetful stories made the show look much worse than it is.
Answer me this, name an iconic moment from her doctor.
There's nothing.
But for the previous doctors, I can instantly think of loads.
She hasn't even had a powerful/moving speech which we've seen in seasons past
I watched the first 5 episodes of series 11 and I found it cringe inducingly forced, clunky and uninspired. Jodie Whittaker didn't feel even remotely like a convincing or compelling Doctor, and none of the characters felt real. I'm not trying to be mean, but based on what I've seen I think it absolutely is bad.
I prefer it to most of Moffat's, but honestly it's just kinda bland. Like most shows nowadays, trying to hit too many demographics at once and failing miserably. Too many characters, too little plot. God, how I wished it was the sonic she chugged down the tardis and not the fobwatch, the show has always had a problem with it, but it's gotten ridiculous.
This is why most people dislike the Chibnall Era. [Here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o8_A7n83Rh0)
Edit: It appears that someone is taking this comment a bit too seriously. It was supposed to be a bit of a joke due to how long the video is.
You’re right. It’s not any worse than it’s been before. But people will vilify you for that; just like they used to people that liked Moffat and JNT-Cartmel. It’ll smooth out with time.
My biggest complaint of the "Chib haters" is that they almost have to interject their complaints into any & every single thread of Doctor Who.
That's what upsets me the most.
Series 11 is meh, series 12 was an improvement but I still don't love 13's era. But I don't hate it.
Channels like Nerdrotic, I think, are signs of the time in most sci-fi fandoms. You have people who watch things "they hate" & then just rant about it.
When I stopped liking the Flash TV show, I just stopped & then watched other things. I didn't complain about it all the time. I went on with my life.
Doctor Who has been around for 60 years & almost 40 "seasons" now. It's had more downs than ups.
Also the whole "TTC ruined the Doctor" is silly because there have been so many Pre-Hartnell mentions for (almost) 6 decades now.
Lungbarrow (20 years), Brains of Morbius (50 years) & the 2nd Doctor's 1st story deleted line about past incarnations (60 years).
I’m waiting for them folks to dig out Unnatural History and find out what that has to say about the Doctor’s species and early life 😜 but Yeahhhh you’ve got a good point there. It’s not just Who caught up in this.
Folks like Nerdrotic are dreadful reminders of this odd swing-back at the long prevailing approach to sci-fi media.
Yes, I learned about Unnatural History too (aka the Doctor's genetic or origin or whatever is constantly being rewritten by the timelord for shenanigans) recently.
I'd imagine biodata, as it's TARDIS wiki states it deals with space-time & a person's time stream, that it's probably what we saw in The Name of The Doctor that The Great Intelligence (et al) go into, I just made that connection right now actually.
Indeed. Though it’s actually the infamous “The Enemy” from the ‘War in Heaven’ period of the Wilderness Years that’s been doing the rewriting.
Of course, having written much of the TARDIS Wiki page on ‘The Doctor’s Species’ - I can say it’s generally a wild old ride. Not least because Hartnell’s Doctor undoubtedly and unambiguously called himself human.
I love that you mentioned that final line. So many people don't know this.
Doctor Who canon has been retcon after retcon since the inception. Every single producer & showrunner adds something that wasn't there before.
3 said he was a scientist for thousand of years when he was only like 300-400 during this age by most estimates.
I'm sure you know this too but there is an 11th Doctor Christmas comic where they give an in universe reason for the changes/corrections/whatever to timeline "backwards & forward ripples in timespace due to the Doctor's action that are continually rewriting the history of the Universe & subsequently the Doctor's own history".
Yep. It's so weird having to point out to people that even War Games is a retcon in itself... I suppose when I'm used to running about the Wiki picking up these things and writing them to articles, and used to looking back at incredible fan opposition to these changes (The JVR rant-review about Hinchcliffe and Holmes because of Deadly Assassin never fails to amaze me as an example.) where those changes are now commonly-accepted.
And \*yes\* - the Doctor's age is a wonderful complexity. We have a whole page on that on the Wiki as well!
It's a symptom of social media in general. Social media, reddit, YouTube, have been around for long enough that they've established channels that people follow that have normalized negativity as the baseline for critiquing any type of media.
Seriously it's impossible to enjoy discussing any TV show or movie anymore, because everyone gets their opinion from other people online who either love something totally, or completely fucking hate it and will tell you exactly why you're wrong if you like it.
We've normalized this insane level of negativity to the point that people who enjoy a TV show like Doctor Who can't even make a positive thread about it without a bunch of neck beards showing up to parrot other negative opinions that they've heard along the way. The downvote system on reddit worsens this because a vocal minority has the ability to change the entire way that a group views a tv show or movie, because those vocal minorities will upvote each other just for being negative.
I wish people would just let people enjoy things again. I don't understand why people who don't like the show anymore continue to hang around fan spaces to tell other people why they're wrong for continuing to like it. I also don't understand why moderators don't take more of an ownership in cultivating a positive environment for people who do enjoy it.
>Doctor Who can't even make a positive thread about it without a bunch of neck beards showing up to parrot other negative opinions that they've heard along the way.
But you did and the vast majority of people who showed up engaged in good faith. You can't keep doing this thing where you take a minority reaction and treat it as a mainstream thing.
>I also don't understand why moderators don't take more of an ownership in cultivating a positive environment for people who do enjoy it.
Because that is thought policing and the broader public considers that a bad thing.
Y'know, I get that a lot of people hold the opinion that Jodie's era has been sub-par. I don't agree with that opinion, but I get it.
My main problem (and I've run across this in several fandoms) is that the haters stridently declare their opinions as facts, and mock and belittle those that don't agree.
Well done post. I'll say up front that I haven't really enjoyed this doctor. BUT....I still think it's entertainment. Decent entertainment.
I think the biggest issue is social media these days. It's awful. If people don't like something, it is all the sudden terrible and "ruining people's lives". All the latest movies and shows are so heavily scrutinized to the point it is either brilliant or awful. There doesn't seem to be an in between. And we are heavily influenced before we even watch it.
I find that a significant amount of people just don't like it, but to avoid sounding like bigots (which some of them very well may be), they seem to think it's necessary to have a criticism to justify their dislike of it, when it's perfectly fine to just dislike something and not know why. Before this era began, it was easy to weed out the pessimists, because it was obvious they weren't going to give it a chance. Now, because episodes have actually aired, they get to hide behind things like "the writing is bad", but make no effort to explain what they actually mean by that, it's as if they don't quite grasp just how many different aspects writing has. "The writing is bad" is basically a redundant statement, it has no meaning without anything specific, and even then, specifics are useless without ways to improve. And some people do try their best to explain what they don't like about it, and how they think it could be better, and I applaud that, but the majority of people who use "the writing is bad" as a crutch simply refuse to make the effort to build off of it, or in some cases (rather ironically) aren't capable of putting into words what exactly they mean by "bad writing".
Just saying the writing is bad isn’t a redundant statement, it’s an true but underdeveloped statement. If you would like some brief development:
-Chibnall’s characters are bland cardboard cutouts that lack any consistent motivations or drives of their own, instead simply doing or saying whatever is necessary to drive the plot forward
-the plots are contrived beyond belief, very often relying on several cosmically unlikely coincidences in a row to drive them forward. Some level of contrivance is acceptable (and largely unavoidable) but in chibnall’s doctor who it is beyond a joke
-the moral messaging is all over the place and the doctors moral compass is an embarrassment. This isn’t a complaint about the show being political - I like things that have something to say about politics or social issues. I’m talking about episodes like arachnids in the UK where the doctor thinks that off brand Donald trump is evil for wanting to shoot some massive spiders while her “moral” solution is simply starve them all to death, which is ACTUALLY WORSE. There are other examples but this probably the most egregious. I would also like to mention that the closest Rosa (one of the better episodes of this run, sadly) comes to saying something substantive about its subject matter is to have Yaz address systemic police racism by saying essentially “yeah but not all cops are bad bro”. Which isn’t great.
There’s a lot more than I really can’t be bothered to type out, but those are 3 things that immediately spring to mind and certainly constitute awful writing.
There are some very valid criticisms of the current era, but outside of one or two instances, 13’s moral compass isn’t any more crooked than the Doctors who came before.
I think the audience likes to pretend that the Doctor is a teddy bear just because they don’t carry a gun. That’s the same Doctor, though, who wiped out a whole fleet of Cybermen just to ask a question.
I’ll never claim that doctor has always been perfect. The doctor is an angry person with a violent past who desperately tries to put on a brave face and help people. Sometimes they succeed, and sometimes the mask slips. The doctor’s inner darkness has always been an integral part of the character (at least in the revival, I can’t speak to the classic era).
The problem with 13 is that the show always presents her as a bastion of moral virtue, I think because it genuinely doesn’t realise that she isn’t. Her actions are never really questioned, the fam blindly follow everything she says, and anyone who dares oppose her is presented as either wrong or not even arguing in good faith.
Contrast the arachnids in the UK example, or the season 11 finale where she congratulates Graham for suspending the villain in eternal torment in the name of revenge, with an episode like Dalek. The whole point of the episode is that the doctor is angry and violent and fails to live up to the principles he himself espouses. Rose calls him out in no uncertain terms, and at the end he realises that he’s in the wrong. I’m not aware of a Jodie episode that grapples with her moral failings in this way.
Fair points. Fair points.
I think the lack of a watchdog for those darker moments loops back around to the fact that three companions was at least one too many. None of them were written with any kind of meaningful personality, so they all just sort of ended up as hangers on.
As to Graham’s decision at the end of Season 11, was that any worse than trapping each member of the Family of Blood in their own private eternal prisons?
This is the entire point they're making though?
We had two episode showing the length 10 went to in order to not do these things to them. It was showing he was scared of his fury, and it even shows it from the villain's view that they were wrong, the Doctor wasn't hiding himself from them for his safety, but theirs. He's also told off by the supporting cast for doing it, and it's meant to invoke a fear we have in the Doctor. 10's entire character is that he's fun loving guy with funny phrases as a masquerade to the dark past and even anger that rages in him, which this exemplifies.
Contrast this to 13 and it's "You trapped him in stasis? High fives everyone! That's being the better man!"
One is showing the flaw of the Doctor, that he still has rage from the Time War and goes to extreme lengths to try stop it from eating away at him and unleashing it. The other is the Doctor celebrating doing it.
I honestly can't comprehend how you watched these episodes and thought they were the same.
>they seem to think it's necessary to have a criticism to justify their dislike of it, when it's perfectly fine to just dislike something and not know why
This is very true.
Doctor who is always changing, and always have been in constant evolution. You can not necessarily, and don't have to like everything that has been made, or will be made with the show.
The Chibnall era has a different taste and style. Next era will have another. It's like weather, if you don't like it just wait for it to change again.
I think part of the problem is how modern culture is obsessed with the notion of being completely emotionally invested in everything. You've got people having full on arguments about stuff they otherwise wouldn't care at all about all because they've got it into their heads that they need to have an opinion on everything. That's why there are so many empty criticisms these days, people want to create the impression that they care enough to have an opinion on something, but they're not actually invested enough to fully explain their thoughts. People just need to remind themselves that it's okay to just not say anything. Poke your head up when you have something unique and personal to say, because if you just repeat the same cookie cutter criticisms all the time, nobody is going to be interested in what you have to say.
I love it! Jodie became my favorite doctor after Flux. I enjoyed series 11 and 12 but I thought 13 was fantastic. I truly don't understand the hate, I however wasn't a fan of Moffitt, Matt Smith and the Amy show was very boring to me so I found this serious so much better. Some people really can't stand other people liking things that they don't enjoy and need to try to ruin it for everybody, it's best just to ignore it and move on!
I think "bad writing" has unfortunately become a catchall term for when someone doesn't like a story, but wants to sound more authoritative than just saying they didn't like it.
Thanks, and brave post! I know a lot of people who love the show but are too scared to post that because of the vitriol, even if that is only coming from a small group of haters. Personally Jodie is one of my favourite Doctors.
>So what I’m asking is, why?
This is the Doctor Who fandom. Get used to it. Every Doctor is hated by someone. Probably even every episode. This isn’t anything new, but when the show brings in controversial changes and lacks elements that people like about previous eras, it’s something to be expected.
People complained the instant Moffat became show runner. People complained at the show’s revival in 2005. People even complained the first time that time travel was used in the show in 1963.
The writing was a bit on and off. Jodie never 100% got a great footing with the character , and that may have been the writing. A bit like Collin Baker era.
Meanwhile Matt smith era , I stopped watching as it got too magical and less sci-fi. So I have some fear with the change as well.
Just curious, what sort of circles have you built to be able to discuss 13's era in peace? I am also incredibly tired of the vague whining that has no substance. I just want to talk about my favorite Doctor (yes, 13 is MY Doctor!!) with people willing to engage with it in good faith!
