Slashdot Mirror


Doctor Who Won't Return Until 2020 (bbc.co.uk)

AmiMoJo quotes the BBC: The next series of Doctor Who won't start until 2020, it's been confirmed. Series 11 ended on Sunday night, but after the festive special on New Year's Day, Jodie Whittaker won't be seen in the Tardis again next year.

Showrunner Chris Chibnall said work on the new series had already begun... The first episode of the series, the first to feature a female Doctor, drew a record audience. It saw the highest launch viewing figures for the sci-fi stalwart in a decade, with 10.9 million people tuning in. The series has been considered a ratings success, with viewing figures above those of the last two series when Peter Capaldi starred in the title role.

61 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. What ratings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yeah it premiered well but then steadily collapsed with the overdone SJW themes. If it were doing well they wouldn't be taking a year off to start over.

    1. Re:What ratings? by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the utter lack of watchable plot this season, they dropped the ball in basically every way imaginable. And now we don't even have the hope of a steamy granny sex scene between The Doctor and The Master, the shame.

    2. Re:What ratings? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After the increasing proselytizing of SJW BS of the last few seasons I couldn't finish the last season. I mean how sad is it I welcomed the demise of Bill? She was an insufferable arrogant ass. Abrasive characters can add to a shows entertainment but when the character insults your intelligence at every opportunity it just isn't fun to watch. I had no problem with a female Doctor. In fact the previews I have seen she is an excellent Doctor. But I knew the overwhelming overtones of the series would be SJW slanted so I haven't watched a single episode this season.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    3. Re: What ratings? by Lanthanide · · Score: 2

      Personally I don't understand the supposed SJW themes that are on the show.

      But this last season has just been dreadful with the plots: boring, stupid, no actual humour or clever writing.

    4. Re:What ratings? by Solandri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whittaker is fine as the Doctor. She has the right mix of impertinence, condescension, and compassion to convey to you that this is in fact The Doctor. She just needs to develop some personality traits unique to her Doctor. My hats off to her.

      What's killed this season are the plots. They continue the SJW proselytizing (enough so that a couple episodes are eminently predictable), and are quite frankly boring. I played the season on my TV last weekend while I played games on the computer. Only three times in 9 episodes did I pause the game and back up the video stream. And I have no desire to go back and watch any of the episodes again (unlike Blink which I must have watched 5 times now). Watching them out of the corner of my eye as I was doing something else was good enough.

    5. Re: What ratings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Personally I don't understand the supposed SJW themes that are on the show.

      But this last season has just been dreadful with the plots: boring, stupid, no actual humour or clever writing.

      I really grow to hate the term SJW. It's an excuse to be lazy and tag something with a name to avoid having to consider anything on a deeper level. Basically its the same script repeated endlessly through the ages. To destroy something, you first redefine it to be less than it really is, then attack the easier target.

      I've not seen the last year or two of Doctor Who. I'll watch it at some point, thought I agree that plot is the thing they have most lost. As a counterpoint, Babylon 5 had more plot than most comparable shows, which made it great to stand the test of time, but less so to keep people interested, cause if you miss something, then your lost.

      For Doctor Who, the best companion of the ones I recall would have to be Sara Jane. The best doctor, well probably the fourth, though Christopher Eccleston was good too. The worst was probably that spoiled brat Turlough. The Brigadier was also excellent as were Donna and Rose.

      One thing that stood out with the Bridadier was an episode where the bad guy asked, "Pitiful. Can this world do no better than you as their champion?" "Probably. I just do the best I can." link

      Too many times new scifi seems to be about scifi solutions to problems. That is okay sometimes, but most problems are about people not engineering. Quite often the solutions are there, but the weak humans need to be the ones to make the hard choices. Sometimes the hero should be the little guy, not the giant.

    6. Re:What ratings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [.... reeeeeeee.... autistic screeching removed for brevity...] SJW slanted

      Quit whining and go watch something else then. Christ, but everyone who uses "SJW" is a soft, weak little pussy.

