Doctor Who Series 13: Goodbye, Mr. Chibs

[Blofelds Cat]

Female Doctor Who turning kids to a life of crime says Tory MP dickhead.

Dickhead.

Utter dickhead.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59421259

Wait until he finds out who was UK Prime Minister in 1980s...he'll have kittens, the flag shagging nonce...

[Natnar]

Chibnall being showrunner has potentially led people to crime.

_{This is a joke. The Tory cunt is a cunt.}

Chibnall's already the worst human being for messing up the Holy Moffat's Doctor Who anyway!1111

[Replies From View]

Doctor Who never belonged to Moffat. 


Hope this helps.

[canted_angle_again]

Yeah but he did fucking own it. Like a G...not sure what G means.

[JamesTC]

Chibnall did write the origin story, so he can probably stake the greatest claim to owning it.

[Midas]

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Chibnall's already the worst human being for messing up the Holy Moffat's Doctor Who anyway!1111

Nobody thinks this.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Mild relief, how would you compare it to the first two episodes? They went down fairly well, but I didn't get a whole lot out of them myself.

Och it's just 'fine', in the way that most of this series has been 'fine'. It's not as good as episode four because a large portion of that was written by someone who isn't Chris Chibnall. But it's not egregious.

[Exposition]

Och it's just 'fine', in the way that most of this series has been 'fine'. It's not as good as episode four because a large portion of that was written by someone who isn't Chris Chibnall. But it's not egregious.

Seems like Chibnall may have been able to (mostly) settle for mediocrity this season, which is a step up (lol we're so far away from the Moffat days). Though judged as "one story" it's not really coming together for me so far. It's kind of a major issue when some of the standalone elements dramatically outshine the overall narrative.

[Natnar]

I'm enjoying Flux, i think it's pretty good.

[Natnar]

Nobody thinks this.

Oh come on, most people on here have had it in for Chibnall just because he's not Moffat.

[Mister Six]

No, we have it in for Chibnall because he's an objectively fucking awful writer who has little to no grasp of plotting, dialogue, characterisation, pacing, structure or even what makes The Doctor a good character and what makes Doctor Who work as a show.

He's not just not as good as Moffat, he's actively worse than most people who have written for nu-Who, including the hired hands he brings on to do standalones. Arachnids in the UK is a masterclass in how to fuck up everything.

But, as I ask whenever someone steps up to suggest Chibnall might reach the heady heights of competence - what do you like about his episodes? What are the good things about his writing? I always see a lot of complaints about people complaining about Chibnall, but very little in the way of actual praise for him.

[Replies From View]

Absolutely nobody has complained that Chibnall is not Moffat.  After Moffat, we were unanimously saying we needed a different approach and head writing style.


The problem with Chibnall is that he is shit on every level and he has also hubristically shoehorned an origin story for the Doctor which is singularly the shittest action a showrunner could have performed.

[Jerzy Bondov]

Personally I don't find the timeless child stuff as troubling as other posters. Like yeah it's a load of wank obviously, but I think writers should feel free to fuck about with whatever they want. But it's all just so BORING

[Replies From View]

Personally I don't find the timeless child stuff as troubling as other posters. Like yeah it's a load of wank obviously, but I think writers should feel free to fuck about with whatever they want. But it's all just so BORING

Good writers introduce whatever they like, but they make sure these are things that can be ignored or worked with.

For example a fear of something under the Doctor's bed:  no big deal.  Clara existing throughout the Doctor's timeline in a ghostly, transparent way:  can be ignored.  The hybrid and the Doctor claiming for two episodes that he ran away from Gallifrey because he was scared:  can completely be ignored.


Whereas Chibnall is going out of his way to ensure that his own stuff cannot be easily brushed away.  He knows that's what future showrunners can do, but he lacks the generosity of everyone who wrote before him - he wants everyone to be pushed into a corner doing things his way.  His shit way.

[Old Nehamkin]

Oh come on, most people on here have had it in for Chibnall just because he's not Moffat.

People on here seem pretty enthusiastic about Russell T Davies coming back and he's also not Steven Moffat so I'm not sure that tracks!