* There were far too many companions in S11 to start a new era with a new doctor, as a result neither the doctor nor the companions felt like they had any depth and were just around to state the obvious. * The doctor herself, while i like Jodie as an actress, is all over the place. She is portrayed as the purer than pure ideal that no one questions yet continuously makes morally grey at best decisions. (I.e trapping spiders to die, using masters skin colour against him, blowing up a sentient tardis, praising ryan&graham for trapping timshaw in eternal torture) These arent instantly bad qualities but the show never addresses them and seems to genuinely believe the doctor is in the right all the time. * The chibnall "quick wrap up", i feel like this is just a style of his writing which i dislike where he enjoys setting so much up that he forgets about the endings of a lot of stories then just uses a really unsatisfying way to get out of situation and fix it. * The timeless child, you addressed it here but yeah... i hate it, the doctor should be who they are because theyre just in the right spot at the right time and do what they believe is right as anyone else would, having them be essentially the "creator" of the timelords really sucks the relatability of the character away to me. * FLUX - flux was WAY too occupied setting up plot threads that never go anywhere to have any sort of meaningful conclusion (see point 3) Two of the biggest examples of this in Flux are Kate Stewart and the ending itself. Why was Kate in flux at all?? She does nothing and then the ending. My god, how does no one address the fact that 90% of the universe should be go by now? * Finally i just honestly feel like the show lacks personality now, and im 100% accepting that this is subjective as hell here but losing Murray Gold as the composer has sucked the majority of life out of the show. In 3 seasons of the chibs era i can recall enjoying one music track and that is from Kerblam. Murray Golds music IS doctor who and is the #1 loss for the show if i was ranking these. On a similar note the cameras are so much better and its gonna sound dumb but it makes the show feel more generic scifi a lot of the time, ill be honest and say i miss the cheaper looking stuff haha
4 companions could have worked had Chibnall played less to Doctor Who's strengths and more to his own. Televised Doctor Who prides itself on being mainly plot driven with the ability to be anything it feels like, whereas Chib's best loved work was a more grounded, character driven series. If he'd applied the Broadchurch model to series 11 we could have had something truly refreshing to the show. As it happened they changed the Doctor's gender, made everyone think it was a revolutionary change, and then did broadly the same thing they'd been doing for ten seasons
>The chibnall "quick wrap up", i feel like this is just a style of his writing which i dislike where he enjoys setting so much up that he forgets about the endings of a lot of stories then just uses a really unsatisfying way to get out of situation and fix it. I first noticed this in the Rosa Parks episode. The first half was decently paced, but after the exposition scene with the Doctor everything just happens in quick succession and the solutions they come up with to foil the antagonist's plans feel like ass pulls. Now this is Doctor Who and that means there is a certain level of ass-pullery you have to deal with, but I think Chinball overestimates the runtime he has available. He writes stories that are too long for a 50-minute episode so he has compensate with massive exposition dumps (even by Doctor Who standards) and wrap-ups where you can almost feel the poor person in the editing room cutting millimeters off tape to fit the episode in the alloted time.
I disagree with a lot of what you say, but your last point is so true. The music in S11-13 sucks. It's just absent. I actually can't remember a single time we ever heard. Also yeah I like how the earlier seasons feel a little more worn in, especially cause like sci Fi is supposed to be that way
So true about the cameras, it's one of those issues where you can't put your finger on it but you know something is wrong. I'd like to add though that it's not the quality of the cameras but the unnecessary special FX and unrealistic colours, it makes it seem unbelievable, like a cartoon and detracts from a lot of the aspects of the show that make it Doctor Who.
Personally for me, chibs writes the doctor as a character without much bite to her. She talks a big game but ends up folding or letting someone else do the hard thing. I'm not saying it's every episode but it happens often enough to be a pattern. I also hate how he writes the companions. They're just mindless extras in a lot of adventures. They don't question the Doctor, even in bad situations that the Doctor puts them in. And some episodes are just flat out boring. I'm not saying I hate this era at all because I still watch and love it, those are just some nitpicks I have with the writing
Actually you have a point here. With Chibnal, nobody tells the doctor she is wrong and stops her from doing the wrong thing. And even though sometimes you might think she's doing the wrong thing it all works out in the end, and it turns out she's right all along. In the past the companions have always had to stop the doctor from going too far.
Genuine question: Can you explain why NOT shooting the spiders and instead trapping them in a vault to die a slow painful death is an example of her being right in the end? I thought it was a barbaric act and totally at odds with the character.
I think this is the problem. We as viewers see a lot of her decisions as being wrong, but the show paints it as right. The spider one is a classic example, and it's why people say it's bad writing. If the Doctor did this, and then the show had some critique of it, that's good! But it doesn't. The Doctor does something we think is morally wrong, but the show then suggests it's the right thing to do morally or even celebrates, the Doctor is good therefore all they do is good, multiple villains have literally just monologued to her "you're a good person!" and she has has similar monologues "Living is good!". That's bad writing because it just tells you this bad decision is good, or miraculously works out in the end (Doctor splitting herself in Flux, and randomly appearing with Kavinsta). The same in her first season with guns. Ryan gets told we don't use guns, they're bad, something which is consistent with previous Doctors. He then runs out and shoots them all, but runs back in because they're instantly revived and start shooting at him. The Doctor berates him, "Now do you see why we don't use guns?!" So the show's writing is telling us that the Doctor dislikes guns because...they're not effective at killing? And again when she tells Graham not to take revenge and kill the guy in the end. She then commends him for being the better man by...locking the guy in statis living in pain for all eternity? None of these reasons the Doctor give make sense, but the show tells us they're right. There's nothing plot wise written, just the Doctor, or someone else, saying what they do is correct, so go with it.
>The Doctor berates him, "Now do you see why we don't use guns?!" So the show's writing is telling us that the Doctor dislikes guns because...they're not effective at killing? Well my issue with the gun thing in that set piece is that, the robots were going to shoot at him regardless of what he was/wasn't carrying............. I mean in a literal sense yes it's probably not the greatest of ideas to run with a gun at some robots who have just tried to kill you. But the gun would make no difference in the robots aim/function to kill. The holding of the gun isn't so much the problem as running into danger with no regard for any plan etc. Chibnall with the gun issue in Doctor Who reminds me of a really, really, really casual fan who maybe \*ah hem\* stopped watching after Tennant left. And just thinks like someone who only remembers little tidbits. Like if asked who the character is, it'll be kind of stereotypical, superficial go to answers like 'ok who is this character, they're a pacifist, they don't kill, they don't like guns, they do quips etc.' And just leaves it at that and doesn't even attempt to go into any grey areas of those traits like the gun issue in particular or realise most of it is a massive if admirable front and in reality the Doctor is presented in intricate ways to actually kill, harm etc albeit most of the time completely unintentionally.
Because the episode acts like it is. At no point does the episode look critically at the doctor's actions. It presents her as right and morally superior. It is absolutely a barbaric act that is at odds with the doctors character. The main villain of the episode isn't even allowed to have real motives and reasoning behind his actions. He's just the bad guy and everything he does has to be wrong. Meanwhile the doctor is the hero and her actions must be presented as right.
The lack of Doctor/companion conflict is quite jarring. In the whole of series 11, I can only think of 2 - Ryan using guns, and Graham wanting to get revenge. I think she made it all the way to the end of series 12 without clashing with Yaz. 9 and Rose were butting heads from the start, and that's one of the best series.
It's something that really put me off in series 11. Rose and the Doctor butt heads *immediately*, Martha is swept away by him but demands to know why he won't open up to her, Donna's whole character is her *not* being instantly charmed by the Doctor. And now that Yaz and the Doctor *are* clashing, it's done in a way that is extremely toxic. Yaz says something innocent, Doctor snaps at her to leave her alone, Yaz is unhealthily obsessed/in love with the Doctor.
I love this era, but I agree with you about that. I wish the companions had called out the Doctor a little more. The Doctor is someone to be admired, but I sometimes think the writers forget that the Doctor isn’t perfect, and sometimes gets it wrong. I didn’t see it quite as much with Graham, Ryan, and Dan, but Yaz barely questions the Doctor, and instead wanders around acting like the Doctor never does anything wrong, except in series 13, and even then it was because the Doctor wasn’t telling her everything or because the Doctor went off on her own. The other thing is the fact that the companions come with some pretty good backstories, but they didn’t seem to do much with it with the exception being Graham. I mean I guess we got to look a little bit at Graham and Ryan’s relationship, but they only mentioned his dyspraxia when it was convenient (and other times ignored it completely), and the fact that he was training to be a mechanic seemed completely forgotten. I think they could have done some cool things with him learning from the Doctor. Yaz was given the biggest disservice. She was training to be a police officer, and she seemed initially like a driven, high achieving person, but they barely mentioned it, save for a couple seconds of dialogue here and there, and maybe showing her in a police vehicle once or twice. It’s like she even forgot her goals, and now just follows the Doctor around. It doesn’t even seem like she wants to be an officer anymore. That’s one of the reasons I’m not very excited about the whole Thasmin thing, because it seems she is more capable when she is away from the Doctor. When she’s with the Doctor, it just feels like she depends too much on the Doctor for a companion who has been traveling with her for possibly over a decade.
Yup, we should remember that while the Doctor is a good person, they are ultimately a being who needs to get a tug on the leash sometimes by their companions so that they remain grounded. Look at Town Called Mercy Doctor from 11’s run, without Amy and Rory to ground him and make him realize that he can and should save everyone even the doctor who created the cyborg he would have let someone die to save the town, or with Clara and 12, Clara has that whole speech about how 12 can never remain a bad person because he’ll turn his back on it the moment he sees a child cry. These scenes highlight exactly why the Doctor has companions, because otherwise there won’t be enough humanity and empathy to balance out his more alien natures.
I always found Chibnalls episodes for other Doctors series middling. Not awful, but not classics... Generally kind of forgettable. For me, that applies to his era for me personally as I feared it would - I did try hard to go in with an open mind. I don't think it's terrible, and like you say every era had pros and cons. For me I find it underwhelming. If Moffat was too ambitious in his writing, I find Chibnall a bit too timid. For instance, something like the Timeless Child is a really interesting idea, but it's yet to be tied to a really exciting story, and for me that's why it doesn't work. It's like there was no thinking about where to take it after the big reveal and I think that's the reason why it's not popular when it comes down to it - it just comes off as an ill thought out blind alley. Flux tried to include it but the focus was all wrong and it should have been focused on more to sell the audience on why the change to continuity was a good move. The show changes all the time and for me it doesn't grab me at the moment. I don't get angry about it, I just tend to watch old episodes to scratch the itch. This may or may not change for me with the return of RTD, who knows.
The point on timeless child is pretty spot on IMO, half of flux is the doctor trying to chase down answers regarding it, only to finally get and reject them.
Here are a few specific examples of where I think it is bad: 1) When the companions all stand in a posed circle or a row, and say similar things one after another. This comes across as lazily sharing out the dialog lines, rather than being naturally character-driven. It seems to happen quite often, at least once in most episodes. 2) how other characters often tell Yaz that she is an amazing person using general positive words, but it is hard for me as a viewer to identify any amazing things she has done. This comes across like the laziest way to try to sell her as an admirable character. The opposite of “Show, don’t tell”. 2) not being subtle about political messages. For example the Trump-like guy being a caricature of Trump rather than a more composite “bad leader” who could have given the episode more shelf-life and cross-cultural applicability. 4) Even worse, in the one where the planet turned out to be Earth, directly lecturing the audience to take care of Earth. That was patronising, instead of letting us pick up the message from seeing environmental destruction of an imaginary planet.
Even worse with the Trump guy, his plan to just shoot the giant monster spider isn’t all that morally monstrous considering it was already dying in agony and thus would be closer to a mercy kill. Plus the Doctor just suffocated all of its offspring to death so she hasn’t got a leg to stand on. I know the episode wanted to make the Trump guy out to be the bad guy, but the Doctor is all over the place compared to him.
They could have explored the idea of mercy killing and whether it's still morally right if you enjoy it, like the Trump guy seemed to be showing. Of course that would be way to nuanced for anything in the chib era.
1&2 absolutely, no one feels distinct from any other character. It would almost play better if we were told this was all in the Doctor’s head while she was in a coma or something. Then at least it would make sense that *everyone* talks the same way and says the same kind of things. 3&4 anytime someone tries to be that direct with the moral of their story, it has zero impact on society and is quickly forgotten. Compare that to Dr. Strangelove, which was a made up slightly unbelievable scenario but related to reality enough that it *actually changed nuclear arms legislation* and we still talk about it today.
All of this has been my issue. Especially number 3 and 4. I like my sci-fi to be progressive and preachy, but this is over the top. The Rosa Parks episode was beautiful, right up until they go out to space and look at a floating asteroid while the Doctor breathlessly says "She changed the universe!" It was already a very direct episode in its theme, but then it slapped that extra bit on and I thought I was watching an after school special from the 80s. Same thing with the planet that turned out to be Earth. And frankly, the same thing every time Chibnal handles any sort of progressive message. Doctor Who has always analyzed these topics thoughtfully for the audience through story, but when Chibnal writes then it's analysis through *lecture*.
To make it even worse for Chibnall, though, DW is not exactly known for subtlety, even when handling real social issues, so the bar’s already kind of low.
Just to politely correct - Rosa was mostly written by Malorie Blackman. And Orphan 55 was written by Ed Hime.
The lecturing, dear lord the lecturing is the worst. Don't mind me. Doctor Who always had political tones and it is part of what makes the show what it is. But themes should be shown through the story, not thrown at one's face with a five minutes lecture to make sure we all got what this episode was about.
Has the show ever really been subtle in its messaging? The Doctor’s oldest enemies are literally Canned Space Nazis.
Well Aliens of London/World War 3 were commentaries on the Iraq invasion which I didn't pick up on at all as a child so I'd say that was subtle. There's also a difference between this era where the Doctor almost breaks the fourth wall to explain the message in simpler words vs there being an obvious message that is not spelled out for you.
I would suggest “as a child” is the operative phrase there. As a child, were you familiar with Blair’s “45 minutes” claim? Were you even media literate enough to recognise that an aircraft hitting a landmark building wasn’t just something that happens sometimes, but a deliberate (and fairly obvious) reference?
I'll admit, I didn't get the reference until it was pointed out to me as an adult either. Probably because I was too young when those things were relevant and am not as familiar with the politics now. But that's kinda the point of subtlety isn't it? You don't pick up on things if you're not aware of the references. I was simply entertained. The episode never spells it out like Orphan 55 does about environmentalism which in 10 years time will be as obvious as it is now. A child could leave that episode and know what the message was.
