Dr. Who - Series 11 (2018)

[kevinlms]

I can’t imagine the BBC will go pay per view while most people are reasonably content to pay £3 per week per household to watch or listen to what they like even if some other content doesn’t match their taste.

In Australia, we have no licence fee for TV's. We do have the ABC, which is funded directly by the federal government. The ABC serves a population 1/3rd the size of Britain, with a budget of 1/8th of the BBC. A bargain in my opinion and to the vast majority of Australians. Even the base of country viewers & listeners approve and they are usually to the right.

 

(They even show Dr Who and have done since the start - indeed they also had copies of most of the episodes that the Beeb had destroyed)!

 

However the ABC funding is often under threat & also complaints of bias - from both sides of politics to a degree. Last year the Liberals (equivalent to your Tories) voted at their Liberal Party Peak Council to 'privatise the ABC', except for rural regions. Such was the outcry, they couldn't back pedal fast enough!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/17/never-senior-liberals-in-damage-control-after-party-votes-to-privatise-abc

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/17/never-senior-liberals-in-damage-control-after-party-votes-to-privatise-abc

[Big James]

I still feel like Peter Capaldi was the biggest missed opportunity that doctor who has ever had. He was the a terrific actor & genuinely loved the show. Yet Moffat wasted him and sidelined him in his own show in favour of Clara. And the same is happening again with 13 some points in Season 11 you could’ve taken her out of some episodes and it wouldn’t have made a difference. I think Chibnall can right good drama stories but I don’t think he can right good sci-fi and his letting Jodie down. But just remember she only got the part because Olivia Coleman turned it down.

 

Big James

[Torper]

Agreed TV's will never die. They keep getting bigger & ever higher definition. So there is a big market for them.

 

People aren't buying TVs as such - they're buying screens on which to show a multitude of things, many of which come from sources that are not television broadcasts. That will continue with ever bigger and better screens, but people will be watching fewer and fewer actual broadcasts on them - instead they'll be streaming films, watching YouTube and other such channels, catching up, and so on.  As I understand it, and note from my own grandchildren, young people, ie the future, are watching broadcast TV relatively rarely.  As this continues, so the BBC licence fee will become less and less justifiable.

 

DT

[MJI]

People aren't buying TVs as such - they're buying screens on which to show a multitude of things, many of which come from sources that are not television broadcasts. That will continue with ever bigger and better screens, but people will be watching fewer and fewer actual broadcasts on them - instead they'll be streaming films, watching YouTube and other such channels, catching up, and so on.  As I understand it, and note from my own grandchildren, young people, ie the future, are watching broadcast TV relatively rarely.  As this continues, so the BBC licence fee will become less and less justifiable.

 

DT

 

 

Streaming, even big broadcasters can get it worng, ITV has thrown in the towel. C4 is faffy.

 

Apart from sport I can see no reason for Sky.

 

Lets look at my main media player, it can do BBC, C4, C5, a few specialist, Netflix and Amazon Prime. No ITV support as it is too much work apparently and theywould rather people watched on telephones. ITV USED to have a client but scrapped it.

 

Nw my octo core streaming box used for secondarily, mainly BBC, Prime and while free Netflix, doesn't do ITV, so I don't bother. But it can do things very few media streamers can do - games, the new main media box under a TV is a console, and the main commercial British broadcaster does not have a client on the by far and away best selling one.

 

I think in the long run the streamers will see off pay TV

[iL Dottore]

Having seen every Doctor from the very first episode ever (yes, I'm that old) I am well aware that every series (and every doctor) has had its' "bloody awful" episodes/moments. Unfortunately, as much as I was intrigued by the notion of what a female Doctor could bring, and hoped that a female Doctor would be "the same but different" as a male Doctor (much like Missy vs The Master) I must confess myself to be very disappointed by the current series.

 

Looking at it critically, the first thing that stands out is the bloody awful writing. Promising story lines derailed by sloppy writing (often - unfortunately - pushing one or another "must shoehorn in" concept), bad dialogue and - sadly - awful acting (are the actors or the directors responsible for this?)

