Doctor Who due a major shake-up as bosses aim for 'brand new show' in 2018

[The Wormhole]

Absolutely. It made some sense with The Ninth Doctor, but after that it was ridiculous, especially The Master's regeneration.

IMO, the worst offender of stand-up regeneration making no sense was when Mels regenerated into River in Let's Kill Hitler. After being shot, she was laying on the ground bleeding to death, and then when she started glowing from the regeneration energy, she instantly stands to assume the position.

I guess maybe they thought the actor lying down would not be as dignfied? I dunno.

IIRC, RTD intentionally wanted Eccleston to stand for his regeneration specifically because it was different from all the previous regenerations. Ironically, all regenerations since with one exception have copied this.

 

[bigdaddy]

Let's make a new DW with a hot young cast! That will save the franchise. - BBC

Honestly complaining about DVD sales when BBC doesn't even make new episodes for a year and has a piss poor schedule. Make new shows and sell on DVD and maybe they will increase. Blaming the awesome actor is lame.

Also there should be a time limit to show runners, three years. Both of the NuWho guys seem to only be able to do three years before the show starts to suffer.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

I'd say four years, since RTD's fourth year was arguably the best one. And his fifth year was basically making specials.

I guess that's it. I'd like the RTD formula repeated in that regard. Four regular years, followed by a year of specials in order to ease the exiting showrunner and to keep momentum for the show. Of course, it'll be different if there was a showrunner with a rigorous supply of ideas, but Moffat's not one of them.

 

[The Wormhole]

Also there should be a time limit to show runners, three years. Both of the NuWho guys seem to only be able to do three years before the show starts to suffer.

Part of the problem there is BBC is very reluctant to change showrunners for Doctor Who. They offered RTD a very significant raise to stay for season 5, essentially backing a dump-truck filled with cash to his front door, which he turned down. Then they actually considered ending the show because of that. And we know Moffat has been persuaded against his wishes to stay for season 10.

 

[Starkers]

You kinda get the feeling Moffat might not have even wanted to stay for nine.

I guess however much Who's success is down be being able to change, on the whole successful shows tend to work because of consistency

 

[Christopher]

I guess however much Who's success is down be being able to change, on the whole successful shows tend to work because of consistency

Different time scales. On the whole, shows run for a few years, and on that scale, consistency can be good. But eventually a show that doesn't change runs out of anything new to say and loses its appeal. It's Doctor Who's capacity for change that's enabled it to last for decades. It's survived longer than a normal show by being multiple different shows.

 

[C.E. Evans]

IMO, the worst offender of stand-up regeneration making no sense was when Mels regenerated into River in Let's Kill Hitler. After being shot, she was laying on the ground bleeding to death, and then when she started glowing from the regeneration energy, she instantly stands to assume the position.

IIRC, RTD intentionally wanted Eccleston to stand for his regeneration specifically because it was different from all the previous regenerations. Ironically, all regenerations since with one exception have copied this.

It could be that most Time Lords do regenerate while standing up, but the earlier Doctors tended to die more violently and were simply too weak to do so. On the other hand, it could be that the Doctor now has more control over his regenerations than he did previously--he can (sometimes) choose what body he regenerates into next, can delay the process long enough to do a temporary reset, and can even channel regeneration energy into a powerful weapon.

 

[Ithekro]

Romana seemed to have so much control that she just regenerated several times in a row to get the Doctor's opinion on her new form, before returning to her original choice again of the Princess.

 

[Christopher]

Romana seemed to have so much control that she just regenerated several times in a row to get the Doctor's opinion on her new form, before returning to her original choice again of the Princess.

Maybe this is just a matter of terminology, but I don't take that as "regenerating several times" so much as a single regeneration being in flux, so that she was able to try on several forms before her cells got locked into one configuration. But yes, it would have required an extraordinary degree of control.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Ten was able to grow a new hand while his regeneration was still in flux.

 

[Christopher]

Ten was able to grow a new hand while his regeneration was still in flux.

Yes, exactly. That established that a Time Lord's ability to undergo physical change lingers for a while after the regeneration, and I was retroactively applying that idea to explain Romana's "multiple" regeneration. Of course, that interpretation of Romana's regeneration was around in fandom long before "The Christmas Invasion," since the thought that Romana would burn through four or five of her finite number of lives out of sheer vanity is ridiculous; but the events of Ten's regeneration provide support for the idea.

