nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Doctor Who Season 11 [ Spoilers ]

pixelburp

Starts next week, Sunday October 7

Thought I'd start a new thread for it, given the previous one was mostly about the speculation / discussion on the casting of Jodie Whittaker. Divorcing the chatter around her casting, from what I've seen in clips so far, I think Whittaker is going to win over a lot of people with her performance...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6QRnULIjv4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCt6f1Ttmy4

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

FunLover18

I think BW recently let slip that the new series would be filming somewhere specific (Epping I think) which he was happy about because there was a lot of moving around on this series.

Das Kitty

pixelburp wrote: »

Season 12 will be the tester: we had a female Dr. Who, the world didn't end and nobody got injured from all that broken ceiling glass, so presumably the runaway now exists to do something a bit more adventurous.

I admire your hopefulness.

Any daycent Doctor 13 fanfics floating about?

pixelburp

Das Kitty wrote: »

I admire your hopefulness.

Any daycent Doctor 13 fanfics floating about?

Haha

Total speculation on my part I'll admit.

Honestly, after the Punjab / Rosa episodes I'd by happy if Season 12 was just a stretch of historical episodes, maybe throwing in a 'Meddling Monk' style arc of an antagonist trying to mess with history.

[Deleted User]

Yeah, I totally assumed that the big bad would be the time changers from Rosa episode.

Or is that too Quantum Leap?

Das Kitty

pixelburp wrote: »

Haha Total speculation on my part I'll admit.

I was genuinely inquiring about the fanfic. If anyone has read a good one point me in that direction.

pixelburp

Sorry Das Kitty, no idea re. fanfic; would be curious myself I guess if anyone knows of any.

Franz Von Peppercorn

pixelburp wrote: »

Haha Total speculation on my part I'll admit.

Honestly, after the Punjab / Rosa episodes I'd by happy if Season 12 was just a stretch of historical episodes, maybe throwing in a 'Meddling Monk' style arc of an antagonist trying to mess with history.

Neither of those episodes were great, although better than the rest. The finale was atrocious.

Edit:

Actually I thought the witches episode was ok. And the one in the Amazon depot.

Franz Von Peppercorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah, I totally assumed that the big bad would be the time changers from Rosa episode.

Or is that too Quantum Leap?

Those guys made no sense. White supremacist aliens concerned with Earth. Nor did the actual event matter that much - it wasn’t the killing of franz Ferdinand - Rosa could have got on the bus the next day. Or the day after. Or some other day. Or some other person on some other day.

pixelburp

For those who enjoyed the soundtrack, the album will be released Jan 11, and the BBC released a small music video medley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gNz_6HeaW4

[Deleted User]

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Those guys made no sense. White supremacist aliens concerned with Earth. Nor did the actual event matter that much - it wasn’t the killing of franz Ferdinand - Rosa could have got on the bus the next day. Or the day after. Or some other day. Or some other person on some other day.

It was a turning point. They could have played on the ripple effect, no other day would work.

Also nothing saying that the aliens were white supremacists, just out to change Earth's future (and subsequent alien interactions) in a controlled manner

TheValeyard

pixelburp wrote: »

For those who enjoyed the soundtrack, the album will be released Jan 11, and the BBC released a small music video medley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gNz_6HeaW4

The first soundtrack since the relaunch I wont be buying

RayCun

Agree that the last episode was underwhelming. It felt rushed - needed more time to make us care about Mark Addy, or the Ux, or the planets. All had potential, none were developed.

silverharp

i must say i gave up on dr who a couple of seasons back. current series looks like a dumpster fire going by audience score, amusing how out of step the critics are

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/doctor_who/s11/

[Deleted User]

silverharp wrote: »

i must say i gave up on dr who a couple of seasons back. current series looks like a dumpster fire going by audience score, amusing how out of step the critics are

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/doctor_who/s11/

While not a great season, there were many positives.