Take for example <Rosa>. The Doctor fighting to keep the timeline ((and history) on the right track IS a good premise - but the villain is a cardboard cut-out racist. Why not make the time-travelling villain an alien who travelled back in time to prevent the civil rights movement from getting of the ground, because if the Civil Rights Movement hadn't, at some time future time Earth would have been incredibly weaker and easier to conquer? (for any number of plausible reasons: half of Earth being disenfranchised, a return of slavery... lots of possibilities).

 

As for the dialogue, Dr Who has always come up with some real "stinkers" of dialogue ("reverse the polarity of the neutron flow", "timey-wymey" etc) but rarely, I think, has the dialogue in general been so stilted, if not clichéd.

Sadly, with the exception of Bradley Walsh, the acting of the major principals hasn't been convincing: Jody Whittaker hasn't been able (or hasn't been allowed by the directing) to convince as the Doctor and Yaz and Ryan seem to be there just to make up the numbers (I am firmly of the opinion that Graham [bradley Walsh] and Grace [sharon Clarke] alone would be perfect companions for the Doctor).

 

I do hope that Chibnall will get his house in order and get better stories, better writers (ones who [a] have an inkling of what is Dr Who and have read at least some SciFi authors {Clarke, Asimov, Ursala K Le Guin, etc.} and better directors - who can get some decent performances out the actors. Unfortunately, I don't think that that will happen. With the stories this season - it's as though the writers have no idea what Science Fiction is about (even Children's Science Fiction). It's NOT about whizzing about in space blasting things - like Star Trek and Stars Wars (the latter being little more than a soap opera in space in some of the later outings) - though Science Fiction IS frequently set in space, it's about the "what if" and extrapolation from today's society (social and technological). What if.. there are three genders needed for a species to reproduce process...What if.. you can back up your brain - memory and emotion - into your smart phone... What if.. you have sentient food animals offering themselves up to be consumed????. No matter how bonkers an idea, it should have a logical consistency within the ideas' own parameters. I don't get any sense of any consistent internal logic in many of the stories. Of all the episodes, so far, Kerblam is the one closest to what I would consider "proper" science fiction: an interesting concept (what if technology made humans unemployed and unemployable) and a rationale explanation for the "villain" (a Luddite zealot who hopes to bring down the technology by making it seem responsible for a murderous outrage). Even the slightly bonkers idea of exploding bubble wrap was consistent with the scene set out by the story (who hasn't popped the bubbles in bubble-wrap?). Furthermore, unlike the other stories to date, with this episode one got a hint of the Doctor's iron fist behind the Doctor's velvet glove (e.g. when the Doctor immobilises the suit with a gun using "Venusian Akkaido" [or whatever Jon Pertwee's Doctor was master of] or when the Doctor tries to save the Luddite Zealot but ultimately lets the boy die). And, last but not least, a fairly subtle condemnation of the working practices in such soulless, large, companies.

 

As for the Dalek episode... great potential spoiled by too much "East Enders" style soap opera stuff.

 

Whether JW deserves criticism for her portrayal of the Doctor is certainly open for debate (although it is said that a great actor can read the telephone directory and make it sound thrilling and interesting), but her characterisation - so far - has fallen flat. What the new Doctor should be is a Gallifreyan Ellen Ripley (Alien: Sigourney Weaver) but what we've got is a Gallifreyan Alice Tinker (Vicar of Dibley, actor Emma Chambers)

[Big James]

I think what annoys me more then anything science fiction as a whole has always been pretty diverse just look at Star Trek. Yet Chibnall goes on like his invented inclusion in the genre a critic pointsd that the tardis crew when they are all together look like a publicity shot rather then stills from the actual show. And I watched Nerdrotics take on the whole thing and he did a very good video with good researched points on the writers of series 11 other then Chibnall and the women who wrote Rosa. The writers are mainly made up of political play writers, soap opera writers and a man who’s first writing credit is doctor who. This doesn’t fill me with confidence. If season 12 isn’t spectacular then the show will die. It’s used up all it’s goodwill with the fan base and there isn’t a Moffat or RTD waiting in the wings to revive it in 16 years time because their won’t be many fans left.

