Spoilers The Timeless Children grade and discussion thread

[matthunter]

I really don't get this love for Ruth!Doctor. She came across as cocky, overly aggressive and with no hint of having a plan other than "point a gun at someone".

OK, that's closer to Tennant's portrayal than Jodie's, but that's definitely not all there is to the Doctor. Ruth showed more Doctor-y traits BEFORE getting her memories back than she did afterwards. I might as well have been watching River Song once she smashed the glass in the lighthouse.

Jodie's Doctor sets up a holo-interface not just to threaten a Dalek but to make sure she can reassure its host that she'll save her.

"When someone needs help I never refuse!". That's the Doctor. End of.

She's closer to Five than any other modern Doctor. But Five was pretty fucking awesome in spite of his vulnerability.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Remember when Six smothered Shockeye? Or joked after plunging a couple of guards into acid?

Mustn't forget the quips... That was when they were trying to turn the sixth into a Time Travelling James Bond.

 

[Mr Awe]

In conclusion Jodie is a decent Doctor. She's also the weakest modern Doctor, but this isn't remotely her fault, and if she and the material improves as much between series 12 and 13 as they did between 11 and 12 she could still be a great Doctor.

I agree with your assessment, except I'd emphasize the weak material she's been given. Particularly, the lack of agency and proper antagonists to serve as foils. In the finale, she was literally paralyzed while the Master revealed her personal history to her! He'd done all the work. And then another character sacrificed himself to save the day.

The multitude of companions and guest stars exacerbates those problems. The Doctor is just one of many people who don't have agency or have an antagonist to work against.

If Jodie were given similar quality material as past Doctors, I think she'd be a marvelous Doctor.

 

[The Wormhole]

Where are the people who made "Demons of Punjab" and "It takes you away".

One wrote Fugitive of the Judoon, the other wrote Orphan 55.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Mustn't forget the quips... That was when they were trying to turn the sixth into a Time Travelling James Bond.

"To be fair, they left out all the jokes!"

 

[jaime]

I agree with your assessment, except I'd emphasize the weak material she's been given. Particularly, the lack of agency and proper antagonists to serve as foils. In the finale, she was literally paralyzed while the Master revealed her personal history to her! He'd done all the work. And then another character sacrificed himself to save the day.

The multitude of companions and guest stars exacerbates those problems. The Doctor is just one of many people who don't have agency or have an antagonist to work against.

If Jodie were given similar quality material as past Doctors, I think she'd be a marvelous Doctor.

Let’s not forget the master left the bomb in the first place too, and killed the other protagonist, while ‘the fam’ saved everyone else. Doctor Nada.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It is fact.
A fan, short for fanatic, tends to carry on supporting the object of their fandom *even if* things are going badly. Go look at football fans. They may desperately chant for ditching the manager, but they still turn up, wear the scarf etc. They care.

In this case, many fans will still watch, even though they hate what it’s become. Fandom is about something being important to you. If you watch the show, even if...(and this drifts close to gate keeping) you call yourself a fan, but *do not understand why people keep watching* then you are a viewer. You don’t participate.
Of course there’s a fair amount of middle ground, especially when there’s recent fans versus long term fans and whathaveyou', and fair weather fans etc. Fandom *by its very nature* implies a certain relationship.

Granted, my relationship with Who at the moment feels like something out of Eastenders, but it’s inbuilt. Fans keep at it, unless they lose their fannishness for some reason. Look at Chibnall on Open Air.

First of all, the idea that "fan" is a shortening of "fanatic" is only one theory of the origin of the word "fan." A second, equally viable theory is that "fan" was used to denote someone who has a "fancy" for a thing. In any case, "fan" and "fanatic" are not synonymous. To believe so is to misunderstand what a fan is. The core meaning of "fan" is "someone who likes, follows, or supports something." The core meaning of "fanatic" is "someone with crazed and unreasonable enthusiasm." And the the core meaning of "to fancy" is "to like." There is overlap in the concepts, naturally, but there is not identity.

