Doctor Who IV - Everything Whovian - Would you like a jelly baby?

[ChrisIII]

Too bad Eccleston and RTD don't get along (although that seems to be more on Eccleston's side than RTD). Given that he's OK with doing the Doctor for audio, was wondering if he'd be up for the 60th anniversary. Guess not at this point.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Too bad Eccleston and RTD don't get along (although that seems to be more on Eccleston's side than RTD). Given that he's OK with doing the Doctor for audio, was wondering if he'd be up for the 60th anniversary. Guess not at this point.

[FFJamie94]

Rack Robertson actually showed up in the prior season; basically his hotel was invested with mutant spiders-"Arachnids in the UK". Also introduced Yaz's family.


As for the political/Social commentary it really isn't new to WHO. Take the classic series for example: "The Green Death" from Pertwee's era tackled pollution. Tom Baker's "The Sunmakers" dealt with Taxation. "Vengeance on Varos" dealt with violence on television a bit.


The McCoy era dealt a lot with some heavy topics too. "Happiness Patrol" is partially a send-up of the Thatcher administration. "Greatest Show in the Galaxy" is a commentary of sorts on the show being on thin ice at this time. Ace's troubled past is also addressed many times in the final season-pretty much the last three serials are all about her.

Classic Who also was controversial many times for violence, especially during the two Bakers.

Yeah, I kind of get all that, I actually said I like it when doctor who has such messages.
Which is why the Prison episode was a missed opportunity.

[Nate Grey]

Some thoughts.

Is the BBC desperate? I'm going to say yes. RTD has said in the past he had no desire to come back so they must have backed up a truck filled with cash.

yeah they must have given him a hefty payday to make this possible.

You can't go home again. I'm thinking that he is going to have a lot more freedom this time around, which will backfire. An important part of the creative process is having someone in place that can say no. Since the BBC has made a dog's breakfast out (did I use that phrase right?) of Dr Who and set up RTD to be the guy riding in to save it I don't see how that can happen.

What does an unhindered RTD look like, though? Remember he wanted to bring back the Rani and was told no, he wanted to give Rose a spinoff and was told no. Neither sound like bad ideas (not the biggest Rose fan but I know she has fans, I'm sure folks would have loved it).

Unlucky Thirteen Timeless Child stuff can't be ignored and he can't retcon it either.

THIS is what I was getting at. Look at all the Youtube and forum threads about this announcement, the majority of them assume RTD is going to erase all of Chibnall's stuff including the Timeless Child. Even if he weren't friends with Chibnall I doubt he would have done that. They'll find out the hard way I guess.

There are expectations this time around. People are expecting him to save a franchise

I guess they figured since he did it last time, he'll do it again this time. Its a different environment though but I think he'll do well enough without unrealistic expectations heaped on him.

The politics of choosing the next Doctor Jodie was a bust, and is called unlucky 13 and you better believe people are bitter about that. So the next actor to play the Doctor is heading into a toxic environment.

Would it be the opposite, since this will be #14 and post Chibnall and during RTD2.0? I figured they'd give him/her a lot of latitude. Unless you mean fans of #13/Chibnall era?

[Nate Grey]

It will be hard to see the show as fun to watch again if they don't disavow Chibnall's error...ahem...era.

I think it can be, though I guess it depends on how one views RTD as a showrunner. I liked him well enough, I just liked Moffat a bit more.

I'm also very curious what this means for the Master. More O Master, or will we get one post O Master with RTD?

[Somecrazyaussie]

Even if they weren't mates, it would be the douchiest of douche moves to come in and completely undo an entire storyline of the previous writer, however much a few "fans" might still be crying over it. And before one of those "fans" comes in and says "Yeah, well that's what Chibnall did to the loooooorrrreee!!!", let's just clarify that no, he didn't.

The only thing the Timeless Child reveal ever directly effected was (some) fans reliance on the status quo. Which is an irony in itself in a show like Doctor Who, but there you go. In universe, it doesn't change much in general. The Doctor is still the Doctor. If you're a slave to the 'numbering', all the Doc's are still the numbers they always were (just as we didn't renumber 10, 11, 12 and 13 because of War). Even the First Doctor's origin is still the same as it ever was. The only difference is that it now has a prologue, something further for the show to delve into... if it wants to.

And if it doesn't, then RTD will probably just ignore it. It can hang around as a little mystery surrounding the Doctor, something the character had lost since the 60's anyway. But it doesn't have to be referenced on the main show if RTD doesn't wanna go there. And for those that do want to explore it, there's a whole universe of Who outside of television, which now has a big new sandpit to play in.

I have to agree with the last part of your statement. RTD, himself, won't retcon it (He is too nice to do otherwise). In fact, he'll likely just ignore it as you said. He did that with his previous tenure when he said that "everything is still there, but we are doing our own thing and referring back to continuity as needed"

[Somecrazyaussie]

Rack Robertson actually showed up in the prior season; basically his hotel was invested with mutant spiders-"Arachnids in the UK". Also introduced Yaz's family.


As for the political/Social commentary it really isn't new to WHO. Take the classic series for example: "The Green Death" from Pertwee's era tackled pollution. Tom Baker's "The Sunmakers" dealt with Taxation. "Vengeance on Varos" dealt with violence on television a bit.


The McCoy era dealt a lot with some heavy topics too. "Happiness Patrol" is partially a send-up of the Thatcher administration. "Greatest Show in the Galaxy" is a commentary of sorts on the show being on thin ice at this time. Ace's troubled past is also addressed many times in the final season-pretty much the last three serials are all about her.

Classic Who also was controversial many times for violence, especially during the two Bakers.