I've not really watched much of the Chibnall era myself put personally the main thing that gave me a sense of foreboding when he was announced as showrunner was that he had previously written several of the very worst episodes of the whole series. I'll admit to a bias against him on that basis.

[Replies From View]

The Bias Basis or The Basis of the Bias depending on the era in which it's written.

[Natnar]

Whereas Chibnall is going out of his way to ensure that his own stuff cannot be easily brushed away.  He knows that's what future showrunners can do, but he lacks the generosity of everyone who wrote before him - he wants everyone to be pushed into a corner doing things his way.  His shit way.

But isn't that what a showrunner is supposed to do? RTD & Moffat both made changes to the Doctor lore as well. I think Chibnall is just doing his job. I'm not saying Chibnall is a great writer, i just don't think he's as bad as some people make out on here.

[Jerzy Bondov]

I think it'll be very easy to ignore if that's what someone wants to do. Just never ever mention it ever again. Or even directly contradict it.

Seems to be in the nature of the thing that new Who showrunners write themselves into impossible corners. RTD would just punch his way out, Moffat would twist himself into a weird shape and wriggle through, and Chibnall just sort of goes oh well lol and wanders off. Whatever weird corner it gets left in next year, RTD will punch his way out and make a bit of mess as he does.

[Replies From View]

But isn't that what a showrunner is supposed to do?

No, I absolutely disagree with you that any current showrunner should feel free to force restrictions on future showrunners.  This is a long running show and while I understand it's probably an unwritten rule, it's nevertheless something that an intelligent writer would take for granted.  It's improvisation - you need to be generous with the past and future, not stuff it in a rigorous padlock just because as a teenager you felt it should all be a certain way.

RTD & Moffat both made changes to the Doctor lore as well.

All ignorable, as I said in the post you are quoting.  Or open to interpretation as you would expect from good improvisers.


If he had been half-decent, Chibnall would have cranked open the possibility that the Mobius Doctors are canon, and left it as that.  The kind of origin story he's shoehorning in is the kind of stuff that would have reasonably been unveiled over decades with different showrunners paying attention to each other, adding a new bit here, and a new bit there, over decades.  An organic improvisation process.

The fact that it is being conveyed as exposition over seven rushed episodes should itself tell you that it's no good and Chibnall is just selfishly trying to leave an irrevocable stamp on the show.  So no, not what a showrunner is "supposed to do".

[mjwilson]

Good writers introduce whatever they like, but they make sure these are things that can be ignored or worked with.

For example a fear of something under the Doctor's bed:  no big deal.  Clara existing throughout the Doctor's timeline in a ghostly, transparent way:  can be ignored.  The hybrid and the Doctor claiming for two episodes that he ran away from Gallifrey because he was scared:  can completely be ignored.


Whereas Chibnall is going out of his way to ensure that his own stuff cannot be easily brushed away.  He knows that's what future showrunners can do, but he lacks the generosity of everyone who wrote before him - he wants everyone to be pushed into a corner doing things his way.  His shit way.

Hmm, I would have said that fans did shit their pants over things like Clara being at every point in the Doctor's timestream and those other examples you mentioned above. (Not necessarily on here, I'm too lazy to go and check, but more generally.) Those examples can be ignored, yes, but people are a bit more chill about them now that time has passed.

If Doctor Who is still going in 10 years time, the Timeless Children stuff will just be in the same box as the half-human Doctor: it happened once, nobody spoke about it again, and we can just forget about it and enjoy the Who of 2031.

[bobloblaw]

Och it's just 'fine', in the way that most of this series has been 'fine'. It's not as good as episode four because a large portion of that was written by someone who isn't Chris Chibnall. But it's not egregious.

Seen it. Stuff happened. Exposition cranked up. Needed more Bathurst. But then doesn't everything?

[Natnar]

No, I absolutely disagree with you that any current showrunner should feel free to force restrictions on future showrunners.  This is a long running show and while I understand it's probably an unwritten rule, it's nevertheless something that an intelligent writer would take for granted.  It's improvisation - you need to be generous with the past and future, not stuff it in a rigorous padlock just because as a teenager you felt it should all be a certain way.


All ignorable, as I said in the post you are quoting.  Or open to interpretation as you would expect from good improvisers.