Further, your condition that fans exhibit some level of "participation" is an instance of gate-keeping. It's not just drifting close. It's essentially the "no true Scotsman" fallacy: the idea that viewers who don't participate (e.g. in one or more online Dr. Who communities or whatever it is that you think they ought to participate in) aren't actually fans of the show is a fallacy.

As to the heart of why I think what you're saying is ridiculous, you establish a dichotomy between fan and viewer to characterize why people watch the show, but you fail to consider that the two can overlap significantly. Fans, and also viewers who don't necessarily either self identify as "fans" or participate in a way that you consider essential to qualify as fans, can watch because they enjoy what's going on. Long-time fans who dislike the direction of the show don't speak for long-time fans who do like it.

What you're saying isn't fact, it's an opinion, and one that I don't agree with.

 

[jaime]

First of all, the idea that "fan" is a shortening of "fanatic" is only one theory of the origin of the word "fan." A second, equally viable theory is that "fan" was used to denote someone who has a "fancy" for a thing. In any case, "fan" and "fanatic" are not synonymous. To believe so is to misunderstand what a fan is. The core meaning of "fan" is "someone who likes, follows, or supports something." The core meaning of "fanatic" is "someone with crazed and unreasonable enthusiasm." And the the core meaning of "to fancy" is "to like." There is overlap in the concepts, naturally, but there is not identity.

Further, your condition that fans exhibit some level of "participation" is an instance of gate-keeping. It's not just drifting close. It's essentially the "no true Scotsman" fallacy: the idea that viewers who don't participate (e.g. in one or more online Dr. Who communities or whatever it is that you think they ought to participate in) aren't actually fans of the show is a fallacy.

As to the heart of why I think what you're saying is ridiculous, you establish a dichotomy between fan and viewer to characterize why people watch the show, but you fail to consider that the two can overlap significantly. Fans, and also viewers who don't necessarily either self identify as "fans" or participate in a way that you consider essential to qualify as fans, can watch because they enjoy what's going on. Long-time fans who dislike the direction of the show don't speak for long-time fans who do like it.

What you're saying isn't fact, it's an opinion, and one that I don't agree with.

Fun derived from pigeon fancier. Ok.
By ‘participate’ I do t mean participate in fandom. (Forums, conventions fan groups, what have you) I mean merchandise, books, magazines; at the lowest level a ‘fan’ will have spent some time not watching the show but participating in it. Thinking about it, having theories. And that’s the shallow end of the pool.
People who have been fans a long time...well, then it forms part of their identity. Again, look at the football team analogy. It’s tribal.
Again, I reiterate, if you *don’t understand why a fan doesn’t give up, unless they lose their fannishness (their faith as it were)* then you don’t understand fandom and may not be a fan. It may be ‘an interest’, but fannish behaviour is different. There’s a different level of care. For long term fans there is a different sense of ownership. This is especially true of Who.

Edit: self identification is also not needed. Especially before geek chic became a thing, people would deny being a fan of many things while slowly burying themselves up to their eyeballs in branded ephemera and prioritising the thing they were a fan of. There is usually a tipping point where you have to admit it to yourself lol. There’s a reason for a given period in time Doctor Who fans had a massive gay contingent...the two things were not dissimilar in the nineties XD (borderline synonymous)

 

[Starkers]

I agree with your assessment, except I'd emphasize the weak material she's been given. Particularly, the lack of agency and proper antagonists to serve as foils. In the finale, she was literally paralyzed while the Master revealed her personal history to her! He'd done all the work. And then another character sacrificed himself to save the day.

The multitude of companions and guest stars exacerbates those problems. The Doctor is just one of many people who don't have agency or have an antagonist to work against.

If Jodie were given similar quality material as past Doctors, I think she'd be a marvelous Doctor.

Absolutely, the lack of agency is hamstringing her sometimes. I'm not saying the Doctor has to save the day every time, but agency is about the character being active rather than passive. I really want to scream at Chibnall sometimes!

