Moffat Out, Chris Chibnall in

[Skellington]

I'm not sure if this is better suited to this thread or the Whovian Whumour one. But anyway, I think we can all agree that it shows Doctor Who will be in safe hands:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/doctor-whos-new-showrunner-wrote-a-painfully-earnest-th-1755982038

Actually, it makes me wonder what a season with both Chibnall and Capaldi would be like.

 

[publiusr]

Steve came in at the perfect time--did the 50th very well--gave us monsters and meanace--and exited.

 

[The Wormhole]

So here's a thought, I was recently reviewing an episode list for Torchwood for purposes of finding out which ones Chibnall wrote. Among the ones written by him was the episode Countrycide.

For those who need the reminder, Countrycide is the one where the team head to a small town outside of Cardiff to investigate disappearances believing this to be evidence the Rift reaches outside of Cardiff. In the end they discover the disappearances are actually victims of crazed cannibals. The episode is notable for not including any elements of science fiction, fantasy, or other paranormal/supernatural stuff. In fact, I think even Jack's immortality is either downplayed or not even used in the episode.

So, given Chibnall wrote such an episode for Torchwood, do you think it's possible that his Doctor Who might actually feature a proper historical?

 

[publiusr]

That was the best episode for Torchwood. They plumbed the unfathomable there--very like the (later) first season of True Detective.

We have always been the monsters.

That's why you didn't always se a lot of ray-guns in some of the best Who episodes--they have the ugly bark of actual gunfire.

 

[Starkers]

Countrycide was one of the high points of the first series of Torchwood, though that isn't necessarily saying much. I liked that it wasn't remotely fantastical and played with the notion of Sawney Bean like cannibals, and it definitely played with the notion of being a more adult show because it was something Who could never do (so blatantly at least). It's still got major problems, and though I haven't seen it since the original broadcast my abiding memory is Owen shoving Gwen up against a tree and telling her he could fuck her so hard she'd forget her name, or something similarly cringe worthy!

I don't see any reason Who couldn't do the odd historical, just once a series, I doubt people are going to switch off in droves just because an episode doesn't feature a monster. Too many episodes have something shoehorned in that isn't needed (take The Girl Who Lived in Series 9, it didn't really need lion bloke). Sometimes a human antagonist can be just as threatening a foe.

 

[Christopher]

I don't see any reason Who couldn't do the odd historical, just once a series, I doubt people are going to switch off in droves just because an episode doesn't feature a monster.

Well, the reason they stopped doing historicals in the first place back in the mid-'60s was that the historicals usually got the lowest ratings and audience appreciation figures. They just weren't as popular as the sci-fi stories. Personally I think that's a shame -- historicals like "Marco Polo" and "The Aztecs" and "The Crusade" were among the best serials of the Hartnell era. But the majority of the audience felt differently. Would today's audience feel any differently?

Maybe some sort of hybrid historical could be done in a way similar to The Sarah Jane Adventures' "Lost in Time," where the characters were sent into the past to retrieve dangerous alien items, but Rani's and Clyde's stories had few to no sci-fi elements in them beyond their own anachronistic presence. So the sci-fi was just a catalyst for stories that gave a glimpse of history.

 

[Starkers]

^That was actually a very good story, and one that didn't shy away from issues around Clyde and Rani's ethnicity. I like the hybrid idea, humans of whatever era fighting over a technological artefact that they imagine is just magic maybe?

 

[Christopher]

I like the hybrid idea, humans of whatever era fighting over a technological artefact that they imagine is just magic maybe?

But that's just a standard Doctor Who-style plot where the past is merely a setting for a sci-fi-driven story. I'm talking about doing something that's closer to a pure historical but has enough sci-fi to satisfy audiences who prefer it -- something where the Doctor and his companions are motivated by some sci-fi plot element, but the events that happen around them and the actions performed by characters from the past are strictly historical. Maybe the Doctor needs to find something that will save the universe, but he has to escape from a Soviet gulag to do it, or has to get past the hordes of Genghis Khan, or something.