If he had been half-decent, Chibnall would have cranked open the possibility that the Mobius Doctors are canon, and left it as that.  The kind of origin story he's shoehorning in is the kind of stuff that would have reasonably been unveiled over decades with different showrunners paying attention to each other, adding a new bit here, and a new bit there, over decades.  An organic improvisation process.

The fact that it is being conveyed as exposition over seven rushed episodes should itself tell you that it's no good and Chibnall is just selfishly trying to leave an irrevocable stamp on the show.  So no, not what a showrunner is "supposed to do".

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

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

[mothman]

Look, the twelve-regen-limit thing was bearing down on us. So Moffat came up with an elegant solution that, yes, enabled him to tackle that head-on while it was still on his watch. In doing so he also resolved the Time War and whatever had happened to Gallifrey. Indulgent? Sure, but at least it was done for the most part (the near lack throughly Eleven's tenure of any sense that He was out of regenerations or conscious of his impending mortality remains a bit of a wobble) in an elegant and organic way.


What Chibnall has done is neither elegant nor organic and is repeating what had already been done, and depends on a couple of minor bits of obscure and easily ignored lore about the Doctor sort of having other regenerations. It was unnecessary and over-self-indulgent.

[Mr Trumpet]

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?

[Jerzy Bondov]

If you were showrunner, what one thing would you do that would annoy fans? I would insist on not showing the regeneration from the previous era and would refuse to be drawn on whether my shit follows directly on or is some future doctor. I'd never resolve this.

[JamesTC]

I'd directly contradict the Timeless Child. Like explicitly make it so that The Doctor was definitely born on Gallifrey (which Moffat has basically done by showing The Doctor's cot).

[Catalogue Trousers]

But isn't that what a showrunner is supposed to do? RTD & Moffat both made changes to the Doctor lore as well. I think Chibnall is just doing his job. I'm not saying Chibnall is a great writer, i just don't think he's as bad as some people make out on here.

This. So very much this.

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

[Mr Trumpet]

If you were showrunner, what one thing would you do that would annoy fans? I would insist on not showing the regeneration from the previous era and would refuse to be drawn on whether my shit follows directly on or is some future doctor. I'd never resolve this.

I'd have the main villain of the series be an anagram of "THE VALEYARD" and never address it

[Exposition]

I have no problem with Chibnall adding an origin story or whatever else he wants to do with the show while he's in charge, I do believe it is his right, and if it doesn't work it'll be ignored anyway. Though I do prefer Moffat's rule of never going so far that it can't be easily dismissed or excused by a viewer in case they don't like it - but ignoring that, the main issue is that themes have gone completely out of the window. Very little of what Chibnall wants to do with the show seems like it is rooted in something he wants to say that goes beyond just having there be stuff happening, and whenever themes can be found they're either extremely tired, accidentally conservative, or both.

All of Moffat's decisions that may seem like it fucks with "lore" (lol fuck lore) were always inherently rooted in themes for the story. The Day of the Doctor is about what it fundamentally means to be The Doctor, a fitting story for the 50th, and The War Doctor was the perfect character to explore it from. Moffat then came out of the 50th celebrations and used The Time of the Doctor to question whether there is any merit for the show to keep going. Using a long held self-imposed limit on the main character's life is the best way to explore that, and the story decides to solve the problem by critiquing the lack of artistic merit in worshipping established canon when stories can be much more interesting than that.

You don't really get more pointed than the old 11th Doctor (who looks like Einstein) practically looking into the camera when he screams "We're breaking some serious science here, boys!". Mocking the section of the audience that takes some gobbledygook that Robert Holmes came up with decades ago so seriously that it should decide when the show ends, regardless of the storytelling. Moffat clearly believed the show should be better than that, and wanted it to move on after the 50th. What is Chibnall actually trying to say with his lore dumps? The Timeless Children as an episode is not a story that requires a few changes and additions to The Doctor's background so it could be told properly, it's just a thinly sketched "what if?" concept that doesn't have a story or theme in its core. It's only interested in changing and adding needless lore. The only justification for it is... he wanted to change things, so he did it. Fair enough, but come on. That's why it's just a boring wikipedia article instead of a narrative.