Russell T. Davies Returns to Doctor Who as New Showrunner

[Mr Awe]

And therein lies the problem.

Make up your mind. First you don't like how I compare Chibnall to the other. Then you say it's a problem that I'm not!

To be honest, when I first watched Morbius, I did think that the other regenerations where Morbius'. The story works fine with that interpretation. It wasn't until much later that I learned the intent of the production team. So, it really wasn't possible for me to be bothered by it! It was also helped by the fact that the original intent was TOTALLY ignored by future productions.

Had I known the intent, I wouldn't have like it.

Fortunately, like the half human thing, it was totally ignored. So, there was no reason for anyone to be bothered by it. That "change" was worked in so subtly and another interpretation was so apparent that it's a different situation than the Timeless Child.

 

[Sci]

And by episode 2 of Chibnall’s run, I realised it absolutely wasn’t true, and sometimes shit writers get good jobs.

Maybe, but I wasn't responding to the question of Chibnall per se -- I was responding to the phenomenon of large fandom segments consistently having that same reaction to numerous different franchises no matter what creative direction those franchises take.

 

[Jayson1]

In my head canon The Timeless Child doesn't happen but the Doctor still becomes Jodie Whittaker but she goes onto to have more interesting adventures than tv version of her did. Maybe to be filled in by more interesting fan fiction someday.

 

[Mr Awe]

It seems a weird thing to get that bent out of shape by the Timeless Child. My honest view? The concept is interesting, I just find Chibnall's execution incredibly clunky. It could have created additional mystery but Chibnall explained way too much (IMO obviously) and the use of a Police Box, and the character even being called the Doctor can be explained but needs some contrivance to do it.

I can see both sides of the issue. Honestly, I'm glad you find it interesting. But it really comes down to a personal preference. It's a disservice to pass at is off as "getting bent out of shape." It's simply a difference of opinion. And I've always been upfront about that. And I certainly haven't been "bent out of shape." But I'm also entitled to my opinion, which I've shared respectfully.

I just don't like them monkeying with the past. I'd rather they create new mystery and intrigue going forward. I just don't see the need or the value to rewriting vast swathes of the show. There are plenty of ways to make it interesting in the forward direction. Many others feel this way too, and that's fine.

You have a different take on it. That's all. No one is wrong here or being what not.

As much as we disagree on this issue, I'm sure I'll be watching and enjoying DW in the future.

I was also not a fan of the War Doctor when he was first revealed. He seemed unnecessary. It should've been McGann or Ecclestone. And Ecclestone wasn't going to do it, so McGann then. But Hurt was so good in the role and the execution was great, and I grew to like it. It also was a relatively self-contained change. All factors favoring the change.

But execution is key and I'm sure it's not helping the case with Chibnall.

 

[DigificWriter]

Because of the nature of Doctor Who as a property, the fact that things like Hartnell's Doctor having not actually been the 'First Doctor' or, since it was brought up, the Eighth Doctor being half-human weren't followed up on does not invalidate them, which makes it a thorny issue when fans choose to go aftter Chibnall for choices like the Timeless Child arc when they didn't go or wouldn't have gone after previous Doctor Who Showrunners for decisions of a similar nature since it creates an arbitrary double standard.

 

[Mr Awe]

Because of the nature of Doctor Who as a property, the fact that things like Hartnell's Doctor having not actually been the 'First Doctor' or, since it was brought up, the Eighth Doctor being half-human weren't followed up on does not invalidate them, which makes it a thorny issue when fans choose to go aftter Chibnall for choices like the Timeless Child arc when they didn't go or wouldn't have gone after previous Doctor Who Showrunners for decisions of a similar nature since it creates an arbitrary double standard.

It's not a thorny issue at all. It's very easy to understand. Individual fans will like some changes more than others. It's ok if you don't agree with them, but it's not a thorny issue. Just a different opinion than yours.

I personally don't like sweeping changes to the past history of the show. Like I said, make new things moving forward. There's no shortage of possibilities for someone with creativity.

When changes like the intention in Morbius and the half-human idea occurred, I was glad they were collectively ignored and sent to oblivion. I'm hoping the same happens with the Timeless Child.

But it's ok for you to like different changes, including Chibnall's. It's not thorny at all. It's just your personal preferences.

 

[jaime]

Because of the nature of Doctor Who as a property, the fact that things like Hartnell's Doctor having not actually been the 'First Doctor' or, since it was brought up, the Eighth Doctor being half-human weren't followed up on does not invalidate them, which makes it a thorny issue when fans choose to go aftter Chibnall for choices like the Timeless Child arc when they didn't go or wouldn't have gone after previous Doctor Who Showrunners for decisions of a similar nature since it creates an arbitrary double standard.

