Dr. Who - Series 11 (2018)

[Torper]

The considerable crticism levied at Jodie Whittaker as the doctor has sometimes been answered by the suggestion that she should be given time to grow into the part.  I don't think she did, or even gave any sign of doing so, but it may well be on the other hand that the writing didn't allow her to do so.  Meanwhile, the media appears to continue claiming that the show has been a great success.  Says the RadioTimes, in placing Dr Who as the 16th best show of the year: "A solid thumbs up for the first episodes by new show-runner Chris Chibnall,,,,,,Amid all the change a series of all-time greats was too much to hope for, but the overtly educational historical episodes were a welcome innovation and, crucially, Whitaker was exceptional, like she'd always been there. It became more reliable family viewing too..."

 

DT

[Gareth Collier]

I’m still wondering about that police car speedometer....

Getting back on topic the speedometer shown was in her Ford before she nicked the Police car although why the local police are still using a 2000 W reg BMW is beyond me

[Big James]

Every doctor in new who by the end of their first episode had owned the part. Could you imagine 13 giving the 9’s dalek speech in bad wolf, 10 being time lord victorious, 11’s speech to the various alien races in the pandorica opens or 12’s in the zygon inversion. Even John Hurt owned the part in his cameo at the end of name of the doctor. I’ve watched most of season 11 and not once has she even come off as intimidating or threatening, she just come across as whiney.

 

Big James

[Reorte]

But that suspicion is in the mind of the viewer, not necessarily in the policy of the BBC. It saddens me somewhat that after many years of positive strides towards diversity and inclusivity in society, the push-back from certain groups has led to people blaming such policies for anything they don't like about topic X.

 

I also don't agree that things were handled more subtley in past seasons either. Captain Jack was there from Season 1 and was about as subtle as a sledge-hammmer.

You need to ask why that suspicion has arisen in the mind of the viewer. "Positive strides towards diversity" is itself a loaded phrase that speaks of the wrong mindset to me. Improvements in society happened when people started look past such differences - they started to no longer care about the differences in situations where it just didn't matter. But then people came along and started poisoning that well by crying "we need more diversity!" No wonder then that people who previously wouldn't have paid any attention to the makeup of those around them started to get annoyed. "Diversity" means noticing those differences. Where's the virtue in that? Suddenly there's something wrong with your organisation or portrayal if it doesn't have someone else's approved mix - now gender, race, whatever have started becoming issues again. Not excluding people because they happen to be in a particular group is good. Saying there's something wrong simply because there don't happen to be any of that group around you is not. At the risk of repeating myself - try replacing skin colour (or religion, or gender, or whatever) with hair colour. It's good that hair colour is (mostly) plain not relevant. No-one goes around telling you "you're not being inclusive enough because there aren't enough people with brown hair in your TV production!" That's where we want to be with everything else surely!

 

Jack as a character was completely unsubtle. As a message though?

[pete_mcfarlane]

Take the depiction of Sheffield in the latest series. It’s a lot more multicultural then it is in real life. 

Big James

What bemuses me is the way that middle class characters like Yaz and her family, and the scientist killed by the spiders all live in the council flats in Park Hill. Did they write the stories for a London setting and change to Sheffield at the last minute? Or is there a London centric assumption that the capital's house price problems must affect the rest of the UK? 

[Pacific231G]

 Even my wife, nearly  prepared to swallow everything Dr Who, called it a day on the Crimble edition over the foolish depiction of the UK military. As she put it, if those writing do not know that the moment the shooting starts the last thing on view is an infantryman, it simply undermines the credibility of the whole piece.

 Some like myself would say it is not a jibe when it is manifestly true. And we have to pay for it, like it or not, so a dismissive attitude toward this cancerous organism has some justification?

Well. If trying to tell the truth is cancerous then I suppose the BBC must be, that's certainly how every tyrant from Hitler to the Ayatollahs has seen it.

 

Staying on topic  I simple cannot conceive any other organisation that would have come up with and stuck with something like Dr. Who. What worries me is when "truth" becomes a commodity. I see far too many programmes on certain other channels that uncritically accept nonsense like alien contact, Atlantis and the Bermuda Triangle (all subjects that  BBC programmes like Horizon have properly investigated and found no evidence for) and put on screen "experts" who are complete charlatans without in any way challenging their absurd theories. Their only truth is what will attract an audience whose attention somebody is willing to pay for in order to sell them payday loans and online casinos. 

[Karhedron]

I’ve watched most of season 11 and not once has she even come off as intimidating or threatening, she just come across as whiney.

I disagree completely here. Whilst some of the stories have been lacklustre, Jodie's portrayal as the Doctor has been brilliant. She is clever, quick, optimistic and charming with just the right degree of self-deprecation to keep the ego in check.