    7. Re:What ratings? by Phillip2 · · Score: 1

      The Doctor has always had a message behind it. It's from the BBC which has as part of it's charter to educate, inform and entertain. It's been like this for many years. In this sense, it's fit's in with the Star Trek tradition on TV. Using science fiction or fantasy to explore themes about the real world is even older than that.

      Perhaps at times this makes is preachy; that has been a bit more apparent with this season, although probably only because you weren't so busy trying to follow some extremely convoluted timey-wimey plot point. But, it's better than an adventure in time and space where people are too busy shooting each other or product placing some manufacturers concept car.

    8. Re:What ratings? by tokengeekgrrl · · Score: 1

      I did watch the entire season, I think Jodie Whitaker is a fantastic Doctor but wish the show had better/more consistent writers supporting her. I didn't care for the historical events episodes at all, too much Quantum Leap and not enough science fiction. BUT there were a few really great, what I consider true Doctor Who episodes like The Ghost Monmument, The Tsuranga Conundrum, Kerblam! and It Takes You Away.

    9. Re: What ratings? by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

      Doctor who?

    10. Re:What ratings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Crikey. Is there no-one but dickheads and trumpanzees posting on slashdot these days?

    11. Re: What ratings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm betting these constant massive breaks both between and in the middle of the seasons aren't doing them any favors either.

    12. Re:What ratings? by AlwinBarni · · Score: 1

      Personally I watched all the series with Matt Smith, some episodes were great, some just fine, but overall it was excellent - had an interesting plot and a brilliant performance. As regard to others, I tried some, but haven't gotten involved - plots mostly silly and dr. Who never reached the level of Mr. Smith.

  2. Stopped Watching After Capaldi by DatbeDank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Long time Dr. Who fan, started with the reboot. Fell in love with the them. Then the rlwrotong started to get preachy with Capaldi's character which is a shame because he's a great actor.

    It went downhill really fast. What happened to Dr. Who is exactly what happened to Star Wars. Good story telling thrown to the wayside for whatever social issue pandering du joir Moffett can come up with.

    Joke's on them, I have 25ish odd years of classic Dr. Who now to catch up on where the Doctor is a man and the assistant is a cute girl instead of this shark jumping gender reversal nonsense.

    1. Re: Stopped Watching After Capaldi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Rlwrotong is a perfectly crapulent word.

    2. Re:Stopped Watching After Capaldi by rilister · · Score: 4, Informative

      Strange hills to die on, since Dr. Who has had male companions since 1969 and The Doctor is an alien species who has regenerated his identities seemingly at random: the fact that Time Lords can change gender during regeneration was established at least 7 years ago with The Corsair (as written by Neil Gaiman, not Moffett).
      But if this gender stuff really bothers you, you'll see it everywhere.

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
    3. Re:Stopped Watching After Capaldi by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ahhh yes, pretend its because of "wamens" and not the fact that its gotten more preachy than a Baptist church on a Sunday...uh huh.

      The word you are looking for is NOT misogynist, its Anvilicious which is what the SJW plague has sadly done to much Sci/Fi, See Star Wars and Star Trek for just 2 examples. People want to be entertained, not preached to with all the subtlety of getting hit upside the head with a brick and as we have seen with everything from CBS not being able to get a plug nickel for the rights to ST:D overseas (boy is those initials apropos) to the piles of Last Jedi Blu-ray stinking up the cheap bins in the Wally World people are sick and tired of it and are just walking away.

      The majority of the fans didn't give a crap if the Doctor switched genders, hell he's switched personalities every single time he regenerated (and if anything what annoyed me and a lot of others is that they ignored they were dealing with an ALIEN that had spent 8000+ years in one type of body so there should have been more dispassionate examination of the new form, things like lack of reach being a downside while agility being a positive, that sort of thing) but instead it just got more and more preachy and "look at how woke we are!" like the 12th Doctor in the Xmas special constantly saying to the first "You can't say that"...dude you are a fucking ALIEN TIME TRAVELER who has saved the earth countless times, quit prostrating yourself like a fucking cuck! A simple "I was a bit of an arrogant ass when I was a kid" since the first Doctor in the canon is literally an infant compared to the extreme age of the 12th would have sufficed, but...nope, gotta drop them anvils...ugh.