“But you can’t be the Doctor, he’s the Doctor! And it’s his Tardis!” Said Tegan, still worried for her friend, her Doctor.
“Hmm? And who might he be? And as it happens, I am the Doctor! The original you might say! Unless as luck would have it an entire bunch of other people were, who somehow avoided being Timescooped here to the Death Zone on Gallifrey by an unseen opponent with arcane knowledge reaching right back to the very foundation of Time Lord society, that everyone has completely forgotten about, including myself, not so much as a post it note in the TARDIS to remind me, and when whoever my enemy is went looking down something as deeply personal as my own Time Stream did not find another anywhere in all of space and time. In which case, I’m not the original, but just some old bloke in wig! Hmm!” Said the crotchety old man with a glint in his eye.
“Oh no. But you two can’t be here can you? Not at the same time? Barely a week after that bloke with the moustache nearly blew a hole in the universe by meeting himself, and I coincidentally discovered how many times he… I mean you… had changed his face?”
“No, it only happens in the direst of circumstances. And Birthdays, and I think we’ve gone off script Chesterfield. Susan! Surely it’s Susan!”
“Oh Rabbits.” Said Tegan.

(With apologies to Terrance Dicks, I did this from Memory.)

(Edit: Apologies for not getting in the wheezing groaning sound, and I should say I considered Ancelyn Ace and The Doctor in Battlefield for the pastiche, but The Five Doctors seemed most appropriate.)

 

[The Wormhole]

You're acting like Chibnall doing it is anathema,, but Terrance Dicks/Robert Holmes and Moffatt doing it was okay.

Dicks and Holmes did no such thing. Yes, I know Brain of Morbius was written by them under the pseudonym Robin Bland, but the decision to include other faces as potential other Doctors was made by Phillip Hinchcliffe, who wanted to inject some mystery into the Doctor's background.

Was undoing that by revealing in "Day of the Doctor" that they only thought they'd destroyed Gallifrey a problematic change to the character?

In all honesty, yes, I really did think undoing Gallifrey's destruction in Day of the Doctor destroyed and negated all the character development done with the Doctor in the previous eight years since the revival. I felt the destruction of Gallifrey should have been the one thing the Doctor could never undo, the one regret he must live with for the remainder of all his subsequent regenerations.

Though, I'll admit, at the time my opinion was shaded by the fact that I was dealing with a personal loss I was having trouble with, and Moffat's traditionally flippant "pain and loss are uncool. Everybody lives!" came across as rather insulting, to be honest. While I've certainly calmed down about that now, I still feel Gallifrey's destruction should never have been undone, if for no other reason than having the Doctor continue to mourn the loss of Gallifrey, a loss that can never be undone could be a means of helping the young audience that Moffat always claimed the show was aimed at deal with loss and death when they happen in their own lives and how to move on from that, since in real life resurrections or preventing death from happening don't happen.

 

[The Knappos]

Yeah, no, never uses a gun

 

[jaime]

Yeah, no, never uses a gun

About half that list consists of using a gun to shoot inanimate objects, some careful redefinitions of what constitutes a gun, non-fatal shootings… for crying out loud, it includes him pulling a gun on himself.
A defining characteristic of the doctor is non-violence, and a stance on guns and weapons, typically when he acts against this in any large manner (which would not include shooting animals, considering when the series was mostly made, or shooting locks with someone else’s gun etc) it is for story purposes that usually demonstrate how serious things have got. (Like when he was ready to execute Davros for example… though to be fair, we had Eric Saward at that point. Though even he wrote Slipback.)
The ninth Doctor with the gun scene in Dalek pretty much sums all of that up.

I tire of the testosterone brigade wilfully not grasping the point that is repeatedly made in the stories, and off camera (including the rewriting of Remembrance end scene.) about this. Even Jodie says ‘guns are bad’ in a daft manner shortly before someone else using one turns out to be handy.
Oh, there’s a nice bit in Battlefield too.

Will it make you and the NRA feel better if I phrase it as ‘The Doctor routinely does not use a gun, routinely expresses a distaste for guns and weapons in general, and never carries one.’

 

[Starkers]

In all honesty, yes, I really did think undoing Gallifrey's destruction in Day of the Doctor destroyed and negated all the character development done with the Doctor in the previous eight years since the revival. I felt the destruction of Gallifrey should have been the one thing the Doctor could never undo, the one regret he must live with for the remainder of all his subsequent regenerations.

