The finale was only the second episode of the Jodie Whittaker seasons that I’ve seen and I thought it was pretty dull tbh, but on IMDB and Twitter it seems it’s very Marmite. It gets mostly 1’s or 10’s, as do most things on IMDB, but this seems more extreme than usual in its divisiveness. Some of the reviewers are all “wow, best thing ever!”, while others are all “you’ve ruined my life, you fucking bastard fuckers!” However, the programme and subsequent hullabaloo has taught me 4 new things, which is nice.
1. The Doc isn’t from Gallifrey. S/he’s not even a Time Lord. S/he was adopted by a Gallifreyan woman when s/he was just a little black baby girl.
2. “Retcon” is a word.
3. Most Doctors are “canon”, whatever that is. Apparently Peter Cushing isn’t and Paul McGann might be.
4. Much like ‘Gogglebox’, you can watch people watching Doctor Who, thanks to the wonder of YouTube. Some of them have tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of subscribers! (Most have a collection of toys on their shelf.)
This post has hung motionless all night long. Is it stuck in a time vortex?
What post?
This episode is entitled “The Man Who Didn’t Exist”. I can’t wait for the next one “Things I Didn’t Do On My Holidays”
What holidays?
There’s a strange noise in here – it’s like, it’s like someone is trapped in a time vortex and is trying to say something.
Hold on, I’m getting a line in – “I don’t even like Top Shop”. Curiouser and curiouser
Very enjoyable post that you didn’t write there, Gary.
Here are the non-canon i.e. big screen, non-TV doctors
Cushing.
McGann
You forgot George Lazenby.
George Lazenby was in Coronation Street?
Are we now going to get into Non-Canon Bonds?
Where will this end?
Non-Canon Jedi? Non Canon Wombles? Non Canon Scooby Doo?
Non Canon Guns of Navarone?
Anything with Scrappy-Doo is non-canon Scooby-Doo.
Any Tom & Jerry not ‘Fred Quimby’ is non-canon.
Genesis minus Steve Hackett is shite.
Glad to hear that I am not the only Scooby purist here, GCU.
Scrappy-Doo can rot in cartoon hell.
Non-Quimby Tom & Jerry is sacrilege.
I have no opinion on Genesis.
Non-Canon Cannon?
That would be ridiculous, to be frank.
Non-canon Ball?
Half correct. Cushing is not canon. McGann IS – officially the 8th Doctor. His episode was a TV movie, not a cinema release, made in the US will the full backing and co-operation of the BBC, with a view to the American producers making a series, as at the time, the BBC felt unable to allocate the budget to bring it back themselves.
McGann subsequently made a short film as part of the 50th anniversary which (AFAIK) was only available via the Dr Who page on the BBC website. He has also made a few of the Big Finish audio shows.
Thanks for clarifying, Jim. I had been under the impression that the TV movie he made was a fairly rogue spin off.
I had never heard of the Big Finish audio shows. The Whoniverse is clearly larger and more complicated than I ever suspected,
I googled and found this article that explains how the fans kept Dr Who alive by means of “comics, novels and radio plays” during the years it was no on the telly.. It also clarifies the problem faced by the Beeb when the green light was given for a new TV show.
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/doctor-who-new-doctor-is-canon-like-it-or-not
Here’s a short piece on the 8th Doctor’s companions.
https://whatculture.com/tv/doctor-who-8-spin-off-characters-who-became-canon-ready?page=7
I thought McGann was superb, for what it’s worth, and was greatly saddened that the spin-off didn’t eventually get the legs to stagger the Doctor back into regular contact with 20th Century Earth.
I remember really enjoying The Monocled Mutineer with him. I see it’s on YouTube. Must watch it again sometime. In my considerable research for this thread I read that what with the radio and audio thingies he has played the Doctor more than any other actor.
Point of detail, Gary – she is a Time Lord. And the others are/were/will be Time Lords only because of the addition of her genetic information.
Happy to help 🙂
I am beg to differ. As I understand it, her DNA gave the Time Lords their power to regenerate, but she was from a different species altogether. As Screen Rant says, “She is not a Time Lord at all; she is something far, far more, a Timeless Child”.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant.com/doctor-who-timeless-child-identity-time-lord-origin-explained/amp/
Fair point. I sit corrected.
