Spoilers Hot Take: Chibnall didn't obliterate Doctor Who's continuity. He actually fixed it.
- Thread starter OCD Geek
- Start date
Bumping this thread.
From what I can gather, a lot of the backlash towards the Timeless Child reveal is that it seems to invalidate much of the lore established by RTD and Moffat, but I've found a counterargument to that line of thinking: there's a series of lines in the Moffat-penned Tenth Doctor episode "The Girl in the Fireplace" that, when looked at with knowledge of what Chibnall has done, act as an early reference to the Doctor's unknown-at-the-time history as the Timeless Child:
"Doctor. So lonely. So very very alone.
Such a lonely little boy. Lonely then and lonelier now.
Doctor. Doctor who? It’s more than just a secret, isn’t it?"
It very clearly wasn't Moffat's intent for these lines to hint at the Timeless Child since that entire notion wasn't in play yet, but I don't think there's any other way to read them in a post-"The Timeless Children" world without inferring that they're a Timeless Child reference.
From what I can gather, a lot of the backlash towards the Timeless Child reveal is that it seems to invalidate much of the lore established by RTD and Moffat, but I've found a counterargument to that line of thinking: there's a series of lines in the Moffat-penned Tenth Doctor episode "The Girl in the Fireplace" that, when looked at with knowledge of what Chibnall has done, act as an early reference to the Doctor's unknown-at-the-time history as the Timeless Child:
"Doctor. So lonely. So very very alone.
Such a lonely little boy. Lonely then and lonelier now.
Doctor. Doctor who? It’s more than just a secret, isn’t it?"
It very clearly wasn't Moffat's intent for these lines to hint at the Timeless Child since that entire notion wasn't in play yet, but I don't think there's any other way to read them in a post-"The Timeless Children" world without inferring that they're a Timeless Child reference.
No thanks.
Can't he just have a regenerated Rani make upo an elaborate plan for the Master to destroy Gallifrey while also fooling him and the Doctor about the Timeless Child bullshit? Or something like that?
I just don't see the actual appeal of any of this. Not the Timeless Child, and not this likely-to-be-true "plan". I'm not a fan of Moffat reversing the Doctor's genocide, for instance, but I loved Day of the Doctor and as such trusted that Gallifrey being back was the right call. But more and more this is proven to have been a mistake, especially after Chibnall's destroyed it again, but without the added bonus of adding guilt on the Doctor's part.
Chibnall didn't fix anything.
He added unnecessary eye rollingly bad fanwank horse pucky to connect dots that didn't need to be connected, added unnecessary overcomplicated baggage to the Doctor's past, and removed any real danger from the Doctor by having them perpetually regenerate.
He added unnecessary eye rollingly bad fanwank horse pucky to connect dots that didn't need to be connected, added unnecessary overcomplicated baggage to the Doctor's past, and removed any real danger from the Doctor by having them perpetually regenerate.
The Doctor was always going to perpetually regenerate by simple virtue of being the lead character of the franchise. Or did you actually believe every time Moffat did the "the Doctor faces permanent death for real this time" storyline there was a possibility that this time it might actually happen?
We know that for almost every lead character in a motion picture/high profile show, ever. Star Trek included. I mean, its one thing to go to a Bond film expecting thrills and excitement, its another to go in and know that Bond is an immortal superhero. Immediately, all sense of danger for the character is gone. The idea that Doctor Who should embrace this philosophy of "the Doctor never dies, so make his life infinite" is ludicrous, and its preposterous that someone of Chibnall's calibre thought would pass off as acceptable entertainment.
Meh, I go into every Bond movie knowing Bond is an immortal superhero. Doesn't ruin my enjoyment of anything. Indeed, I find the whole argument that one needs the possibility that main characters can die in order to enjoy a show/movie rather silly. Shows in particular, the death of main characters tend to be known because of publicity information anyway, so very rarely does the death of a main character truly come out of the blue. Even shows which do contain a high mortality rate among the main cast like Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead tend to limit the deaths of important characters to particular key episodes, typically premieres and finales, or if the season is long enough, midseason storylines. The one time in recent years where that wasn't the case was when Rick was written off The Walking Dead, which happened in the fifth episode of a sixteen episode season, or eight episode half-season. And in that case, the fact he was leaving in the fifth episode was highly publicized for a few months in advance.
My point is, for ninety percent of television viewing, the audience can be one hundred percent certain that the main characters won't die. It doesn't seem to hurt their enjoyment of it at all.
My point is, for ninety percent of television viewing, the audience can be one hundred percent certain that the main characters won't die. It doesn't seem to hurt their enjoyment of it at all.