Though, I'll admit, at the time my opinion was shaded by the fact that I was dealing with a personal loss I was having trouble with, and Moffat's traditionally flippant "pain and loss are uncool. Everybody lives!" came across as rather insulting, to be honest. While I've certainly calmed down about that now, I still feel Gallifrey's destruction should never have been undone, if for no other reason than having the Doctor continue to mourn the loss of Gallifrey, a loss that can never be undone could be a means of helping the young audience that Moffat always claimed the show was aimed at deal with loss and death when they happen in their own lives and how to move on from that, since in real life resurrections or preventing death from happening don't happen.

I'm not sure exactly how much character development we got out of that, maybe Nine but by the third series the Doctor spent more time moping about Wose than he did over murdering billions of people! Plus "I killed all the Timelords" seems kinda flippant to me, and suggests just a bunch of old men and women in silly hats died. It was Moffat who put this into context, who showed us this included children. It was a neat way to get the timelords out of the way when the show returned but carrying the guilt of killing billions of kids, forever? The Doctor has enough guilt, so I don't care that Moffat reversed this.

And I'd argue RTD is as bad at being flippant about loss as Moffat. Rose lost her dad when she was a child, but that's ok, love, have alt universe Pete! And Rose lost the love of her life, but that's ok, love, have metacrisis me with added mortality so he's unlikely to leave you, and Donna lost EVERYTHING but that's ok, love, have a winning lottery ticket, and Jack sacrificed his own grandchild but that's ok, mate, why don't you shag Alonso.

And I'll take Eleven's "We all change" speech over Ten's whiny "I don't want to go" any day but YMMV

About half that list consists of using a gun to shoot inanimate objects, some careful redefinitions of what constitutes a gun, non-fatal shootings… for crying out loud, it includes him pulling a gun on himself.
A defining characteristic of the doctor is non-violence, and a stance on guns and weapons, typically when he acts against this in any large manner (which would not include shooting animals, considering when the series was mostly made, or shooting locks with someone else’s gun etc) it is for story purposes that usually demonstrate how serious things have got. (Like when he was ready to execute Davros for example… though to be fair, we had Eric Saward at that point. Though even he wrote Slipback.)
The ninth Doctor with the gun scene in Dalek pretty much sums all of that up.

I tire of the testosterone brigade wilfully not grasping the point that is repeatedly made in the stories, and off camera (including the rewriting of Remembrance end scene.) about this. Even Jodie says ‘guns are bad’ in a daft manner shortly before someone else using one turns out to be handy.
Oh, there’s a nice bit in Battlefield too.

Will it make you and the NRA feel better if I phrase it as ‘The Doctor routinely does not use a gun, routinely expresses a distaste for guns and weapons in general, and never carries one.’

"The man who never would!" says Ten in the Doctor's Daughter. Well I mean the man who actually has on numerous occasions, let's be honest here.

He gassed a bunch of Sea Devils but at least he didn't use a gun. He used a cyanide soaked rag to kill Shockeye, but at least he didn't use a gun, and he used a nuclear missile to kill David Bradley in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship but at least he didn't use a gun!

But then the idea of the Doctor is often different to the reality. "No second chances, I'm that kind of a man." Unless you're the Master or Davros in which case you can have as many fucking chances as you want!

And don't get me started on a character who thinks life as a living paving slab is acceptable but life as a cyberman isn't! (and that's within four episodes of each other)

Does the Doctor always seek a non violent solution in the first (and second and third) instance? Yes. Does the Doctor abhor the use of weapons. Yes. Will the Doctor happily use whatever means necessary to prevent the deaths of others. Absolutely.

Is the Doctor in fact a bit of a hypocrite? Yes, but to paraphrase Eight, they are one of the nice ones.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Ah, yes. How quickly people forget how Davies wrote the monstrosity that is "Love & Monsters." The one episode of Doctor Who I'll never ever ever watch again.

 

[jaime]

I'm not sure exactly how much character development we got out of that, maybe Nine but by the third series the Doctor spent more time moping about Wose than he did over murdering billions of people! Plus "I killed all the Timelords" seems kinda flippant to me, and suggests just a bunch of old men and women in silly hats died. It was Moffat who put this into context, who showed us this included children. It was a neat way to get the timelords out of the way when the show returned but carrying the guilt of killing billions of kids, forever? The Doctor has enough guilt, so I don't care that Moffat reversed this.

And I'd argue RTD is as bad at being flippant about loss as Moffat. Rose lost her dad when she was a child, but that's ok, love, have alt universe Pete! And Rose lost the love of her life, but that's ok, love, have metacrisis me with added mortality so he's unlikely to leave you, and Donna lost EVERYTHING but that's ok, love, have a winning lottery ticket, and Jack sacrificed his own grandchild but that's ok, mate, why don't you shag Alonso.