 

Every actor has made the role their own and brought a different persona to the role (in conjunction with then writers). The only exception to some extent were 10 and 11 who very similar in approach although I preferred Matt Smith's portrayal of an ancient alien in a young man's body.

 

I have never once seen her be "whiney". The closest I can think of was the end of Episode 2 when she thought she had lost the Tardis but even that was in keeping with the character. Remember 10's reaction when he thought the Tardis had died at the beginning of "Rise of the Cybermen"? He looked completely heart-broken.

[jjb1970]

What bemuses me is the way that middle class characters like Yaz and her family, and the scientist killed by the spiders all live in the council flats in Park Hill. Did they write the stories for a London setting and change to Sheffield at the last minute? Or is there a London centric assumption that the capital's house price problems must affect the rest of the UK? 

 

Good point that.

On Jodie Whittaker, based on what I did watch she is one of the redeeming features of the series and has played the part very well IMO.

[Hobby]

Agree with Jjb's post. The comments re Red Dwarf made me think as well. I had never "seen" the actor's skin colour, I just appreciated it for what it was, brilliant comedy, surely that's how it should be?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Well. If trying to tell the truth is cancerous then I suppose the BBC must be, that's certainly how every tyrant from Hitler to the Ayatollahs has seen it... 

 That's your construction and about as far removed from my own position as imaginable.

 

I am perfectly happy for the BBC to output current affairs information as it sees fit. But it is a cancer which feeds off the body politic, compulsorily abstracting resources from all of us, whether we wish to support it or not. All I ask for is the choice of service I pay for voluntarily, not to be told that the BBC is marvellous, stop complaining and cough up. If the BBC is really so wonderful it will thrive as a subscription organisation. Let's put that to the test. (I will cheerfully buy BBC R3 and televised scientific documentary output.)

[Pacific231G]

 That's your construction and about as far removed from my own position as imaginable.

 

I am perfectly happy for the BBC to output current affairs information as it sees fit. But it is a cancer which feeds off the body politic, compulsorily abstracting resources from all of us, whether we wish to support it or not. All I ask for is the choice of service I pay for voluntarily, not to be told that the BBC is marvellous, stop complaining and cough up. If the BBC is really so wonderful it will thrive as a subscription organisation. Let's put that to the test. (I will cheerfully buy BBC R3 and televised scientific documentary output.)

You could say the same about the NHS, schools, the Fire Service, The National Railway Museum and all the other public bodies that make for a civilised society, None of them are perfect but I'd hate for them to be replaced by companies whose only duty is to their share holders or private owners (as with most British newspapers) and not to the public. In a purely commercial media system, if lying and telling people what they want to believe gets you a steady audience then that's just fine and dandy (qv Fox News in the USA)

 

If you look beyond these islands, the BBC is one of the institutions that have given Britain a reputation far beyond its basic economic and politcal importance.  

Edited January 10, 2019 by Pacific231G

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I'd hate for them to be replaced by companies whose only duty is to their share holders or private owners...  

And I wouldn't. There are some things best controlled by the body politic, but I do not believe broadcast information and entertainment needs to be one of them. The original effective communication medium for information, 'the newspaper' was wholly private enterprise, and did and does the job extremely well. Likewise earlier entertainment forms such as writing, theatre, music making and sport; all by private enterprise. And these things are aspects of our national culture that are much admired around the world.

 

Why does broadcasting require a mandatory impost? Trust the people, they will choose and pay for what they want. The same talent group will still be creating the material. But it will be the paying customer who decides what is produced.

 

And back on subject, I won't be forced to waste my hard earned on the dross that is the subject of this thread. Why should I? Tell me that, when for comparison I can escape paying for such garbage as Harry Potter or Stockhausen by the simple manoeuvre of not buying it. Those who like dross are not deprived, they can pay for it if they choose.

[Tony_S]

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.

[Torper]

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.

 

There's actually no "content to" about it.  If they watch live TV, any live TV, or even record any live TV, they have to, whether they like it or not (unless they've got someone aged 75+ living in the house).  In any event, I imagine it's the principle of the thing that concernes 34C, not the actual money.

 

DT

[Tony_S]

There's actually no "content to" about it.  If they watch live TV, any live TV, or even record any live TV, they have to, whether they like it or not (unless they've got someone aged 75+ living in the house).  In any event, I imagine it's the principle of the thing that concernes 34C, not the actual money.

 

DT

I am sure for some people it is a matter of principle and I am quite aware that a TV licence is required but I meant content not to be objecting to it and demanding change. The cost of providing free TV licences to the over 75s now comes from licence income rather than a government grant. I don’t mind whatever tiny bit of my licence fee is used for the elderly either.