And therein lies the fundamental nexus point between the people who love the Timeless bs and the people who hate it. You can't have a protagonist be continuously heroic if you know and THEY know they'll survive the affair. It robs of the experience of the journey.
I don't go into Doctor Who expecting him to die anytime soon. But that doesn't mean there isn't an element of tension involved. Indeed, Time of the Doctor doesn't work nearly as well, at all in fact, if you don't believe that the Eleventh Doctor really is the last incarnation of the Doctor. Point being, stories benefit more from not setting in stone the longevity of the character. Its a bad mechanism derived from misjudged sentimentality for the property, and in this case it didn't help it was paired with some really, really poor writing.
But previous eras did at least hype up or throw in ways where regeneration cannot save the Doctor. That was rendered to longer be the case. If due to nothing more than a script idea poorly written out, and a couple lines could still keep suspension of disbelief enabled rather than vanishing. What was made was a first draft, to the point it makes "Time-Flight" look like a polished, contrivance-free masterpiece by comparison. Still, the Master being the timeless child would have been a better way to do it and it's not impossible to change that to make that the case. Cybermen invading Gallifrey at the behest of the Master also feels far more germane than Sontarans invading or Daleks popping out of nowhere to pew pew it. So as inconsistent as Chibnall is at times, he still gets props for having a little more deftness at times when compared to Classic WHO's attempts, which were also quite bad - if not worse. The big issue is how soon Gallifrey is invaded and destroyed again within NuWHO's span. It's become not just a crutch but a crutch factory. Had RTD and Moffat not have exploited that already (and arguably more solidly), Chib's efforts may not have been as poorly received even if it remained just the same in every aspect. There are still some good ideas in the mix but all of it feels way too contrived. His shoving in too much into one episode also wrecked it, it feels like excessive expositiondump. But every new showrunner using the destruction and revival of Gallifrey every one to three series? That's as lame as having almost every episode on Earth. And that's the biggest point - he copies more what's been done already but rarely improves upon it in any positive way. Ruth is the exception, and I'd rather have seen 2 series of her and her engaging "original but with a couple snippets of Hartnell homage but still her own" persona running from this mystery bad group than 1.5 episodes' worth of exposition shoehorned around 2 series of a bland beige "best of Tennant and Smith" compilation. But Chibnall felt he had to do it the other way. That's not to say the remaining audience dislikes it (AI of 80 is not bad) and I still say he should finish his take on the show because multi-series arcs, if that's what he's doing, have more to tell and to curtail that now would be far worse...
Moffat overdid things as well, when he did the payoff in the Pandorica episode with the future Doctor coming back in time to render any sense of threat meaningless, the audience was still vocal about how it culled suspension of disbelief. Moffat also ceased using that trope afterward. It's almost hilarious how Chibnall was influenced by it in Spyfall with the jet plane crashing scene. The stuff he got right was pretty good but the unsuccessful stuff has been truly abysmal. (The Master was well done, Ruth Doctor was almost too good as it almost shows Chibnall being aware of how badly he's dropped the ball on Jodie... Jodie too has had a few decent scenes, mostly in series 12, that shows she's got panache and style when getting to be more of herself and not a Smith or Tennant retread.)
But Bond doesn’t.
I never once felt that Smith was THE last incarnation. I have always know, since I started watching in the 70s, that they would handwave some way for the Doctor to continue to regenerate. The interest for me was how the handwave would function. But I have NEVER felt the Doctor was in any mortal peril.
And for all the moaning about Chibnall meddling in the Doctor's mythology, it's no worse than what Moffat did. "We need to show the Doctor as a child and have our current Doctor be responsible for the Doctor being who he is!" "I don't want someone ELSE to handle the Doctor's final regeneration, so I'M gonna do it. So I'm going to pull two regenerations out of my ass so that I can play with those toys!" "The Doctor isn't old enough anymore, so I'm going to make him sit on one planet for a couple of millennia, and THEN trap him in an ashtray for a few million years."
Everybody wants to leave their mark.
And? In the end we always knew the Doctor would regenerate anyway. Since otherwise there'd be no show, indeed no franchise.
Until the day the show was canceled for good, of which the first incident that may have ended the show was in 1965... 1969 and season 6 almost had the show canceled as well. And "barring accidents" was a throwaway but at least it was still a placeholder or harbinger. Chances are the Doctor will regenerate but at least playing that trick hand to keep the audience hooked*...