      But as others noted luckily we have decades of Doctor Who were they cared about good stories and fun instead of bating you upside the head with their politics so like Star Trek and Star Wars let it die, good riddance.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Stopped Watching After Capaldi by nagora · · Score: 1

      Strange hills to die on, since Dr. Who has had male companions since 1969 and The Doctor is an alien species who has regenerated his identities seemingly at random: the fact that Time Lords can change gender during regeneration was established at least 7 years ago with The Corsair

      I don't remember that being referenced in that episode.

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    5. Re: Stopped Watching After Capaldi by AdmNaismith · · Score: 1

      Exactly- the tone, pacing, and storytelling Chibnall brings to the current series is sooo much a callback to the classic series. It was like whiplash after the RTD and Moffet Years. The show is lacking right now for more fundamental reasons that the so-called 'SJW'-ness of the stories. A little canon and some story arcs are needed now, and to let Whittaker sort out what makes this Doctor HER Doctor. The 1st series of every regeneration can be a bit rough.

    6. Re:Stopped Watching After Capaldi by Ferretman · · Score: 2

      Yep. I simply could not stand the hyper-snarky, too-clever-by-half "it's about time" promos....

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    7. Re:Stopped Watching After Capaldi by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Taking all the nonsense out, how about we stick to the basics, men are more interested in stuff and women are more interested in people. You could call it roughly the 80:20 rule, 80% of men prefer their content to be 80% about stuff and 20% about people (people doing something with stuff is about the stuff not the people) and 80% of women prefer the content to be 80% about people and 20% about stuff (that 20% stuff includes, clothing, make up, jewellery and of course shoes). So if you try to get woke and make your content 50% stuff and 50% people you will bore and piss of 80% of men and 80% of women. Want to make your content suit 20% of women and 20% of men, don't forget that is a spectrum from people who want content to be 100% about stuff or 100% about people, so shitty market because you will miss most of them because they are so broadly spread.

      So sci fi example for games, want games for men, makes star trek game about star ships and land conflict using stuff, want a game for women startrek families, think sims in a star trek universe ie managing a family in a star trek universe. Again screw the 20%, too wildly spread in their desires to be worth it economically (you will not appeal to the 20% but a small percentage of that 20% because their tastes are so widely spread). So the same for a TV series, star trek starships and exploration problems for men and for women, star trek families and even star trek politics. Want to do 50% 50%, well you'll be lucky to appeal to about 5% of each group, maybe at most 10%.

      Want to target men, make your content suit men, want to target women, make that content suit women, want to target no on, try to target men and women at the same fucking time, idiots, it's CDF (the definition for CDF as I was taught it, is COMMON DOG FUCK).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re: Stopped Watching After Capaldi by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

      Grandma, is that you?

    9. Re: Stopped Watching After Capaldi by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Uh huh. I'm sure you would be saying the same thing if Mark Wahlberg was cast by Disney as Black Panther. Hey, it's okay! He's adopted!

    10. Re:Stopped Watching After Capaldi by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The Doctor is an alien species who has regenerated his identities seemingly at random: the fact that Time Lords can change gender during regeneration was established at least 7 years ago with The Corsair (as written by Neil Gaiman, not Moffett).

      You say that like it's supposed to mean something. That retcon-heavy story was approved by the same shitty show runners that approved of this current shitty storyline, it's not a precedent that was set in 1970 with Jon Pertwee.

    11. Re:Stopped Watching After Capaldi by Tom · · Score: 3

      Second this. I also started with the reboot and loved it. Still like Eccleston a lot, he had that edge that an ancient Time Lord who saw the worst should have.

      With Capaldi, the quality of the show dramatically fell away, and it wasn't because of him or his acting. I wasn't even interested in the female Doctor, and not just because it felt like they made him a woman purely to satisfy the SJW crowd.

      I seriously lost all interest in the show. It had a bunch of high points, like the Bad Wolf part, or some of the River Song pieces, or the episode where they run around inside the TARDIS and it turns out that it's powered by a freaking SUN. That was amazing, I wish I could remember which episode it was.

