Matt Smith approves https://twitter.com/safespacedrwho/status/1523414711810682882?s=21&t=CG3psGZNMBREfadhkq_25Q
I think the Chibnall era stories have generally (with exceptions) not been dreadful, but at the same time it's very rare that something special has occurred. It's just this rash of blandness to me. There are good bits, but I feel still that Jodie could have been one of the greats (for me) had she been given better stories. I said that after Series 11, then 12 picked up a bit, and Flux just fizzled out. Does it make sense if I say almost every story from Jodie's run has a good bit or bits? But saying that, very few episodes have truly cohered. Script after script feels like it needs another draft and Gods', the exposition dumps... There are times when this era has very nearly flown, but it just hasn't worked out for me. Maybe it will in the future?
I'm not sure you're allowed to have a nuanced take on the Chibnall era. My own is that Chibnall never hit the peaks that Davies and Moffat occasionally reached, but he never plumbed the depths the way they did either. The uncharitable way to put it is that his time on the show was... okay. I prefer to think of it (at least until Covid complicated things, which was out of his control) as solid, competent, enjoyable, but unspectacular. And that's not such a bad thing. There are long runs of the 1963-89 Doctor Who that could be described in much the same way.
I agree with all of this and I only want to add that I think there are a few truly excellent episodes, certainly more than some people here give the Chibnall era credit for. I also think that there are more episodes that are better than just okay but aren't quite classics either.
I enjoy the classic era a lot, but still hate the Chibnall era. Even the most boring Classic Who stuff (like the long 7+ episode serials of Pertwee's early run, or some of the later Tom Baker stuff) at least wrote the Doctor well enough that I enjoyed their parts, something that Chibnall's episodes never succeeded for me. so I don't know if liking the Classic Era is required to like Chibnall's Doctor Who, but liking Classic Who certainly doesn't guarantee that you'll like his stuff.
I am old school Who fan myself, but the dullest bits of the long stuff (most of which was before my time… JNT didn’t have the budget for filler, certainly after 1985) are more likely to simply bore me than be offensive to my intelligence. Marb Arch and Ravolox are quirky and silly, Orphan 55 was offensively bad. The Greatest Show in the Galaxy is oddball and weird, Kerblam is dull *then* offensive in its garbled Aesop. But those are comparing styles rather than dullness… but, put it this way, two episodes of slightly too long and dull slightly weird Tom running around a quarry being in the matrix (and being oddly James Bond) was infinitely preferable to the Ashes to Ashes tribute act followed by a PowerPoint slide show in the Matrix for The Timeless Child, while Jodie does ‘oh no I am trapped in energy beam phone booth’ and ‘No surely not!’ reactions.
In the interview with RTD he kind of reminds me of Sammy Davis Jr. so I've been imagining Sammy as the Doctor now. Haven't seen him act and he doesn't have a look that instantly reads as "Doctor" to me so I'm in wait and see mode but I'm curious. I've thought about having a sort of Bowie type in the role and his BAFTA outfit makes me wonder if that's maybe a direction they're going in.
Not a bad thing at all. WHO has already explored homosexual relationships and I think it would be interesting to explore a Companion, who's male, and has an attraction for the Doctor. I mean, that element worked with the companions who were women, it could be a nice element to explore geared for children. RTD won't be too heavy on it but will invent some more wacky and fun adventures. I can hardly wait for the true return of Doctor Who.
Having watched some 'Sex Education' and other bits and pieces now I can totally see why he got the job. You need to be able to handled drama and comedy and have a lot of charm and he's got them all down pat. Plus looking at his Instagram they should leave him in charge of his look on the show and not limit him to one outfit.
I remember reading parts of the script for that episode and there was one scene where Chibnall wrote "Cut to the Doctor's growing horror" about four times. That's why I don't blame Whittaker for the quality of her acting. She's just playing what's on the page, which is bad.
Hopefully they'll go back to platonic companions once in a while. There's nothing wrong with a platonic or even asexual Doctor either. The character's not the actor anyway. Also, when does a child first understand sexuality, in a way more and other than making silly jokes on the playground? Technically speaking, the true return of Doctor Who as such is when the first producer and creator (Verity Lambert and Sydney Newman) take the position again. Everyone else just did their own take on someone else's creation. As Newton or an ancient Greek might say, something about standing on the shoulders of greats...? But I never let my life being defined by a TV show either, nor am I heterosexual. So once the new show is released, it'll be fun to see what's radically different or not and go from there. Every new era tends to be radically different already.
I enjoy classic Doctor Who, I grew up on it. I do not enjoy the Chibnall era. I find it intellectually boring and emotionally unengaging. I don't think it rises to the level of bad, it is just kinda there.
That is such a blatant lie. That's like saying anyone enjoyed the RTD and Moffat eras can't like OldWho if they see it afterwards. Which is, of course, absolutely not true.
And a lovely message from Sylvester McCoy https://twitter.com/4sylvestermccoy/status/1523719205509492737?s=21&t=PwgKUkRRb7UETsNMUnmtyw
RTD admitted he planted some false stories but not the James Corden one haha https://www.facebook.com/DoctorWhoPage1963/photos/a.621661394548686/5012043128843802/?type=3