How Would You Fix Doctor Who

Take it off air for at least 10 years, and then try again with a completely new team.

I mentioned this idea elsewhere on this forum, but I can't be arsed to look for it, so here it goes again. I'd do another story about the Dream Crabs, with a heck of a lot of story jumps to show how multi-layered their fantasies can be to their victims, and near the end of the story, it's revealed that the Doctor is also a victim- to a queen crab, who needs a longer gestation period to reach adulthood, before spreading her spoor across the universe. The Doctor then struggles with her, and eventually manages to extricate herself from its' clutches, and finally pulls it off, destroying it- and the Doctor is revealed as McGann! Doing this will completely undo all the nu-who stories as deluded fantasies made by the queen Dream Crab, and also explain why the Doctor thought he was female- it was a surge of hormones from the queen approaching maturity that influenced the Doctor's hallucinations. The shock of this long, long struggle triggers a regeneration, and the Doctor then becomes a new person- male, of course- and continues his adventures.

I'd do more or less the same thing in terms of the Doctor awakening from a long dream, except it'd involve revealing that Davison never really left Castrovalva.

Ronnie wrote:Take it off air for at least 10 years, and then try again with a completely new team.

This would probably be best. But I fear it's unsalvagable. If New Who is what we got from people with a wonky understanding of the original series, imagine what we'll get from a 2030s show made by people with fuzzy memories and a wonky understanding of New Who...

iank wrote:But I fear it's unsalvagable. If New Who is what we got from people with a wonky understanding of the original series, imagine what we'll get from a 2030s show made by people with fuzzy memories and a wonky understanding of New Who...

Sadly, I have to agree. There's no reason why an alternate sequel faithful to the original series couldn't work in theory, but it just seems totally unfeasible at this point. The Fitzroy cunts aren't the only ones we have to worry about. Already, they're slowly being replaced by a new generation of millennial SJW interlopers like Juno Dawson and Max Curtis, establishing a foothold via Big Finish and BBC Books. To repair Doctor Who would require leadership at the BBC with enough business sense to take it out of their hands, and I don't see that happening any time soon. Not even within the next ten or twenty years.

I've never even heard of them. Sounds like I should be grateful.

iank wrote:

Ronnie wrote:Take it off air for at least 10 years, and then try again with a completely new team.

This would probably be best. But I fear it's unsalvagable. If New Who is what we got from people with a wonky understanding of the original series, imagine what we'll get from a 2030s show made by people with fuzzy memories and a wonky understanding of New Who...

Yes, that is depressingly true.
I suppose I'm thinking of the Star Trek franchise which appears to be making something of a successful return after it's second time of being rested.
But then for the most part, they more or less got it right when it was rebooted. Something at which the NuWho team failed miserably.

All of your points are astute, though I’d just not have any version of 2030s Who be made by such a crowd. Surely there are some millennials out there with some understanding of the original series (I guess I’m one of them)? Why is it that everyone involved on a series that bases itself on a series made between 1963 and 1989 and prided itself on being intelligent are suddenly utter fools? Why is this brand the pure antithesis of idiot-proof? Why can’t it just hire a decent writer for once?

Bernard Marx wrote:All of your points are astute, though I’d just not have any version of 2030s Who be made by such a crowd. Surely there are some millennials out there with some understanding of the original series (I guess I’m one of them)? Why is it that everyone involved on a series that bases itself on a series made between 1963 and 1989 and prided itself on being intelligent are suddenly utter fools? Why is this brand the pure antithesis of idiot-proof? Why can’t it just hire a decent writer for once?

I'd offer the following explanation for why the writing is so poor these days.

RTD was part of the "Fitzroy Crowd" - a group of writers that tended to dominate literary Who after the end of the original tv series.

RTD was a much sort after writer in the early to mid 2000's.

The show was rebooted because the BBC wanted RTD to work for them and RTD stated as a condition that he wanted the BBC to reboot Who if he was to go and work for the BBC.

Thus Nu Who was born and was / is considered to have been very successful during RTD's years. I also think the underlying political philosophy of the programe is very congenial to the chattering, middle class attitudes of senior management at the BBC (e.g., Piers Wanker ... Wenger).

This gave RTD control over the development of Dr Who until 2010, developing, using and promoting writers that shared his mindset. This in turn meant that the likes of Moffat / Chibnall - i.e., other alumni of the Fitzroy Crowd - were well placed to take on the mantle of show runner after he left and in turn promote their own favoured writers.

These people form a group or a clique that doesn't really like to criticise one another and when some do the offending individuals seem to get ostracised - e.g., Lawrence Miles and Gareth Roberts.

Breaking into any clique is very difficult. It does happen but there has to be some sort of catastrophe to cause such change. Maybe BallChin is that disaster as his reign at BBC Wales seems to have been an unmitigated disaster as he seems to have been incompetent in organising and writing decent scripts for a show he is the designated runner of. Maybe now the BBC will look outside heir tiny little Who box and get in some proper talent. Or, alternatively, beg Russell to comeback for another series ... god no.