I haven’t watched Dr. Who for years. My youngest child is 19 and never cared for it and my grandchildren are at the PJ Masks stage. Isn’t it for 5-12 year olds? I suppose it’s a matter of time before I’ll have to watch it again.
Your post has told me everything I need to know. Thanks, Gary. You provide an important public service with these threads.
5-12 year olds? I’m not agree with that! 7-13, I’d say.
Fair point, well made.
It’s a rum thing, Dr Who, isn’t it? It used to be good then it got overblown.
Over the last 10… 20 (?) years (how long has the revival been going?) I’ve dabbled and watched the occasional episode, but I find it infuriating for a number of reasons:
(1) The Doctors are all annoying (with the possible exception of Matt Smith)
(2) Too flashy, too big
(3) It seems to misunderstand what a good story arc is. (I don’t mind complicated story arcs, but there needs to be some logic to it all and some dramatic payoff. I gave up at that arc about Matt Smith being the Last Ever Doctor and once he died he was gone…. (oooh…. you got me interested)… and then all of a sudden in the Christmas special there was some deus ex whatever and he regenerated again after all….)
I remember Bob on these boards arguing vehemently that the complexity and length of the story arcs made it a work of genius. But deliberately making something complicated doesn’t always make it better. (The best argument against unnecessary complexity is Kubrick’s The Shining, in which he pretty much stripped out all the exposition from Stephen King’s novel, and valued drama and horror over logic and complexity. Made it better, in short.)
I’ve never been an avid fan, but I like some of Tennant and Smith episodes. “Blink” is a superb piece of telly and introduced me to Carey Mulligan, for which I am grateful. The couple of Capaldi and Whittaker episodes I’ve seen were boring.
“Deus ex machina” is Latin for “God’s old car”. Though what that has to do with anything I don’t know.
Couldn’t agree more.
I have a captive Cyberman that has had its brain reprogrammed and an extra pair of arms attached. It follows me around and, in the unfortunate event of finding myself in front of a screen showing any post-Smith episodes, it lurches into action, covering my eyes with its silvery gloved hands and inserting a cyberfinger gently into each of my ears so that I cannot have the canon ruined for me by any of the woke Dr Who crap that’s cluttered up our TV schedules these last several years.
“…it lurches into action, covering my eyes with its silvery gloved hands and inserting a cyberfinger gently into each of my….” – that sentence sounded more exciting than when I reached the next, anticlimactic, word…
Think I last watched a full.episode ca 1974. Started watching the first episode of the “reboot”, thought it was absolutely terrible and gave up.
It flourished and wilted under Moffatt – initially very good, innovative, funny and weirdly compelling multi-arc drama, and then getting lost in its own complexity and ending up only being interesting to adult babies with more collectable figurines than friends.
I gave up on the Whittaker model after the Rosa Parks episode. It’s moral education for pre-teens, I suppose, which is a bit heavy-handed but no bad thing, but each episode practically ends with the Doctor turning to camera and going all Valerie Singleton doing the Blue Peter Christmas appeal for Niceness. Which I don’t need to see, to be honest.
Thing is, if you go back to the beginning of the show, back with Hartnell, that’s exactly what it was. Every others tory was educational, or certainly had elements of factual stuff that your average schoolkids could regurgitate in lessons, like about Aztecs. And it’s maybe even nice that it’s gone a bit “old school” in that sense, but hey, I know that’s not for everyone.
You’ve got a point there, Chiz.
But as someone who learnt about Rosa Parks thanks to a Neville Brothers song about her, I am not going to grumble about the Beeb doing their bit to ensure her story continues to be told.
I enjoyed being reminded of Hartnell’s Who too. He was like a rather conservative schoolmaster, I don’t think there was much running in the show in his day.
This is true. It’s a show originally designed for kids that still works as a show for kids. Any adult watching it can’t really complain that it’s not as complex or involving or makes as much sense as, say, Homeland or Breaking Bad.
Snorted at your “figurines” line – excellent! And the Val Singleton angle? Me too, I can’t stand it, all this worthy emoting and overdone (or as you put it, heavy handed) explication. Meh. And thrice meh.
If the unfolding story itself doesn’t evoke and justify some form of moral judgement, simply leave it unsaid and accept that the writing’s just not quite good enough. When the writers constantly feel the need for a ‘Janet & John do moral philosophy’ moment, they’ve failed.
The last time I saw Dr. Who, I was still cowering behind the sofa when the Cybermen came on.