I would take both of those scores with a large pinch of salt. Audience score will have people, never watch Who, scoring it very low due to Female Doctor.
Critic score will have the very opposite

pixelburp

I'll say the same thing as I say anytime someone tries to throw metacritic / rotten tomatoes out as some source of truth: audience scores are just as - if not more - prone to manipulation, trolling, emotion and spite than any any of the professional critics. I wouldn't trust a gaggle of 'fans'' aggregate scores as far as you can throw them.

Actually looking for the ratings - surely the closest thing to talking cold hard facts - it looks like the premiere was the highest launch for a series ever, while ratings have steadily dropped since. Which they have always done - DigitalSpy have a good article on this here. In fact apparently viewership in certain preferred demographics is actually up. Of course tabloids are ranting about "PC backlash" over of an arbitrary drop because that's latching onto this kneejerk overreaction the moment anything vaguely inclusive happens these days. The facts however don't support that.

I agree though - this season has been very patchy in places: I've enjoyed it on balance but has lacked that addictive hook to keep you coming back. It won't make any personal "best of" lists, but it's entertaining Comfort TV that rarely dips into the territory of utter garbage - like about 80% of TV these days.

There are plenty of reasons not to have taken enjoyment from Season 11, but spare me from the YouTubers who'll scream at their screens over Rotten Tomatoes scores.

Yeah I'm ranting, but honestly am fed up with everything being deemed the worst by randomers on the internet.

Wibbs

+1 PB. The ratings/critics/audience stuff doesn't really interest me TBH. Ratings can be affected by all sorts of things. IIRC Capaldi was up against Britain's got the X Factor or some such, so that would hit the family figures(never mind that crap like that has huge figures). Plenty of dramas I've liked, even as guilty pleasures, that critics and audiences disliked, even hated(hell even the Star Wars prequels have their moments for me

). Others I've thought meh when folks were raving about them. Plus as PB notes both critics and audiences in the online world can be manipulated and or reinforce their own echo chambers and never the twain will meet. Note how the same ratings of shows are interpreted differently depending on the critic and their position. I'd personally take no notice of that stuff as far as what enjoyment I might get from a series.

So anyway... Speaking as one of the apparent "broflakes" who had a few issues with the show and where it was going, I thought I'd wait until the holiday special was done and dusted, but having watched the series so far I can't see much changing.

But yeah, even with my reservations I figured, what the hell, it might not be "Dr Who" for me as it were, but I'll watch it as a kinda standalone sci-fi drama. The debut episodes of Who I tend to ignore. It needed to find its feet, but with every outing since I'm not sure if they even know where its feet is. Or where to find them. It's all terribly confused and lacklustre and no better or worse than the debut(even the "highlight" of the Rosa episode).

The companions are too many which adds to the clutter. I like the Ryan guy, but the rest not so much. I dunno what purpose the Yasmin wan serves TBH. The FX are good and the cinematography is much better than last seasons. The production design is so so. The Tardis is bloody awful IMHO. An unwitting reflection of the series itself; cramped, confused and just badly rendered. Smaller on the inside.

The villains have been decidedly bland. Chibnal said he'd not have any of the old adversaries back, which is fine if you can write better ones. He can't. I suppose in one way not having the old ones back means they're not ruining them too.

The overall feel is much more childish, more CBeeBee and I don't mean that as the compliment that it can be(QV The Sarah Jane series which was aimed at kids, but had some heavy hitting themes and stories). It has the feel of a wipe the decks reboot. I think PB used the word retcon? Again fine, if they make it at least equal, better would be nice. The best I can say is different. And I wasn't disappointed with the level of the laid on with a trowel Guardian writer preachiness.

Then we have Whittaker... Those that are effusive in their praise of her in this role, I truly question are we watching the same TV show? Or are some hoping so much that she will be good in the face of the more dismissive even rabid naysayers that they're more than a little blinded to her limits?

