Doctor Who Season 11 [** Spoilers **]

+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 .

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.

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.