Doctor Who Series 13: Goodbye, Mr. Chibs

[FredNurke]

I do think this latest stuff is less of a narrative straitjacket than whoever decided they were tired of the Doctor being this mysterious figure and declared that they were an alien Time Lord from the planet Gallifrey. Surely that did more to undermine the initial concept than anything that's been added since?

It's worth remembering that the show's viewing figures had slumped by the end of Troughton's time as the Doctor, and Terrance Dicks claimed it came pretty close to being cancelled after the sixth series in 1969. So it's interesting to note that the explanation of the Doctor's origins came when it looked like the show was coming to an end. (Gallifrey wasn't named till 'The Time Warrior' in Pertwee's last series, by which time it had very much recovered its audience.)

[Malcy]

It's thee and me against the thread, Natnar - when do we attack?

Count me in!

[Catalogue Trousers]

Plus one, then.

[Replies From View]

Didn't Moffat  "shoehorn" an extra Doctor in for just one episode though?

No, no he didn't.  He took traces and gaps left by previous writers and worked with them in a way that elevated the 50th anniversary, without being needlessly expositional or cluttered with anything.

There was the gap of no regeneration scene between McGann and Eccleston.  On the 50th anniversary he could have shown a regeneration from the eighth to the ninth if he'd wanted to, but instead he went with something deeper: there was a reason we never saw that regeneration.  There was a repressed incarnation of the Doctor in between.  And he furthermore used that opportunity to provide a timely commentary of classic era fans upon New Who.

Nothing was "shoehorned".


Also, I think that if Chibnall had indicated that the Morbius incarnations might be real, and stopped there, I wouldn't consider that "shoehorned" either.

The issue with Chibnall in this regard is that he's not stopped there - he's stuffing in loads more content than seven episodes can meaningfully cope with.  He's not content to trust future showrunners to make anything with the Morbius Doctors reminder, so he's quickly packing more and more stuff in so they have no choice. 

And he's not even doing it as a springboard for a good story, or to make his own stories good or interesting.  He's simply doing it to leave his mark on the show.  It's all exposition that future showrunners will need to make something good out of.  It's supremely selfish.

[Jerzy Bondov]

Look, if you are enjoying the Chibnall run that's fine. Everyone has different tastes. Some people eat their own shit for example.

[Replies From View]

If you're the showrunner then you can do what the fuck you like with your show, unless you're called Chibnall of cause.

I do dislike when people parrot this brainless refrain.  Obviously you are joking with it but anyone who says it truthfully would be quite stupid.

I think the kids call it "straw-manning", don't they.


The fact is, a good showrunner will not dig into their show with their heels just to win a teenage argument they lost in the 70s.  A good showrunner will know that with Doctor Who they are inheriting a show that is far, far bigger than them, and treat it with a modicum of respect.

The thing you are (jokingly) refusing to hoist in is that Chibnall has thoroughly earned the ire he gets.  It's simply not true that he is being unfairly criticised just for being who he is.

[Replies From View]

Look, if you are enjoying the Chibnall run that's fine. Everyone has different tastes. Some people eat their own shit for example.

If only people who ate their own shit would occasionally say why it's a good thing to do, rather than endlessly turning up and moaning that this forum is overrun by people who don't eat their own shit.

[Alberon]

Chibnall is the showrunner. He has the right to do this.

He just doesn't have the ability to avoid this being an utter car crash.

[Replies From View]

It's true, he has the right to be as shit as he wants, and rearrange all the action figures in the sand pit, and cement them down, before fucking off without telling a good story with them.


It's his right as showrunner to be selfish and shit.

I have to keep telling myself.

[Exposition]

Like I said in my overly long post, he has the right to do whatever he wants with the show, but he has absolutely nothing to say. I do not know what the point of any of this is, except to be in service of nothing.

[Replies From View]

The point is childishly remodelling the future of the show in his image.  That's it.  None of this is going to impact upon his own tenure beyond the fact that this is when the exposition happened.  It's a hit and run.


Who gives a fuck if he has the right to do that?  Nobody had defended it, they just "he has the right" and we must stop being so mean.

[mothman]

There's a debate to be had about whether fan service is in itself a bad thing, and how much is too much. And as for when the fan Chibnall is servicing is himself...

[Alberon]

I'm not saying don't be mean to him. He may have the right as showrunner but he's totally fucked it.

Total pile of fanwank which a great majority of the fans absolutely hates. The worst of both worlds.

[JamesTC]

Who gives a fuck if he has the right to do that?  Nobody had defended it, they just "he has the right" 

[Catalogue Trousers]

Total pile of fanwank which a great majority of the fans absolutely hates.

Source, please? Other than just your own opinion.

If only people who ate their own shit would occasionally say why it's a good thing to do, rather than endlessly turning up and moaning that this forum is overrun by people who don't eat their own shit.

If only some people who refuse to accept that RTD or Moffat ever fed them shit could explain why they believe that, rather than endlessly moaning about how all Chibnall Who is pointless dross unworthy of the diamond logo.

[Mister Six]

Oh stop with the straw man stuff, you tit. Nobody is saying Moffat and RTD were flawless.

This. So very much this.

It's thee and me against the thread, Natnar - when do we attack?

Once again, I would genuinely love for either of you to actually say what's good about Chibnall's writing.