And by god she has limits. She's about the most cramped and confused thing about it. I dunno why as she's been good enough in other stuff I've seen her in(Broadchurch for example), but as the Doctor? Or any sort of authority figure main character? Her range is surprisingly narrow. She can do open mouth scatty and frenetic, if atonally, but has almost no charisma, zero gravitas and absolutely zero menace to her. Something that all previous incumbents had, even McCoy(though rarely. He was bloody awful IMHO). That point where the face and mood shifted and you knew you were dealing with for the want of a better word authority. Tenant and Smith entertainingly ate the scenery doing it, Ecclestone looked like his temper was just a moment away, Tom Baker and Capaldi could do it with a look. Now Ecclestone was limited in range too, but it worked for him. His limit was doing jokey and funny, it didn't quite fit, but worked with the character. Now imagine Whittaker doing any of the well known moments/speeches of the Doctor, both classic and new. Exactly.

"Oh it's just cos she's a woman, you dinosaur/broflake, grr grrr etc, blah blah". Nope, sorry. Alex Kingston had that gravitas, that authority, Jemma Redgrave had it. Even Colman had her moments for feck's sake. Michelle Gomez had it in bloody spades*. She could play silly and clever and cruelly murderous within minutes of screen time. That scene where she vaporises the UNIT lass with glasses(whose name escapes:o) was whoa on every level. All women last time I looked. Now imagine Gomez doing any of the well known moments/speeches of the Doctor, both classic and new. Exactly.

My 3 cents anyway. *awaits the rotten fruit*

*and way more than Simm in the same role. I thought him extremely meh, a face in need of a slap

[Deleted User]

I get what you are saying with the gravitas BUT I don#'t think that she has been given anything to work with there so I'll reserve judgement until such a time.

Michel Gomez would have been great

RayCun

She had plenty of gravitas in Attack the Block

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I get what you are saying with the gravitas BUT I don#'t think that she has been given anything to work with there so I'll reserve judgement until such a time.

One episode I can understand CE, a whole series? How much time do they think they need for her to have something to work with? What I said above about her getting leeway by some in reaction to the naysayers does seem to be as much about hoping she and the new series will Prove them Wrong™. And I can understand it. It's a show with a lot of goodwill and genuine affection built up both among the nerd sphere and normal people.:) There's also a section of folks who get the warm fuzzies for the breaking down barriers right on student progressive stuff. Which I also understand believe it or not. I first watched Who when the black and white minstrels were a thing and Benny Hill and page three were "harmless fun" and it was all a bit crass even then and I wouldn't want a return to that crap. So there's a lot riding on the coattails of this and that stall was set out that way from the get go by the main players and the BBC PR machine and anyone who asked questions in a non echo chamber of regressives anyway was poo pooed.

Now I thought and said so here that it was a Hail Mary pandering hope to get more audience figures and still do to some degree, but I figured approach it as a standalone show. And I found it lacking in so many ways. Put it another way, if it was a standalone show I would be surprised if it got renewed and wouldn't have had near the figures it did because of the Who effect. Though I could see it working with few tweaks on Cbeebees as a wider Whoniverse series.

RayCun wrote: »

She had plenty of gravitas in Attack the Block

Maybe we are working off different meanings of gravitas R. She was very good in Attack the block, as "ordinary person caught up in mad stuff", but not as an authoritative figure like the Doctor. As I said imagine her giving any of the cool speeches of the previous doctors. Better yet if the "gender" thing is the issue, imagine her playing Missy. Or River Song for that matter. Hahahahaha. No. Put her in a the Docs meet up special and imagine her in the same frame as Capaldi, or Tennant, or Smith. You need an actor of that sorta weight to carry a character like the Doc and she just doesn't have it IMH. McCoy or Colin Baker didn't have "it" either by the by. They'd be blown outa the scene by any of the previous new Who docs(even Whitaker would be ahead).

[Deleted User]

I totally get where you're coming from but not yet ready to write her off, based on a very underpar series, just yet.

