Spoilers Russell T. Davies Returns to Doctor Who as New Showrunner

[Smear-Gel]

I think when talking about their approach to the Doctor, 73 Yards is a non starter as he’s not really in it.
In terms of their understanding of the show… well, that singular episode is where Davies is working more like Moffat anyway. Vibes. Horror. It was all a dream. Time loop. You can pick a bunch of Moffat episodes that match that.

Moffat and Boom illustrate a Terrance Dicks to Moffat. Sometimes he will just write The Doctor at his most basic form, and leave everything else up to the actor.
Boom was Moffat at his most workmanlike.

idk, I feel like even Moffat's horror can be about rules. The Angels got increasingly fleshed out with time and imo got bogged down with too many rules. It's like the difference between the horror movies where the supernatural has a set of rules the main characters are trying to figure out and beat as opposed to those where it's just an experience.

Though I would agree RTD2 often felt more Moffat than it used to.

 

[Mr Awe]

As a show, Who can get away with a fairly loose approach, but the constant is always the Doctor, and there’s where you add to history, not rewrite it.

Totally agree. Lots of stuff can change. In general, I prefer adding new stuff rather than retconning a brand new history. And, the Doctor is a constant, so it's particularly true for them.

 

[bdub76]

Who is more like a soap opera, but instead of changing characters in a location, you change locations around a character. Just as some Soap Operas will always keep their pub, so Who must always keep the Time Lord and the Blue Box. The great thing is, regeneration means you can keep it going… well, forever, barring accidents.
For an example of a show that brought about its end by not recognising this, the kids show Grange Hill up and relocated to a different city for its setting, whilst pretending it hadn’t. It was very noticeable, and not much of a surprise what *could* and *had been* an essentially evergreen Soap/Drama was cancelled within a very short time frame. (It was ironically one of the series original creators making a return and moving both its production locale and in a *really* weird way, it’s setting, that did this.)

Doctor Who for me works best when we get a companion story arc. I'm not expecting development of the Doctor's character as we get new Doctors usually every three seasons/series. But you can develop a companion story arc over the course of their run in Doctor Who. We got this with the Ponds and Rose. We didn't get much after the Ponds in terms of companion development. And that's why it started to go downhill for me with Clara. She became a plot device, so we can get a retelling of City of Death.

 

[jaime]

Doctor Who for me works best when we get a companion story arc. I'm not expecting development of the Doctor's character as we get new Doctors usually every three seasons/series. But you can develop a companion story arc over the course of their run in Doctor Who. We got this with the Ponds and Rose. We didn't get much after the Ponds in terms of companion development. And that's why it started to go downhill for me with Clara. She became a plot device, so we can get a retelling of City of Death.

A retelling of City of Death? Oh, I suppose you ate thinking of Clara splinters as being a bit like Scaroth. I think retelling is a bit… of an exaggeration there. Slightly similar concept, but utterly different, and totally different stories. Clara had two arcs after Coleman decided to stay on.
Clara did have an arc, more of one than Rose tbh. So did Bill. After that… not so much. Yaz, maybe.
And the model for all of the modern companion arcs is Ace anyway, but that maybe does a disservice to some of the others like Tegan, Turlough, and maybe Leela and Romana.

 

[bdub76]

A retelling of City of Death? Oh, I suppose you ate thinking of Clara splinters as being a bit like Scaroth. I think retelling is a bit… of an exaggeration there. Slightly similar concept, but utterly different, and totally different stories. Clara had two arcs after Coleman decided to stay on.
Clara did have an arc, more of one than Rose tbh. So did Bill. After that… not so much. Yaz, maybe.
And the model for all of the modern companion arcs is Ace anyway, but that maybe does a disservice to some of the others like Tegan, Turlough, and maybe Leela and Romana.

Besides Ace from Classic, it's hard to see much of a story arc with any of the characters.

You'll have to rewatch City of Death and then watch the initial Clara episodes. It feels like a rip off of the same story to me.

 

[The Wormhole]

There are similarities, but "rip-off" is a grossly inaccurate term to use.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

There are similarities, but "rip-off" is a grossly inaccurate term to use.

Feels like a deliberate bludgeon to put down the new series, but whatever. There are fair criticisms to Clara and her role in the tapestry of Doctor Who and I waffle back and forth between how I feel about it, but it's just unnecessary to make such pronouncements. Besides, it's not like The City of Death came up with the idea of splinters of a person across a timeline.