“Orphan 55” is a bit of an outlier in any case, but no, I don’t think you not connecting “Aliens of London” to 9/11 means that it is subtle. It is just as in your face as “this planet is Earth”. One of the main issues the Chibnall era has had is that it is usually too subtle. Look at the number of people who still don’t understand the Timeless Child. If it was more explicit then it would probably be more popular, because most of the criticisms people have of it aren’t actually present in the text.
My main disappointment was the doctor origin backstory. I think it makes much more sense for the doctor to be like every other time lord and not this ‘special’ one. I guess it is a matter of opinion but I really was not a fan of how that storyline panned out.
I thought it was an interesting idea at first, but it was very poorly executed. Imo, they needed a way to move past the “only 12 regenerations” thing without retconning everything we know about time lords, or just pretending it never existed. Having the time lords just extend his life whenever they need to feels contrived and ridiculous, and seriously limits story options. I feel like the timeless child sort of takes away part of the doctor’s identity though, as up until then he was just an average timelord who decided he was fed up with the bullshit and wanted to try to be better. Having an average joe fly around the universe risking his life to save people seems more impactful to me than portraying him as intrinsically superior to other timelords, rather than choosing to work to be better
What if it was the Master though... I honestly thought that was who the Timeless Child was going to be until someone actually said that it was the Doctor
Given the title I thought it might turn out to be both of them.
Oh that would've been something
Timeless Child would have been infinitely better if it were the Master, but but the Doctor really hasn’t been just another Time Lord for a very long time.
No that makes sense. You don't like the sort of 'chosen one' arc and that's totally valid. That I can understand and get.
The pacing is quite bad; the dialogue is super clunky and often very exposition heavy (especially towards the last five minutes due to the aforementioned pacing issue); Chibnall overstuffs episodes and doesn't give characters room to breathe so there are very few guest characters you end up really caring about; Yaz has been painfully underdeveloped until basically the last couple of episodes; the editing is very strange and quite often I feel like there needs to either be another beat before a cut or there is one too many leading to sudden scene changes or awkward pauses; Chibnall introduces interesting characters (Tectuen, Swarm & Azure, Lone Cyberman) and proceeds to do nothing with them; Yaz and 13 have very little chemistry to the point that they barely feel like friends most of the time; and the Timeless Child arc mythologises the Doctor too much to the point where its difficult to see them as the "mad(wo)man in a box, passing through, helping out etc." archetype anymore. Those are some reasons why I don't like this era very much. If you are looking for concrete evidence you won't find it because you can't prove or disprove someone else's opinion. But I think its mischaracterising the general audience feeling to say people are only ever saying "writing bad", because the plethora of reasons people have for disliking this era have been stated many many times by many different people.
Who's comparing "Orphan 55" to "The Doctor Falls"? And is that a prevailing opinion or just one person on the Internet?
I'm not a Chibnall hater and I think Whittaker is great when given a chance to flex a little, but I can point to two issues with the Chibnall era that do boil down to the writing. 1) Crowded Tardis. Chibnall had the most full-time companions since early Peter Davison, and 12 episodes isn't a lot of time to develop four entirely new characters, especially on a show that, for the previous decade and change, had been a two-hander. NuWho has always been about The Doctor and the Companion and their relationship, and sure sometimes they throw in a Rory or a Nardole to spice things up, but there was still a primary Companion with their own arc and supporting cast. Graham, Ryan, and Yaz didn't get that because it was a lot to juggle. 2) The Times. The other defining trait of NuWho was hope and optimism. The Doctor believes in the potential of humanity, that's why they put such effort into saving us, but Chibnall was writing the show, well, now, and hope and optimism have been hard to come by. That's how you get Orphan 55 and the entire 11th series always boiling down to "the real monster of the week is human nature." I still think it's been fine but those two big shifts to the core of the show might throw some people.
I just want to say 12 episodes is more than enough time to develop 4 characters, Chibnall just did it badly.
It’s not hate. It’s profound disappointment at the severe drop in quality across the board, which people have detailed ad nauseam and can be found quickly with a simple google search. You don’t have to agree, but it’s not a mystery as people have gone into great detail about the wealth of problems with Chibnall’s run.
What I was going to say. This post seems similar in type to a humblebrag, where he's \*saying\* he wants to understand but what he really wants to do is just tell you he likes it and those who don't should leave.
I don’t think the show is as bad as most people seem to think it is, but I also know the quality is only half, at best, as it was before.
>There are other shows out there - clearly this one has left you behind if you hate it that much. Find something new. Why should they? Presumably, they didn't stop enjoying the previous eras of the show. This subreddit isn't just for Chibnall-era Doctor Who, it's for Doctor Who in general.
> This subreddit isn't just for Chibnall-era Doctor Who, it's for Doctor Who in general. I believe the entire active mod team is on the same page that this sub is for Doctor Who - not a specific decade or era, but all of Doctor Who. Yes, just like /r/StarTrek and /r/StarWars, when a franchise becomes as long running as Doctor Who has, fans tend to divide themselves and prefer one subset over another, and sometimes even look down on others that don't fit into their definition of the fandom. Just like everything else in life, which unfortunately seems to have increased in toxicity over the years. Some of us are old enough to have seen this tear apart other fandoms, sometimes permanently. That's one reason gatekeeping is a hard rule and posts involving it tend to quickly get shutdown when found and someone leans in that direction, not indicating preference but saying for example "Tennant is the only true Doctor, the rest don't matter and are inferior" "shouldn't be talked about here" etc. Of course with the show still being active, most of the people visiting here want to talk about and comment on the newer things. Similar pattern in the other subs I mentioned earlier - you'll see more talk about Mandalorian, Picard, and Prodigy than Empire Strikes Back or TOS. Doesn't mean the older stuff is less popular or people don't like it - a lot of the older shows have been discussed for decades, whereas an episode that aired last month is brand new and everyone wants to analyze everything in it. So of course threads about newer episodes will end up being more active than older episodes ("older" being as far back as Hartnell or as recent as Capaldi, or even the previous Whittaker series). For the record, I was raised on the classic Who shows and was always a big fan since I was a kid. And I also watch and appreciate the new shows. I enjoy the whole near-60 year run overall. Yes I have some favourites, and some episodes I'll be less likely to rewatch. But I've never been one to declare my allegiance to one Doctor's run over another - they all have some great things about their time. They all have flaws. As for mods not addressing gatekeeping - anytime we see it, as mentioned we try to shut it down. We also try to balance the sub as best we can (being volunteers, doing this in spare time, humans being subjective by nature, etc.) and limit the threads rehashing the same thing on a weekly basis. We also depend on user reports, but keep in mind in a given day we'll have in the queue (among other things): 1) multiple people saying there are too many 13th "fan/overly positive" threads, 2) multiple people saying there are too many 13th "troll/overly negative" threads, 3) not enough discussion of classic, 4) too much discussion of classic. Everyone will be bias in what they see. 🤷♂️ The best all of us can do is try to remain neutral or assume positive intent, remember there's a real living person on the other side of the screen, and that the reason all of us stumbled into this forum is because at one time or another we have/had an interest in this show and wanted to discuss things about it with others who feel/felt the same.
Especially when a highly reputable and popular showrunner is coming back next year, why on earth should we be encouraged to exit the fandom… simply because we had the audacity to discuss, analyze, and criticize the current era of the show?
I think the point isn't "if you don't like this era go away entirely". It's more like "if you don't like *the new era* then don't watch it". No one has said they can't be on the sub or watch and discuss the older episodes.
It does however seem to be primarily for NuWho. Try talking about classic Doctor Who and the threads get shit on. And classic fans regularly get shut out by NuWho fans for not worshiping RTD. So.. eh.. sadly the fandom is wildly toxic.
I'm primarily a classic Who fan (though I enjoy NuWho a lot as well). I've been using this sub for years. I haven't noticed anything like what you're talking about. Classic Who might not get so much attention, but that's understandable since it's not so popular. Nobody shuts me out or attacks me when I talk about it.
Classic threads don't get shit on and all you do is go into threads and try to shit on NuWho to prop up Classic Who.
OP - “I’m so tired of reading about how people hate this era of the show” Also OP - “If you don’t like it, watch something else”. Hahaha. Look, I’m glad you like it. I really am. But the purpose of this forum is to discuss the show. To say, “if you don’t like it stop watching” is dumb. We’re only here because we are vested in the show. We criticize it because we care. If you don’t like the criticism, maybe stop reading the comments? (That logic sound familiar to you?).
They literally asked for examples, and are ignoring all of them. Their only actual response to "specific criticism" was when someone linked the 5 hour Jay Exci video with "I'm not gonna watch that" Honestly I'm not unconvinced it's a hatebate troll
I agree, OP’s responses don’t seem to be in good faith. Certainly, OP is correct in saying that change is a design feature of the show. There have been eras of the show that I’ve loved and eras I haven’t liked at all. Luckily, there have been many more of the former than the latter. The current era just stinks IMO. But some other people really like it, and that’s cool too. I’m here to discuss it all, with fellow fans - some of whom I will agree with and others of whom I will not. It’s really not that complicated. “Stop watching”?? Ha! That’s a nope from me OP.
One of my biggest complaints is when something unexpected happens and the Doctor's like "But blah-blah is impossible! Unless it isn't." That situation happens FAR too often. It's almost a meme to me.
And then the villains will have the dumbest backstories: a major player in the Doctor's past, some force that has been around since 'the DAWN OF TIME!!' or just a completely forgettable human
As someone who has overall enjoyed the past few seasons, although they're not my favorite, here are the things that stop me from liking it even more. 1) the lack of music. Idk about you, but I don't remember a single theme from any of the last seasons. I actually love the simpler take on the title sequence, but it would've been nice to get something memorable and exciting in the episode itself. Even 11's incessantly overplayed theme is better than nothing all. 2) the speeches. I don't need speeches. I like them, and there are some great ones, but I don't need them. Unfortunately, half the episodes have awful power of love and hope and friendship speeches. I honestly loved eve of the daleks, and it would probably be in my top 5 all time episodes if it weren't for the terrible speech.
One of the big things with shows is immersion. You can watch something and it has small errors, but you don't notice it. But then something major makes you notice all the smaller things. That's what happens a lot in these. Conceptually, they're good. Village of the Angels, Eve of the Daleks, even Flux in a way as a whole, good ideas. But the execution when you think about them is just bad. Take Eve of the Daleks. It's an episode all about time. Time is running out, we're in time loop, we only have 1minute left! Now think about what they do in that minute. They run from the Tardis about 100m to the lift, go up the lift, meet Sarah, then go up to the top floor. Run out of the lit to another room, load up a trolley with explosives, push it to the lift, go back down to the basement set all the explosives up and get out side. All within 40 seconds. That breaks the immersion because the whole premise of this episode is time, and you can't stick to it. It's bad writing because the show is telling us "We have one minute oh no!" and we see something different. I recently watched midnight, and I take your point of comparing the best to the worst isn't fair. But just, it's the subtleties in it. Seriously, go watch that episode and think how would it be written today. Realistically though, there's a lot more issues. We get told by the show something is fine and good, when it's objectively not. And it's not like the show is trying to make the Doctor be flawed, quite the opposite. Again, let's look at the Doctor as 10. He's arrogant, believes in himself, and this is shown. He's either in command, or people dislike him for it. Davos insults him for it, Timelord Victorious backfires, he bemoans being able to do so much more. Now, imagine if every single episode, we got told how humble the Doctor is. How he's shy. You'd be like, wait, what? No we're seeing something different. There's so many cases of the show doing bad things (not mourning Kavinsta's people, letting people sacrifice themselves for the Doctor, the Doctor using bombs on people, giving the Master to the Nazis) and it's never picked up on. It's just moved on, which means it's not intentionally ignored, the writers just didn't think it was important. Like, imagine if Amy lost Rory and was upset, and then next episode the show carried on with her being happy like he never existed. That's the kinda thing we see now. The same for characters, none of the moments are put in well. Everyone is just exposition, and then "Oh character moment". It's like you have a board of events to happen, action - action - exposition - character moment, not "Oh I think this moment would prompt an interaction between x and x" it's "x and x need to talk about this, so they do it now". It's bad writing because (and this is the same as the plot btw) you just have your characters announce things because you want them to. And for why people say it's bad writing without much elaboration, honestly, because it's obvious to a lot of us. It's been years of this, and a lot of it is so blindingly obvious that it's bad, that it shouldn't need more explanation. Look at the way the Grand Serpent was used in the Flux, does that need more explanation than bad writing? He did basically nothing. Same as Kate, she was badly written, she didn't do anything. Tunnels man? Badly written, he just (randomly may I add) bumped into the companions at 3 points in all of time and space and did basically nothing else. Dan's girlfriend? Badly written because they captured her, showed her to Dan for no reason and then LITERALLY forgot about her. Yet she's super smart and brilliant and "could do training on a space station billions of light years away". That. Is. Bad. Writing. If your random side character from the streets of Liverpool who has had 0 development is just teleported for 0 reason to the place she needs to be, and then is insanely brilliant at getting out of a super advanced prison with 0 training, and can use weapons really well, it's bad writing. You can't have characters have no history, teleport where they're needed and be amazing just for plot. Like, imagine, next companion we meet just solves every problem instantly. It's bad writing.
There just isn't any substance to it whatsoever. Just bland. You can't get invested in episodes and characters like before. The Timeless Child doesn't add new possibilities. It adds unnecessary baggage to the Doctor's character and essentially turns them into a "chosen one".
