Doctor Who - Series 11 (Part 1)

[Mister Six]

I think, from what I've read of Sandifer's stuff, that statement should be read as "we expected Gatiss to completely fuck it all up but in the end it turned out to be kind of solid in a straightforward uninteresting way", rather than as any amazing endorsement of that one with the Ice Warriors in it.

Ah, that makes sense. Cheers!

[Phil_A]

People have great memories. i can't recall the great speeches at all. Best I can muster is Eleven's where he says 'we are all memories'. Matt Smith's acting with Amelia pond is some of the finest ever seen in Doctor Who in my opinion. I bought every word and tic.

I just came to mention the speech from The Big Bang, a beautiful moment and Matt Smith absolutely nailed it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdXLCDdn48s

There's an interesting theory that this episode would've been Tennant's last if he'd stayed on another season with Moffat, I could picture him doing that speech(but probably not as well).

[gatchamandave]

I think, from what I've read of Sandifer's stuff, that statement should be read as "we expected Gatiss to completely fuck it all up but in the end it turned out to be kind of solid in a straightforward uninteresting way", rather than as any amazing endorsement of that one with the Ice Warriors in it.

Well, you'll notice it refers to "late era Gatiss". This is because when Sandifer's reached the Virgin NA/ early RTD era, Gatiss would always be the writer who's work got a kicking. See, in particular, the circumlocutions she carries out on The League of Gentlemen so she can blame Gattis for Barbara.

However she then came to the Moffat era, which meant she had to take into account Sherlock, which she found to be the product of genius. But that meant giving credit to a man she supposedly despised. So what did she do ? Performed a full reverse ferret, and started referring to Gattis as "useful", or talented but limited and such. Basically, the opposite of what she did to Gareth Roberts.

It's one of the funnier things about her years long project, that she'll suddenly totally change her view on someone and the poor boobies who follow her do the same. Her review of Rosa is toxic. You could use it to stun cattle simply by reading them the last paragraph.

[Bourgyste]

Her review of Rosa is toxic. You could use it to stun cattle simply by reading them the last paragraph.

I have to see this. Lol.

[Norton Canes]

Not really up to speed on Sandifer. I've got a book of hers, the one on the Fifth Doctor era. Bought it on impulse and only realised later it was just collecting a lot of blog posts. Has she stepped into the shoes of Mad Larry now?

[FredNurke]

No - Mad Larry's actually fun to read, if you have a spare year.

[Norton Canes]

FWIW the best Who commentator is Rob Shearman, by some distance. His warmth and insight is tremendous. Anyone who hasn't got Running Through Corridors vols. 1 and 2 - an episode-by-episode commentary from him and Toby Hadoke on the 60's and 70's stories respectively - should buy and read them at the earliest opportunity. Then contact Mad Norwegian publishing and ask them to get on with releasing the 80's volume!

[Bad Ambassador]

No - Mad Larry's actually fun to read, if you have a spare year.

I feel guilty about calling him that, ever since it turned out he was medically mad.

[Mister Six]

Who's the one who's doing a rewatch of the whole show, and putting it in the context of what people knew about Who at the time? He's also doing write-ups of the new series and inexplicably liked In the Forest of the Night on first watch, I recall.

And who's Mad Larry?

[olliebean]

FWIW the best Who commentator is Rob Shearman, by some distance. His warmth and insight is tremendous. Anyone who hasn't got Running Through Corridors vols. 1 and 2 - an episode-by-episode commentary from him and Toby Hadoke on the 60's and 70's stories respectively - should buy and read them at the earliest opportunity. Then contact Mad Norwegian publishing and ask them to get on with releasing the 80's volume!

One of the best Who writers as well - a great shame that he's only had the one TV story.

[Bad Ambassador]

Who's the one who's doing a rewatch of the whole show, and putting it in the context of what people knew about Who at the time? He's also doing write-ups of the new series and inexplicably liked In the Forest of the Night on first watch, I recall.

And who's Mad Larry?

Lawrence Miles, former Doctor Who author who set up his own spin-off franchise based on characters he created. He also had a blog in which he would generally get upset about the new series not being the one he'd been carrying around in his head. It turns out he was diabetic and incapable of managing his condition, which led to wild moods swings (I am not a doctor) and erratic behaviour.

[gatchamandave]

To be fair to Miles his stuff had a convincing central thesis - that RT D brought back Dr Who as a strong show with compelling central leads that had a lot to say about contemporary social concerns, but that under the weight of public and fellow professional acclaim it succumbed to populism and became a shadow of itself. Also,since Miles neither liked Moffat's work nor the man himself, having met him socially several times at the Tavern,he stopped commenting when that era began.

