Series 11 News & Spoilers

[Hey Missy]

No, because according to self-proclaimed experts, the show needed to be watered down to its most basic elements, because surely it was all of that embracing of Classic series lore and past canon was what was affecting The Ratings™, even though Series 1 and Series 5 assault you with tons of information and they did just fine to bring in new fans.
They never even use the word "Time Lord" once in Series 11.

 

[Jayson1]

You know what another good example of what is happening is what happened with "Alias" In the first season and a half you had this kind of complicated setting where Syndey Bristow is a double agent working for the government to bring down this secret group that is pretending to be a secret agency working for the government. She is also going to college and has regular citizen friends for some as Abrams called it "Felicity moments" since he also created that show.
Well before you know it they dump the double agent stuff and eventually the college stuff and college friends stuff and it became a more routine spy series. It was still a okay show but it was no longer special. Only with this season it isn't until near the end where IMO it even reached the level of being a okay show. Took some time just to get to decent IMO. I hope the show continues to improve but if they stay true to the idea of not allowing the show to be unique again you really do wonder what the ceiling is in terms of how good it can be anymore. I know that this is also a issue many fans have with "Discovery" and modern trek as well. Will Trek ever be anything more than "okay or decent" again. Does it have another TOS or DS9 in it only one that is also designed with a modern audience in mind.



Jason

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

Look, the gap year thing is the only instance I will allow myself, as a fan, to be unreasonable because, truthfully, I think the wait itself is. I don't realistically understand why there needs to be such a delay, and the improvement on the show is marginal, at best. As decent as this series has been, I applaud it more for not feeling like a retread of Moffat's Who (though the RTD influence is felt, but it always was and will be, for however long this iteration goes on) than for its storytelling being anything phenomenal. Nothing in this season, particularly, approached the heights of Twelve's regeneration/Cybermen three-parter or, for me, The Pllot. Until it reaches the heights attained by the likes of series 4 or 5, I don't think the fan-apologizing for Chibnall's gap-year is at all justified.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

To quote someone far more chilled than you: "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

 

[The Wormhole]

They never even use the word "Time Lord" once in Series 11.

That probably has more to do with the Doctor being a woman. They think its silly to call a woman a Lord (which got lampshaded by Bill in World Enough and Time) and apparently Time Lady is offensive now, or so I've been informed when I've used the term.

 

[Professor Zoom]

No, because according to self-proclaimed experts, the show needed to be watered down to its most basic elements, because surely it was all of that embracing of Classic series lore and past canon was what was affecting The Ratings™, even though Series 1 and Series 5 assault you with tons of information and they did just fine to bring in new fans.
They never even use the word "Time Lord" once in Series 11.

Lol. Series 1 through 5 had very few references to the Classic era compared to many recent series. So I don’t know you want to use those as a reference. But, please continue with your shouting at the sky.

Sincerely

An Expert, self-proclaimed.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

I thought it referenced the past more than I expected. Though, to be fair, it was NuWho references, most of the time.

 

[Jayson1]

Don't the references though make it feel like the universe is a larger place and that the Doctor has this long and rich history of adventures and encounters also with real people from the past as well even though we never see most of it? Those references are what you can call backstory but they are also not so in detail that it ruins the mystery of who the Doctor is. Having the Doctor fight a time war and then figuring out his realtionship with RIver Song and of course his/her personal backstory with both the Daleks and the Master and however he made friendship with that group in Victorian British times are things that give the character depth outside of the basic plot of each episode. We aren't suppose to just like the character but be mystified as well. Well that is what I enjoyed anyways.

You know it just occurred to me is she needs some kind of personal arc that deals with his/her past. It doesn't even half to be old aliens. Just something that adds to the mystery and backstory of the character. Bringing this Susan character back I keep hearing about seems like one good way to go. What if she is the reason the Big Bang happened and it connects to a enemy from her past. Something bigger than life or very personal that really adds depth to the character.


Jason

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Lol. Series 1 through 5 had very few references to the Classic era compared to many recent series. So I don’t know you want to use those as a reference. But, please continue with your shouting at the sky.

Sincerely

An Expert, self-proclaimed.

Series' 5-7 had most if not all of the references to classic Doctors. Images of the previous incarnations starting with 11th hour, then The Lodger. Probably several other episodes I'm blanking out on right now.

 

[The Wormhole]

Series' 5-7 had most if not all of the references to classic Doctors. Images of the previous incarnations starting with 11th hour, then The Lodger. Probably several other episodes I'm blanking out on right now.

Definitely most The following Moffat episodes involved imagery of previous Doctors:
The Eleventh Hour (all Doctors)
Vampires of Venice (Hartnell)
Vincent and the Doctor (Hartnell and Troughton)
The Lodger (various Doctors)
Name of the Doctor (all Doctors)
Day of the Doctor (all Doctors)
Deep Breath (Smith)
Listen (Hurt)
The Magician's Apprentice (both Bakers, Davison, McCoy and Tennant)
The Witch's Familiar (Hartnell and T Baker)
The Girl Who Died (Tennant)
The Zygon Invasion (Hartnell, Hurt, Tennant, Smith)
The Husbands of River Song (all Doctors)
The Doctor Falls (Bradley as First Doctor)
Twice Upon a Time (Bradley as First Doctor plus stock footage of Hartnell)

Now compare that to the RTD era:
Army of Ghosts (Eccleston)
Human Nature (Hartnell, Davison, C Baker, McCoy, McGann)
The Next Doctor (all Doctors)

 

[starsuperion]

No, because according to self-proclaimed experts, the show needed to be watered down to its most basic elements, because surely it was all of that embracing of Classic series lore and past canon was what was affecting The Ratings™, even though Series 1 and Series 5 assault you with tons of information and they did just fine to bring in new fans.
They never even use the word "Time Lord" once in Series 11.