The real question right now is if the Doctor will regenerate again despite Chibnall's story rendering moot any potential suspense since stories are a balance of the intellectual, visceral, and emotional and the best do provide a semblance of balance for the three... and given the huge ratings drop, a lot of people aren't going to care if the franchise ends. But I'd feel bad for those who remain since the AI for the remaining audience is very high. I'm not Chibnall's era's biggest fan but I've pointed out a couple good things about it. Let the fans have the conclusion to the era they like. Heck, despite the huge send-up it might be a mid-chapter point with the best yet to come. Not that I'm holding my breath but it's still technically possible.
...but the show hasn't been this dumb since Tennant's era where the sonic screwdriver was used on whim for any stupid purpose and more than often enough -- until his finale where dialogue so overly contrived to prevent him from using it and in a situation so simple it otherwise could have been used -- it's the inverse of the same situation but applied at prop-level instead of character-level.
* at least with story narrative, the fact the audience remained curious as to who would play the next incarnation usually remained a factor no matter how an era got worn out. So me and others citing the "they robbed future suspense" isn't a complete argument either. The show will go on either in the near or distant future. Either on screen or on audio or on book paper (real or electronic). So you're right.
Fuck me, this is fucking Doctor Who. A show that started as a series of serials each with a distinct cliffhanger. What's the point of the cliffhanger if you know the Doctor will survive at the end.
For me? Wondering how he is going to get out of THIS one. For example, the end of Utopia. I never had any doubt the doctor would beat the Master, get his TARDIS back, not die, etc, but I had no idea HOW he was going to do it and that had me on pins and needles the entire week. It was great.
It fundamentally important that the lead character's peril be a believeable one. To me, making him perpetually immortal, unwilling rape victim, the root of his entire race and more importantly rendering Hartnell, the man who, flaws and all, made the show the success it was when it started, not the Doctor. He's now the Unknown Incarnation of the Timeless Child.
Its exactly the kind of fanwank that keep casual fans and just casual audiences out of Who.
Its exactly the kind of fanwank that keep casual fans and just casual audiences out of Who.
Which was a top reason why the Doctor, in part one of a certain story, was ripped apart by a malfunctioning machine. No jokes, no campiness, no silliness, just long lost adventure thriller restored and nobody knew just how the heck it would be resolved, especially as it looked like the sort of thing he couldn't escape via regeneration... the show's done it plenty of times before. But hasn't for some time...
...Spoiler alert: The reveal was that the ripping apart was an illusion and not in the 4th wall breaking and self-congratulatory, pompous way today's stories are written. Then comes part two's cliffhanger that is revealed as--- oh dear, not an illusion this time and he's stuck having been aged, And they keep that going for the rest of the remaining two parts. That's definitely unprecedented as well as being fairly decent sci-fi. David Haig nailed it as the villainous Pangol too, especially in relishing his attempt to age the Doctor several more centuries (to death!) after he went back into the machine. And without any lame callbacks to when the Doctor put Sutekh in a not too-dissimilar fate.) For all the critiques anyone had of "The Leisure Hive", it's far more exciting and down to earth and using real science far more than a lot of NuWHO has. A lot more depth as well.
And I agree 100% - the outcast who left his planet from a self-described disaster (and later said he just wanted to explore, and probably just to get Jamie to stop nagging him about it) into "an unknown incarnation of this other being"... Regardless of canon or anything else, the idea itself of shifting origins by such a large degree that it's now about a humanoid choid who came here by accident only to be mutilated and murdered umpty-umpteen times just so DNA (the ultimate intellectual property) can be stolen.... they'll just shift the goalposts next season anyway. Get a new showrunner once Chibby is done with his story adlibby. It's amazing Chibby didn't have one of the murdered incarnations regenerate into Rover and then Mittens and then-- wait, who has a pet cockroach? Never mind... - and then Bunnybop and then Iceberg the hamster and then Polly the parrot and so on... Remember that bush you saw in your backyard and now it's gone? That's the Doc too. That's all the show's become during the last 15 years anyway, a shallow, hollow and soppy flanderization of itself.)
^^this
Casuals don't care about detail origins. Often enough they don't care about the details. It's a funny twist. Fans are a different beast and something unique like Doctor Who with multiple incarnations is going to have several factions within the fanbase. Those newest to it won't see Chibnall's work as being regurgitated, though as a fan of "The Orville" and can objectively criticize what is regurgitated versus what's innovative or even new... Chib's era has little of the latter. Even invading Gallifrey - there was no real point, except to give them as new chassis design that has a frown on it and apparently they can regenerate inside those shells too. I suppose the idea might be "they'll be even more invincible and relentless" except they just stand there and get pew-pew'ed. I suppose that's better than "Nightmare in Silver", I guess...
The point of the Timeless Child origin for the Doctor isn't that they're perpetually immortal; the point is that they were lied to, abused, and enslaved over and over for centuries.