I think she did well as the scatty old (wo)man but not had good material to flex a serious tone with

Stark

Wibbs wrote: »

*and way more than Simm in the same role. I thought him extremely meh, a face in need of a slap .

Jesus he was terrible as the Master imo. Though a lot of that could be put down to RTD's direction. When he returned alongside Capaldi and Gomez he was vastly better. Similarly I couldn't stand Tennant when RTD had him running through corridors shouting "humans are BRILLLIANT" about an octave too high.

Wibbs

Stark wrote: »

Jesus he was terrible as the Master imo. Though a lot of that could be put down to RTD's direction. When he returned alongside Capaldi and Gomez he was vastly better.

He would have had different directors to be fair S. Another aspect is some actors often up their game with a) different dialogue/approach and more b) better actors around them. You hear acting types say this. They up their game and have better actors to bounce off. You kinda saw this with Smith and Tennant when acting with John Hurt. As you noted Simm was acting around heavy hitters like Capaldi and Gomez who tend to take up the screen and your attention. While Capaldi was often lumbered with dodgy scripts, in my humble he was the best "pure" actor in the role in the rebooted Who. Nothing agin the others. Tennant is a bloody good actor when not chewing scenery(which he does well to be fair), Smith went well up in my estimation and if you are short handed for heavy drama or the classics point Ecclestone at it and sit back. They've been blessed with a host of very good actors and not just for the Doc(and classic Who had a real who's who of British actors passing through). And Bernard Cribbins was in all of them and the two 60's flics.

Actually the fact that Tennant could share a scene with Bernie and not look like an eejit says much for him.

pixelburp

Just on the 'authority figure' angle, honestly I think I was a bit done with that approach by the time Whittaker came on board. The Classic Series - and newer iteration - always worked better IMO when the Doctor just seemed to be this random stranger of unflappable charisma that helped people in crisis.

The infamous Cartmel era from the McCoy years was the one that planted the seed of the Doctor as arch manipulator and cosmic balancer - which RTD embraced to the point of using actual Jesus metaphors (however light a tone Season 11 took, it still has a long way to go before hitting RTD levels of melodramatic childishness). Beyond that there was a constant thread of the 'lonely god', the weight of the universe resting on this shoulders of this single being. Yada yada. Moffat did his best to pull back from that particular arc, but still couldn't resist rising the character to godlike levels at times.

I actually liked that Whittaker is a bit ... imprecise. A little scattershot and lacking gravitas, because that feels like it's bringing the character back to its roots a little - albeit, the Troughton, T. Baker, Davison mould of the eccentric, chaotic interloper (Pertwee had a lot of that righteous indignation you later saw in the aforementioned deified version).

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I totally get where you're coming from but not yet ready to write her off, based on a very underpar series, just yet.

That was part of my point CE, there is the feeling and it's fairly pervasive among those that supported her getting the role because she was a she that she's being given an easier ride and more leeway than if it had been a bloke in the role. On the other side of that of course is the fact that because she was a woman she got a lot more WTF going on than if she had been a bloke.

pixelburp wrote: »

Just on the 'authority figure' angle, honestly I think I was a bit done with that approach by the time Whittaker came on board. The Classic Series - and newer iteration - always worked better IMO when the Doctor just seemed to be this random stranger of unflappable charisma that helped people in crisis.

I would agree with you PB, IF she had "unflappable charisma", but she really doesn't. She's a charisma free zone. Whatever hope they had if she had one with her, that she has so many companions exaggerates this further. Which is all very well for the HR dept's team building, we all win participation medals for turning up day out, but makes for lacklustre TV and a very bland Doctor. Baker(Tom), Troughton and Davison had the chaotic thing going on, but most certainly had the weight of the world on them behind the eyes and on camera, particularly Baker, and they could transmit that. Half the time Whittaker is just another companion in a way.