 

[N-121973]

The only aspect of the political that I will touch on this time is this — at some point this idea of using a well regarded media property as a messaging platform has lead to the strange idea that roles like The Doctor or James Bond are like political figures. That just as it is right to finally have a woman as a Prime Minister, or simply someone who isn’t White (Labour will get there one day. Maybe.) it’s also the case that groups *must* get a turn at being these popular figures. Not by making a new character and growing its audience, but by supplanting the existing one and hoping you keep the audience.

I am not sure this works. It can. But it can’t be…. done clumsily. Or done in a way that it looks like thats the only reason for doing it. Some characters have more fluidity built in, particularly The Doctor. (I would have preferred Paterson Joseph over Tennant, annd even over Ecclestone at first, and have long thought Adrian Lester is the best modern Doctor we never got for instance.)

The problem as ever is apparent motivation and clumsy execution.
A desire to take away, rather than finding the way to simply add.
It is ironic that the Master is mostly better handled than the Doctor in that regard, but maybe they got lucky with casting, or maybe *that character* has even more fluidity than The Doctor luckily patched in over the years. He remains the only one to ever regenerate into an American after all.

I think these particular paragraphs from your post sum up my feelings about this nicely.

 

[jaime]

Besides Ace from Classic, it's hard to see much of a story arc with any of the characters.

You'll have to rewatch City of Death and then watch the initial Clara episodes. It feels like a rip off of the same story to me.

Scaroth was consciously linked to his splinters. And his splinters existed across basically one locale. (Earth, possibly just Europe) In practice he could even have been essentially an immortal singular being, able to interact with his own mind backwards in time.

Clara initially could have been no more than Gwen from Torchwood, or Martha’s cousin at Torchwood tower, or Belinda Chandra and Mundy… etc. That she wasn’t was a plot point.

Clara was not a splintered person, she was inserted into the Doctors Timestream (which is another reason why the TC stuff makes no sense) and we found that out after many many stories in an arc, and she essentially became many different people reoccurring across time and space.

It may feel that way to you, and by the rules of the twenty-first century, hey, cool — but it’s observably not the case.

Edit: as to your other point, Turlough goes from coward acting out of fear being compelled to kill the Doctor, to becoming increasingly brave, the Doctors friend and leaves to save his people. Tegan goes from unwilling companion to wanting to travel when she rejoins, but then leaves when she again feels the toll of the deaths around her. Leela is an overt Pygmalion reference, and goes from superstitious ‘savage’ stereotype to more ‘rational’ and also less inclined to stab first and ask later. Romana was a straightforward Time Lady, used to and happy with that ‘upper class’ existence, but refuses to return to Gallifrey because she wants to be out in the universe helping people. Basically, her arc is a mini version of the Doctors own origin. She even dresses like him after her regeneration.

Lots of companions have growth and arcs, even in the classic series, because they represent an opportunity for writers that wasn’t present in the main character. Though even Doctors have arcs, usually compressed in once they know the actor is leaving. Pertwee’s Doctor is probably the best example of character development, and it’s very apparent by Planet of the Spiders. He used to want to get away from Earth and Unit, but by the end, the Tardis brings him ‘home’.

 

[jaime]

idk, I feel like even Moffat's horror can be about rules. The Angels got increasingly fleshed out with time and imo got bogged down with too many rules. It's like the difference between the horror movies where the supernatural has a set of rules the main characters are trying to figure out and beat as opposed to those where it's just an experience.

Though I would agree RTD2 often felt more Moffat than it used to.

73 yards kept pretending to have rules, and then it turned out it didn’t. It’s a story built mostly on ‘vibes’ which you have to squint to make any sense of, but also falls apart if you look past those vibes. But thats ok, we’re probably not meant to. (Thats not me being sarcastic for once)
It’s a bit like Ghost Light, except Ghost Light had a bit more underpinning it, but both hide their stories and plots under the vibes perhaps a little too well. If I was being unkind, 73 yards doesn’t have much of a story underneath at all, and is more like a short ghost story or magical realism, but is a bit… low calorie.

 

[David cgc]

73 yards kept pretending to have rules, and then it turned out it didn’t. It’s a story built mostly on ‘vibes’ which you have to squint to make any sense of, but also falls apart if you look past those vibes. But thats ok, we’re probably not meant to. (Thats not me being sarcastic for once)

It's one of those stories that seems to have an underlying theory, then goes out of its way to confound it to keep things mysterious, at the cost of losing the thin strand of unreality holding the whole thing together.