So, this past Sunday then…..
I’ve learnt a new term on this thread: showrunner.
Wiki and The LA Times helped me out with a definition.
Los Angeles Times columnist Scott Collins describes showrunners as:[
“Hyphenates”, a curious hybrid of starry-eyed artists and tough-as-nails operational managers. They’re not just writers; they’re not just producers. They hire and fire writers and crew members, develop story lines, write scripts, cast actors, mind budgets and run interference with studio and network bosses. It’s one of the most unusual and demanding, right-brain/left-brain job descriptions in the entertainment world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showrunner
The term is used quite widely in the US entertainment business, but it was Russell T. Davies who made it more widely known in the UK.
Christopher Eccleston had disagreements with Davies and others at the BBC which led to his departure.
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/christopher-eccleston-says-doctor-who-relationship-broke-down-with-showrunner
Interesting bloke. He seems to be a chap who says what he thinks.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/mar/11/christopher-eccleston-macbeths-very-insecure-about-his-masculinity-i-am-most-men-are
“Retcon” was the word that got me. I read it in The Guardian’s review then found that fans of the show all seem to use the word like it’s a proper known thing.
The “reaction” videos intrigued me too. As I said, they’re very extreme, with fans expressing either absolute fury or overwhelming joy at the idea that the Doc’s not a Time Lord after all. This was my favourite one. (No need to watch it as the guy doesn’t actually say anything, he just posted a video of him watching it. I find that wonderfully peculiar.)
Retcon was used as a handy memory-wiping plot device in the Doctor Who spin-off Torchwood. I quite enjoyed Torchwood, enough to make a point of watching it anyway. I realised I was more concerned with real life details than fantasy ones when Captain Jack was required to read out the ISBN of a collection of Emily Dickinson poems.
As he started to read ‘0 … 1 … 9 …’ I shouted ‘Hang on! That’s the Faber and Faber edition. Faber and Faber ISBNs start 0571; 019 is Oxford University Press!’ Many long years of working in bookshops you see. My guess is that the writer reached for the first book on their desk, which was an OUP reference book, and copied that ISBN.
As you can imagine this breech of verisimilitude spoiled my enjoyment of the show.
Who could possibly want to watch a video of that guy watching a TV show?
This thread has certainly wandered into some murky crannies of human behaviour.
Valerie Singleton and William Hartnell making a come back.
Gatz and his Emily ISBN.
Lodestone having a Proustian moment about Gadge Robertson and Wags Wilson.
Gary, you are the showrunner of the wackiest show in town.
Unfortunately, as you should really know, Gary is “not available” each and every afternoon. Too busy running naked through the olive groves – one of these days, mark my words, he will be caught
Well over 40 comments, Gadge old boy!
ps “Gadge” – I haven’t thought of that nickname since , oh let me guess, 1763? Last I heard of Gadge Robertson after his expulsion from school (a minor affair involving cigarettes, money and some fisticuffs – for goodness sake who knew Wags Wilson had a jaw of glass?) he had set up a cattle ranch in Patagonia and was looking to establish a penguin farm on one of the more remote Falkland Isles. As far as I know he wasn’t a Time Lord but somewhat like the Spanish Inquisition I for one wouldn’t be surprised if one day there’s a strange humming noise and suddenly a telephone box appears.
Anyways, Happy Birthday Gadge, wherever you are
I’ve never given any thought to the wilderness years during which the Beeb were not producing any new Who. Which probably proves that I am not a real fan, because the true enthusiasts, like this guy, are up to speed with every detail. The Tardis visits the set of East Enders! Crikey!
It is all rather interesting in small doses but I have no aspiration to become the Gallifreyan equivalent to a Deadhead. A WhoHead?
Whovian is the term used, I believe.
I can’t say I care much for the term “Whovian”. It sounds like a sub-culture that takes itself a little too seriously. I’d rather be a deadhead flicking through my Dick’s Picks.
Anyway, the term did lead me to this rather wacky site about sub-cultures.
https://haenfler.sites.grinnell.edu/subcultures-and-scenes/whovians/
Radfems, Satanists, Hobos, Alt-Right, Roller Derby, Psychonauts….
I could spend hus browsing through them all.
Incidentally, who would have guessed that Dr Who is very popular in Belgium, where there is a big fan club.
http://inventorspot.com/articles/whovians-whove-stood-test-time-enter-social-media-era