 

[The Wormhole]

Well, the reason they stopped doing historicals in the first place back in the mid-'60s was that the historicals usually got the lowest ratings and audience appreciation figures. They just weren't as popular as the sci-fi stories. Personally I think that's a shame -- historicals like "Marco Polo" and "The Aztecs" and "The Crusade" were among the best serials of the Hartnell era. But the majority of the audience felt differently. Would today's audience feel any differently?

Maybe some sort of hybrid historical could be done in a way similar to The Sarah Jane Adventures' "Lost in Time," where the characters were sent into the past to retrieve dangerous alien items, but Rani's and Clyde's stories had few to no sci-fi elements in them beyond their own anachronistic presence. So the sci-fi was just a catalyst for stories that gave a glimpse of history.

Honestly, even something set in modern day or even the future that didn't involve monsters would be satisfactory at this point. Something like Enemy of the World is a perfect example, although set in the future (well, future at the time it was made) it doesn't really have anything other-worldly to it.

Just in the past season I can see a few episodes where the monsters were unnecessary to the story. The aforementioned Woman Who Lived didn't need the Lion man, the episode about the sleep deprivation pods could have just been about going to a space station to stop a mad man's evil plan and left those silly sleep-crust monsters out of it.

Indeed, in his introduction in the recently re-printed copy of the novel The Roundheads, Mark Gatiss speculates on if a true historical could be done today, but indicates Moffat is more interested in bringing the Garm back. Which sadly might be true, given all Moffat episodes set in the past involve aliens, monsters, or some manner of anachronism. Even the recent Sherlock special promoted as being set in the Victorian era ended up with a subplot set in the modern era.

 

[Mr Awe]

While I'm not necessarily against a rare pure historical, my take has always been, if you're really that interesting a historical story, watch a program/movie that is set in the past. You'll get all the history you want there with no chance of SF elements. Doctor Who really isn't the program for that.

That said, I'm again not against the idea of doing a purely historical adventure, but it's not really what the general audience expects and there are other avenues for obtaining your historical story fix.

Mr Awe

 

[The Wormhole]

While I'm not necessarily against a rare pure historical, my take has always been, if you're really that interesting a historical story, watch a program/movie that is set in the past. You'll get all the history you want there with no chance of SF elements. Doctor Who really isn't the program for that.

To an extent, yes, I agree. But that being said, there are times where the SF elements are shoe-horned into an episode that would otherwise be fine without them. It's not just Doctor Who which has this problem, there were plenty of times in Star Trek where they had a fine storyline that was mostly character based but they sandwiched in a storyline involving some sort of technobabble laden plot or some such ultimately bringing down what could otherwise be a decent episode for no real reason than because "there has to be science fiction."

That's all I really want, if an episode works fine without SF elements, then leave them out. Don't hamfist a monster in because some suits say it's what the audience expects or to sell some action figures or whatever. I'm certainly not advocating a change to how the show is done, but one pure historical after a decade might just turn out to be the kind of different episode that really stands out among fandom as a favourite. Or maybe it would suck, but it would still be an attempt at something different.

 

[Starkers]

^ yeah, and I doubt a single non monster/non sci-fi episode of Who is going to bring the whole house down, it might even attract viewers and certainly irrespective of a new showrunner and a new Doctor the show needs to evolve in some way from the RTD and Moffat eras and this would definitely be a departure without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It's a risk I guess, for every person who says "Hey so this isn't just about silly men in suits" someone else might say "without the monster I might as well be watching a period drama" but the risk is slight and manageable, and if the AI figures plumb the depths for that episode at least they can say they tried.

 

[Mr Awe]

To an extent, yes, I agree. But that being said, there are times where the SF elements are shoe-horned into an episode that would otherwise be fine without them. It's not just Doctor Who which has this problem, there were plenty of times in Star Trek where they had a fine storyline that was mostly character based but they sandwiched in a storyline involving some sort of technobabble laden plot or some such ultimately bringing down what could otherwise be a decent episode for no real reason than because "there has to be science fiction."