[jjb1970]

Traditional broadcast TV is in decline as online streaming grows and eats audience share in addition to people playing games, browsing the Internet etc. In our house we hardly ever watch broadcast TV as if we watch "TV" it is almost invariably content on demand from Netflix, Amazon Prime etc. We sometimes do watch BBC I-player but not that often. And even for broadcast TV there is now a great diversity of channels. Which all begs the question, what is the real purpose of the BBC in this much more diverse information/entertainment world? The quality of programming is nothing to get excited about (over the holiday season the only BBC content I watched was Watership Down, and that was nothing like as good as the old 70's movie) and the quality of new programming doesn't seem to be any better than any other provider (if anything they're being left behind by the big streaming services IMO) yet if you have a TV you have to pay a TV tax to fund a broadcaster you may never watch. If the BBC is as good as we're constantly told then they'd have nothing to worry about from losing the license fee funding model as people would happily pay for it in the same way they're happy to pay for streaming services etc. 

[Gareth Collier]

Any chance this conversation can be moved elsewhere as it has nothing whatsoever to do with what people thought of the latest DR Who instalment. Cheers. 

[Torper]

I think that rather like the landline telephone the terrestial TV set will soon be a thing of the past. As jjb says above, more and more people, especially the young, are spending much more time watching streaming services on their laptop, tablets and phones than scheduled TV.  Netflix offers an excellent choice of "watch what you want when you want" films and TV programmes, often in "box sets" (many originating from the BBC), all for £95.88 a year, considerably less than the TV licence.  Similarly Amazon at £79 pa.  You can get news content by catching up on non-BBC programmes, such as ITV, Channel4 and many non-UK channels and so there really is no need to watch BBC now, especially if it continues to produce programmes as awful as Dr Who series 11 (there, back on topic?)

 

DT

[Moggs Eye]

I have enjoyed the new series of Doctor Who, I liked the transition to Jodie Whitaker and the casual way the gender change was handled. I don't see any problem with the assistants; the mix of people seems very ordinary .Like I said, enjoyable.

I have watched Doctor Who since the latter episodes of Jon Pertwee and only gave up when I left home and lost interest, about Peter Davidson's time. When Christopher Eccleston came back I watched again out of loyalty to the brand and was impressed enough to keep watching. Since then I haven't missed an episode, but have never been so blown away that I'd buy a box set and revisit them - it's comfortable, undemanding viewing.

The Rosa Parks episode was the first one that brought a lump to my throat. The moment where she quietly refused to give up her seat and was led away under arrest stayed with me long after the episode finished. It inspired me to read up on her uncomfortable story and the uncomfortable story of the civil rights movement in America.

Ultimately Doctor Who is a fantasy for children and young adults. Whether or not there will be future, time-travelling racists matters not - we can't predict that - it's just a hook to tell a story and is no more or less improbable than many of the hooks that are used extensively in fantasy fiction.

Is the whole thing political correctness gone mad?

What does that even mean?

Why is changing language or terms or visibility to reduce exclusion so difficult? We're living through a period of social change and don't have to be uncomfortable with it. I've worked in some big, public service organisations that have been traditionally seen as socially conservative which have gone through significant changes in their cultures and I can't see or feel the damage in them.

Back to Doctor Who, I'm looking forward to the next series.

[phil-b259]

I think that rather like the landline telephone the terrestial TV set will soon be a thing of the past. As jjb says above, more and more people, especially the young, are spending much more time watching streaming services on their laptop, tablets and phones than scheduled TV.  Netflix offers an excellent choice of "watch what you want when you want" films and TV programmes, often in "box sets" (many originating from the BBC), all for £95.88 a year, considerably less than the TV licence.  Similarly Amazon at £79 pa.  You can get news content by catching up on non-BBC programmes, such as ITV, Channel4 and many non-UK channels and so there really is no need to watch BBC now, especially if it continues to produce programmes as awful as Dr Who series 11 (there, back on topic?)

 

DT

 

I don't believe a TV set will disappear - any more than a phone line of some sort (which includes 'fibre broadband' by the way) as while tablets and phones do make for easy viewing wherever you are, many folk will still want to curl up on the sofa and 'binge' a box set or want to appreciate the latest movie blockbusters on screen sizes that do them justice.

 

Also while the TV licence may well be far more than a Netflix subscription, I am not aware that Netflix also fund a country wide network of local and national radio stations nor provide a free pass to those over 65.