Sandifer, by contrast, has been complaining about Chibnall as showrunner even before he was appointed, doesn't like his work at all and not only keeps writing about it, but regularly shills for patreons to pay her in advance for the work. At the start of the year she raised several thousand dollars on a pledge to produce

1. An Eruditorum on the Capaldi era, complete with supporting essays on the surrounding culture. She got two thirds of the way through that then dropped it in favour of reviewing the new episodes

2. Published on Kindle and book form her material on the Sylvester McCoy era. This has not appeared, despite her backers ponying up extra buck so she interviews Kate Orman,who produced some novels for Virgin and the BBC ranges twenty years ago.

3 Produced her musings on The Last War in Albion volume 2, in which, I kid you not, she pushes th idea of the feud between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison as a battle between two mages for supremacy. Not a word of this has appeared, perhaps out of embarrassment.

[Norton Canes]

I feel guilty about calling him that, ever since it turned out he was medically mad

Sorry, I'll retract that inapposite epithet.

[Norton Canes]

she pushes th idea of the feud between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison as a battle between two mages for supremacy

Actually that sounds plausible.

[Deanjam]

Lawrence Miles, former Doctor Who author who set up his own spin-off franchise based on characters he created. He also had a blog in which he would generally get upset about the new series not being the one he'd been carrying around in his head. It turns out he was diabetic and incapable of managing his condition, which led to wild moods swings (I am not a doctor) and erratic behaviour.

I thought he had aspergers? Or was that just tittle-tattle.

Sorry, I'll retract that inapposite epithet.

He wasn't above personal insults to people making Who so I wouldn't feel too bad.

FWIW the best Who commentator is Rob Shearman, by some distance. His warmth and insight is tremendous. Anyone who hasn't got Running Through Corridors vols. 1 and 2 - an episode-by-episode commentary from him and Toby Hadoke on the 60's and 70's stories respectively - should buy and read them at the earliest opportunity. Then contact Mad Norwegian publishing and ask them to get on with releasing the 80's volume!

Bought these recently. Looking forward to reading them.

Produced her musings on The Last War in Albion volume 2, in which, I kid you not, she pushes th idea of the feud between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison as a battle between two mages for supremacy.

Alan Moore is a real wizard. Of this I am sure.

[Mister Six]

To be fair to Miles his stuff had a convincing central thesis - that RT D brought back Dr Who as a strong show with compelling central leads that had a lot to say about contemporary social concerns, but that under the weight of public and fellow professional acclaim it succumbed to populism and became a shadow of itself.

Does he mean S4 (Tennant) was a shadow of S1 (Eccles) or that RTD's Who as a whole is a shadow of the classic era, or something else?

Sandifer, by contrast, has been complaining about Chibnall as showrunner even before he was appointed, doesn't like his work at all and not only keeps writing about it

To be fair that sounds like most people on here. And I don't really think there's anything wrong with continuing to write about Chibnall (or anyone) if you don't like their stuff, just because they happen to have taken over the show. I wouldn't expect Kermode to duck out of reviewing Transformers 15 just because he slammed the first 14 installments. If anything that kind of consistency (and what appears to be an acknowledgement that Chibnall's recent efforts have been better than what he's turned out before) are a credit to her criticism.

The Patreon stuff sounds dodgy but I don't really know any of the details.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

No Christmas special this year, according to the Mirror. The 'extra' episode is apparently going out on New Year's Day instead.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/doctor-who-christmas-special-scrapped-13520717.amp

At the risk of sounding like a mad Points of View moaner, Christmas Day won't be quite the same without Doctor Who to look forward to post-dinner. I always enjoy watching it with my parents and brother in a merrily sozzled state, it's a nice tradition.

Also, the Christmas special doesn't have to be Christmassy anyway. We've had loads that weren't particularly arsed about stressing that seasonal aspect.

I'll be inevitably hungover and depressed on New Year's Day, I don't want to watch Doctor Who in that state.

WHY CAN'T THE BBC CATER SOLELY TO MY INDIVIDUAL NEEDS?!

[olliebean]

The episode is likely to be the ONLY outing for Doctor Who next year, with fans facing a "gap year" until 2020.

Fuck this shit.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Bear in mind, we don't know if any of this is true. We do know that they haven't started filming Whittaker's second season yet, but if filming starts early next year, then there's every chance that we'll see it towards the end of 2019.

