back of a spreadsheet; back of the net

I am sad about it. Particularly as my limited exposure to Jodie Whitaker (3 episodes of Broadchurch) makes me well disposed to her.

But I spend much much more time being cross about Doctor Who than I spend watching it.

I don't actually have to make a decision until the autumn I think. I expect MLW will mention the programme to me when she sees that it is on or the Captain might decide he's interested enough to want to watch it. If I have the energy to give it a whirl then I might but right now I'd rather put my effort in to something that I find rewarding.

From:

miss_s_b

It sounds like you're taking an eminently sensible decision. But it's still :(

From:

Yeah.

I've put it off a bit. I've been feeling down about the show for a while. For years. When it's been on.

Hopefully I'm wrong and Chibnall turns out to be brilliant but I can catch up on that. It's not like the BBC would do anything as stupid as tape over old episodes once they had been broadcast in order to save storage room.

As you say :-(

From:

Out of interest, what was the gist of Andrew Rilstone's blog post? I didn't see it, and obviously can't read it now. I assume from the context of what you've said that he too has some serious misgivings right now.

From:

Objections include

1) He thought the portrail of Hartnell's Who created a strawman of 1950's sexist - or at least pushed that view point more strongly that actually warranted. Moffat had taken lines out of context.

2) Then failed to explore the interaction between and differences between the two Doctors. He suggests that what we got was "har-har wasn't the olden days old fashioned". What about the contrasts between Man of Science and Man of Action or perhaps exploring which of the two is actually more of a feminist.

3) He questioned the purpose of the appearance of Lethbridge-Stewart.

4) Generally a lack of narrative and consequence, a lack of a chain of cause and effect. We are shown emotional moments, told they are emotional but they don't mean much.

So, he's off to take a break until 2020.

From:

Yes, I firmly agree with point 1, which made me quite angry on behalf of everyone involved in the early stories.

Points 2-4 I would say are partly symptomatic of the fact that Christmas episodes almost always tend to be weaker for detail and coherence than most ordinary episodes. They are written for people who don't watch Doctor Who regularly, and are probably drunk.

That said, I also agree that the last few years have been generally disappointing, and that the coming of Chibnall is unlikely to improve matters, so wouldn't dream of arguing with anyone who feels they've had enough. I'm going to keep watching not least because I want to help keep the audience figures up - I'd rather have the programme to watch and it be a bit shonky than have it cancelled. But I fell out of the habit of reviewing every episode half-way through the 2015 season, and I think that says a lot about how enthused I really am these days.

From:

I'm no expert on early Who so thanks for the comment on point 1.

I don't disagree with you on the link between Christmas Specials and points 2-4 and the reason for that.

My view is that Moffat had form for that sort of thing, in particular 4. Rilstone has been concerned about it for a while.

Keeping the audience figures up is a good thing. All power to your elbow. I hope you are able to report back in December 2018 that it all fabulous and Chibnall brought his Broadchurch game.

I'm in two minds about what the employment of Whittaker will do to viewing figures. Part of me thinks a large and controversial change to casting might bring in lots of new viewers, if only through an advertising effect. Part of me worries that that fuss will be unpleasant - like the Rabid Puppies and put people off.

I found the last couple of seasons frustratingly up and down. (As well as hitting my Moffat button a lot.) For example I really, really liked Heaven Sent in the castle with the Creeping Hover (which is what my son calls it) but then the following episode annoyed me again. I liked Bill Potts and I thought her transformation into a Cyberman was very poignant - until she didn't actually die.

And now I find myself too jaded and cross to engage with the programme with intellectual honesty. It will be some time before I can see things other than through a Being Very Cross at Moffat prism.

I miss your reviews.

From:

Early Who - I really recommend it. If you find yourself casting around for something to watch while you're on hiatus from New Who, you could do a lot worse than just go back right to the beginning and watch in order. Yes, it's of its time, but I found it really rewarded taking it seriously.

Moffat's form - yes, I do agree. I found the 2017 series markedly stronger than his others, but you're right that it wasn't perfect, and I have a long-running hatred of fake character deaths in particular.

My reviews - bless you! I do want to get back to it. I'm currently trying to get back on top of a long-running book and film review back-log, but may return to Doctor Who when I've done so. I watched the classic stuff a bit randomly at first when I was doing so, homing in on Doctors I particularly liked or generally highly-rated stories. But in the end found that watching in order pays off most of all, so I'll be back to doing that through the Troughton era if I do it.

From:

Fake character deaths are also something I really dislike.
Done well and very, very occassionally they work but Who, Moffat in particular, seems to have no other exit route for his characters other than a fake death.

I shall look up old Who. I think many of them are on Netflix.

From:

I agree on all points. Well, I didn't mind Lethbridge-Stewart, but the almost complete lack of plot annoyed me a bit.

"Look, people are doing bad things!" - "Oh, no, turns out everything is fine with the world". I really can't see how that fits into Dr Who.

(And I didn't like the use of the Christmas Truce. Or them getting the facts wrong.)

From:

It was a bit of an odd story.

I don't think I'm against a story where it looks like something bad is happening but really it isn't. Those can work as a tale or mystery or self-discovery or coming of age but it's an odd Doctor Who story.

Personally, not against Lethbridge-Stewart turning up but I think, why do it now and for that?

I'm also a bit worried about the memory bank people. That seems like an awfully big concept to introduce and then discard. Humans have such complete mastery of the universe that they can travel in time, store and imortalise everyone, no one is messing with them. More powerful than the Time Lords. What happens to them next?

From:

Yeah. I don't trust them. And I hope they get used again rather than just being discarded. They did seem very deus ex machina. With no real thought about how they affect the Who universe.

From:

They are almost too big to use again?

From:

True. In the same way that The Also People were.

(They were a clone of The Culture in one of the novels.)

From:

I must go back to reading the novels.

From:

This one is by Ben Aaronovitch. Who is now reasonably famous for non Doctor books.

From:

I believe MLW reads his other books.

From:

alithea

The Rivers of London books are excellent - I've recommended them to many people and have yet to find anyone who didn't enjoy them.

From:

IIRC correctly I bought the first one as a present for MLW and I think she's reading one of the later ones at the moment.

I only know this because she is actually reading a hardcopy book rather than a book on her Kindle.

(Note to self, get round to setting up some sort of Kindle sharing functionality.)

(deleted comment)

From:

Thanks - I've just read it, and it's very good.

I'm not sure what that email address is doing in the bottom of your comment, though? A copy-paste error perchance?

From: