• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

The Timeless Child arc was definitely handled dumbly, I'll agree on that. What it did do, I think RTD handled well in Wild Blue Yonder, was give the Doctor an identity crises. Suddenly he - the ancient Time Lord with all the answers, is the one asking WHO am I? It made for a good moment of character development. Whether those mysteries ever get answered, or answered well, is up to future stories and writers.
 
The Timeless Child arc was definitely handled dumbly, I'll agree on that. What it did do, I think RTD handled well in Wild Blue Yonder, was give the Doctor an identity crises. Suddenly he - the ancient Time Lord with all the answers, is the one asking WHO am I? It made for a good moment of character development. Whether those mysteries ever get answered, or answered well, is up to future stories and writers.

Well we all know who he is. He started out as a little girl. The point is everyone thought when Davies came back Dr. Who would get back on track instead he doubled down and made bad choices. The last doctor only lasted two series and isnt coming back. They just keep making bad decisions that they know will bother long time whovians. They are brining the show to near catastrophe because they want to send a message. Its ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Well we all know who he is. He started out as a little girl.

We don't know that at all. There's a very clear suggestion that for all we know the Doctor's entire existence is a mobius loop, It's entirely possibly that the 'last' ever incarnation of the Doctor is a wizened old white dude who falls into a portal, regenerating as he goes, into a girl, who then pops out the other end as the 'first' ever incarnation. Of course in this scenario there is no first or last Doctor. The Doctor just always exists.

I'm not always the biggest fan of gender flipping a character for the sake of it, but if any character lends themselves to letting practically anyone play them, it's the character whose entire body regenerates when they die.
 
It was idiotic. We know why the showrunner did it. He wanted to make a statement.

The timeless child was a dumb story. Most long time Dr. Who fans hated it. They did it go justify the doctor regenerating into a woman. It was really dumb.

Well we all know who he is. He started out as a little girl. The point is everyone thought when Davies came back Dr. Who would get back on track instead he doubled down and made bad choices. The last doctor only lasted two series and isnt coming back. They just keep making bad decisions that they know will bother long time whovians. They are brining the show to near catastrophe because they want to send a message. Its ridiculous.

When did we elect you the Grand Speaker for Doctor Who Fandom? I missed that somehow.

All of this is about what you don't like, and the fact that people like me are arguing with you is proof that, whether or not you're wrong on this issue, you are definitely wrong to claim to speak on behalf of all fans.

And you still haven't answered any of the questions I asked about all the other changes made to the show over the years, you just keep harping on one single issue. You're telling us nothing about Doctor Who or Doctor Who fandom, but you're certainly telling us about yourself.
 
My problem wasn't that the first whatever of the Doctor was a woman. My issue with the insidious and frankly stupid timeless children story is that it didn't rectify the "problem" that fans had (the Doctor becoming mysterious) but rather, it added more expositional dump that also elevated him into a deital entity that ALSO cheapened his own agency, his characterization throughout the shows and audios, and for not much of a reason beyond "well, the Brain of Morbius implied it some 40 years ago, surely it counts??" fanwankery.
 
Eh.
Some long term stories have done retcons, some film series have made sequels that ignore other sequels.
I wouldn’t do that with Who (or Trek) because its longevity means something, its history means something, and those anniversaries mean something. You can’t celebrate a history, if it has been jettisoned and started again. It’s on a very basic level, silly. History is for building on.
The TC stuff is very much a mistake, and the reason it’s a problem for people also comes down to that ‘a history is for building on’ and the idea that you can just swap the foundations out and then do essentially nothing with it and pretend nothing has changed about the core identity (which is what is being asked) is also something that doesn’t sit comfortably. It doesn’t matter that the original core identity was something that developed and coalesced over time rather than set at the start, it matters that it was reinforced over many years and stories that depend on it.

But thats ok, the TC stuff is a quick and easy fix, and doing so would even provide the basis for a very interesting story.

And the really fun part?
It’s sort of been done before, so there’s a framework for how this can be done.
We just need an equivalent of The Ancestor Cell or even The Gallifrey Chronicles.

And the original core is functionally better, if people have decent understanding of what made The Doctor resonate with so many and become the iconic character that lasted, I am pretty sure they will understand that.
 
My problem wasn't that the first whatever of the Doctor was a woman. My issue with the insidious and frankly stupid timeless children story is that it didn't rectify the "problem" that fans had (the Doctor becoming mysterious) but rather, it added more expositional dump that also elevated him into a deital entity that ALSO cheapened his own agency, his characterization throughout the shows and audios, and for not much of a reason beyond "well, the Brain of Morbius implied it some 40 years ago, surely it counts??" fanwankery.

Damn straight.

The fact it looked like a borderline parodic example of injected political correctness doesn’t really help it, but is just waffle. That bit was just clumsy W1A thinking.

Probably 90 percent of people who dislike the TC stuff would probably have loved the idea that Jo Martin’s character was an interstitial splinter Doctor between Troughton and Pertwee, and in order to keep other stuff functional we just needed the Doctor to be wrong about whether Hand Doctor 10.5 counted, or have the CIA time loop her back out (again a framework for a decent story) which may even be why she chameleon arched in the first place.

The horse has mostly bolted on gender flipping the Doctor, and it has its own problems (see: Peter Davison’s opinions) but it becomes just a wrinkle.
 
And I love the idea that the BBC would remotely decide to, checks notes, jettison the last twenty years (plus McGann) including some of the most popular Doctors the show has ever had to effectively have McCoy wake up in the shower ala Bobby Ewing in Dallas with everything that's happened since Survival being just a dream. There isn't a laughing emoji big enough to do that idea justice. I'd point posters towards the fanfic forum but frankly most fanfic writers have way more imagination.

Nothing the modern show has done spoils anything that happened in the classic era. Hartnell is still the First Doctor because the Doctor has almost zero memories before being Hartnell.

Hell there's plenty of stuff I don't really like in the show, but I'd never want to wipe Colin's Doctor for existence (to give one example).

Don't like the modern era? Nobody's making you watch it. Here's a suggestion courtesy of a show RTD produced in the 1980s. "Why don’t you just switch off your television set and go and do something less boring instead?"
I'm not talking about it all being a dream ala Bobby Ewing in Pam Ewing nee Barnes' shower. Rather it would be an alternate reality, thus preserving what has come since 1996/2005. And I don't think the Timeless Child/Fugitive Doctor is any less soap operatic or fan fictiony than my proposal. I think a potential show runner could probably be able to spin the idea of a partial reboot (I'm not calling for a total one for the reasons others in this thread have raised re full reboots). This hypothetical showrunner could argue that it gets rid of a lot of controversial changes made such as destroying the Timelords (twice), the Fugitive Doctor and Timeless Child, which some fans clearly love or are at least ok with, but many aren't. The issue is which group is in the majority, if its the latter then I think the BBC would be only too happy to see a load of controversial baggage jettisoned.
And suggesting that Hartnell is still the first just because he has no memories of what came before doesn't make sense unless you contend he had false memories implanted to make him think he was first including a childhood, which doesn't work for me and I imagine many others.
Incidentally would you watch the show if there was such a reboot as I proposed?
Oh and for the record, I like the modern show, at least I did when I could imagine it was a continuation of the original which was until in her second year on the show Jodi Whitaker's Doctor found herself meeting a certain tour guide in Gloucester and learned she wasn't a future incarnation of herself but a previous one she couldn't account for.
And there was a time when the Doctor was a human time traveller. He referred to himself as human, not as a Time Lord. And a later showrunner changed that. But you're okay with that. You don't address any of the other changes made to the show or the character over the decades. Why not?



The ratings went down in the Capaldi era. See the many articles in Doctor Who Magazine about the show's ratings since it came back in 2005.



I have no idea what this means.



Citation needed.
In the original, un-aired version of the Pilot you are quite right, he & Susan were indeed humans from a far future Earth. Starting with the broadcast version of the story however, he's been an alien. Giving his species/home world a name - was probably going to figure into the show at some point if it lasted long enough. It just happened to be Terrence Dicks, a man who definitely earned the right in my view to make changes to the lore, who came up with Timelords and Gallifrey (along with Malcolm Hulke the story's co-writer) in the 'War Games'. Two Hearts (first featured I believe in the very next story 'Spearhead from Space' written by Robert Holmes, someone else who earned the right to make profound lore changes), they wanted to reinforce his alieness. Being alien he probably doesn't have an appendix nor tailbone, I don't think it would break the show if some future showrunner were to reveal that.
Just over a week ago I said this:

"With both Doctor Who and Star Trek, a lot of people reject new developments because there was a status quo when the old series ended and that status quo was always there. The Doctor always had two hearts and was a Gallifreyan Time Lord with a limit of 13 regenerations or whatever. All of those were things that were made up along the way, not part of the core concept. Same deal with Spock and Michael Burnham. We know he never had a human stepsister! Well, his parents came as a surprise, his fiancee came as a surprise, his half-brother came as a surprise, his trip to Romulus for unification activities came as a surprise... but you can't have any more surprises after the point where a particular fan came in and assumed all of those were how things always were. Then, as a slight twist, there's the fans who came in with TNG and didn't watch TOS and insist Star Trek has always been like TNG and must always be like TNG, especially in ways TOS wasn't."

Who says Innes Lloyd had earned the right to introduce the idea of regeneration, the single biggest change in the show's history? It was never mentioned while Verity Lambert or John Wiles produced the show. What made him think he had earned the right to change the show so dramatically? Nothing done since then compares in terms of its impact on the show.

I know. For some reason, you think that's different. But just saying so doesn't make it so.
You could argue that as the surprises continue to mount up they reach a critical mass and credulity is stretched to breaking point, even for sci-fi/fantasy people & situations. As for the question of whether Innes Lloyd earned the right to introduce regeneration, you picked the wrong example. We all know the origins of regeneration. Innes Lloyd recognised the show still had legs, but Hartnell's declining health and (probably related to his condition) irascibility and alleged bigotry, meant it the show couldn't if Hartnell stayed in the role. Instead of just replacing the actor without an on-screen reason as they do with James Bond, at least did prior to 'Casino Royale', they decided to try something different. They were going to do it in 'The Celestial Toymaker' by having his face changed by the titular villain, then chose regeneration instead as it offered options for the future. If the Hartnell situation had never arisen we might have ended up with a show that ran a few years, perhaps five or six and quietly ended. Again I fail to see the need for Timeless Child/Fugitive Doctor in order to prolong the show’s life, especially how it was executed.
And yes, things were done in the classic run of the show that potentially made fundamental changes, but quite often they were introduced in a way that could be ignored, which they almost always were: pre-Hartnell Doctors in 'The Brain of Morbius'. As I keep saying, they could be considered Morbius' past lives. The idea that the Doctor had post War Games/pre-Pertwee adventures in 'The Two Doctors', were never touched on again. For the Second Doctor and Jamie it took place between 'The Tomb of the Cybermen' and the start of 'Fury of the Deep' with Victoria really taking graphology lessons. Better than the credulity-breaking idea of Troughton's regeneration being halted and with altered memories, Jamie accompanying him on further adventures for the Celestial Intervention Agency, or the idea some have suggested that Jo Martin is the real third Doctor. None of these changes or others mentioned altered the fact the Doctor was (biologically at least) an ordinary Gallifreyan.
And its a lot harder to retcon the Timeless Child and Fugitive Doctor out of existence in the existing continuity if the Doctor alludes to his childhood under other showrunners as I believe he did with either David Tenant's second go-around or by Ncuti Gatwa. Or having Jo Martin pop up every now and again in a flashback or (though admittedly this has yet to happen) in a multi-Doctor story. I pity the poor show runner who tries retconning all that out of existence using existing continuity, they'd probably be branded a racist or sexist or both by many of the fanbase and for the same reason sadly be praised by the Nerdrotic's and Critical Drinker's of this world. I suppose the new showrunner they could go with the Timeless Child being just a dream like Bobby Ewing in the shower? ;)
 
If I was the next showrunner and I'd inherited the Timeless Child mess, I think I'd have three goals in mind:

1. Find something to say about all of it. Make the story ultimately about retcons and 'everything you know is wrong' storylines and what it's like when the foundations of your reality get ripped away.
2. Have it lead to a definite conclusion that makes the whole thing feel worthwhile somehow.
3. Put it away in a box, so new viewers jumping on at a future episode never need to know it ever happened. Everything we know about the Timeless Child is also wrong. Hartnell was the First Doctor, Jo Martin happened, let's keep going.