      But no such high points for the last few years, and no indication that they'll be back.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    12. Re:Stopped Watching After Capaldi by Tom · · Score: 2

      The Doctor was a male character the way Joan d'Arc is a woman. It just happens to be that way, get over it. I'm all for strong female characters in fiction and strong women in reality. But that doesn't mean everything needs to be genderized and every male character needs to be re-cast into a female form. Ghostbusters was perfectly fine with a male. Doctor Who already had a lot of strong women, many of whom could and did stand up to the Doctor.

      It's just when it's done for easily transparent SJW reasons that it bothers me. I very much liked the interactions between the Doctor and his companions, or River Song, etc. - and it is in the interaction between the sexes that stories are made, both in fiction and the real world. By making sex meaningless, interchangeable and political the SJW crowd is taking so much cultural capital away from us that in a century or so we will be sorry that we let it happen.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    13. Re:Stopped Watching After Capaldi by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      or the episode where they run around inside the TARDIS and it turns out that it's powered by a freaking SUN. That was amazing, I wish I could remember which episode it was.

      Series 7 episode 10: Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS. It's called the Eye of Harmony.

    14. Re:Stopped Watching After Capaldi by Tom · · Score: 1

      That was it. Thank you!

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  3. Not Whittaker's fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... But the stories are bad (even by Doctor Who standards) and lack humor. There is no chemistry between the cast. It just falls flat.

    1. Re:Not Whittaker's fault... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I kind of agree. They upped the production standard. But the show seems worse somehow. The cast is all great. But sound mixing is particularly terrible: voices are usually too low and I can't hear them.
      The writing has not been best: there are usually a couple of episodes a season that are just brilliant. This season has been flat.
      I don't blame the actors, I think they are good. But writing and production just fails at every turn.

  4. Worst Doctor Who in ages by Leuf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most people complaining about this season say it's bad because of the SJW themes. That's not why it's bad. It's bad because the writing, directing, and acting are terrible. The writers have no imagination. The Doctor has no edge. When she has an important bit of dialog the camera is probably going to be at some weird angle so the focus isn't even on her. Two out of three of the companions are just there. Graham could be a good counterpoint if there was ever a point to counter.

    There's been plenty of "meh" Doctor Who episodes over the years. I watch because you never know when they are going to pull a "The Girl in the Fireplace" or "Blink" or "Heaven Sent" out of their hats. But even when it's been "meh" it's at least had personality.

    1. Re:Worst Doctor Who in ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most people complaining about this season say it's bad because of the SJW themes. That's not why it's bad. It's bad because the writing, directing, and acting are terrible. The writers have no imagination. The Doctor has no edge.

      That's all one and the same.

      The vast majority of people I've observed who complain about "SJW themes" have nothing against the writer taking a position on a political issue. I'm a huge Star Trek fan, for example, and that franchise could not get more opinionated, even a bit preachy at times. And being a "capitalism absolutist", I actually disagree with a lot of Roddenberry's views. Doesn't make a bit of difference in my appreciation of Trek - because good writing and story telling is all I'm looking for.

      The problem with "SJW media" is that it is tranparently propaganda. Message without story - or at most extremely shallow and boring story. The characters are almost always one dimensional tokens who exist for no other reason than to "increase representation." It feels more like soccer moms wave their fingers in your face from atop moral soapboxes than it feels like entertainment.

    2. Re:Worst Doctor Who in ages by Bongo · · Score: 1

      Yes, my impression too. Good actors in other roles (arguably) but somehow ruined by the directing, dialogue, camera angles, etc. Compared to a highly polished and effective US series, Dr Who feels like a student film project. Yet apparently it's a big export for the BBC, but you know what, maybe that's just the British accents.

