How much is the problem with Chibnall to do with him being a fan?

It was said in various other incarnations of The Hive that the problem with RTD, Moffat et al, is that they're fanboy writers. And that unlike us, they're 'fans' in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS who seem to be convinced the show has to go any desperate lengths and depths to be loved and adored by the public, just so they can feel vindicated about their own love of the show (or at least the idea of the show).

How much is that the problem with Chibnall as well?

(it's something I sometimes wonder, because I was quite impressed with his first season of Broadchurch and couldn't quite believe it was by the same writer who gave us Cyberwoman, so it did make me wonder why doing Doctor Who seems the deciding factor that makes his writing go to shit?)

He was after all a fan in the thick of the 1985-6 cancellation crisis and seemed to have his own frustrations with what the show was doing at the time and what it needed to be instead. And I do think that period did enfoster a lot of neuroticism in the fanbase among fans like him.

I would say his ultraviolent smutty Torchwood stuff smacked of desperation to be 'cool' in the schoolyard. But his Jodie era era is obsessed with the idea of proving the show was something morally and socially virtuous, and often his stories go dirt stupid lengths to demonstrate so, in a way that smacks of the often sanctimonious cultish nature of the more elitist fans.

Seemingly forgetting that people primarily watch Doctor Who to be entertained, not preached at. But for some reason as a fan, he seems to have gotten it the other way round.

I don't think he is a fan. He said something to the effect of not having watched the classic series for years a while back. That's not a fan.

He's just a hack writer. Always has been.

Its more to do with an attitude of mind toward creating good drama that's spread across the entertainment industry like a cancer. I find his work odious in the same way I find last jedi or the new Charlie angels odious only with his Dr who he is fucking with something I have watched and enjoyed since childhood so I care more.

In addition, I think he is a poor writer. His dialogue is infantile at times, his characters uninteresting and 2 dimensional and his stories lame and all over the place. His attempts at humour are embarrassing failures at almost every turn.

Broadchurch was okay but Camelot was boring as hell and Born and Bred was cheesey bollix - a bit like Doc Martin but lacking any of that shows charm or good humour. He did some film about a train robbery aswell but it came across to me as overstylised and clichéd.

So no. His problems are not due to him being a fan.

stengos wrote:Its more to do with an attitude of mind  toward  creating good drama that's spread across the entertainment industry like a cancer. I find his work odious in the same way I find  last jedi or the new Charlie angels odious only with his Dr who he is fucking with something I have watched and enjoyed since childhood so I care more.

In addition, I think he is a poor writer. His dialogue is infantile at times, his characters uninteresting and 2 dimensional and his stories lame and all over the place. His attempts at humour are embarrassing failures at almost every turn.

Broadchurch was okay but Camelot was boring as hell and Born and Bred was cheesey bollix - a bit like Doc Martin but lacking any of that shows charm or good humour. He did some film about a train robbery aswell but it came across to me as overstylised and clichéd.

So no. His problems are not due to him being a fan.

Broadchurch is still the only non-Who related stuff of his I've seen. And even then I've only seen its first season. I did intend to watch the second series but somehow ended up missing it (once you miss the first episode, you might as well just wait instead until the whole series comes out on DVD so you can follow it all properly from start to finish, but somehow I never picked it up when it did either). I've heard others since say variations of it wasn't as good.

What you say about his writing deficiencies and immaturity of approach is very true, but I still think that is in part down to him being your typical RTD-worshipper fanboy, who is zealously aping RTD's tacky, populist approach to the letter, only far worse with lamer execution (he very much as a showrunner feels more of a follower than a leader).

But then again you're right that if you take RTD out of the equation, then Chibnall would almost certainly easily manage to suck as a writer all by himself.

Tanmann, I beg you not to watch Broadchurch past season 1. I found the debut serial atmospheric and half-decent - but the next 2 series contain enough ham for a butchers shop, horrible characterisation (including the leads), ridiculous plot contrivances and the most farcical endings in TV history, particularly to season 2. Actually those are probably the only bits worth seeing!

Broadchurch Season 1 is pretty great, although a part of it is the surprisingly human and raw performances (no, not from Whittaker, rather Tennant and Coleman having Spectacular performances). Series 2 is... fine, I can see why it was made (Alec's backstory needing to be explained, the murderer needing to be actually convicted), but it's executed in a pretty botched manner, and the uniqueness from the first Series almost feels non-existent. Series 3 is much better than Series 2, and yet, it's the most inconsequential one out of the bunch. It almost has nothing to do with the events of the first Two Series, rather that it feels like an arc of Midsommers Murders just with Broadchurch characters.

I actually forgot Whittaker was in it, which I suppose is one thing that couldn't be said about her Nu Who performance.

Also is it me or is Tennant's TV cop in Broadchurch the least suited ever to physical exertion, virtually carking it as soon as he breaks into a jog? I swear Miss Marple in an invalid carriage would be better in a chase scene!

Mott1 wrote:Tanmann, I beg you not to watch Broadchurch past season 1. I found the debut serial atmospheric and half-decent - but the next 2 series contain enough ham for a butchers shop, horrible characterisation (including the leads), ridiculous plot contrivances and the most farcical endings in TV history, particularly to season 2. Actually those are probably the only bits worth seeing!

Oh don't worry, that ship has long sailed. I no longer have any interest in seeing Series 2 after hearing the bad reviews (which I wouldn't normally go exclusively by before seeing for myself, but this is Chibnall we're talking about, so I know what his bad looks like). The more I think about it, the more Series one had a perfect ending, and that's where it should've stood.