 

Big James

[grahame]

A few amusing readers letters in the You Say section of todays television page of the ST Culture magazine:

 

- A dashing Doctor with such style, vim and vigour thwarted by a series of unwavering drivel.

 

- The first half of the New Year's Day Doctor Who was like watching EastEnders, while the DIY Dalek in the second was pure Wallace and Gromit.

 

- It's cruising to imminent cosmic collapse.

 

G 

[GWRswindon101]

What about our lord and god Matt Smith?

[AndrewC]

I'll probably get slated by the fan bois but I can't stand Jodie Wittaker. She annoyed me in Broadchurch and as the Dr is bloody awful. Crap stories don't help either. She's one of those marmite actresses. For me yuk. I find her whiny and annoying. A thousand year plus Time Lord is now an idiot who seems to have lost all of her memories and that relies totally on her "sonic". She lacks the arrogance, style, and gravitas that typifies the Dr. Capaldi had that but the writing was again, bloody awful. the goldfish attention span of viewers means no drama, no danger, no suspense, just a full wrap up in the last 3 minutes. Come back multi-episodic stories, all is forgiven. The show needs a proper runner that knows sci-fi and fantasy. This past series has been like a third rate soap and pretty embarrassing to watch. I'd much rather resurrect my old home recorded betamax copies of Tom Baker. 

[pete_mcfarlane]

34 minutes ago, AndrewC said:

I'll probably get slated by the fan bois but I can't stand Jodie Wittaker. 

Fan bois hate her too. Most of the online love from her seems to be from a certain type of 'woke' younger person, who sees criticism of the current version of the show as being down to people not wanting a female Doctor because they are evil misogynists who hate women, rather than understanding that people are criticising the quality of the writing and acting.

 

Oh, and there's a lot of asking people who are complaining about the show why they are still watching, which suggests that these people haven't been 'fans' for long and don't quite understand that many people have decades invested in the show and can't just switch off. 

 

Personally, I've been watching since 1981. Which I suspect is probably before the parents of most of these people were born. 

 

The most recent series was much better than her first one. There were a couple of terrible environmentally focused episodes that seemed to have been written in crayon, a lot of rehashing of old ideas, and the season finale lost it completely towards the end. But there was a lot of good stuff in there. The Cybermen were brilliant, especially their new leader (shame he was killed off) and the idea of somebody voluntary wanting to become a Cybermen was something never really explored before. 

 

But the ending was a bit rubbish. It committed the cardinal sin of sitting down and explaining whole chunks of the (new, revised) backstory in one go, which suggests that the writers really don't understand how the show works.

 

The new Master was OK at first, but seemed to run out of character development quickly.  And there's a new and previously unknown incarnation of the Doctor. Which is only the third time the series has used that particular plot-line. 

[DavidB-AU]

Ignoring the evil misogynists who hate women, the quality of the writing is the core issue with the last two seasons. The acting took a while to settle down but some of it has been absolutely brilliant. Having said that, the actors have really been let down by the writing. I don't think the writers are entirely at fault too and the "look how diverse and progressive we are" box ticking is probably imposed on them by BBC management.

 

The last two seasons were shoehorning as much box ticking as possible into tenuous and mostly uninteresting plots. Characters like Mickey Smith, Martha Jones, Danny Pink, Toshiko Sato if you include Torchwood)and (going waaaaay back) Brigadier Bambera and were not even remotely box ticking. They were a natural fit for the story. DW didn't need to get with the times because in many ways it was always ahead of its time (pun intended). 

The India and Alabama episodes both had a sound premise and could have been written in the same way as (at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law) the Hitler episode. Make the alien the story with the historical event just as background and the conclusion that some points in history are fixed; a bit formulaic but as a "monster of the week" DW it's tried and tested. Orphan 55 and Praxeus were doing much the same with environmental issues (not that these aren't important issues, but they make for lousy DW stories).