Although there's a prose story or something positing that the "Romana" who went through multiple regenerations in "Destiny of the Daleks" was actually a shapeshifter who colluded with Romana to play a prank on the Doctor.

 

[TommyR01D]

The whole "trying on" sequence was mildly amusing in its own right, but as part of the greater whole it is probably better stricken from the record.

On a totally unrelated note, Doctor Who on this day is fifty-three years old.

 

[Christopher]

The whole "trying on" sequence was mildly amusing in its own right, but as part of the greater whole it is probably better stricken from the record.

Yes, it was a widely ridiculed sequence, and part of what I consider one of the series's lowest ebbs, the era when Graham Williams was producer. There were a few highlights in that 3-year span, mainly "The Sun Makers" and "City of Death," but it had a lot of dumb stuff too. (Although, well, it did give us K-9. Some may not agree, but I always liked K-9, even though I'm not a dog person. And even though his debut story was one of the worst serials ever.)

 

[bigdaddy]

Part of the problem there is BBC is very reluctant to change showrunners for Doctor Who. They offered RTD a very significant raise to stay for season 5, essentially backing a dump-truck filled with cash to his front door, which he turned down. Then they actually considered ending the show because of that. And we know Moffat has been persuaded against his wishes to stay for season 10.

Which is the problem! They are blaming the actors when the only issue for Doctor Who is plot and stories which get worse and worse the longer the show runners have been on. Seems a good average is three season, maybe four. I really hated the Martha season but liked her character.

 

[Starkers]

Different time scales. On the whole, shows run for a few years, and on that scale, consistency can be good. But eventually a show that doesn't change runs out of anything new to say and loses its appeal. It's Doctor Who's capacity for change that's enabled it to last for decades. It's survived longer than a normal show by being multiple different shows.

Yes but much like James Bond Who survives and prospers because at the core it remains the same whilst changing to reflect the current era. The Tardis, the companion, the Daleks, the Cybermen... I mean in terms of the core notion of an eccentric with a box travelling all through space and time battling evil, that has only ever been significantly challenged once when the Third Doctor was marooned on Earth. However much the eras of Capaldi and Hartnell might differ, at heart it is exactly the same show.

 

[Christopher]

However much the eras of Capaldi and Hartnell might differ, at heart it is exactly the same show.

To an extent, but not entirely. The original show was an educational program using its adventures to teach history and (supposedly) science. That fell by the wayside and it became a science-fantasy adventure series about fighting monsters. I'd say that's fairly different.

Besides, saying that the premise is the same on the simplest level is meaningless. That's like saying that two sentences have the same structure. What's important is what content is placed within that structure. "The white dog bit his toy bone" has the same structure as "The incomprehensible cosmos tormented my troubled soul," but they're hardly comparable in any meaningful sense. Similarly, "Alien and his human friend wander through space and time in a blue box" can be a structure that many different kinds of content can be placed into, allowing it to be many different kinds of show.

 

[MacLeod]

But the basic premise of the show for much of it's life has been

A madman with a box travels the universe with his friends/companions battling evil and injustice,

just as Star Trek's basic premise is a crew of humans and aliens traveling the univeerse seeking out new life and new and civilisations seeking to boldly go where none have gone before.

But those are rather open premises and you can do a lot with them.

 

[Christopher]

But the basic premise of the show for much of it's life has been

A madman with a box travels the universe with his friends/companions battling evil and injustice,

"Madman?" No. That depends on the Doctor. Of the classic Doctors, the Fourth was the most "mad," and the Sixth was kind of erratic, but mostly the Doctors were just eccentric and/or enigmatic. And Five wasn't really either of those to any great extent.

But those are rather open premises and you can do a lot with them.

Yes, that's the point. The premise of a story is just the foundation it's built on, not a limit on what it is.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

I think the simplest explanation for Romana's regeneration, other being a Doug Adams joke, is that she knew how to handle hers better than the Doctor ever did. Another indication of higher education that the Doctor's, if anything.

 

[Christopher]

I think the simplest explanation for Romana's regeneration, other being a Doug Adams joke, is that she knew how to handle hers better than the Doctor ever did. Another indication of higher education that the Doctor's, if anything.

Yeah, that's what I've always assumed. That, and that the Doctor had less control over the process than was typical for Time Lords/Ladies, since it always seemed to be something of a crapshoot when he regenerated. By Time Lord standards, there are a number of things the Doctor wasn't all that skilled at, as Romana was quick to remind him. Like controlling TARDISes, say.