    3. Re:Worst Doctor Who in ages by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, this is what happens with pretty much all long-running TV shows - they eventually run out of clever ideas.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Worst Doctor Who in ages by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's really an issue with Dr. Who though. It can be whatever it wants to be on a week-to-week basis. If it wants to go back in time to cover a particular period in history, it can do that. If it wants a story that requires the protagonists to be isolated to a small area, it can do that as well. If it needs to completely invent a contrived situation or set of characters for the story to work, there's no problems there either. It's even successfully shown that it can pull off episodes where it largely ditches the main characters if it needs to do that. The show can do anything it wants to and it can make perfect sense in the context the universe in which the show exists. It can even play outside of its genre from time to time and still work effectively.

      The show doesn't need clever ideas (and I'd argue Moffat trying to be too clever ended up detracting from the show in the past few series) as long as it has a solid story, good characters, and talented actors.

    5. Re:Worst Doctor Who in ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stopped reading your comment at the mention of "SJW" because it makes you sound like a butthurt wanker who spends too much time on the gods-be-damned Internet arguing with people on discussion forums. By all means if you don't like it then don't watch it and even write a letter of complaint to the BBC about it otherwise just STFU nobody cares about your gods-be-damned political opinions about a gods-be-damned TV show.

    6. Re:Worst Doctor Who in ages by pz · · Score: 1

      Most people complaining about this season say it's bad because of the SJW themes. That's not why it's bad. It's bad because the writing, directing, and acting are terrible.

      God, yes. The political pandering is annoying, but the scripts are just crap. The companions' acting is roundly sub-standard. And why did Chibnal select such a terrible accent for the Doctor and *all* the companions? I had always thought one of the wonderful, enjoyable parts of the UK was the broad range of accents. That richness certainly was part of the previous seasons of the reboot. Now, we get ones that are not only difficult to understand, but identical, bland and uninteresting.

      But the big problem, the really big problem, is that the writing is poor. Inexcusably so. I don't write TV scripts for a living, but I have a couple of friends who do, and given the skeleton of a story line, I have absolutely no doubt they could do better. At least the shows they worked on didn't have massive, gaping plot holes.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    7. Re:Worst Doctor Who in ages by Jahta · · Score: 1

      The show doesn't need clever ideas (and I'd argue Moffat trying to be too clever ended up detracting from the show in the past few series) as long as it has a solid story, good characters, and talented actors.

      This! Moffatt did the same thing to Sherlock; it started so well but the last series was a shambles.

    8. Re:Worst Doctor Who in ages by LainTouko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doctor Who hasn't suddenly finished exploring the ideas available to it after 55 years. It's just got a crap lead writer now. Chibnall's scripts were bad when he was writing under RTD and Moffat, and they're bad now. He's only got the job because of Broadchurch, which is a completely different sort of show which says nothing for your ability to write weird sci-fi.

    9. Re:Worst Doctor Who in ages by Bongo · · Score: 1

      I thought the episode where Capaldi was with the confession thing (no spolers) was awesome. It was a fresh idea, the idea was used to develop his character, and it had a pace which moved me to tears by the climax. And Capaldi held the interest from start to finish. So age of the show is not an issue really.

      Oh and another point, the music. Gold seems very influenced, in Dr Who, by Morricone, and had a lot of (albeit too sentimental) emotion and drama. The new series is insipid.

      It's not the woman thing, as we had scary mad The Master and even the Tardis has been a woman. The new Doctor is actually being played as gender neutral.

    10. Re:Worst Doctor Who in ages by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Stopped reading your comment at the mention of "SJW"

      Why. That there are SJW's out there is non-debatable after all the flack Marvel got for not race swapping the Iron Fist.

    11. Re:Worst Doctor Who in ages by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      His scripts are much more reminiscent of classic Who than the Moffat and RTD ones. If you imagine really badly made props instead of the relatively decent CGI then they could easily be classic episodes. Even things like having an ensemble of companions rather than just one or two is more like the very early series.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. Found it hard to watch by Tomahawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In previous seasons I wanted to watch every episode when it was broadcast. This season, meh. I watch it at some point during the week when I've nothing what to watch.
    I found most is the season very preachy. I found myself watching it almost because I felt I had to, and not enjoying it.
    The was very little by way of SciFi in it, and what was there felt very much shoehorned into the story.
    Over all, personally, I think this was the worst series ever. The writers made a point of dropping the Daleks and the Cybermen, and internally did what they did. They need to be fired and the writers from the David and Matt era brought in to get the show back on track.