 

You can make subtle references to unfortunate parts of our history without being in your face about it. One example that stands out for me was in Remembrance of the Daleks where Ace is shocked by the "NO COLOUREDS" sign in the window of the guest house and interaction between the Dalek factions was intentionally written as an allegory to racism. That was exceptionally brilliant writing.

 

Same with environmental and related issues. There were numerous classic stories in the 1970s with pollution and nuclear disarmament (hot topics of the era) as underlying themes but they didn't push it. Again the alien/monster (and in one case robot) were the focus and it just worked.

 

Cheers

David

[Ozexpatriate]

I missed several episodes of Jodie Whitaker's first season, but saw all of her second season. Frankly I thought the writing in the most recent season was (separate from the environmental "preachiness"), far superior from a science fiction standpoint than most of what was written for Peter Capaldi (moon spiders anyone?).

 

While Peter Capaldi was a fine actor as the Doctor, he was dreadfully let down by very, very bad material. In contrast the material for Jodie Whitacre (in my opinion) is much better and I enjoyed the series more.

 

I don't find having a diverse cast offensive in any way, it is neither here nor there as far as plots and plot development are concerned.

[MJI]

Biggest problem with Capaldi era was the obsession with Clara.

 

Some of the writing though was outstanding, ok Heaven Sent, one of the best episodes I have seen from Pertwee to present.

 

The problem though is that much Doctor Who writing is not great and we only remember the good episodes.

 

New 1 - Empty Child & Doctor Dances

New 2 - Girl in the Fireplace

New 3 - Human Nature & Family of Blood, Blink

New 4 - varies, some like Midnight, I didn't, for me the Library Pair and Turn Left (RTD best episode IMO)

New 5 - I liked Amys choice and Vincent, Last two were pretty good, but lots of filler

New 6 - Was all workmanlike but last episode was my favourite

New 7 - Dalek Assylum and Angels Take Manhatten

New 8 - Not a good series, best were the Missy episodes

New 9 - Heaven Sent

New 10 - OK but I cannot remember it as well as earlier series, I suppose the Cyberman pair were best

New 11 - Generally pants - Lee Mack episode OK due to Lee Mack

New 12 - Again not great - I liked the Gloucester Docks episode simply because I grew up near Gloucester.

[Phil Parker]

4 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

While Peter Capaldi was a fine actor as the Doctor, he was dreadfully let down by very, very bad material.

 

See also Sylvester McCoy. One good story (Rememberance of the Daleks) and many terrible ones.

[jjb1970]

We didn't watch any of the last series at all. Both my kids switched off during the previous series but had steadily lost interest in the Capaldi era. That such an actor of Capaldi's stature was completely wasted speaks volumes about the quality of writing. Interestingly both my kids still enjoy watching earlier series on disc. I was getting the same feeling I had in the latter part of the original show in that it was all feeling tired and relying on regurgitating old ideas, writing standards falling and some good acting wasted. 

 

The genius of the relaunch was to retain enough of the old show to engage with old fans while being fresh enough to find a whole new audience. In the Capaldi era the show just lost the plot. 

 

If people want great TV sci-fi I recommend The Expanse which is a wonderful show with a rich and multilayered plot and excellent acting. It's a much more adult show than Doctor Who and not suitable for children but it makes Who feel very second rate. I also thought Picard was surprisingly good, the Star Trek franchise was even more tired and cliched than Who but I thought Picard was excellent. 

[jjb1970]

Something about the Expanse is that it has a very diverse cast and quite a lot of messaging but because of the quality of the writing and strength of the story it all feels very "right" with no sense of being preached at. Some of the messaging is not far removed from Who but it is a story with a message rather than a message with a story bolted on.

[Coryton]

On 24/04/2020 at 18:56, jjb1970 said:

The genius of the relaunch was to retain enough of the old show to engage with old fans while being fresh enough to find a whole new audience.

 

Absolutely. It was a balancing act I never thought anybody could pull off and we had many good years.

 

I liked Capaldi as a Doctor. Didn't think much of the scripts in the first series, after that I thought it improved.

 

It is doing very little for me now, unfortunately.