 

Granted, you may say those things are not required / should be funded by someone else, but that is a completely different debate to be had. The reality is that what you get from the BBC licence fee (particularly if you are a pensioner) is far grater than ANY commercial alternative. True if you don't use these 'extra' services the BBC provides and just occasionally watch their TV output then the package will seem like bad value for money - but the same is true of subscription TV like sky where you cannot pick each channel you want and must subscribe to 'bundles'. I personally hate watching sport and will not sign up for subscription TV services which force you to include sports channels - particularly if they show top flight football where the wages demanded by top flight layers are frankly obscene - largely thanks to the influence of pay TV money over he decades.

 

As for Dr Who, Jodie does well in the role and given the right scripts has the potential to be an excellent addition to the line up of Dr Who actors - but she and her co stars are being suffocated by a smothering of the show in political connectedness from on high. Dr Who is supposed to be a Si-fi show (Star Trek ish with British quirkiness and humour added in) not a vehicle to tell us all how to behave. I accept that having the Dr turn up in 1950s Alabama might well produce some interesting plot lines, but that is ruined if the incident is used for a bit of crude moralising on race relations.

Edited January 11, 2019 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

What bemuses me is the way that middle class characters like Yaz and her family, and the scientist killed by the spiders all live in the council flats in Park Hill. Did they write the stories for a London setting and change to Sheffield at the last minute? Or is there a London centric assumption that the capital's house price problems must affect the rest of the UK? 

 

Its rather ironic that those Park Hill flats have come to scream 'Sheffield' - during the late 70s and early 80s you would have been laughed at for suggesting they would become a celebrated and key part of the city's identity.

 

I assume thats why they were featured - as you say to writers living in London (or indeed Cardiff, Plymouth or Glasgow for that matter) they likely to have been heard of outside the Sheffield region itself.

[hayfield]

I have enjoyed the new series of Doctor Who, I liked the transition to Jodie Whitaker and the casual way the gender change was handled. I don't see any problem with the assistants; the mix of people seems very ordinary .Like I said, enjoyable.

I have watched Doctor Who since the latter episodes of Jon Pertwee and only gave up when I left home and lost interest, about Peter Davidson's time. When Christopher Eccleston came back I watched again out of loyalty to the brand and was impressed enough to keep watching. Since then I haven't missed an episode, but have never been so blown away that I'd buy a box set and revisit them - it's comfortable, undemanding viewing.

The Rosa Parks episode was the first one that brought a lump to my throat. The moment where she quietly refused to give up her seat and was led away under arrest stayed with me long after the episode finished. It inspired me to read up on her uncomfortable story and the uncomfortable story of the civil rights movement in America.

Ultimately Doctor Who is a fantasy for children and young adults. Whether or not there will be future, time-travelling racists matters not - we can't predict that - it's just a hook to tell a story and is no more or less improbable than many of the hooks that are used extensively in fantasy fiction.

Is the whole thing political correctness gone mad?

What does that even mean?

Why is changing language or terms or visibility to reduce exclusion so difficult? We're living through a period of social change and don't have to be uncomfortable with it. I've worked in some big, public service organisations that have been traditionally seen as socially conservative which have gone through significant changes in their cultures and I can't see or feel the damage in them.

Back to Doctor Who, I'm looking forward to the next series.

 

 

I pop in and out of this thread and to be quite honest some do try making things out of non events, I totally agree that the way the transformation in my opinion was handled excellently, with no real fuss, the actor also is a breath of fresh air, with a good blend of excellent actors playing the assistants. The gender of race of actors matters no, providing they are goo actors. This time round the story lines seem a bit weak, but then they always were.

 

As for TV sets becoming a thing of the past ? I don't share that thought. OK at a push I can watch on a phone, tablet or computer, but its far easier on the eye using a TV of a decent size and go into a store and TV's are as popular as ever and getting bigger

[jjb1970]

I don't think screens will become a thing of the past. Quite the opposite as the transition to plasma then LED and OLED screens combined with good sound systems has transformed viewing. The phrase "home cinema" is not an empty one as nowadays you can easily enjoy a genuine cinematic experience at home. What I think will fade into obscurity and die is broadcast TV, and I think it will happen sooner rather than later.

[rovex]

I think I only watch Doctor Who because I always have. Haven't been impressed with the recent couple of series and although I thought the New Years day episode was an improvement I can do without all the moralizing and family trauma

[kevinlms]

I pop in and out of this thread and to be quite honest some do try making things out of non events, I totally agree that the way the transformation in my opinion was handled excellently, with no real fuss, the actor also is a breath of fresh air, with a good blend of excellent actors playing the assistants. The gender of race of actors matters no, providing they are goo actors. This time round the story lines seem a bit weak, but then they always were.

 

As for TV sets becoming a thing of the past ? I don't share that thought. OK at a push I can watch on a phone, tablet or computer, but its far easier on the eye using a TV of a decent size and go into a store and TV's are as popular as ever and getting bigger

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