    Very disappointed. I don't think I'll miss watching it in 2019 if it was just too be more of that crap.

  6. Headlines can be SO confusing! by flatulus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I read the headline, just skim-reading, and what I got was "The doctor who won't return until 2020". Huh? Is this some famous doctor who is protesting the Trump presidency by suspending his practice until the end of Trump's term?

    That got my curiosity up, so I read a little more, then I understood (facepalm).

    This happens to me all the time :-(

  7. Fake ratings by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "The consolidated figures from ratings body Barb includes the number of people watching on devices as well as TV. Barb only began counting ratings for phones, PCs and tablets last month. The previous highest series launch episode for the drama was in 2005 with Christopher Eccleston, which attracted 10.8 million. That number obviously didn't include device figures."

    Er, yeah. 10.9 million worldwide, on TV and devices? That is terrible. Idiots on youtube pull those numbers. No wonder it isn't coming back.

    1. Re:Fake ratings by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course, in 2006 "devices" weren't really up to the task for the most part, so I doubt adding in all 3 to those figures would make much difference.

    2. Re:Fake ratings by nagora · · Score: 1

      Er, yeah. 10.9 million worldwide, on TV and devices? .

      No - that's just the UK.

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    3. Re:Fake ratings by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. Those are worldwide numbers.

    4. Re:Fake ratings by nagora · · Score: 1

      "BARB is responsible for delivering the UK’s television audience measurement currency. We commission research companies Ipsos MORI, Kantar Media and RSMB to collect data that represent the viewing behaviour of the UK’s 27 million TV households."

      BARB don't do worldwide numbers as far as I know.

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  8. So what? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    In the last couple of seasons it has become a rather pretentious, boring show. If it is going to remain like that, it might just as well not come back at all.

  9. Current Doctor hasn't developed a personality. by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The writers have been doing a lot of character development for the companions, but very little for the Doctor herself. It's like she doesn't have a personality. She is almost a cartoon rendition of previous Doctors. I mean, the stories haven't even really explained who she is to the new companions. And maybe they are trying to avoid the issue, but have done little with the Doctor coming to grips with being female now. The need a few episodes focusing on the Doc.

    1. Re:Current Doctor hasn't developed a personality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That might be the case because they have so many companions at the same time that they have focused on them and less on the new Doctor. They need better writing, the choice for the doctor is fine... but the showrunner and writing are letting her down at this point.

    2. Re:Current Doctor hasn't developed a personality. by Jerry+Atrick · · Score: 1

      Ep1 mentioned it's not the 1st time the doctor had been female, on Gallifrey the limit on regenerations would not strictly apply and any number of them could have happened before becoming the 'Doctor'. Very useful having plot detail that let's them avoid entertaining the complaining middle aged teenagers with boob jokes.

  10. Typical Brits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The series has been considered a ratings success..." We better hold off a year, then.

  11. Re:Soo by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well you should. Legion was a pretty good show, after all.

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  12. a lifetime of the doctor by bigtreeman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Never liked Peter, I'm warming to Jodie.
    A female doctor was a courageous move and has added a positive flavour to the doctor.
    Over 50 years watching dr who, I can wait a couple of years

    --
    Go well
    1. Re:a lifetime of the doctor by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      A female doctor was a courageous move and has added a positive flavour to the doctor.

      If by "courageous" you mean "steaming pile of bad writing", sure. Having Time Lords regenerate between genders was a horrible retcon for a show that's been going for over 50 years. What the BBC should have done was follow the Marvel model.

      Rather than snap their fingers and say "Thor is now a woman" (because she's a god and can be whoever she wants to be) or "Steve Rodgers is now black" (because reasons), they treat the title character as a position that can be filled by other people. Like how Dick Greyson has stepped in to be Batman on occasion in DC when Bruce Wayne was unavailable.