I hear you re the lonely god stuff PB. I found it interesting, but more from a wider cultural standpoint of dieties and our increasing lack of need for obvious organised one, but there's still a need for the demigod, the "superhero" the last arbiter in our universe(and the anti god, "devil" type too), which is a chat for for another day.

ebbsy

Great points above. Good reading as well.

That scene in the Tardis with Capaldi and Gomez...watched it again. What a moment.

I just feel the actors this time are not strong enough to carry average scripts. And that is what I judge the Doctors on.

Capaldi,Baker, and Tennant had this skill I feel.

pixelburp

Wibbs wrote: »

I would agree with you PB, IF she had "unflappable charisma", but she really doesn't. She's a charisma free zone. Whatever hope they had if she had one with her, that she has so many companions exaggerates this further. Which is all very well for the HR dept's team building, we all win participation medals for turning up day out, but makes for lacklustre TV and a very bland Doctor. Baker(Tom), Troughton and Davison had the chaotic thing going on, but most certainly had the weight of the world on them behind the eyes and on camera, particularly Baker, and they could transmit that. Half the time Whittaker is just another companion in a way.

Well that's probably where we diverge and agree to disagree; 'charisma' is a pretty vague term at the best of times & I suppose what's charismatic to one is not to another. For me, Whittaker is a bundle of excitable, curious, ... hopeful(?) energy and that comes across in the actor's performance and I like quit a lot. It has shades of Matt Smith's style, not to mention Tenant when he wasn't screaming about being the final arbiter.

Wibbs wrote: »

I hear you re the lonely god stuff PB. I found it interesting, but more from a wider cultural standpoint of dieties and our increasing lack of need for obvious organised one, but there's still a need for the demigod, the "superhero" the last arbiter in our universe(and the anti god, "devil" type too), which is a chat for for another day.

Oh that's absolutely true and just a manifestation of the famous quote from Voltaire that were God not to exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Mixed with superheros now very much being a mainstream cultural item, maybe it was unavoidable the Doctor would effectively become a superhero; for all intents and purposes he already was one

And to bring gender into things (sorry) for a narrative point of view, The Witchfinders showed that it may yet be a convenient way to further de-power the Doctor a little from this omnipotent figure. I doubt it's what the proponents of the gender swap wanted, but the reality of the Doctor visiting certain eras as a woman is that (s)he will encounter kickback, and can no longer just swan into a scenario all guns blazing.

Wibbs

pixelburp wrote: »

Well that's probably where we diverge and agree to disagree; 'charisma' is a pretty vague term at the best of times & I suppose what's charismatic to one is not to another. For me, Whittaker is a bundle of excitable, curious, ... hopeful(?) energy and that comes across in the actor's performance and I like quit a lot. It has shades of Matt Smith's style, not to mention Tenant when he wasn't screaming about being the final arbiter.

Well for me charisma would be generally personal charm mixed with authority and for me she's pretty invisible on those scores. Missy who's a "baddy" plays it for all she's worth, all the way up to being sadistically cruel. She could so easily be a pantomime villain, but Gomez is able to mix in a charm, even likability, and even with a few dodgy lines on the page, to the degree the audience feels she's worth saving even with all her nastiness and so the audience goes along with the Doc when he tries to save her(Simm would have the audience thinking why bother. EG the last RTD eposode). And she can transmit that in both scene chewing and still moments. And she commands attention. Whittaker doesn't come within an asses roar of her. Her lazy impressions of Smith/Tennant are just that, impressions thrown in in lieu of character. She can't channel their basic charm. She just doesn't have the chops.

And to bring gender into things (sorry) for a narrative point of view, The Witchfinders showed that it may yet be a convenient way to further de-power the Doctor a little from this omnipotent figure. I doubt it's what the proponents of the gender swap wanted, but the reality of the Doctor visiting certain eras as a woman is that (s)he will encounter kickback, and can no longer just swan into a scenario all guns blazing.