That's all I really want, if an episode works fine without SF elements, then leave them out. Don't hamfist a monster in because some suits say it's what the audience expects or to sell some action figures or whatever. I'm certainly not advocating a change to how the show is done, but one pure historical after a decade might just turn out to be the kind of different episode that really stands out among fandom as a favourite. Or maybe it would suck, but it would still be an attempt at something different.

I can agree with all of that. The only caveat being that the general audience probably expects monsters regularly so the show runners are probably taking care of that angle. But totally agree, no need to always shoehorn them in.

Mr Awe

 

[Redfern]

I thought the episode with Vincent van Gogh would have been stronger without the literal monster, but instead simply a tragic delusion brought about by his illness. Without the beastie, that would have been a "historical" as originally promoted by Sydney Newman.

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[Christopher]

I thought the episode with Vincent van Gogh would have been stronger without the literal monster, but instead simply a tragic delusion brought about by his illness. Without the beastie, that would have been a "historical" as originally promoted by Sydney Newman.

I dunno, I quite liked the idea that Vincent's unique perceptions allowed him to see what was invisible to everyone else. The monster was a metaphor for the value of non-neurotypical thinking. Everyone thought he was just "tragically" crazy and sick, but in fact he was different in a way that had its own advantages. That's exactly what made it strong.

 

[EnderAKH]

I thought the episode with Vincent van Gogh would have been stronger without the literal monster, but instead simply a tragic delusion brought about by his illness. Without the beastie, that would have been a "historical" as originally promoted by Sydney Newman.

Sincerely,

Bill

100% Agreed. The things that worked in that ep were the character work with Van Gogh. The stuff that didn't was anything involved with the monster.

 

[kirk55555]

Eh, I really like that episode, and I thought the monster worked well. I can't see the story working if its just 45 minutes of The Doctor and Amy running around responding to Van Gogh's delusions, with absolutely no evidence that anything is actually happening.

 

[The Wormhole]

The only caveat being that the general audience probably expects monsters regularly so the show runners are probably taking care of that angle.

The general audience probably also expects to tune in to an adventure involving the Doctor and his companion each week, yet in the modern era it's become an annual tradition where the Doctor and the companion have a reduced role to just one or two scenes and the episode is mostly carried by guest characters. In fact, one such episode (Blink) has become so popular it often tops lists of the best episodes of the modern era and usually ranks pretty high (usually in the top 10) on the best episodes overall as well. Just saying.

Of course we'll still have alien monsters to fight or befriend as seems appropriate, and the Daleks will still make us wonder if the BBC really is contractually obligated do a Dalek episode per year. But we can also have variety too.

100% Agreed. The things that worked in that ep were the character work with Van Gogh. The stuff that didn't was anything involved with the monster.

Although I agree the episode could have worked fine without the alien creature, I'm actually okay with it in this case since the alien's death scene where we learn it's just scared and lonely rather than evil and threatening really was a well-done scene.

 

[Mr Awe]

The general audience probably also expects to tune in to an adventure involving the Doctor and his companion each week, yet in the modern era it's become an annual tradition where the Doctor and the companion have a reduced role to just one or two scenes and the episode is mostly carried by guest characters. In fact, one such episode (Blink) has become so popular it often tops lists of the best episodes of the modern era and usually ranks pretty high (usually in the top 10) on the best episodes overall as well. Just saying.

Of course we'll still have alien monsters to fight or befriend as seems appropriate, and the Daleks will still make us wonder if the BBC really is contractually obligated do a Dalek episode per year. But we can also have variety too.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that there is presumably some reason why the show runners have been hesitant to do pure historicals. Given that they've typically been the lowest rated episodes, I'm sure viewership concern is a factor.

Mr Awe

 

[The Wormhole]

I suppose, though I wonder how the sales did with the History Collection pre-print novels last year, a collection which did include two pure historicals. And more specifically how well they did compared to the others. Though, to be honest, I suspect Human Nature was likely the bestseller of the batch.

At the time, I wondered if this was their way of testing the waters to see if there was any interest in historicals among the modern audience.