      So instead of this shitty retcon that torches decades of continuity, Moffat should have written The Doctor out and had a female Time Lord take his place. Could be one made from scratch, or an established character like Romana, the Doctor's Daughter, River Song, or hell, even the Romani. Same end result they were going for (female doctor) with more storyline opportunities, and without throwing decades of continuity in a dumpster and setting it on fire.

  13. Walder Frey by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    They really screwed up after they had Walder Frey regenerate into the First Doctor.

  14. It's the scripts! by Voyager529 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Moffatt had his issues. He tended to lean pretty heavily on the Daleks / Cybermen / Weeping Angels a lot, and 'continuity' was almost laughable during his tenure, but he also knew how to do a story arc. The last three episodes of last season were easily the best of the season. I genuinely felt something when Bill said "I waited for you". I'd submit that the season-long arc in season 6 was probably the most well done of such arcs, and it was still possible to see the one-off episodes during the season without feeling like you walked in halfway through the story.

    I don't think the issue the past two seasons had to do with the SJW content, though it certainly didn't help. The issue, I feel, had to do with three things. First, the pacing was terrible. The first act generally took way too long; it commonly felt like the episode was half over before they actually got started telling a story. Then, they raced through the climax, with the Doctor revealing something in that moment to solve the problem, which couldn't have been known otherwise, and then in 90 seconds the whole issue is resolved. After a while, there was no point in following the story, so we didn't get invested.
    Second, (admittedly more so last season), lots of those stories felt more like 'live action Scooby Doo' - land on a planet, meet someone who's scared of a thing, find the thing, find out the thing is really the nice one and is just misunderstood, realize the person who's scared of the thing is really the bad one, have the Doctor say "play nice, you two", and then leave.
    Finally, there were the villains. It's understandable that Daleks and Cybermen got old...but every week, a new villain, who's "just evil, okay?" with no motivation and no development, 'generic maniacal antagonist #493' stops being any better just because it can handle stairs. Why was the alien who was out to disrupt Rosa Parks getting on the fateful bus at all concerned about it? Why were those aliens who mourned everybody absent at Gallifrey? There was a golden opportunity to establish a recurring villain, but it was squandered on big spiders and a hungry thing.

    So, I won't miss it in 2019...perhaps a year's sabbatical will involve the writers binge watching a few of the past seasons and taking some of the positive things from them.

  15. And now, for a rant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ANOTHER CASUALTY?!?!

    FFS BBC, explain to me again why the hell am I paying your stupid TV licence fee?!?!

    You've practically scrapped every show I watched on your stupid channel - Even the newer ones!!! Atlantis, Top Gear, Sherlock, the Formula 1 to name but a handful, and now you're stretching out Dr Who even more?! It was bad enough you reduced the episode counts of Top Gear and Dr Who from over 20 to 6 a year but now we don't even get *that*!?

    And instead of bringing back good shows like Red Dwarf and Tomorrow's World you just keep putting out more garbage shows that cater to the worst, basest, sides of humanity instead of trying to expand peoples horizons and educate as you did in the past.

    The fact that I probably wouldn't even be able to watch any shows I'd want to since you locked the iPlayer behind a forced login account which I refuse to take part in is just icing on the cake. The fact that you try and somehow spin this as being beneficial and advantageous to us over just being able to access it without the extra hurdles, while denying that you'll use it to track down licence fee dodgers suggests you think we must be stupider than you are!

    Well we ain't, so you can fuck right off.

    I don't know where you're getting your statistics from but you better fire them and get better people if that's what you're using to drive your company's direction - The fact that you think the new Dr Who has the highest ratings of all time shows a deep schism compared to my experience, which is that I am now literally the only person I know who's been putting any effort into watching this lacklustre series - Where conversations would start "Did you watch the last Dr Who?", the reply has changed from "Yeah, it was brilliant!" to "Nah, not really interested in it any more."

  16. They done fucked it up! (as Angry Joe would say) by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    They should have pulled a Marvel and had the Romani or River Song step in as The Doctor instead of dumping this shitty retcon on a character with half a century of continuity. Doing so would not only have gotten the same result (a female Doctor) but created more plot possibilities as the replacement tries to fill his shoes.