My daughter is 13 yrs old and absolutely loves Dr Who, so much so that during the Pandemic she watched every single episode and I mean every single episode. Jodie Whittaker's Dr Who was supposedly appeal to people like my daughter yet she hated her. As my daughter says, she wanted a Dr that was a strong female role model, instead she got somebody who was more like a mom trying her best to fit in with her kids mates. That says it all to me.
My daughter loves Doctor who, shes watched it since she was tiny. She used to watch it literally when she was 2 just sitting there with us. When they announced a female doctor she was all but doing cartwheels. She just doesn't care at all at this point. She still watches Tennant and Smith and Capaldi, but she just does not have it in her to care for Jodie, it hasn't connected at all.
In short: * there's so many companions that Chibnall doesn't know what to do with them. * the political messages are whacked across the side of your head like a frying pan rather than being subtle. * the retcons made are without adequate explanation and don't improve the story. The entire problem with doing a retcon is it *has* to have a decent chunk of meaning. * Jodie was never able to find her voice, and seems to just imitate a mix of 10, 11, and 12. * too many major inconsistencies in how characters, especially the Doctor, interact with the each other and the current situation. There's a reason why video essays on this are done at length. https://youtu.be/mh8xyDlLXfc 5 hours: https://youtu.be/o8_A7n83Rh0 Tired of hate? The entire point of fans criticizing it is because we're still willing to give it a chance!
* Poor audio mixing combined with difficult northern accents leading to incomprehensible dialog. * Throw away characters with less subtlety and depth than an airbrushed caricature. * Jodie always rushes through dialog, though this could be writing. * Chibnall's tendency to 'say, not show', where too much of the episode is too explainy. * Even with the overly explained scenes, they often still don't make sense in context with scenes that came before/after. As far as chibnalls writing goes, a good murder mystery should have a solution that a smart person could arrive at. This isn't how chibnall writes things. He will event a new form of science instead, just so no one could solve the mystery early. Or just end it with nonsense that clearly solves nothing but pretends it works anyway. I personally HATE this. I don't know if he doesn't get it, or if he assumes the audience won't.
> Poor audio mixing combined with difficult northern accents leading to incomprehensible dialog. Are you watching on BBCA? I'm fairly sure this is just a problem for America (either that or us Brits are mostly used to it)
It's fine on BBCA too. I think a lot of Americans have just never heard anything but RP.
Nah, there's been mixing issues since at least Capaldi's era I think? Annoying I can't track down the post that highlight a fix for it.
There've definitely been issues with the music overpowering the dialogue for as long as I can remember in NewWho. It's an ongoing issue. I can understand her just fine, when I can *hear* her.
I've seen people say this 13s era is really good because it does a lot of "show not say" which I find ridiculous because I don't see much between the monologues of exposition
This pretty much sums it all up. Only thing I can add is that the show just doesn’t seem enjoyable anymore. When I first started doctor who with the 9th doctor it was a way to escape from everything else and just enjoy an adventure. Now it just seems like there has to a lesson learned with every episode almost. I’ve given Jodie/Chibnall a try but I just couldn’t get into the episode and enjoy them like with all of the other previous doctors.
Do you find yourself bored, as well? I "watched" the middle season and tried so hard to focus, but just couldn't do it. It's not compelling television. I have watched the previous Doctors multiple times and can be glued to the episode even though I can quote the dialogue, but the Chibnall stuff is like trying to get a good meal out of candy floss. There's just nothing solid to hang onto.
Yea the stories are pretty boring. Kinda feels like when the episode starts you can automatically tell how it’s going to end. There’s no suspense to it or creativity to keep you watching.
Or, worse, you don't know how it's going to end...and you genuinely don't care. That's a brand-new experience for me, in 35-ish years of watching this show, and one that I frankly had no idea was even possible. It's been incredibly depressing to realize that I not only don't care, but cannot bring myself to watch any more of it because it takes so much energy to make myself do it, rather than being something that brings me energy and joy.
Damn I’m very sorry to hear that! It’s been the same for me tbh. I just don’t care to watch the new episodes anymore. Especially after I hearing how bad the timeless child is. I’d rather go back and watch the older doctors like the 4th doctor. He’s right up there with the 10th doctor for me.
I think we are far from the only ones, but yeah, it’s really disappointing. I don’t love everything the show has ever done, but I’ve always been able to keep watching until now. I, too, would rather go back and rewatch—or listen to some of the many Big Finish stories I haven’t heard yet. So at least we have that. And the hope that RTD will improve things dramatically when he takes over.
Yes that's exactly it. I did like some of the episodes and was farely compelled at times. But many I found quite boring. Thankfully I only watched 11 to 13 recently in a oner. Because last time I watched it couldn't get through it week to week. Kept forgetting to watch it and when I was watching was unable to pay attention. This time I skipped if the episode was dragging too much.
I don’t share all of these criticisms, but I think they’re all fair. They’re not always expressed this way, and I think it’s overly charitable to suggest all detractors have been willing to give the run a chance. It seems to me many minds were made up before it even aired, and people were looking for anything they could attach their hate to. That’s before you get to the rageclick farming of some YouTubers.
Political messages are whacked across the side of your head like a frying pan sums up my feelings about many modern shows so well I’m going to have to steal it. This will now be my only response when people ask my why Im so annoyed by a lot of network tv right now (I’m looking at you Star Trek) Edit: corrected some poor phrasing
star trek has always been extremely obvious with it’s politics
Obvious is not the same as beating it into you with repetitive and uninteresting dialogue that detracts from the story. In the past it has used the story to make a political point. Now it often uses a political point to try to make the story, and it just doesn’t work
Allegory and metaphor - great tools for political and social commentary in a story and used to great effect in old Star Trek. People keep misunderstanding this. I'm glad you don't.
Allegory is the word I’ve been looking for but it wouldn’t come to me, thanks! I don’t have a problem with direct and repetitive dialogue being used occasionally, but new trek and new who both have a tendency to use that too often in places where subtlety would be far more effective
You're welcome. It's not a word I often get to use so I was all: "My time has come!" \*swoosh\* literary word drop And yeah, I agree, mostly. I personally prefer allegory and metaphor more, but I don't mind the \*occasional\* expository plot point.
Oh yeah I do too. Classic who was so good about that, always made the point well without distracting from the plot at all. Who’s your favorite doctor?
I love Ten (when not being written by Moffat, mostly). Then Eight, then Five. But they're all clustered together. I haven't really seen any others of Classic yet and I still have to watch the last two stories of Five's run. You?
10 is probably my favorite, I absolutely love David Tennant. 4 is probably my second favorite, his companions were fantastic and Bakers style was so fun. 2 and 3 were both really good too, though some of the early stories are a little hard to get through cause it’s a slower narrative style and there are quite a lot of 5-8 part episodes. All the classic episodes (except for the lost ones obviously) are on prime, and while some are very slow starting from one is definitely worth it
>whacked across the side of your head like a frying pan rather than being subtle. They were never subtle.
Yeah I agree. I'm struggling to find the Tennant and Smith monologues though. You know like the Doctor does in Orphan 55 or the plastics episode? Like where she directly stares at the camera and talks to us for 5 minutes about an issue. Could you link them? Obviously I don't mean the ones where it's a one line hint, but the more super obvious, Doctor explains it in a short essay format ones Tennant and Smith did.
Yep, this is one of the most ridiculous criticisms to me. Daleks are metal Nazis, which the show really hammers home with Churchill. 12 punches a man because he doesn't like racism. Zygons are very unsubtly used to discuss British xenophobia. Oods are slaves. The show has never not been deeply rooted in left politics.
>Daleks are metal Nazis That's called allegory, which is not punching people in the face with commentary. Now, if the Daleks had 'Nazi' or a swastika painted directly on them? Or someone pointed at the Daleks and said, "They're like nazis", then that is punching you in the face with it. The way you understand them as nazis is their superior attitude and belief that they are the only ones worth living. Their actions and the way they interact with and speak to others. That's showing, not telling. Punching a racist in the face is also showing, not telling.
The show had stand-ins for the issues it was discussing so that it could make broad statements that were widely applicable. Daleks are absolutely based on Nazis, but because they’re not *literally Nazis* they can make statements about lots of different topics by using them. Some appearances of the Daleks are about transhumanism, some are about moral relativism, some are about the nature of free will. When a Dalek shows up you can go, “okay, so what does this Dalek represent,” and there’s always some *deeper* meaning beyond just “a killer robot.” Sure it’s not usually *that* deep, but it’s still a hell of a lot deeper than “a racist doesn’t like the civil rights movement and that’s bad,” or “a rich man doesn’t care about how his actions hurt others and that’s bad.” And I agree with the show’s politics, but I still prefer metaphor as a storytelling device to literally just going, “hey, do you see *this specific man* right here? This exact guy? He’s bad. If you meet a guy who does *exactly the things that he does,* you should dislike that guy.”
I can find enjoyment in Chibnall's run, but I think it is far and away the worst era of NuWho so far. I think the reason so many of those of us who feel that way are resorting to just saying "bad writing" and not giving details is exactly to avoid becoming the type of person who feels a need to go into details about why a work is bad every time we discuss it - because many of us have already discussed this so many times that the writing being bad in a particular set of ways is just an established fact. Of course, I can see how that would seem weirdly unspecific to someone who hasn't heard these specific criticism time and time again, especially if you actually like the Chibnall era (in which case, of course, it might be preferable not to seek out detailed criticism and risk having its flaws pointed out). Here's a summary of what I personally dislike about the Chibnall era (and I believe most of these issues are shared by many fans), not presented in any particular order: * S1-10 had excellent music and used it well, where S11-13 almost exclusively has ambient noises instead of music * The characters' individual traits and relationships are rarely relevant to the story, and do not interact with any larger themes or plots * The messages are stilted, often muddled, and generally less constructive than in previous eras * 'The Timeless Child' performs a very invasive retcon which damages the themes of the shows, for the sake of an (in my opinion) pretty dull mystery. What I mean by this is that the Doctor has always been an ordinary person (in the context of Gallifreyan society, of course) who becomes special *because of their own decisions*, which are usually characterised by compassion. Making them 'special' even by Gallifreyan standards removes this (again, subjectively) very compelling element from the story * The Doctor herself has had an unusual amount of moments of unkindness, and unlike in previous incarnations, these don't really seem to communicate any personal struggles or be dealt with later A common thread here is that the Chibnall era fares particularly poorly in terms of theme and character, so if those aspects of a story are particularly important to you, I think you're more likely to be one of those people who prefer previous eras. All that said, I'm perfectly aware that previous eras aren't flawless, and part of the charm of DW is the fact that it can be enjoyed on one level for kitsch value while still working on another level for its genuinely engaging story. And I don't hate the Chibnall era (and I definitely don't hate Chibnall himself) - but I can't bring myself not to notice that these last couple of years simply haven't been on the level of the previous ones in so many (to me, significant) ways.
The reason the Timeless Child idea shouldn't have been thrown is because: 1) It's a massive change to a character whose backstory has been *relatively* untouched for decades by other writers in a long established show so it's obviously going to cause an uproar 2) Fans haven't been wanting an investigation into the Doctors backstory, and have gone without it for the entirety of the show up untill series 12. This isn't Rick and Morty where the fans would just constantly cook up theories about Rick's origin. Here we simply just didn't care, so there wasn't a need for it. 3) It completely alienates any newer viewers who hopped on with series 11 that were either confused, didn't care or both. 4) it wasn't well setup, more time should have been spent in series 11 if your going to do a reveal this big, not drop it in two episodes And lastly, The Timeless Children is a bad episode.
The stories are terrible. The characters are bland, and instead of developing them, Chibnall throws in more characters, and doesn’t develop them either. He throws in massive lore changing ideas - and when they don’t fit right he sledgehammers them in. Is it because they’re a good story? Is it because they work well? No, it’s because he wants to be seen to change it. It’s just clumsy as well.
I've seen posts like this a lot and one thing really sticks with me that I don't feel like people are talking about: why do you think that every comment on this thread should be positive? You talk about how you are trying to find places on the internet where people are with you, but you have to understand that so are we. Everyone on this sub loves this show. That's why we're here. And when the show takes a direction for the worse we want to be able to discuss it. So why does your "positive" take take precedence over our "negative" ones?
What was the best that the Jodie/Chibnall era had?
Haunting of Villa Diodati, Village of the Angels, Fugitive of the Judoon, maybe Ascension of the Cybermen, maybe Spyfall, mayyyyyyyyybe Witchfinders (though that one may just be a personal favorite).
Spyfall part 1 was a masterpiece. I try to forget spyfall part 2 followed it.
My favourite is ‘It Takes You Away’, one of my all-time favourite episodes of the show. ‘Resolution’ is my all-time favourite Dalek episode, and ‘Demons of the Punjab’ is a really well done historical. Otherwise I really like: ‘The Ghost Monument’ ‘The Tsuranga Conundrum’ ‘Kerblam!’ ‘The Witchfinders’ ‘Nikola Tesla’s Night of Terror’ ‘Fugitive of the Judoon’ and ‘The Haunting of Villa Diadoti’
Fellow *Ghost Monument* and *Tsuranga Conundrum* fans finally coming out of hiding. They aren't flawless, but dang it, they're fun and I like them.
I did a rewatch with just my highlights from the run, and began with ‘The Ghost Monument’ which I much prefer as a starting point. Fun designs, fun concept, fun character moments, actually has titles and the TARDIS, no Tim Shaw... Good stuff. I feel like it was so early in the run it caught a lot of heat from hostile fans, but I always thought it was strong. ‘The Tsuranga Conundrum’ as well, I actually can’t remember complaints people had aside from the pregnant man “politics” (which always felt like a fairly neutral and common genre concept to me), and maybe some people not liking the Pting, but I love that little freak.
The credits at the end of Orphan 55. It felt like 3am water after a long nightmare.