Basically: find a way to turn its frustrations into virtues that doesn't leave fans of the reveal feeling dissatisfied, and then get the show back on track.
 
You're a new producer who's taken over Doctor Who. Your goal is to try to grow the audience.

Do you:
  • focus on telling new stories that are accessible to people who haven't been hardcore fans, while not alienating the existing fan base
or
  • wallow in continuity details?
Do you want to make the 1996 TV movie or do you want to make "Rose"?
 
You're a new producer who's taken over Doctor Who. Your goal is to try to grow the audience.

Do you:
  • focus on telling new stories that are accessible to people who haven't been hardcore fans, while not alienating the existing fan base
or
  • wallow in continuity details?
Do you want to make the 1996 TV movie or do you want to make "Rose"?

Really? So destroy the continuity and canon that came before so new fans can jump into it? Why? Why mess with the existing continuity so we can make ut "accessible" to young fans? You're basically saying thats what the timeless child was for. A better idea would be to end the current Dr. Who and start all over so they can make an "accessible" show for people like you. That would preserve the original shows integrity and leave it for fans who can appreciate it and you can watch tge new "accessible" show. Whatever that means.

Star Trek is making this mistake as well and its also failing.
 
If there'd been a season 27 with stories about the Titanic, the assassination of JFK, the Time War and the Nestene planning to invade Earth, then Rose and the whole of season 1 could've been accused of wallowing in continuity. There's nothing wrong with building upon the backstory, it's just got to be done in a way that makes new viewers feel like they're getting all the information and want to know more.
 
Really? So destroy the continuity and canon that came before

Nothing has been destroyed and nothing will be destroyed.

so new fans can jump into it?

What, is it weird for a show to want to keep growing its fan base instead of catering to a few diehards?

Why? Why mess with the existing continuity

Have you ever watched Doctor Who?

You're basically saying

I'll be the judge of what I'm saying, thank you.

people like you.

People like me are people who've been fans for decades, have bought hundreds of Doctor Who books and audios, have seen lots of changes and rolled with them, and stayed fans, because change has been part of the show for sixty years.

Star Trek is making this mistake as well and its also failing.

You don't like the shows you say you're a fan of. They aren't going to give you what you want. Maybe it's time to find a new franchise.
 
You're a new producer who's taken over Doctor Who. Your goal is to try to grow the audience.

Do you:
  • focus on telling new stories that are accessible to people who haven't been hardcore fans, while not alienating the existing fan base
or
  • wallow in continuity details?
Do you want to make the 1996 TV movie or do you want to make "Rose"?
There is too much continuity for a new fan to follow. Best to tell stories that don't rely on continuity.
 
In the mid-1980s, boy, I loved The Smiths. That 1986 concert on the tour for The Queen is Dead is still one of the best shows I've ever seen. I still listen to their albums. I have the first few solo Morrissey albums and listen to them occasionally. Morrissey is still recording and still touring. I started finding his music less interesting and he himself became someone I didn't recognize as the person whose early work I enjoyed. The last album of his I bought came out in 1994.

The relevance of this post is left as an exercise for the reader.
 
There is too much continuity for a new fan to follow. Best to tell stories that don't rely on continuity.

Time for a full reboot to the show instead of doing ridiculous stories like the timeless child and ruining the dr who lore.

In the mid-1980s, boy, I loved The Smiths. That 1986 concert on the tour for The Queen is Dead is still one of the best shows I've ever seen. I still listen to their albums. I have the first few solo Morrissey albums and listen to them occasionally. Morrissey is still recording and still touring. I started finding his music less interesting and he himself became someone I didn't recognize as the person whose early work I enjoyed. The last album of his I bought came out in 1994.

The relevance of this post is left as an exercise for the reader.

So what does that have to do with Dr. Who?
 
Time for a full reboot to the show instead of doing ridiculous stories like the timeless child and ruining the dr who lore.
I would rather see Lungbarrow as a story even if it has to be animated due to the actors' ages now than going down the Timeless Child path.

The good news is that I recently found an epub version of Lungbarrow, where they took the serialized online version, which is a revision of the original published text, and converted it to epub. It's on my TBR for this year. However, the author says to read Cat's Cradle books first. I'm missing one, so I plan to pick it up. But since that seems like it's pulling from Vonnegut, I'm going to start off with his book first.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top