And she is very much like Five, only I think Davison had more agency, but more importantly Davison acted as if he were all the other Doctors, an old man in a young man's body etc, even in her best moments I've never got that sense of great age from Jodie (rarely got it from Tennant to be fair)

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

Davison was also a fantastic actor who could BE the Doctor. Maybe having been a fan as a kid helped his motivation and how to commit to the part, but it is a unique that requires the absolute commitment of an actor with presence. Davison didn't have Tom's presence, but he was a far better actor and it showed at how commanding he was through his performance. The same thing applied to Smith and Capaldi, who are as good as actors and owned the part from the first day of shooting.

 

[jaime]

Maybe someone can get Larry Miles on the phone, he can bury the hatchet with Lance Parkin and Justin Richards, the three of them can take over from Chibnall; and the whole thing can turnout to be Faction Paradox fucking stuff up in a bottle universe for the lols.

Failing that, I should imagine Moffat could be persuaded back to fix things. He did an excellent job last time, as is becoming more and more apparent. In fact that’s my dearest wish at the moment. Come back Moff, all is forgiven.

 

[jaime]

Oh, and they can get Lloyd Rose to write one. She was really good.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

I like the Faction Paradox. I listened to the two audio seasons that BBV had done featuring them, and I absolutely enjoyed them! Would love to see the show introduce them to the show.

 

[Starkers]

Moffat won't come back, not barring some kind of nightmare request from the BBC that says the show will end if it doesn't. Maybe not even then. It's a hard, time consuming (and lets be honest) often thankless job that I think most writer/producers would think twice about before taking. I mean a great opportunity as well but definitely a double edged sword.

One of the problems I think is that, reading between the lines which is never a good idea, I get the feeling that Chibnall was kinda coerced into it by the BBC. The Beeb did seem to see him as the only choice which is odd.

 

[jaime]

I like the Faction Paradox. I listened to the two audio seasons that BBV had done featuring them, and I absolutely enjoyed them! Would love to see the show introduce them to the show.

The idea of the eleven day empire, the cousins...the introduction of people Tardises, and walking Paradoxes. It was a good time. Sometimes went a bit daft, but the ideas were very very good. (And already bled into the show...we just moved San Francisco to Trenzalore, and Lake Silêncio owes a huge debt to Alien Bodies. The War in Heaven is basically The Last Great Time War from a different perspective, and some of the cheeky lore dialogue sounds a *lot* like Faction Paradox...I cant remember the exact dialogue, but the Once was king and his never-weres. There’s a richness that isn’t there any more.)

 

[jaime]

Moffat won't come back, not barring some kind of nightmare request from the BBC that says the show will end if it doesn't. Maybe not even then. It's a hard, time consuming (and lets be honest) often thankless job that I think most writer/producers would think twice about before taking. I mean a great opportunity as well but definitely a double edged sword.

One of the problems I think is that, reading between the lines which is never a good idea, I get the feeling that Chibnall was kinda coerced into it by the BBC. The Beeb did seem to see him as the only choice which is odd.

They got to kill Broadchurch. Simple as that.

And that’s precisely why I think Moff would come back too. Heck. It worked before and kept JNT doing his job for years after he wanted to move on. People forget that. He was actively trying not to let it die.
I think that’s one thing that annoys me about the current team...they are lazy in comparison to their predecessors, to the point a showrunner and Doctor stayed on post leaving to secure the Christmas slot for them, and they *still* couldn’t be arsed. This year they didn’t even bother with New Year, just stuck the first episode on instead.
I think that’s the criticism boiled to one word. Laziness. Makes the thing feel like contemporary art.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I have to say, The Master's break the Doctor plan is kind of questionable since it basically involved validated her at this point centuries old massive ego.

Hell he even admits she always thought she was better that the other Timelords, and now he's pretty much telling her she actually is.

 

[Professor Zoom]

He was actively trying not to let it die.

Maybe he should have let it die.

 

[jaime]

Maybe he should have let it die.

Nah. That final season was probably the most influential on Who ever, the echoes still present in the show. (Hence the attempt at Lungbarrowing hamfistedly in the last episode.)

 

[Professor Zoom]

Nah. That final season was probably the most influential on Who ever, the echoes still present in the show. (Hence the attempt at Lungbarrowing hamfistedly in the last episode.)

Yeah, and how did that work out?