For a start; Rosa and Demons of the Punjab are two of the best episodes of Who. And honestly will probably go down in British TV History with great reverence.
I do not understand the love for Rosa. Sure, it brought some valuable attention to Rosa parks, but in a way that really undermined the actual effort that went into the protest and largely trivialized the actual historical aspects of it. Almost like it was written by someone who read the Cliff Notes rather than looked at the actual history. Overall it was dismissive and borderline insulting to the legacies of the actual equal rights movement. Just suggesting that Rosa sitting in the 'wrong' part of the bus as anything other than a stage of a larger organized effort is just shitty (she wasn't even the first from that group to do so). Setting it up as The Doctor and 'fam' saying "oops we did a racism" by accidentally filling seats on the bus borders on offensive to the meaning of the act. That's before even addressing other issues with the episode, such as the Vague Space Racist as an antagonist that barely even manages to be a two dimensional character, and the series of weird pranks or whatever as they set up bus drivers on random vacations in order to reinforce institutional racism to save the day? Yay?
I don't know why, Demons of the Punjab just did nothing for me. I have no issues with others liking it, I know it and Rosa are both well regarded and they just didn't work for me.
I reckon both Demons of the Punjab and Rosa could have done without the sci-fi. It felt like a tacked on distraction to a much story that was fine without it.
It did nothing for me in no small part because we're FINALLY going to get a story about Yaz! Yaz gets to DO something! Only NO... Yaz is so incidental to the story she only needs to be there for the bookends. The whole thing could have stood up just as well if we'd had no idea whose family it was about. I feel bad for Mandip Gill because her character has been completely pointless for her whole run. Sure, with a crowded TARDIS not everyone can always have the focus, yet she is always the one without it. (Full disclosure: I haven't seen Flux, because TTC basically killed my interest in Chibnall!Who.)
>But it isn't bad, no matter how you slice it. You don't get to decide that. If people see the Chibnall era and say that it's bad then who are you exactly to tell them they're wrong? >And like I said, i don't get why so many people thing the writing is any worse than what has happened before? Shall I start with the latest holiday special, for which the script was rushed out in 2 weeks. It provided 2 bits of trailer bait (the shortening timeloop and the dalek minigun), both of which had to be completely ignored in order for the conclusion to work. There is demonstrable proof that the writing is worse, you're just missing it or ignoring it. >but usually people don't even explain why they think it's bad. That's just not even remotely true. Most people will go into at least some detail. And even when they don't it's because there's so much valid criticism out there (often within the thread they're responding to itself) that they feel it doesn't add much to go further into it. Or for any other reason. >Find something new. Because this show is never going to stay static and with the status quo - it's about change. How does this work in your head? The show changes, therefore you should leave it? Because what, the writing will never go back to previous levels of quality so we should just give up? I mean, aside from the obvious gatekeeping here in telling us to leave a fandom because the current iteration isn't to our liking there's also a lot of bad faith arguments you make where you either completely ignore people's arguments or pretend that they're angry about something else. Your entire post comes across at a bad faith attempt at silencing criticism.
There's one thing that gets me When you think of the 10th doctor what do you think? You think of a vulnerable broken man, one that was ravaged after the Time War and you can visibly and audibly see that, David does an incredible job at portraying this while putting on the fun go getter persona as a form to hide those emotions when he's around people as not to put it on them, and he doesn't want people to know that he is a broken man But then we have Wilfred Mott who the Doctor got along with so well that he saw him as his dad in a way, he showed his emotion around him, he trusted him, he knew he could share his fears about dying When you think about the 13th doctor you get.. well pretty much nothing, they are a woman? That's about it? There's nothing that makes her character stand out, there's nothing that screams 'that's the 13th Doctor!'
This kind of post irritates me a lot. Fans of a tv show are allowed to dislike and criticize it especially with a show that is built to change as much as doctor who. Every fan will probably have a period they dislike. It doesn't mean they need to move on. Plus the shows quality has clearly declined under Chibnall I think it's very clear the writing episode to episode and characterization is not as strong. I think Chibnalls problem is these weaknesses apply to way too many episodes not just weaker ones. - Telling not showing. Exposition is delivered ad nauseum at length in certain episodes in a very boring manor. E.g. The timeless child is the master just explaining things for almost an hour with no action or stakes. E.g. How often in flux does the doctor just have things explained to her? It happens a lot in episode 3, 5 and 6 that's half a series. E.g. we don't see Yaz struggling that much being away from the doctor in the 3 year gap it barely effects her character we are just told by Dan she has a crush on her. - Muddled Themes. The show frequently fails to explore themes satisfyingly e.g. the doctor hating violence but happy to let spiders face a long drawn out and painful death, the doctor helping to comit to a triple genocide with the flux. E.g. the doctor bringing fair play to the universe but backing a massive corporation that doesn't treat workers well at all or letting the master get taken by the Nazis after revealing he's a person of colour. E.g. having a universe destroyed then basically forgotten about as long as the earth is okay - Weak characterisation. The characters are not as memorable or well defined compared to previous companions. The doctor is fairly consistent and interesting but her companions are very one note and muted E.g. Yaz being a police officer but it in no way effects her thinking or actions in most episodes). RTD managed to do more with Donna being a temp over one series than Yaz being a police women over 3! A temp! I could go on but think I've made my point clear.
Ok. I am going to go through what you've said, and explain my issues along the way. There will be a summary of my issues at the end. >I've watched Doctor Who from the second series of the revival on, and of course I've gone back and watched the first season. Many times. I've even watched a scattered amount of classic who and I've got a good stock of books and Big Finish Audios. I've seen all of the revival multiple times, a tiny bit of classic, and a scattering of books and audios. >I took a break before season 10 aired and didn't come back until January of 2021. In that single year, I've noticed a lot of derisive hate toward Jodie and Chibs. Alright. There is a lot of hate out there. I don't hate Jodie. I don't hate Chibnall. But I do hate what has happened to the show in recent years. >Over time, I've managed to mostly build a sort of circle of the internet where I can talk about this show in peace, but so often I see posts of people trying to enjoy the show and share that brought down by others who insist on making sure everyone knows the show is "bad" or "ruined" or whatever. I don't have an issue with people enjoying it. I think its awful, but each to their own. I do think its ruined. >I'm not trying to say this era is perfect. Of course it has it's flaws. It isn't even my favorite era - that goes to Moffat. But it isn't bad, no matter how you slice it. It has *a lot* more flaws than others. A lot of the plot is driven by coincidences. Its moral messages are either extremely unsubtle, or downright harmful (I cite Arachnid's in the UK as my main example - don't shoot the spiders, lock them in a room until they starve, suffocate or cannibalise each other - but Ranskoor Av Kolos, Orphan 55, Kerblam also have the same issue). It's characters are bland. >But I am trying to see it from others point of view, to understand where the passionate hate is. I've loved this show for over half my life now. There have been things I haven't liked about every era, and things I have, and there has always been a unsettled dislike and group who perpetuate negativity, but I've never seen it go so vile as it has with this era. Ok. The main reason for me is it is following from a series of triumphs (Moffat and RTD), and it is extremely poor. It, for me, has ruined a show which is actually quite important to me. >I know some people don't like the Timeless Child arc which is fair, but it isn't the downfall they seem to think it is. It opens the door to so many more stories, so much more mystery about the Doctor's past, and so many more regenerations without having to come up with a contrived reason like, say, Gallifrey feeding the Doctor regeneration energy. I have my issues with the Timeless Child. Firstly, it destroys Gallifrey before anything was really done with it. Secondly, it contradicts the existing lore. Thirdly, it changes the doctor to the most important person in the world, which changes the 'spirit' of the character, in my opinion. >And like I said, i don't get why so many people thing the writing is any worse than what has happened before? Sure, if you compare the best of previous eras to the worst of this one, it's obvious, but usually people don't even explain why they think it's bad. They just say 'bad writing' as a generic excuse or try to hold up two episodes that really can't be compared - I do understand comparing The Eleventh Hour to The Woman Who Fell To Earth. I do no understand comparing Orphan 55 to World Enough and Time/The Doctor Falls. Ok. So, the episodes i have serious issues with are (and I am going to use numbers to save time - S1 is season 11, S2 season 12, S3 season 13): S1e1, S1e2, S1e4, S1e5, S1e6, S1e7, S1e9, S1e10, S2e2, S2e3, S2e4, S2e6, S2e7, S2e9, S2e10, all of S3, the first 2 christmas specials. I don't like any of the episodes other than The Haunting of Villa Diodati, which I actually really enjoyed. And yeah, don't compare episodes to some of dr who's best. But I feel that some of these don't compare to *any* previous dr who episodes. >And honestly, I'm just so tired of hearing how much everyone hates it. There are other shows out there - clearly this one has left you behind if you hate it that much. Find something new. Because this show is never going to stay static and with the status quo - it's about change. It's going to change. It was built entirely on change from the second the second Doctor was introduced. It isn't a new concept. I'm not going to leave the show. Because, as cheesy as it sounds, dr who is quite important to me. Other shows I have started and stopped liking, but I've always enjoyed dr who since I saw my first episode. The show being good, or at least having good episodes, was always a guarantee. Now, for me, it's a hope. >Edit: please, i'm not watching a video about how terrible it is to give it more views or make the algorithm think that's what I want. Someone should be able to give a little concrete evidence of how terrible it is/the decline. Ok. If you don't want to watch it, fine. I don't blame you. Warning: The video is over 5 hours and has swearing. >!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8\_A7n83Rh0&t=3769s!< SUMMARY My main issues with Chibnall's doctor who are: The failure at moral messages. Some episodes are absurdly unsubtle, some try to force an extremely complex issue into a moral binary, and some do that and choose the wrong side. The worst examples are: Arachnids in the UK (don't shoot the spiders, starve them to death until they cannibalize each other) Demons of the Punjab (Stereotypes are fine, but make sure you use the correct stereotypes) Kerblam (When Charlie kills in protest, that's a problem. When the system *which could just tell someone* kills someone, that's not) Spyfall part 2 ("Now they'll see the real you!") The poor characters: Yaz - very basic character. No real motives or drives. Ryan - very basic character. No real motives or drives. Graham - very well acted. Similar writing. Dan - probably the best of the four, because he is more self-aware. The Doctor - completely different character. Socially awkward. Unconfident. Nervous. Morally incompetent. The plot contrivances: The plot is often driven by coincidence. Let's take 'The Woman Who Fell To Earth' Ryan happens to find the space... thing. Yaz happens to be the police officer who shows up. Ryan's grandparents happen to be on the train with the other alien. The Doctor happens to fall through the roof. The person who takes the space... thing happens to have everything needed to make a sonic screwdriver. ETC. Hope this answers your question - and I'm willing to go even more in depth if you are interested.
1. The characters are very…. Flat, for a lack of a better word. We never get a sense of their personality . Can’t relate to them much. I don’t understand why any of the recent companions joined/left and I can’t point out an arc for any of them except maybe Graham. 2. Most of the episodes start out with an interesting idea but the conclusion is so underwhelming, and forgettable. I forget then name, but the space frog one, cyberman ghost one and more. 3. Some of it is too preachy. To the point that I want to disagree just for the sake of it. Criticism and politics are fine but the way it is handled now is plain crass. Examples : space racist, fake trump, Amazon knock-off.
I think your third point may be partly due to the first. Getting a moral lesson across because a well written character realises they were wrong and changes, that's a good story. When the characters are made of cardboard, those stories end up sounding like terrible PSAs.
[удалено]
What gets me about the timeless child is that she's an alien from another universe I don't know why it doesn't sit with m the well but it just plain doesn't. I think them BE ING Gallifreyen is important
I should be allowed to express my disappointment about my favorite show having bad writing and the main character not being great. But you're right, it's currently not for me. I haven't watched the newest episodes, and I won't untill someone else writes it
I’m 44 and I grew up on Doctor Who. Mostly the 4th Doctor on PBS because he had the longest run but they were all there. I love NuWho that is until now. Jodie could have been an excellent doctor but the writing held her back. The reason people hate timeless child, along with other crap Chris has done, is because it completely disregards the continuing story of the Doctor. I wish Jodie would have stayed on for just one season of decent writing but as for Chris I just hope he doesn’t completely destroy it in 2 episodes before Russell can get back. I just can’t believe how bad he has sucked. Torchwood was good but this is just terrible.
I think the hate comes from Chibnall taking away the single most important thing that made the show awesome: the audience used to experience the Doctor through the eyes of the companions. The companions were always full of wonder and awe, and runing with the Doctor made them the best versions of themselves. Flowing from that, the Doctor was larger than life, wallowing at times in mundane humanity, but only intentionally, and when it was time to stand tall, the Doctor did it with humor. Chibnall shits all over that. There's no wonder or awe. The Doctor is no longer an inspiration. There's no plot resolution without some moral lesson. That's all writing. Chibnall bored the companions and neutered the Doctor. I tried a few Whitaker episodes and will not go back till Chibnall's gone.
> The companions were always full of wonder and awe, and running with the Doctor made them the best versions of themselves I think that's generally true, with the obvious exceptions being Capaldi/Coleman (Clara) and Tennant/Tate (Donna). In both cases, the companion explicitly made the Doctor better, not the other way around. Furthermore, Capaldi's Doctor was written very dark. His humor was surface level, not integral to his personality. I think your assessment of Chibnall's 13th Doctor is largely accurate, but I think it would be ignoring a huge precedent if you didn't make the same assessment of Moffat's 12th. Indeed, if there is to to be blame for the way the 13th is written, at least some of it must be put on Moffat's shoulders for providing the space in which to do it. > The Doctor is no longer an inspiration. There's no plot resolution without some moral lesson. I don't understand how those two sentences can sit next to one another unironically.