[Mister Six]

If true - cynically moved so they can claim there was SOME Doctor Who in 2020?

[Thomas]

Also if true - nice long hiatus so that Jodie has to get back into the role again. Halfway into Series 11, the Doctor herself is still talking about figuring her personality out.

After the stylistic overhaul, the ratings spike, and the apparently beloved status Jodie has popularly achieved, it'd be strange to shelve it for a year.

[Mister Six]

It just makes no sense from any perspective - except, I presume, a financial one. But even then, more Doctor Who = more syndication cash for Beeb, surely?

[Thomas]

Perhaps it only makes sense as a speculative invention by the Mirror.

(Or, surprise regeneration on New Year's Day).

[Replies From View]

After the stylistic overhaul, the ratings spike, and the apparently beloved status Jodie has popularly achieved, it'd be strange to shelve it for a year.

Unless the BBC are only providing enough funding to make 11 episodes every 18 months, and the success of series 11 was never going to make any difference.

Don't know if this is any use, but here's something anyway:

Series 5 began April 2010
Series 6 began April 2011
Series 7 began September 2012
Series 8 began August 2014
Series 9 began September 2015
Series 10 began April 2017
Series 11 began October 2018

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

If true - cynically moved so they can claim there was SOME Doctor Who in 2020?

Yes, just as they did with Capaldi.

The general viewing public, who've returned to Doctor Who this year so far, have short memories. They're not like us lot, they watch it as a piece of pre-Strictly Sunday night entertainment. That's entirely fair enough, but will they give a shit about the show if it disappears for a year? They'll probably just forget about it.

A recurring mantra in this thread so far, but Whittaker deserves better.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Perhaps it only makes sense as a speculative invention by the Mirror.

(Or, surprise regeneration on New Year's Day).

The surprise regeneration will be that Bradley Walsh was a timelord all along, and will regenerate in to Susan. Mark my words, I'm never wrong when it comes to this sort of thing.

[mothman]

Unless the BBC are only providing enough funding to make 11 episodes every 18 months, and the success of series 11 was never going to make any difference.

Don't know if this is any use, but here's something anyway:

Series 5 began April 2010
Series 6 began April 2011
Series 7 began September 2012
Series 8 began August 2014
Series 9 began September 2015
Series 10 began April 2017
Series 11 began October 2018

That feels a bit misleading to me. Wouldn't this be a bit better?

Series 5 began April 2010
Series 6 began April 2011
Series 7a began September 2012
Series 7b began March 2013 - and even, maybe...
Series 7c began November 2013
Series 8 began August 2014
Series 9 began September 2015
Series 10 began April 2017
Series 11 began October 2018

[Mango Chimes]

Aside from the business/cultural benefits of having a Doctor Who on Christmas Day, I'm quite happy for there to not be a Christmas episode every year. I think it's a bit weird having about tenth of the episodes (and therefore a higher percentage of stories) being Christmas specials. They've felt a bit restricted and are all pretty middling, with the exception of the Gambon one.

I'd be excited for a few Hallowe'en specials instead. Or give Yaz something to do for Eid.

[Mister Six]

The general viewing public, who've returned to Doctor Who this year so far, have short memories. They're not like us lot, they watch it as a piece of pre-Strictly Sunday night entertainment. That's entirely fair enough, but will they give a shit about the show if it disappears for a year? They'll probably just forget about it.

I'm as cynical about the loping, misshapen homunculi that I begrudgingly acknowledge as the Great British public as anyone, but I do think this would have a negative effect on the show. Doctor Who as a spring/autumn and Christmas staple affixes it in the mind as a staple, a lovely bit of not-to-be-missed telly. Doctor Who as something that turns up now and again at unpredictable times feels less essential and less wanted. I do believe it was a major factor for the hit Capaldi took (among other things) and I don't think it will do Whittaker any favours. And I really, really want her to do well.

[Replies From View]

That feels a bit misleading to me. Wouldn't this be a bit better?

Series 5 began April 2010
Series 6 began April 2011
Series 7a began September 2012
Series 7b began March 2013 - and even, maybe...
Series 7c began November 2013
Series 8 began August 2014
Series 9 began September 2015
Series 10 began April 2017
Series 11 began October 2018

I don't think my version was misleading; series 6 was split as well but neither of us mentioned it.  The splitting was done presumably to hide the join of those long gaps, and your version repeats that without identifying the number of episodes in each segment.

My intention was to ignore the illusion created by the splitting, but I don't know why I did that apart from wanting to show that we've had roughly a series every 18 months since 2010, with some sleight of hand to conceal it.