Indeed, and for a show that was SUPPOSEDLY stale and needed to be reinvented from the core up, it sure did work for 50+ years being what it was and drawing in tons of fans over those years, before these smug and radical writers and Showrunner show up and say it had all been wrong for so long, they needed to right the ship. Sure.. because what they plan to do will be a longer lasting effect on the series for what the next 50 years.. The Unmitigated narcissistic Galll of these people is what strikes me the most on this whole season, and change in leadership. I mean had we gotten olivia coleman and RTD back in the slot, it would have been amazing. All I can imagine is that pale smug little git Chibnall on that Doctor who interview in the 80s, even then I disagreed with his "vision" of Doctor Who.

 

[VDCNI]

So it worked for all 50 years plus even the 16 it was off air!

Ratings were down considerably at the end of the Moffat era. In that situation a reboot was inevitable and different writers have different approaches. Nothing new here and certainly not for Doctor Who which has changed tone multiple times over the years.

 

[cultcross]

That probably has more to do with the Doctor being a woman. They think its silly to call a woman a Lord (which got lampshaded by Bill in World Enough and Time) and apparently Time Lady is offensive now, or so I've been informed when I've used the term.

I don't see why a woman couldn't be called "a time lord". It is common and correct to refer to a group of nobles as "my lords" even if some of the group are female, and besides, there is no reason once you set aside human patriarchal norms that a woman couldn't have the title "lord".

I think this series has deliberately steered away from detailed backstory of any description (time war, Gallifrey, River Song, reappearing allies and villains etc) to be more accessible to new viewers. I guess we'll see if the term comes up in the NY special.

 

[VDCNI]

I don't really see why mentioning Time Lord actually matters anyway. It's not essential to the format nor does anything to improve the stories.

 

[Jayson1]

I don't really see why mentioning Time Lord actually matters anyway. It's not essential to the format nor does anything to improve the stories.

Wouldn't that be like "Trek" doing a Spock show and not mentioning he is Vulcan even once? I mean it's true it's not important to the format but it is part of who the character is. Besides the whole idea that references and familiar aliens or familiar stuff hurt a new viewers ability to get into a new show I have always felt was nonsense for except for those that are hardcore arc oriented tv shows. People are smart enough to infer and pick up on things without knowing everything. I know I was when I started watching for the first time in 2005. I might not known much about what a Dalek was but people are smart enough to usually figure these things out by just watching. It's also why tv shows and movies have exposition to begin with. A means of getting info to the viewer who might not be informed aboutsomething in the show or about a character.

Jason

 

[Hey Missy]

Lol. Series 1 through 5 had very few references to the Classic era compared to many recent series. So I don’t know you want to use those as a reference.

Series 1 and Series 5 is what I said. You know, the two reboots made to be jumping-on points for the show, and had all of your typical Doctor Who-ness without confusing or alienating new viewers. Series 5 felt like a new show, but it also felt like a continuation of the previous four series.

to be more accessible to new viewers.

There's that buzzword again. Everyone assumes new/casual viewers are stupid and are offended and confused by anything that has even a little bit of world-building and universe lore.

Besides the whole idea that references and familiar aliens or familiar stuff hurt a new viewers ability to get into a new show I have always felt was nonsense for except for those that are hardcore arc oriented tv shows. People are smart enough to infer and pick up on things without knowing everything. I know I was when I started watching for the first time in 2005. I might not known much about what a Dalek was but people are smart enough to usually figure these things out by just watching.

^
I never saw a Dalek before 2005. I didn't know what a Dalek was. But I got the gist of it. They handled them very well.
But oh no, a new viewer in 2018 might scream and hold their head if a Dalek appeared, because they don't know what it is and it's confusing to them!

Spoiler

although the New Year's special heavily hints towards a Dalek being the main enemy

 

[Professor Zoom]

Series 1 and Series 5 is what I said. You know, the two reboots made to be jumping-on points for the show, and had all of your typical Doctor Who-ness without confusing or alienating new viewers. Series 5 felt like a new show, but it also felt like a continuation of the previous four series.

There's that buzzword again. Everyone assumes new/casual viewers are stupid and are offended and confused by anything that has even a little bit of world-building and universe lore.

^
I never saw a Dalek before 2005. I didn't know what a Dalek was. But I got the gist of it. They handled them very well.
But oh no, a new viewer in 2018 might scream and hold their head if a Dalek appeared, because they don't know what it is and it's confusing to them!

Spoiler

although the New Year's special heavily hints towards a Dalek being the main enemy

Series 1 and Series 5 have even LESS references. You keep supporting the other side of the argument. Lol.

 

[cultcross]

There's that buzzword again. Everyone assumes new/casual viewers are stupid and are offended and confused by anything that has even a little bit of world-building and universe lore

Well that's a straw man. Nobody is saying casual viewers are 'stupid' or 'offended' but when you are asking new people to tune into a show, having the plot focus on increasingly convoluted and self referential lore makes that more difficult. Including a Dalek is not the same thing.

 

[EnderAKH]

I never saw a Dalek before 2005. I didn't know what a Dalek was. But I got the gist of it. They handled them very well.[/SPOILER]

That was because they spent an entire episode doing nothing but reintroducing the Daleks. Both for new viewers, and updating old school viewers with what they are capable of now. I don't think that it is feasible to do that kind of episode every few years.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Since when was "accessibility" a buzzword?