And I'll take Eleven's "We all change" speech over Ten's whiny "I don't want to go" any day but YMMV



"The man who never would!" says Ten in the Doctor's Daughter. Well I mean the man who actually has on numerous occasions, let's be honest here.

He gassed a bunch of Sea Devils but at least he didn't use a gun. He used a cyanide soaked rag to kill Shockeye, but at least he didn't use a gun, and he used a nuclear missile to kill David Bradley in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship but at least he didn't use a gun!

But then the idea of the Doctor is often different to the reality. "No second chances, I'm that kind of a man." Unless you're the Master or Davros in which case you can have as many fucking chances as you want!

And don't get me started on a character who thinks life as a living paving slab is acceptable but life as a cyberman isn't! (and that's within four episodes of each other)

Does the Doctor always seek a non violent solution in the first (and second and third) instance? Yes. Does the Doctor abhor the use of weapons. Yes. Will the Doctor happily use whatever means necessary to prevent the deaths of others. Absolutely.

Is the Doctor in fact a bit of a hypocrite? Yes, but to paraphrase Eight, they are one of the nice ones.

Without going into the others much, except to say there is a difference between offing an enemy in the pinch, and going in with that intent, symbolised by a gun of course, that the Dinosaurs on a Spaceship was one of the awful clumsy moments I don’t like. The writer clearly didn’t get something about the character.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

Ah, yes. How quickly people forget how Davies wrote the monstrosity that is "Love & Monsters." The one episode of Doctor Who I'll never ever ever watch again.

I would sooner rewatch it than The Timeless Children, where the Doctor is mansplained by the Master for 40 minutes, then is robbed of her symbolic sacrifice by letting a guest star that she barely knows anything about to carry that weight. At least the Doctor in Love and Monsters is barely in it.

 

[David cgc]

But then the idea of the Doctor is often different to the reality. "No second chances, I'm that kind of a man." Unless you're the Master or Davros in which case you can have as many fucking chances as you want!

The thing that really sticks in my craw is that, ten seconds later, he destroys Harriet Jones' administration because she put that theory into practice (the captain literally just betrayed the Doctor after he said he'd wipe out his entire race if he didn't keep his word!). I mean, it also sets up his own greatest defeats and downfalls, so I generally consider it an intentional character flaw that the Tenth Doctor was almost more forgiving of his enemies than his friends, but being intentional doesn't make it any less annoying.

 

[Steve Roby]

Other than the ending of the episode, more specifically, what happens to Shirley Henderson's character, I think "Love and Monsters" is great. Something to keep in mind when you wonder how seriously to take anything I have to say about Doctor Who.

 

[kirk55555]

I'm continuously amused how some fans take some of this waaaayyyyy too seriously. Same complaining, different era. Only difference from now and all of the big changes during the classic series is how the Internet makes that complaining more noticeable.

And I'm annoyed at how some people like to complain about people that are invested in something. You just have to accept that sometimes people like something and are going to have opinions about it, I personally find people without strong opinions on something, but who whine about people that do have opinions, to be pretty damn tedious. There is no need to comment if the content of what you say is just the equivalent of "LOL, who cares, nerds". That adds literally nothing to the conversation.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

And I'm annoyed at how some people like to complain about people that are invested in something. You just have to accept that sometimes people like something and are going to have opinions about it, I personally find people without strong opinions on something, but whine about people that do have opinions, to be pretty damn tedious. There is no need to comment if the content of what you say is just equivalent of "LOL, who cares, nerds". That adds literally nothing to the conversation.

Sadly for some it's just seems easier to be dismissive of others opinions by stating they are simply "complainers" and "whingers" so their opinions are of no merit, job done. lol

 

[matthunter]

I just find it amusing that some complain about Chibnall (who has not said a single ep from 1964 onwards didn't happen) and demand/hope that RTD specifically state that some of Chibbers' eps didn't happen.

 

[jaime]

I just find it amusing that some complain about Chibnall (who has not said a single ep from 1964 onwards didn't happen) and demand/hope that RTD specifically state that some of Chibbers' eps didn't happen.

No no no. I would just quite like it, and know RTD could write or oversee, an episode that does precisely what the Timeless Child did to the previous fifty plus years of Who — reveal it was built on a lie, and radically change the underlying subtext of the central character of the series. In this case, by setting it back to the previous ‘not broke, don’t fix it’ version that we had until Chibnall naffed it up. It’s not like I am suggesting the sixtieth anniversary should shunt the Doctor back down his own timeline by an incarnation or two, and feature the absolutely definitive origin of the doctor and clearly defining Hartnell as the de facto original. I dunno, Tennant coming out of the shower in the Tardis drying his hair and telling Donna he just had the strangest dream or anything silly like that. (Though by the end of this sense-forsaken era, that may be a price worth paying…)