That episode illustrates Whittaker's weaknesses for me(I'll gloss over the mind numbingly hamfisted gender(sorry

) stuff that was slathered throughout) . The bit at the end where she jams the torch into the witch/aliens tree is so meh and anticlimactic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSd1Ft-bMPs

"Get back into your cell, please"

:pac::pac: I missed/forgot the please bit. That's embarrassingly clunky and weak. It's like a school play where she got the part just because she was head girl. Never mind how rushed in tying up loose ends it was. The writer must have got so engrossed with the preaching he forgot there was a story to wrap up. This series has been like someone gathered all the below par episodes present in any TV series and stuck them together for the boxset release.

Oh that's absolutely true and just a manifestation of the famous quote from Voltaire that were God not to exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Mixed with superheros now very much being a mainstream cultural item, maybe it was unavoidable the Doctor would effectively become a superhero; for all intents and purposes he already was one

Aye PB, but I"d have him as more a "loving" god and protector of humanity, rather than a superhero a la Marvel. For me in crude terms he's more an idea of a "christian" deity than the Greek/"pagan" pantheon style of Marvel types with powers in spandex and capes.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

While not a great season, there were many positives.

I would take both of those scores with a large pinch of salt. Audience score will have people, never watch Who, scoring it very low due to Female Doctor.
Critic score will have the very opposite

it will also have lots of unhappy dr who fans, i doubt you would tend to overly score a show down if the fans actually like the show. its clear critics care more about a show or movie just being good entertainment, hence the difference in scores.

Wibbs

silverharp wrote: »

its clear critics care more about a show or movie just being good entertainment, hence the difference in scores.

Critics tend to be from a similar demographic and background. Male, nerdy, 25-40, middle class, university graduates, generally liberal in politics and social issues and really get the horn for iconoclasm. So you tend to get more agreement than not, particularly on more divisive subjects. Plus unless they're very high profile and established they tend to avoid bad critique as this will reduce their access to the media gravy train. You also see this with talk show hosts and the like. They give an easy time to guests and their projects. This hand that feeds stuff has gotten worse in the last few decades and especially since the interwebs kicked off.

One litmus test I apply regardless of the flic/TV show/product involved is if the reviewers are repeating the line of the studio/production company PR near verbatim, then take what they say with a large pinch of salt. Especially if viewers and/or fans have a very different take on something and especially if both sides are running atomic powered dismissal of any disagreement from the other. Whatever truth is to be found is likely somewhere in the middle.

When it comes to cultural sacred cows like Dr Who(or Star Wars, Ghostbusters etc) then all bets are off. Doubly so when so many things of late we see, read or hear is a little too laden with whatever agenda you're having yourself. Take Who for example. Yes in the old days™ it did tackle certain agendas of the day coming from a previous generation of writers from time to time. I can think of the environmental angle and one Baker outing that was all "up the workers". However it was overall much more low key and usually confined to an episode or two. In the last few years it's become more overt and constant. Like any good cultural thing that spans generations it reflects its current society and quite a bit of current society is increasingly bipartisan and divided.

It's not just Who and it's not just one agenda either. TBH though I may go WTF, I'm not that concerned personally, as I can see what angle is being angled, so long as the show is entertaining enough. Hell I know something like the flic Top Gun was a US navy/airforce recruitment flic, with some unintentionally gay stuff going on which is hilarious(or maybe it was intentional, in which case kudos

), but I still enjoyed its daftness and action stuff. Ditto for the amusingly daft action flics featuring various Mr Steroid Users of the same era, or the usual stuff from Hollywood of Go America!!! If it's good, or even diverting enough to let me ignore the agenda then fair enough. I mean Casablanca is an out and out propaganda piece, but is still bloody brilliant.

The problem I have with season 11 of Who is that for me it's amateur and lumpen and obvious and the stories, what there is of them, have suffered. That I can't get past.

corkie

Doctor Who’s Susan Foreman: The Story of The Doctor’s Granddaughter and First Companion

Didn't want to start a new thread, so thought I would post in here instead.