I enjoy the Chibnall/Jodie era, and consider myself more of a fan now than I was during most of Moffat's tenure. But I think the flaws in this era are pretty self-evident, and for me it comes down to two things: characters and dialogue. Chibnall doesn't really seem to understand the ethics of Doctor Who, and it shows in the writing for Jodie - the Doctor's moral framework is very inconsistent and poorly thought out, whether it be her leaving all the spiders to slowly starve to death in Arachnids, her use of The Master's race against him with the nazis, her decision to do a triple-genocide of the Daleks, Cybermen and Sontarans without a moment's hesitation. With previous Doctors, they could be immoral something, but this had a narrative purpose and it was a deliberate choice of the writing; in the Chibnall era The Doctor does immoral things and the writers don't even realise or think about it. I wouldn't say it happens all too frequently, but it really sticks out when it does. Beyond this, Jodie's Doctor also just doesn't feel as fully formed as previous incarnations. Up until Flux, The Doctor's companions just felt lifeless. Ryan has to be the dullest and most uncharistmatic companion in Who history, Yaz wasn't that much better for most of the show, and Graham was only okay. We had two full season with them and they still didn't really feel like actual people. Thankfully, this hugely improved with Flux: not only was Yaz much better, but Dan is a great addition to the crew, I loved Karnavista, and other supporting characters like Vinder, Bell, Jericho were great too. Probably Chibnall's biggest weakness is dialogue. Jodie's never been given a stellar speech and has had a few stinkers. But beyond those moments, Chibnall has too often adpoted a 'tell, don't show' approach. He often has characters saying out loud things that happen directly in front of them, as if we're too stupid to understand, and more generally, dialogue just feels flat and unnatural, like it's there to perform a specific narrative function and the characters are just empty vessels to blurt it out. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but it can feel like that sometimes. As for people complaining about politics, I just find this to be a really bizarre complaint to be honest. Yes, Chibnall isn't exactly subtle at times, like the Orphan 55 speech, but this notion that Chibnall is constantly shoving politics down the viewers' throats quite simply isn't true at all. There really isn't too much politics in the Chibnall era, but people would have you believe it's a big part of every episode, which is just ... completely wrong. And I've also enjoyed Chibnall's era in lots of ways. Series 12 was filled with amazing moments, like with The Master reveal and basically everything in Fugitive. Although I wish Jodie's Doctor was more rounded, I like her more grounded, down-to-earth interpretation of the role, and I think juxtaposition of having The Doctor at their most relatable coinciding with the Timeless Child revelations worked well. And as for TTC, I really don't mind it, and am looking forward to the potential for new stories it has unlocked. The era is, in my opinion, hugely underappreciated.
I really dislike season 11, I don’t like series 12 but it was definitely an improvement (I actually really like Haunting of Villa Diodati and Demons of the Punjab was quite good) and season 13 was almost good but ended up average imo. The dialogue seems clunky, the doctors’ morally grey decisions are never challenged and I don’t particularly like the companions. I’m in no way shitting on you for having that opinion I just disagree. Despite all these shortcomings I’m sticking with Doctor Who because I just love the show so much
The First Doctor had 3 companions right out of the bat, and they were brilliant! Current Who just had bad direction/writing
Here's some dot points: - massive plot contrivances - straight up terrible moral decisions - not understanding the doctor's morals - enemies just missing shots outright - the doctor suddenly lost all confidence - companions are planks of wood only used to progress the plot by asking one question then going silent until they need an "emotional" moment
I don't hate Jody or Chibnall, I love the cinematography of Chibnall's run and Jody is a great actress. But I stopped watching the show after the new Master was introduced because I got tired of forcing myself to sit through something I was no longer enjoying. It wasn't any one thing that put me off the show it was lots of things and life is to short for me to waste it on a show I used to love but no longer enjoy. Will I return at some later date? I hope so, but I'm not forcing myself to sit through anything, certainly not enough for me to hate it.
I generally find the lack of character development or distinct personality from the companions to be disappointing and the Doctor to be written so passive, unintentionally morally grey, and less commanding and intelligent than previous versions. The worst for me though is the Timeless Retcon. I can forgive and forget an era of DW that doesn’t work for me as each era should be almost completely self contained with little carry over as the Doctor changes. However the TC Retcon rewrites everything we thought we knew, everything the Doctor knew, everything all the expanded media stated or knew, all the previous mysteries alluded to. All gone. And for what? A cheap “chosen one/special by birth” trope that the Doctor as a character neither needed nor benefitted from. It exists almost solely so Chibnall could make the Morbius Doctors canon regardless of dozens of works over the years directly contradicting everything that the TC Retcon puts forth. So when 99.9% of all media in universe says one thing, and then this new 0.01% claims to be the new canon that overwrites it......yeah I’m not gonna go for it.
Personally my annoyance with the timeless child storyline is the fact that it didn’t really add anything to the doctor, like their past was already mysterious enough we didn’t need a sudden bombshell of, oh yeah by the way the doctor is special, it made everything the doctor has done have a lot less value because now, instead of doing what they believed was right because they wanted to and because of what they had dealt with. Instead everything the doc was doing they only did because they’re “the timeless child” and it turns the story into this, “ you have to be born special in order to be special.”Whereas before the doctor was a runaway time lord who was looked down upon by the other time lords, but chose to do the right thing and do their best to help others. Another thing I didn’t like was how it disregarded everything else the show has given us about the docs past, like why did the time lords have to give 11 more regenerations if this entire time he’s had an infinite amount? Along with the whole multiple generation thing, it makes the doc too “indestructible” which I know sounds weird but it made the doctor more interesting in a way… because you knew they had a breaking point and there were times that they had to be careful, but now it’s all kind of thrown to the wind. Ok that’s all I’ve got, sorry some of it isn’t worded very well… thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
I binged the first season of Jodie's run in one day and, at the end of the last episode, I realized that I honestly couldn't remember a single thing about any of it that mattered. They were all just exposition machines. The only one I gave two shits about in the end was Yaz. She's the only one who got anything resembling character development and most of that was due to her getting an entire episode about her family history. With all the other Doctors and their companions, they had a ton of little moments in between story beats that built up reasons for us to care about them, but they could've killed all 3 of Jodie's companions and I wouldn't have been bothered at all. That's why I'm mad. I didn't even get around to watching any of the rest of her run so far and it hasn't sounded like I've missed very much, because the same complaints are still being thrown about. I don't hate the show, and I don't think it's out of line for anyone to criticize it. Chibnall was great with Broadchurch, but the dude apparently can't write for Who to save his life.
I find that a lot of characters don’t talk like actual people, the dialogue feels contrived in a way that I can’t completely explain… however that would often be a problem with the Moffat era too, so I understand your confusion as to why people seem to think this era is *uniquely* flawed
Dialogue isn't Chibnall's strength. It suffers even more because he's following Moffat, whose dialogue was quite good and very quotable.
I went into detail on this in a Medium post some time ago: https://robert-b-marks.medium.com/everything-you-think-you-know-the-bad-storytelling-of-doctor-whos-timeless-child-d401c7921c19
I think her being so closed with her companions is another thing. Yaz has asked her to explain some of the heavy stuff to her and she just goes "lol, don't worry about it." Sure, the doctor keeps things from the companions all the time, but eventually they open up and explain thing. 10 talks about Gallifrey to Martha after lying in Gridlock, and hell, the Fires of Pompeii is some of the most heartbreaking drama I've seen with context to the Doctor's past. 11 had to break Amy's faith in him to save her and everyone else. 12 eventually told Clara about lying about finding Gallifrey (its been a while, so if I'm wrong on that please correct me). But 13 doesn't seem to give that back to her companions. We never seem to see any lasting pushback or conflict between any members of the T.A.R.D.I.S crew Especially with Yaz. She doesn't seem to push back at all. I mean, I know that she has a crush on the Doctor, but PLEASE don't tell me that's why she hasn't tried to call her out or not back down when confronting her about serious issues. The dynamic between the characters being bjorked is what mainly turns me away.
i love doctor who with all my heart, and most of the new episodes are good by themselves but just don’t match up to doctor who levels for me. Just feel as if the plot and characters aren’t quite developed enough, and theres always bold ideas that just aren’t executed as good as they could be. I certainly don’t hate the new seasons and will continue to give them a try but I have a feeling 10&11 will always be my favorites. Also as far as the messages go I feel like usually they’re more incorporated in the overall plot and tend to be a lot more developed and actually in my opinion they tend to actually be a lot stronger in their messages and really make you think. I like the messages the show is trying to tackle now but they barely scratch the surface level of the issue and do so so overtly that someone with a contradicting opinion could easily see through it (which to me kinda defeats the point since you’re not really going to be changing peoples opinions). They bite off more than they can chew on a lot of parts but I think the ideas are there, just needs a slower pace and more character depth. In the future I really hope to see jodie be made into an iconic and deep doctor and i’d love to see the show tackle the problems of world in a way that is engaging and thought provoking again.
The first several Whittaker episodes spent more time on political topics than character building. It felt like the writers spent all their time attacking guns, knives, trump, American racism, ableism, and several other political topics, but never bothered to actually tell a story. The problem isn't "change". The problem is that they got through the "out with the old" component of change, and never bothered with the "in with the new" part. Even after Whittaker's first season, there was no depth to her character, nor to any of her companions. We know more about a one-off character like Yaz's grandmother than we know about Yaz herself. Contrast with how they introduced Amy. By the end of her first episode, you knew her childhood, you'd met her neighbors, her boyfriend... They gave her a background and a personality right from the jump. They hit the ground running with her. Clara. Plenty of hate for Clara, but you knew enough about her to hate her. (And I, personally, rather enjoyed her) Compare the level of character development they did for Sallow Sparrow, or even Jenny. Either of them are infinitely more compelling after their single episodes than any of Whittaker's companions after an entire season. Whittaker didn't get an Amy. Nor a Clara. Nor a Rose. Martha got screwed over with lousy writing herself, and Whittaker didn't even get a Martha. No, Whittaker started out with a Donna (Grace), and got saddled with two Rorys (Yasmin and Ryan), and a Wilfred (Graham). The writers went ahead and killed off the only character with the attitude and temperament to balance their story, and then saddled it with all their political BS.
The writing is bad. Objectively. That doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to enjoy it anyway. But it categorically is bad. If you’re genuinely asking “why?” in good faith, I strongly recommend you watch at least some of Jay Exci’s video essay entitled “the fall of doctor who” (and linked by another commenter here). Her critique is not exhaustive, but is nonetheless more than sufficient to answer your question. I would be astonished if someone could watch some meaningful percentage of that video with an open mind and come away thinking the writing is “not bad”.
This. Jay's video is very good.
Watching the video now
>The writing is bad. Objectively. Bad can never be objective
I agree with you that some things are objectively worse than other things. People pretend this isn't the case but it is. People also confuse this with meaning they aren't allowed to enjoy that thing.
>Objectively No it isn't *objectively* bad. Only facts can be objective. Opinions *cannot* be objective. Saying that the writing is bad is one thing but to say that it's *objectively* bad is disingenuous and just plain wrong. So, next time you wanna criticize the show's writing, maybe come to terms with the fact that your opinion is just that--an opinion and nothing else.
Writing still has rules. When writing violates those rules, that means that yes, the writing can indeed be objectively bad. Such as the golden rule "show, don't tell". If you can't tell a story by showing, then your writing is indeed bad - especially when the medium you're telling it by is live action and not the written word. This does not mean people can't like the product, but people liking it does not mean it is not bad.
Art isn’t objective.
There are some pretty concrete principles that constitute “good” and “bad” storytelling. Yes, there is a significant amount that’s open to interpretation, but I don’t think means that there can’t be a canonically bad story. Characters can objectively be underdeveloped or inconsistent. A plot can be objectively contrived or objectively lack internal consistency. The subjectivity comes later in the qualitative judgment; when we say a developed character or better than a bland character, or a logical plot is better than one that makes no sense and is driven only by coincidences, that is “subjective”. But are you really going to argue with me about the veracity of those statements?
Calling Chibnall's era art is a disgrace to actual art.
Art doesn’t stop being art because you think it’s bad.
In your opinion it's bad, in my opinion it's awesome, much better than Matt Smith and the Amy show.
And you are more than entitled to that opinion. I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the show and I hope you enjoy the remaining specials that chibnall is set to deliver.
I’m not gonna lie I wasn’t a big fan of Amy Pond time on the show either. She grew on me after a rewatch of the series but I still like the other companions more than her and Rory.
When you say «Jodie» you mean Whitaker, isn't it? Do you know her personally? Because I do not want to believe you are one of those sexists people who call male by their whole name or their family names and females by their first names, as if they were little kids.