Yes, but the difference is those examples were stories first and foremost. Topics informed the story and not vice-versa. Which is what good science fiction should do. You can enjoy them on multiple levels. With new-Who, not only are the stories overwhelmingly in your face, they also have added points where the Doctor pretty much delivers a preach to the companions (who are the audience surrogates). You know, just in case you were too obtuse to miss what the story was trying to say.

[ChrisIII]

Kind of wonder what this means for the Time Lords as well. RTD killed them off, Moffat brought them back (or they were never really dead in the first place), then Chibnall killed them off again.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Kind of wonder what this means for the Time Lords as well. RTD killed them off, Moffat brought them back (or they were never really dead in the first place), then Chibnall killed them off again.

Davies is probably gonna keep them dead. There's not much to be gained by bringing them back. And he killed them off in the first place...but he could decide bringing them back is a fresh new direction...etc.

[CosmiComic]

At this point, unless somehow the Time Lords stick around for more than one writer, it's probably best to leave the status quo and not resurrect them.

[Anthony W]

What does an unhindered RTD look like, though? Remember he wanted to bring back the Rani and was told no, he wanted to give Rose a spinoff and was told no. Neither sound like bad ideas (not the biggest Rose fan but I know she has fans, I'm sure folks would have loved it).

I didn't know this. Maybe if we would have gotten the Rani show there would have been no need to cast Jodi.

THIS is what I was getting at. Look at all the Youtube and forum threads about this announcement, the majority of them assume RTD is going to erase all of Chibnall's stuff including the Timeless Child. Even if he weren't friends with Chibnall I doubt he would have done that. They'll find out the hard way I guess.

Hopefully they will be happy with it not being mentioned that much.

I guess they figured since he did it last time, he'll do it again this time. Its a different environment though but I think he'll do well enough without unrealistic expectations heaped on him.

You're on the right track. Remember how excited everyone was when George Lucas was returning to Star Wars to do the prequels? Remember how excited everyone was when Ridley Scott returned to the Aliens franchise?

Would it be the opposite, since this will be #14 and post Chibnall and during RTD2.0? I figured they'd give him/her a lot of latitude. Unless you mean fans of #13/Chibnall era?

Chibnall era. I don't see him casting another women so already a certain set of fans are going to be angry and ready to take to Twitter.

[Anthony W]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9AGED8z9qgI

Maybe Dan Harmon should be the new Doctor Who showrunner because he predicted how all this would end.

[ChrisIII]

"You're on the right track. Remember how excited everyone was when George Lucas was returning to Star Wars to do the prequels? Remember how excited everyone was when Ridley Scott returned to the Aliens franchise?"



Happens a lot with comics (Claremont's several returns to X-men have none of the impact of his original run for example, Miller's more recent Batman work, ) and some anime too (Tomino's more recent Gundam work for example).

[Vworp Vworp]

It will be hard to see the show as fun to watch again if they don't disavow Chibnall's error...ahem...era.

How?

Honestly, how would the Timeless Child stuff stop you enjoying the show, just by virtue of its existence? Cos I just don't get it. I've been watching Who since the mid 70's and I still can't see anything in the Timeless Child reveal that's an actual problem in any way whatsoever. Except in the gate-keepery of some fans and their almost cultish adherence to what they perceive as "lore".

On a fundamental level, it changes nothing that we didn't already know. The Doctor grew up on Gallifrey with his parents, he stole a Tardis and legged it. All of that still happened (albeit he was presumably adopted). Is the First Doctor still the First Doctor? Yes, of course he is. Both in the real world, and pretty likely in-universe too. It may not have been the Doc's first body, but I suspect he was the first one to call himself the Doctor. I mean, if all the pre-Hartnell incarnations had also been called the Doctor, then you've got to assume it would have raised a few red flags with whoever wiped his memory if just a few hundred years later, he coincidentally took the name again!

But fair enough, let's look at the other possibility and say there are a whole load of pre-Hartnell Doctors out there. Why would that change our perception of the First Doctor? He's still the First Doctor to us. He's the first one we "met". And he's the First Doctor as far as she is concerned too, come to that. Everything the First Doc' did, along with all of Hartnell's performances, nothing is diminished by the existence of something before. And to suggest that it does, honestly comes across like selling Hartnell short, just to try and make a point.

What other arguments have I heard against it? Oh yeah, the whole "But it makes the Doctor too special now, and not just an ordinary Time Lord who left Gallifrey". Which again, it doesn't. I mean, for starters, the Timeless Child was little more than a petri dish, a lab rat that Tecteun experimented on. There was nothing in the story to suggest the Doctor was seen as any kind of messiah or deity. And please, when has the Doctor ever been "ordinary". On a planet full of beings who didn't want to interfere, he was the only one (well, one of the only good ones!) who wanted more.

Right from the outset, the show has always treated the Doctor as special, simply by suggesting he was braver/curiouser/more adventurous than all of his fellow Time Lords. And more recently, RTD and Moff' frequently put him on an even higher pedestal, literally referring to him as a lonely god and an oncoming storm and all that pretentious mumbo jumbo.

So, yeah. I'm all in for it. For me, it's not a ret-con at all, but simply an add-some-con. And given the show hadn't done that for a few years, after covering all the regeneration, Time Lords and Gallifrey stuff in the classic series (and man, can you imagine how all that would have been received if there had been social media back then!), then I see it as a welcome new story-telling opportunity. And whilst I don't think RTD will be douchey enough to retcon it all at the earliest opportunity, I do hope the following series and specials reeeeally double down on it, so there's literally no way it can be undone.

Oh, and they can confirm Ruth is actually the real Third Doctor too!

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Retconning Chibnall's era to be uncanon feels excessive and unnecessary.