 

 

[iL Dottore]

On 23/04/2020 at 16:41, AndrewC said:

I'll probably get slated by the fan bois but I can't stand Jodie Wittaker. She annoyed me in Broadchurch and as the Dr is bloody awful. Crap stories don't help either. She's one of those marmite actresses. For me yuk. I find her whiny and annoying. A thousand year plus Time Lord is now an idiot who seems to have lost all of her memories and that relies totally on her "sonic". She lacks the arrogance, style, and gravitas that typifies the Dr. Capaldi had that but the writing was again, bloody awful. the goldfish attention span of viewers means no drama, no danger, no suspense, just a full wrap up in the last 3 minutes. Come back multi-episodic stories, all is forgiven. The show needs a proper runner that knows sci-fi and fantasy. This past series has been like a third rate soap and pretty embarrassing to watch. I'd much rather resurrect my old home recorded betamax copies of Tom Baker. 

Very nicely put, Andrew. A combination of bad writing (by any theatrical standard), bad - or to be charitable  poor - actors, a desperate-to-appear-woke attitude (for me “woke” is pretending to be concerned about X from a privileged position to be “in” with the “right people”) and show-runners who want all the kudos of running a flagship show without being arsed enough to really find out what the show is all about. All nails, I’m afraid, in the Dr Who coffin. A far cry from the very first Star Trek, which despite the scenery chewing of Shatner, had real Science Fiction writers writing scripts for Gene Roddenberry, or even - for that matter - early Dr Who, who had people like medical researcher Dr Kit Pedler advising (he also co-created the Cybermen) and writers like Douglas Adams contributing.
 

Apart from appalling writing, the equally inadequate casting is also a lethal toxin to the show. JW is so completely miscast that it has to be a “jobs for my pals” sort of thing from Chibnall. Yet we have had a glimpse of how good a female doctor could have been in Fugitive of the Judoon, where Jo Martin’s  ‘Ruth/Doctor” outperformed JW by any yardstick. Jo Martin had presence, gravitas and a distinct hint of implied Timelord ruthlessness. Such a refreshing change from the “demented CBeebies presenter on speed” portrayal by JW. To me the fact that Ms Martin is a Black actor was completely irrelevant, she was - albeit too briefly - The Doctor.

 

The less said about Tosin Cole’s Ryan or Mandip Gill’s Yasmin, the better. They seem to be no more than irrelevant characters shoe-horned into Dr Who so that Chibnall can indulge in his soap-opera cravings. Too many times, I got the feeling that Bradley Walsh’s Graham was single-handedly the most interesting part of the episode being broadcast.

 

The tragedy is that with better writing (actually, much, much better writing), better casting and a show runner who understood Science Fiction, the reboot could have been amazing.

[Hobby]

2 hours ago, iL Dottore said:

Yet we have had a glimpse of how good a female doctor could have been in Fugitive of the Judoon, where Jo Martin’s  ‘Ruth/Doctor” outperformed JW by any yardstick. Jo Martin had presence, gravitas and a distinct hint of implied Timelord ruthlessness.

 

Pre dating Jo, Alex Kingston could quite easily have taken on the role of the Doctor, I thought, but was instead cast in that rather strange role.

[jjb1970]

Look on the bright side, it isn't just Doctor Who, the last Star Wars film was utter garbage too. I think both ran out of ideas a long time ago and are carried along by fan enthusiasm. 

[MJI]

I think that the best relaunch bit was the middle of New 3.

 

RTD was a good show runner but average writer.

SM was a great writer but not when writing too much, show runner average.

CC is a very variable writer and a poor show runner.

 

It is rather interesting to note that out of new who top episode that the most common conbination is SM writing and RTD show running.

 

I think the SM era would have been better if he had co ran it with Gattiss like they did with Sherlock.

 

As to above comments about JW and JM yes JM was better, but best not standard doctor was John Hurt.

[MJI]

3 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

Pre dating Jo, Alex Kingston could quite easily have taken on the role of the Doctor, I thought, but was instead cast in that rather strange role.

 

I really liked the River Song character and I would love to know if her story was pre planned to be the daughter of Rory and amy.