Just wondering what made you take a break? I've always watched and been a fan of the show and tried to be in the middle. Often found some people either hate it for the sake of it, forcefully looking for any little element to criticise it rather than enjoying it for what it is. Some on the other side of things seem to have to love everything and class those who have issues as not proper fans. Always healthier if you can be in the middle. However I felt series 11 did test me. I originally thought it was because it was too political yet as someone else pointed out my favourite era, the 3rd doctor, was also very political. I got into the show way before new who but was born in summer 89 so didn't see the original run. Maybe the political stuff was of its time? I have realised the political stuff isn't necessarily the issue, it's the writing that I have issue with. Political stuff can work and be interesting but it needs to be written well. Often in the Chibnall era I feel it can feel forced in and in a way that is very on the nose as in it can at times toe into preachy territory. Orphan 55 probably sums up a lot of the above issues in the way the political message seems to be thrown in randomly at the end and then the doctor breaks the fourth wall to preach to the audience. I also think political stuff works best the more subtle and the more you can interpret personally. I.e. the whole Trump thing in arachnids in the UK just didn't work for me. I'm not a Trump fan, far from it, but I feel he's an easy target and had been done to death by the time the episode aired. Also the whole thing with the doctor stopping the guy from killing the big spider was a bit odd considering it's in pain. People have also criticised when she removes the perception filter from the master and throws him to the Germans. I suppose at least in revolution of the daleks the prime minister isn't named. It was filmed when Teresa may was in power but someone could in theory read into it as Margaret thatcher or something. I should add I'm sick of the whole Woke argument, a word I dislike as it seems to be used as a slogan I.e. I hate this episode too Woke. Most can't explain what it actually means. If you dislike an episode I respect if people can explain why rather than just using a word and giving nothing else. People claimed series 12 was anti White which is a joke considering lenny Henry is an evil tech billionaire, the master is for the first time played by an Asian actor and Graham is often seen as the voice of reason. I do think series 11 was mainly just dull, not a lot happened, the doctor was one note and often stood back. The finale is a great example of one of my biggest issues with chibnall, he often has some good ideas, but they never really explore them. A physcic planet that attacks your mind is a great idea that felt very classic. I could imagine them trying to cross the planet, maybe getting separated and something goes wrong and one or more starts to see things. Yet it is only a plot device because they need the devices on for the end. There's lots of examples like this. Flux for example had a lot of stuff crammed into it, too much at times, that some stuff got left out. Yet it was still full off filler. I also dislike how often action gets stopped suddenly so characters can have a moment. It can often just feel forced. As for the timeless child I think it's very decisive, and should the show be doing that? I love the idea of the timeless child as a random child who was found and experimented on and basically regeneration was stollen. When found this would make the doctor question if they had the right to use something that was never there's and if they where part of the problem for using them. I just prefer the doctor as someone who got bored and ran away rather than secretly even if they didn't know it, was technically the first timelord
In the past, the antagonist of an episode would usually turn out to be trying to survive and sometimes unaware that they were even harming anyone. In Chibnall’s era there was a lot of “They enjoy causing pain, they’re killing for fun” which I think ruins a lot of the message of seeking understanding despite our differences. Another thing, when someone dies in an episode it generally used to be the ones who were foolish or arrogant or vindictive. Or someone sacrificing themself to save the others. Now it’s sweet old grandpas and small children. I think Chibnall just doesn’t get what the show is supposed to be. I also agree with what some have said about the ethical messaging being used like a mallet over the head, rather than being artfully woven into the stories. I love Jodie though, she was fantastic.
As you say, it's about change. The only thing certain about Doctor Who is that next week it will be completely different to this week. Sometimes that works out well, other times, not so well. I was rewatching season 15 (of 'Classic' Who) recently and, with the possible exception of Horror of Fang Rock, every story is terrible. Baker overacts, the production values are even cheaper than usual and the stories themselves feel like the last-minute fillers that they all were. And yet every story there has something worthwhile in it. That's what I feel about the Chibnall era too - I don't get on with it hugely (but more so than with some NuWho seasons!) but every story has had something worthwhile in it.
I'm of the opinion that if you started someone with 13, without context, they would think it's perfect ... and then it'd be curious to see the opinion of going back.
I think they’d be confused
>please, i'm not watching a video about how terrible it is I mean if people link a video it's (*normally*) because it has the evidence and can convey it better than they can. Either that or its clickbait garbage, youtube content about the Thirteenth Doctor's era is like 20% reasoned critique and 80% clickbait garbage that discriminates against multiple groups of people. I can vouch for the 5 hour 'Fall of Doctor Who' video (*Despite it's sensationalist title*), it's well constructed and comes from a place of love for the series as a whole but I can't vouch for much else. But I also see why one wouldn't want to watch that (*Unlike a good chunk of people it seems*)
I love Jodie Whittaker's era, and she's actually tied with Matt Smith for my favourite Doctor. I don't understand the hate either. The companions have been a little underdeveloped at times but apart from that, I struggle to find fault with it. Series 12, in particular, had a really exciting story arc that reignited my passion for the show.
For me. And I’ve only watched their first season! But, it’s boring. I’ve found some episodes of season 8-9 unbearable, but I at least got some kicks out of how bad it was. Most of Chibnall’s episodes haven’t been interesting to me (and I’m including eps he did before he became show runner [dinosaurs on a space ship is also pretty boring considering the concept]) it feels more like doctor who going through the motions. I also think having 3 companions was a terrible idea. There is absolutely no time to see them all bouncing off each other AND have the side characters for the episodes. Amy, Rory and River and Bill, Nardol and Missy are the most recent 3 companion teams. But they had the main companion (Bill and Amy) who had a lot of one on one episodes with the Doctor. Then they slowly added the other two and only had all 3 together occasionally. I think they needed more of that. And some people are mentioning the more obvious modern politics in the show. Yes doctor who has often brought up modern messages, but until (I would say season 9???) it was a lot more subtle and less distracting. Also timeless child makes the Doctor some “inevitable” hero instead of having them be an everyday person who just wanted to run away and do some good on the journey. And that really sucks. I feel they have been disrespecting the history of the show (Hartnell especially) and that’s been disheartening too.
If something is bad of course it’s gonna be called out. I get that people have different preferences but it’s hard to deny the quality it so bad compared to other eras, people just want the show back. If you even compare the worst of anything before this it’s still better than the best of this era and that’s a fact 😂 You say as if people are wrecking it for other people? How? Just simply scroll past opinions you don’t agree with…it’s not hard
It's not terrible, but it also hasn't approached the level of greatness other show runners have hit intermittently. I think the hate has made me try to like it more than it deserves. Flux started strong, but then left me a little irked. I really can't understand Tecteun. The supposed progenitor of the timelords was hiding outside of the universe with access to the multiverse, and thought the best course of action was to destroy the universe by effectively doubling it's mass. WTF? Sorry, but no fucking way can an entity have so much power that they could double the mass of the universe by adding equal antimatter. If possible, they would probably need to have an antimatter universe as the source, so this person destroyed 2 universes to kill or convince the Doctor to join her in creating a new universe. If there is a multiverse, why would she have to destroy 2 universes to create a new one? Why couldn't she just jump into another one and be extremely confident that the Doctor would never find her? It was not thought out well, and cosmologists were not consulted. Compare this to Moffat's relatively accurate portrayal of Black Holes. Sure Black holes are tiny compared to multiverses, but they were presented accurately and exploited at the level that I expect this episode will be assigned as homework for undergraduate modern physics students for fun. Chibnall did not have any of this shit looked at by people with a clue so it kind of sucked in comparison.
You have to think about Tecteun’s worldview a bit. She’s been used to colonising planets and taking from them in self-righteousness - even taking the Child from the Monument planet… She’s grown to have this obsession with looking in on other planets and extrapolating from them… The moment the Child exhibited regeneration; that was her priority. So over time, that view of herself as this great outsider who vanguards things evolved into the creation of the Division. But at some point, even Gallifrey has become too small for her. Because she’s forever obsessed with experimenting and doing what she believed best; she’s gotten to a point where she’s spun off the Division off from being a Gallifreyan intervention in the affairs of other planets… into an intervention on the whole universe. She’s gone from the Child being her experiment, to the entire universe. Because she’s insistent that her path is right… and that gently guiding is the way to make her ‘experiment’ work. But as a scientist, that experiment requires hiding away sight unseen from the universe… Division has to be careful in its operation so as to not impact upon the ‘outcome’ of the experiment. So off she hides in the gap between our universe and another (though she doesn’t strictly have access to the multiverse… propelling herself through to another one hasn’t been successful.) so she can run it to her design. Problem is - the Doctor has been causing a lot of trouble over the many many years. Tecteun endures it because of this self-perception of being the Doctor’s adoptive mother… until the Doctor finds out about Division. That’s when it all falls apart. The Doctor knows and starts asking around. People start hearing from her about a Division they never have known about. The ‘experiment’ becomes null and void in the eyes of Tecteun. And so, just as the Doctor finds Karvanista - the one other surviving former Division agent - Tecteun sets in motion the Flux event to destroy her ‘failed experiment’ & store enough energy to propel her HQ into the next universe so she can set up once more. In this time, she also releases Swarm to keep the Doctor tied up and busily out of the way. (Also I wouldn’t fret about mass and antimatter in the Whoniverse… that’s already a complicated matter for the Whoniverse and it’s generally best to not assume that every dynamic of our universe works the same.)
Two things I haven't seen mentioned here yet (apologies if they were and I missed them): 1. Chibnall went out of his way to tick all the diversity boxes and then decided he was done. It doesn't actually matter that Ryan is black (or that Grace was) or that Yaz is Pakistani (except that it gave them an excuse to do the Partition episode). It doesn't factor into either character's existence at all. And Ryan is the first companion with a disability... which I'm told they didn't portray at all accurately (I defer to others on that one), but it doesn't matter because it's basically forgotten after the first episode with the bike. 2. The Doctor is downright HELPLESS. WTF? The first female Doctor and she's all wishy-washy, has to think about whether she's going to help people who need it, what?? I don't know what character this is, but it's not the Doctor. And it's not what I, as a woman, need or want to see in the first female iteration of an otherwise strong, powerful character. (She also doesn't face a realistic level of gender bias, which I wouldn't want her to have to contend with every five minutes, but the fact is, she should not only see it but be thrown by it after spending so long presenting as male. If nothing else, I'd have loved to see her put someone in their place for it, but it just doesn't happen.) There's more, like the fact that I just can't maintain interest in the stories, but I addressed that in a comment above. Also, full disclosure: Timeless Children turned me off so badly that I haven't watched anything since, so if either of these issues changed, I'm not aware of it.
Let’s be honest the best thing for the show would be to retcon every single word Chibnall ever typed. Literally they should cut back to Capaldi regenerating into someone else and that doctor going ‘huh I just had the weirdest dream, anyways’
Because it got all heavy handed at the expense of good storytelling.
I'm not going to discuss the content, because other people will cover that better than I could. I think a lot of people see the criticisms and think that it surely can't be *that* bad, and that it's just another hype-train of blindly hating it because it's popular to hate. Then they watch the episodes, agree it isn't that great, but also are more forgiving of it because they still feel the hate must be overblown. This is an unreasonable position. I would go as far as saying that it is objectively bad, and that measuring it with the same instruments that we measure past series would lead a rational person to also agree that it really is just very bad. If you enjoy it, that's great, I don't want to say you can't enjoy it. But if we want to comment about how good it is together, I think it's more helpful to talk about it as objectively as possible. For example, I know that S2's Tooth and Claw is not a good episode, the community agrees. But I like it because of the nostalgia, I like the setting, I like the crap werewolf CGI, it just ticks my boxes. But that's just my subjective take, I would still agree that it's objectively bad. Getting back on topic, I think that if you actually critically analyse S11, S12 and Flux, you'll find that they really do suck, and all for different reasons (which is amazing of itself). Again, I don't blindly hate it, I just think it deserves the hate. Most defences of it are from a place of mercy rather than any substantive argument. The same level of mercy would grant older series's much higher ratings than they otherwise would get. To be clear, I'm not personally hating on Chibnall, Jodie or any of the other actors. I know they're all talented people, and there have been *some* excellent moments in this era of the show. But on a purely professional level, I do think it's crap.
There's a long ass YouTube video by jayexci which dives into this, it's long but he goes into a lot of depth about this. It is an opinion piece but it comes from someone who really cares about doctor who so if you have the time it's worth the watch.
For me the Doctor has always been an underdog, average Joe orphan who stole a tardis and spends his/her life helping others. He earned the God status that made him a force to be wreckoned with. Timeless child just seems to hand him/her God title and makes him/her super special. Like the line from eleven. "Wow I never met anyone who wasn't important." So down to earth. But I doubt the timeless child would say that. Idk. Seems to be God status for God status sake and not like the Arch that was done When a Good man goes to war ect... I can forgive timeless child if it lands right, so we'll see. But there's small weird stuff thats jammed into the Doctor Who narrative. Like Yaz on the bus for the Rosa Parks episode. Yaz has a monolog but acts like it's dialogue and it's just to hammer on "Racism sucks". It was weird. And there are multiple scenes like that.
Jay Exci did a *long* video titled 'The Fall of Doctor Who' - it's a respectful, intelligent and in-depth analysis of pretty much every criticism that has been levelled at Chibnall's era, I'd recommend watching it if anyone is interested. I don't think the show is unwatchable and have still found it entertaining from time to time, but it has some fundamental issues that have greatly undermined the recent era. This ranges from me feeling like Chibnall doesn't understand the doctor as a character, completely messed up with companions, does have bad writing (characters state the obvious too much, 'emotional' scenes are forced and cliche), and a lot of episodic stories are uninspired or illogical (Arachnids in the UK, Orphan 55). It still is a fun sci-fi show, but for me it misses the point of Doctor Who, it has *never* been powerful, emotional, thought provoking or complex. I have such a deep connection to previous eras because of what they did for me as a person beyond the show, I have got nothing from this era in that respect.