[JamesTC]

Amusingly (since the comment which sparked this all was from me), I think RTD written the biggest piece of shit I've ever seen (Who-verse wise). I nearly stopped watching new Who outright after it. So there.


We all know that the best Doctor Who writers are Robert Holmes and Rob Shearman.

[Mister Six]

What was the big piece of shit?

[JamesTC]

The End of Time.

[Mister Six]

Oh yeah, that was shite. The second half especially, as I recall.

[Exposition]

Yeah The End of Time is fundamentally broken junk.

[Ambient Sheep]

For me it'd be between the aptly-named Voyage of the Damned and Planet of the Double-Decker Bus.

[Exposition]

For me it'd be between the aptly-named Voyage of the Damned and Planet of the Double-Decker Bus.

Voyage of the Damned has some good aspects to it, but it half-measures the disaster movie pastiche far too much to work, and I very much dislike RTD's tendency to ask himself 'how many one-off characters can I kill so the Doctor can be sad about it at the end?'. I can't say I hate the episode, it's more 50/50. Planet of the Dead though...

[Mister Six]

Planet of the DDB was just a bit dull, as I remember, whereas I loathed Voyage of the Damned for being so horrendously mean-spirited.

[Replies From View]

Source, please? Other than just your own opinion.

If only some people who refuse to accept that RTD or Moffat ever fed them shit could explain why they believe that, rather than endlessly moaning about how all Chibnall Who is pointless dross unworthy of the diamond logo.

You have invented this, though.  You've concocted a fiction whereby people who disagree with you on Chibnall's Who are cartoonishly uncritical of RTD or Moffat's Who.  This, when there are hundreds of pages of critique here on CaB, from 2005 to the present, proving you wrong.


Why is it so hard for fans of Chibnall to just defend the Timeless Child stuff (or any kind of expositional origin story, for that matter)?  Why is it good to have seven episodes now that act as a wikipedia entry for a load of backstory we've never heard of or seen?  And why did Doctor Who as a whole need this, in your view?

[pigamus]

Source, please? Other than just your own opinion.

If only some people who refuse to accept that RTD or Moffat ever fed them shit could explain why they believe that, rather than endlessly moaning about how all Chibnall Who is pointless dross unworthy of the diamond logo.

Saying that we've nothing good to say about Chinballs is out of date. We've been far more positive about this series than anything he's ever done, with all the usual caveats. And if you can't see the flaws in his writing then, well, what are we supposed to say?

Replies has been asking for ages for somebody to explain what's actually good about Chris Chibnall. If you want to do that, we're all ears.

[Catalogue Trousers]

Oh stop with the straw man stuff, you tit.

Hey, I had just been told by Jerzy Bondov and RFV that I happily eat shit if I like Chibnall's stuff. I was feeling a tad offended, okay?

Okay. A few quick things in his favour, in my eyes.

One. He started out by rather daringly taking the series back to its roots. Elements of education mixed in with the big silly adventure stuff (Rosa Parkes, for example, handled with more respect and effect than, say, Shakespeare or Agatha Christie). Until Flux, he's shown a healthy disregard for the sort of overly-up-its-own-arse fanwank that's visible in such conceits as, say, Bad Wolf, River Song, or the Impossible Girl.

Two. This is never going to be resolved to mutual satisfaction - it's that Marmite thing - but I like the big, swathing blows that he's been delivering to established continuity. The Timeless Child thing, for me, is something with the potential to open up a whole new ball game. I'm not saying that it's genius, but it is change, which is what the series has always thrived on. Chibnall's stuff has flaws, of course it does, but it's never felt as stagnant to me as the whole slushy soap opera coating of RTD's stuff - a lot of which, to confirm, I enjoyed a hell of a lot.

Three. Flux, while it could vanish up its own arse if it's not careful, also shows that he can manage (and appears to like) dealing with big, imaginative, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink epics as well. There's been a flamboyance about Flux so far which the supposedly big and important story arcs of previous producers have never quite managed for me. Everything feels suitably big and important. If - and it's a big if - he can pull this all together, then it'll be outright magnificent.

Ultimately, a lot of the problem is that love or hatred of a given producer's approach is always going to be purely personal. I could provide an in-depth and reasoned support of Chibnall, or you the same for RTD or Moffat, and the odds are that we'd never convince each other one iota and end up just saying that the other guy is talking shite. Which is a shame, obviously, but how do we manage to build bridges when both sides are so firmly entrenched?

[Natnar]

Saying that we've nothing good to say about Chinballs is out of date. We've been far more positive about this series than anything he's ever done, with all the usual caveats. And if you can't see the flaws in his writing then, well, what are we supposed to say?

Replies has been asking for ages for somebody to explain what's actually good about Chris Chibnall. If you want to do that, we're all ears.

I think i prefer Chibnall's mediocrity over the smug "aren't i brilliant at writing" attitude that Moffat seemed to have over most of his run as showrunner that i disliked, it's as simple as that really.  For me Moffat was mostly smoke and mirrors but without much of a heart underneath it. Personally i didn't like Matt Smith's Doctor that much and i know i'm in the minority on here about that.

[pigamus]

I mean, I try to respect other people's opinions and all that, but anyone who can seriously say they prefer mediocrity, that's just... pffffft. I've got nothing.

[Natnar]

So if you had to choose between something that you thought was average over something you disliked you'd choose the thing you disliked?