(I'm referring to the reading that the old woman was old Ruby all along, when the old woman and old Ruby are clearly two different people, even before you read the cast list or see the old woman up-close in behind the scenes material.)

 

[jaime]

It's one of those stories that seems to have an underlying theory, then goes out of its way to confound it to keep things mysterious, at the cost of losing the thin strand of unreality holding the whole thing together.

(I'm referring to the reading that the old woman was old Ruby all along, when the old woman and old Ruby are clearly two different people, even before you read the cast list or see the old woman up-close in behind the scenes material.)

There’s some discussion about it being the range of the Tardis perception filter. The way it makes people run off never makes any sense. Whether it’s even some sort of bubble reality — like Remember Me in TNG — sort of makes sense, as Old Ruby/Young Ruby make it a sort of time loop. Is it the Blinovitch Limitation affect? Like we see with the Sonic in Big Bang, or the Brigadier in Mawdryn Undead?
I think RTD couldn’t decide, or deliberately chose to write x scene as though it’s y cause, and then n scene as though it’s z cause.
I think the timeline hopping in the finale that revisits 73 yards a little just makes it more confusing. But then the finale is another one thats more vibes than sense as well.

It’s a common thing in RTD2, Dot & Bubble suffers from it, and both finales do as well.

In Bond films, sometimes they have set-piece stunts that they then build stories to link, but they will remove a set piece if they can’t have it make sense, or for budget reasons. (The helicopter chainsaw scene from TWINE was originally planned for GE I believe)
RTD seems to be working that same approach of ‘here are some cool ideas, let’s stitch them together’ and whilst I appreciate the jazz approach, and know it can be fun writing such stuff, I don’t think enough thought went into making it work, and absolutely no restraint applied à la Bond where stuff gets taken out of the mix if it doesn’t work. (They do for budget. And for time. Though that sometimes means cutting shit that makes the story at least vaguely work… like the whistle in Empire of Death)
It extends to all the stories to some extent — Boom is the landmine scene from Genesis grown into a new story with other bits added and referenced, and Rogue is essentially Slashfic put on screen. With a legally distinct Captain Jack. (It’s also shite.)

People have not been operating at the top of their game, and hoping the glossy looks and Disney cachet would distract.

 

[Starkers]

Rogue was the best episode of the series, closely followed by 73 Yards.

Christ some people have so much free time to whinge about stuff they don't like. I don't have enough free time to talk about stuff I do like.

 

[Smear-Gel]

73 yards kept pretending to have rules, and then it turned out it didn’t. It’s a story built mostly on ‘vibes’ which you have to squint to make any sense of, but also falls apart if you look past those vibes. But thats ok, we’re probably not meant to. (Thats not me being sarcastic for once)

It's one of those stories that seems to have an underlying theory, then goes out of its way to confound it to keep things mysterious, at the cost of losing the thin strand of unreality holding the whole thing together.

I actually disagree, I think that despite the un-rules, everything held up to the end and the old woman being Ruby all along made it all click. I guess the literal story may be a bit confusing, but the metaphor was so strong that I dont really care about that part. The rules of how or why any of it actually happened is irrelevant to me.

For me it read as a story about mental health struggles. It's this thing that's always in the background of your life and it can push people away, and trying to make sense of it doesnt work, because it's not there to teach you a lesson or build up to anything specific, it's just there and the lesson was just to accept it as a part of your life. In that reading the old woman couldnt have been anything other than Ruby herself. It especially works because Ruby as a character is someone who is clearly affected by being abandoned due to being an orphan, and there's a part of her that thinks she's the reason for it and it's only a matter of time before she does it to everyone else in her life.

It's like the episode Good Damage of Bojack Horseman, where Diane reflects on her depression, and thinks that going through it must have equipped her with the tools to do something now, but the episode ends just dismissing the idea that there was a grander purpose to it, it's just something that happened to her. Which is why I really really love that after she saves the world from Mad Jack, nothing happens. She just has to keep on living.

For me no matter how terrible the finales were, how short the seasons were, or any of that, I'll always remember this era as the one that had something as incredible as Wild Blue Yonder and then gave us something as incredible as 73 Yards less than a year later (also I do actually like the first Ncuti finale but that's its own discussion).