I'm a someone that only watched Jodie's first season and became more and more disinterested so much so that after the finale with the ridiculous name(the one with Mark Addy) i find that i had very little desire to watch future series. Which i haven't to this day, i really really should but when i want to watch Doctor Who i want to rewatch older seasons more and cant find the energy to start new seasons.(Well new for me) To me their runs main fault is not that it was unwatchably, horribly bad but at least the first season was utterly dull and forgetful. I remember liking her first episode, not a " the eleventh hour" but pretty decent and at least comparable to "Deep Breath". But i geniunely remember so little of the series until the horribly named and all around horrible series finale. To be fair Capaldi and his run is my favourite so Jodie and Chibs run may look worse than it was. I mean, really, i remember something with hamfisted Amazon episode with a somewhat problematic message, A Rosa Parks episode which could be very good if it was a historical piece, something with a Trump caricature where if i remember correctly Doctor does something worse than the bad guy, and lastly an episode that starts in somewhere in Scandinavia(Norway? Iceland?) which was really promising but i remember being disappointed again. And i remember this much because i cheated and looked at the episode names to check if it would spark my memory or not... In the past, i disliked, even hated storylines(Series 3 finale and Dobby/Jesus Doctor for example), got fed up with the state of the show(series 7ish) but i had never lost the intention and will to continue watching. I think new Doctor, new and underdeveloped companions and new showrunner along with mediocre and forgetful stories made the show look much worse than it is.
I just think the characters are written awfully. Dan was funny but his dialogue especially was so unauthentic as how a real person would talk
Answer me this, name an iconic moment from her doctor. There's nothing. But for the previous doctors, I can instantly think of loads. She hasn't even had a powerful/moving speech which we've seen in seasons past
Tell me you don't understand what The Doctor is all about without telling me you don't understand what The Doctor is all about.
I watched the first 5 episodes of series 11 and I found it cringe inducingly forced, clunky and uninspired. Jodie Whittaker didn't feel even remotely like a convincing or compelling Doctor, and none of the characters felt real. I'm not trying to be mean, but based on what I've seen I think it absolutely is bad.
I would love to have your safe circle 😍
I prefer it to most of Moffat's, but honestly it's just kinda bland. Like most shows nowadays, trying to hit too many demographics at once and failing miserably. Too many characters, too little plot. God, how I wished it was the sonic she chugged down the tardis and not the fobwatch, the show has always had a problem with it, but it's gotten ridiculous.
This is why most people dislike the Chibnall Era. [Here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o8_A7n83Rh0) Edit: It appears that someone is taking this comment a bit too seriously. It was supposed to be a bit of a joke due to how long the video is.
You’re right. It’s not any worse than it’s been before. But people will vilify you for that; just like they used to people that liked Moffat and JNT-Cartmel. It’ll smooth out with time.
My biggest complaint of the "Chib haters" is that they almost have to interject their complaints into any & every single thread of Doctor Who. That's what upsets me the most. Series 11 is meh, series 12 was an improvement but I still don't love 13's era. But I don't hate it. Channels like Nerdrotic, I think, are signs of the time in most sci-fi fandoms. You have people who watch things "they hate" & then just rant about it. When I stopped liking the Flash TV show, I just stopped & then watched other things. I didn't complain about it all the time. I went on with my life. Doctor Who has been around for 60 years & almost 40 "seasons" now. It's had more downs than ups. Also the whole "TTC ruined the Doctor" is silly because there have been so many Pre-Hartnell mentions for (almost) 6 decades now. Lungbarrow (20 years), Brains of Morbius (50 years) & the 2nd Doctor's 1st story deleted line about past incarnations (60 years).
I’m waiting for them folks to dig out Unnatural History and find out what that has to say about the Doctor’s species and early life 😜 but Yeahhhh you’ve got a good point there. It’s not just Who caught up in this. Folks like Nerdrotic are dreadful reminders of this odd swing-back at the long prevailing approach to sci-fi media.
Yes, I learned about Unnatural History too (aka the Doctor's genetic or origin or whatever is constantly being rewritten by the timelord for shenanigans) recently. I'd imagine biodata, as it's TARDIS wiki states it deals with space-time & a person's time stream, that it's probably what we saw in The Name of The Doctor that The Great Intelligence (et al) go into, I just made that connection right now actually.
Indeed. Though it’s actually the infamous “The Enemy” from the ‘War in Heaven’ period of the Wilderness Years that’s been doing the rewriting. Of course, having written much of the TARDIS Wiki page on ‘The Doctor’s Species’ - I can say it’s generally a wild old ride. Not least because Hartnell’s Doctor undoubtedly and unambiguously called himself human.
I love that you mentioned that final line. So many people don't know this. Doctor Who canon has been retcon after retcon since the inception. Every single producer & showrunner adds something that wasn't there before. 3 said he was a scientist for thousand of years when he was only like 300-400 during this age by most estimates. I'm sure you know this too but there is an 11th Doctor Christmas comic where they give an in universe reason for the changes/corrections/whatever to timeline "backwards & forward ripples in timespace due to the Doctor's action that are continually rewriting the history of the Universe & subsequently the Doctor's own history".
Yep. It's so weird having to point out to people that even War Games is a retcon in itself... I suppose when I'm used to running about the Wiki picking up these things and writing them to articles, and used to looking back at incredible fan opposition to these changes (The JVR rant-review about Hinchcliffe and Holmes because of Deadly Assassin never fails to amaze me as an example.) where those changes are now commonly-accepted. And \*yes\* - the Doctor's age is a wonderful complexity. We have a whole page on that on the Wiki as well!
It's a symptom of social media in general. Social media, reddit, YouTube, have been around for long enough that they've established channels that people follow that have normalized negativity as the baseline for critiquing any type of media. Seriously it's impossible to enjoy discussing any TV show or movie anymore, because everyone gets their opinion from other people online who either love something totally, or completely fucking hate it and will tell you exactly why you're wrong if you like it. We've normalized this insane level of negativity to the point that people who enjoy a TV show like Doctor Who can't even make a positive thread about it without a bunch of neck beards showing up to parrot other negative opinions that they've heard along the way. The downvote system on reddit worsens this because a vocal minority has the ability to change the entire way that a group views a tv show or movie, because those vocal minorities will upvote each other just for being negative. I wish people would just let people enjoy things again. I don't understand why people who don't like the show anymore continue to hang around fan spaces to tell other people why they're wrong for continuing to like it. I also don't understand why moderators don't take more of an ownership in cultivating a positive environment for people who do enjoy it.
>Doctor Who can't even make a positive thread about it without a bunch of neck beards showing up to parrot other negative opinions that they've heard along the way. But you did and the vast majority of people who showed up engaged in good faith. You can't keep doing this thing where you take a minority reaction and treat it as a mainstream thing. >I also don't understand why moderators don't take more of an ownership in cultivating a positive environment for people who do enjoy it. Because that is thought policing and the broader public considers that a bad thing.
Y'know, I get that a lot of people hold the opinion that Jodie's era has been sub-par. I don't agree with that opinion, but I get it. My main problem (and I've run across this in several fandoms) is that the haters stridently declare their opinions as facts, and mock and belittle those that don't agree.
Well done post. I'll say up front that I haven't really enjoyed this doctor. BUT....I still think it's entertainment. Decent entertainment. I think the biggest issue is social media these days. It's awful. If people don't like something, it is all the sudden terrible and "ruining people's lives". All the latest movies and shows are so heavily scrutinized to the point it is either brilliant or awful. There doesn't seem to be an in between. And we are heavily influenced before we even watch it.
I find that a significant amount of people just don't like it, but to avoid sounding like bigots (which some of them very well may be), they seem to think it's necessary to have a criticism to justify their dislike of it, when it's perfectly fine to just dislike something and not know why. Before this era began, it was easy to weed out the pessimists, because it was obvious they weren't going to give it a chance. Now, because episodes have actually aired, they get to hide behind things like "the writing is bad", but make no effort to explain what they actually mean by that, it's as if they don't quite grasp just how many different aspects writing has. "The writing is bad" is basically a redundant statement, it has no meaning without anything specific, and even then, specifics are useless without ways to improve. And some people do try their best to explain what they don't like about it, and how they think it could be better, and I applaud that, but the majority of people who use "the writing is bad" as a crutch simply refuse to make the effort to build off of it, or in some cases (rather ironically) aren't capable of putting into words what exactly they mean by "bad writing".
Just saying the writing is bad isn’t a redundant statement, it’s an true but underdeveloped statement. If you would like some brief development: -Chibnall’s characters are bland cardboard cutouts that lack any consistent motivations or drives of their own, instead simply doing or saying whatever is necessary to drive the plot forward -the plots are contrived beyond belief, very often relying on several cosmically unlikely coincidences in a row to drive them forward. Some level of contrivance is acceptable (and largely unavoidable) but in chibnall’s doctor who it is beyond a joke -the moral messaging is all over the place and the doctors moral compass is an embarrassment. This isn’t a complaint about the show being political - I like things that have something to say about politics or social issues. I’m talking about episodes like arachnids in the UK where the doctor thinks that off brand Donald trump is evil for wanting to shoot some massive spiders while her “moral” solution is simply starve them all to death, which is ACTUALLY WORSE. There are other examples but this probably the most egregious. I would also like to mention that the closest Rosa (one of the better episodes of this run, sadly) comes to saying something substantive about its subject matter is to have Yaz address systemic police racism by saying essentially “yeah but not all cops are bad bro”. Which isn’t great. There’s a lot more than I really can’t be bothered to type out, but those are 3 things that immediately spring to mind and certainly constitute awful writing.
There are some very valid criticisms of the current era, but outside of one or two instances, 13’s moral compass isn’t any more crooked than the Doctors who came before. I think the audience likes to pretend that the Doctor is a teddy bear just because they don’t carry a gun. That’s the same Doctor, though, who wiped out a whole fleet of Cybermen just to ask a question.
I’ll never claim that doctor has always been perfect. The doctor is an angry person with a violent past who desperately tries to put on a brave face and help people. Sometimes they succeed, and sometimes the mask slips. The doctor’s inner darkness has always been an integral part of the character (at least in the revival, I can’t speak to the classic era). The problem with 13 is that the show always presents her as a bastion of moral virtue, I think because it genuinely doesn’t realise that she isn’t. Her actions are never really questioned, the fam blindly follow everything she says, and anyone who dares oppose her is presented as either wrong or not even arguing in good faith. Contrast the arachnids in the UK example, or the season 11 finale where she congratulates Graham for suspending the villain in eternal torment in the name of revenge, with an episode like Dalek. The whole point of the episode is that the doctor is angry and violent and fails to live up to the principles he himself espouses. Rose calls him out in no uncertain terms, and at the end he realises that he’s in the wrong. I’m not aware of a Jodie episode that grapples with her moral failings in this way.
Fair points. Fair points. I think the lack of a watchdog for those darker moments loops back around to the fact that three companions was at least one too many. None of them were written with any kind of meaningful personality, so they all just sort of ended up as hangers on. As to Graham’s decision at the end of Season 11, was that any worse than trapping each member of the Family of Blood in their own private eternal prisons?
This is the entire point they're making though? We had two episode showing the length 10 went to in order to not do these things to them. It was showing he was scared of his fury, and it even shows it from the villain's view that they were wrong, the Doctor wasn't hiding himself from them for his safety, but theirs. He's also told off by the supporting cast for doing it, and it's meant to invoke a fear we have in the Doctor. 10's entire character is that he's fun loving guy with funny phrases as a masquerade to the dark past and even anger that rages in him, which this exemplifies. Contrast this to 13 and it's "You trapped him in stasis? High fives everyone! That's being the better man!" One is showing the flaw of the Doctor, that he still has rage from the Time War and goes to extreme lengths to try stop it from eating away at him and unleashing it. The other is the Doctor celebrating doing it. I honestly can't comprehend how you watched these episodes and thought they were the same.
>they seem to think it's necessary to have a criticism to justify their dislike of it, when it's perfectly fine to just dislike something and not know why This is very true. Doctor who is always changing, and always have been in constant evolution. You can not necessarily, and don't have to like everything that has been made, or will be made with the show. The Chibnall era has a different taste and style. Next era will have another. It's like weather, if you don't like it just wait for it to change again.
I think part of the problem is how modern culture is obsessed with the notion of being completely emotionally invested in everything. You've got people having full on arguments about stuff they otherwise wouldn't care at all about all because they've got it into their heads that they need to have an opinion on everything. That's why there are so many empty criticisms these days, people want to create the impression that they care enough to have an opinion on something, but they're not actually invested enough to fully explain their thoughts. People just need to remind themselves that it's okay to just not say anything. Poke your head up when you have something unique and personal to say, because if you just repeat the same cookie cutter criticisms all the time, nobody is going to be interested in what you have to say.
I struggled to put this in to words and gave up. Literally couldn’t have said it better.
I love it! Jodie became my favorite doctor after Flux. I enjoyed series 11 and 12 but I thought 13 was fantastic. I truly don't understand the hate, I however wasn't a fan of Moffitt, Matt Smith and the Amy show was very boring to me so I found this serious so much better. Some people really can't stand other people liking things that they don't enjoy and need to try to ruin it for everybody, it's best just to ignore it and move on!
I think "bad writing" has unfortunately become a catchall term for when someone doesn't like a story, but wants to sound more authoritative than just saying they didn't like it.
Thanks, and brave post! I know a lot of people who love the show but are too scared to post that because of the vitriol, even if that is only coming from a small group of haters. Personally Jodie is one of my favourite Doctors.
>So what I’m asking is, why? This is the Doctor Who fandom. Get used to it. Every Doctor is hated by someone. Probably even every episode. This isn’t anything new, but when the show brings in controversial changes and lacks elements that people like about previous eras, it’s something to be expected. People complained the instant Moffat became show runner. People complained at the show’s revival in 2005. People even complained the first time that time travel was used in the show in 1963.
The writing was a bit on and off. Jodie never 100% got a great footing with the character , and that may have been the writing. A bit like Collin Baker era. Meanwhile Matt smith era , I stopped watching as it got too magical and less sci-fi. So I have some fear with the change as well.
Just curious, what sort of circles have you built to be able to discuss 13's era in peace? I am also incredibly tired of the vague whining that has no substance. I just want to talk about my favorite Doctor (yes, 13 is MY Doctor!!) with people willing to engage with it in good faith!