Another cause might be the BBC's Equality and Diversity Agenda which has gone side by side with a positive discrimination policy directive in favour of commissioning more programes made by or including ethnic and other minorities and promoting alternative life styles. I think this inevitably means that quality suffers. ChinKnackers got the show runner job because he pushed that sort of agenda in the run up to being appointed and that's what Pussy Wanker ... I mean Piers Wenger wanted to see. This is not the BBC that produced great tv masterpieces like I Claudius back in 1976. I dare say if that epic of ancient roman intrigue was an option today and was in competition with the latest RTD offering (Even Queerer as Even More Folk, More Fuckin' Bananas or even A Few More Years and Years) we would get RTD's rubbish rather than Jack Pulman's comedy drama masterpiece.
 
Those are my thoughts anyway.

stengos wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:All of your points are astute, though I’d just not have any version of 2030s Who be made by such a crowd. Surely there are some millennials out there with some understanding of the original series (I guess I’m one of them)? Why is it that everyone involved on a series that bases itself on a series made between 1963 and 1989 and prided itself on being intelligent are suddenly utter fools? Why is this brand the pure antithesis of idiot-proof? Why can’t it just hire a decent writer for once?

I'd offer the following explanation for why the writing is so poor these days.

RTD was part of the "Fitzroy Crowd" - a group of writers that tended to dominate literary Who after the end of the original tv series.

RTD was a much sort after writer in the early to mid 2000's.

The show was rebooted because the BBC wanted RTD to work for them and RTD stated as a condition that he wanted the BBC to reboot Who if he was to go and work for the BBC.

Thus Nu Who was born and was / is considered to have been very successful during RTD's years. I also think the underlying political philosophy of the programe is very congenial to the chattering, middle class attitudes of senior management at the BBC (e.g., Piers Wanker ... Wenger).

This gave RTD control over the development of Dr Who until 2010, developing, using and promoting writers that shared his mindset. This in turn meant that the likes of Moffat / Chibnall - i.e., other alumni of the Fitzroy Crowd - were well placed to take on the mantle of show runner after he left and in turn promote their own favoured writers.

These people form a group or a clique that doesn't really like to criticise one another and when some do the offending individuals seem to get ostracised - e.g., Lawrence Miles and Gareth Roberts.

Breaking into any clique is very difficult. It does happen but there has to be some sort of catastrophe to cause such change. Maybe BallChin is that disaster as his reign at BBC Wales seems to have been an unmitigated disaster as he seems to have been incompetent in organising and writing decent scripts for a show he is the designated runner of. Maybe now the BBC will look outside heir tiny little Who box and get in some proper talent. Or, alternatively, beg Russell to comeback for another series ... god no.

Another cause might be the BBC's Equality and Diversity Agenda which has gone side by side with a positive discrimination policy directive in favour of commissioning more programes made by or including ethnic and other minorities and promoting alternative life styles. I think this inevitably means that quality suffers. ChinKnackers got the show runner job because he pushed that sort of agenda in the run up to being appointed and that's what Pussy Wanker ... I mean Piers Wenger wanted to see. This is not the BBC that produced great tv masterpieces like I Claudius back in 1976. I dare say if that epic of ancient roman intrigue was an option today and was in competition with the latest RTD offering (Even Queerer as Even More Folk, More Fuckin' Bananas or even A Few More Years and Years) we would get RTD's rubbish rather than Jack Pulman's comedy drama masterpiece.
 
Those are my thoughts anyway.

You’re absolutely right about the current state of the BBC. They do seem to endorse mediocrity and popularism much more than ever before.

Although the last thing I would have done was employ writers of what is essentially fan-fiction (the least renowned of the literary form), and writers who are on record for slagging off the Classic series (Cornell calling Pertwee’s Doctor a ‘Tory’ and thus inciting the stereotype into sheeplike New Who fans, Moffat calling all of 60s Who ‘shit’, etc). That was their biggest mistake.

Bernard Marx wrote:Although the last thing I would have done was employ writers of what is essentially fan-fiction (the least renowned of the literary form), and writers who are on record for slagging off the Classic series (Cornell calling Pertwee’s Doctor a ‘Tory’ and thus inciting the stereotype into sheeplike New Who fans, Moffat calling all of 60s Who ‘shit’, etc). That was their biggest mistake.

Initially the BBC were not recruiting writers of fan fiction. They were recruiting the genius that was / is Russell Davies. From what i read at the time the BBC were very keen to get Davies writing for them. HE was the prize, not Doctor Who as such. Dr Who was just necessary to attract Russell. The other writers who prospered - Cornell, Moffat and Chibnall - benefited from their association with Davies and as Doctor Who was, in the BBC's eyes, a commercial success so they became bankable properties / writers themselves. Plus, to be fair, they were having indpt success aswell - e.g., Sherlock, Boadchurch and (prior to Nu Who, Coupling).

My own perspective is that the writers you refer to as fan fic writers were just purveyors of DW porn , churning out fan wank products that also engaged an element of radical politics. However, the BBC's perspective was different: get RTD. A by-product of that was the enhancement of the status of other writers associated with Davies Nu-Who which in turn made them more than fan fic writers in the eyes of BBC management.

The attitude of these people to Old Who was irrelevant to the BBC as the BBC were not primarily concerned with reviving the classic series. It was a case of "do what we can to get Russy on board, let him do what he can with DW and then he can do some serious stuff like Casenova or Years and Years". Unfortunately (from my perspective) it was a hit so writers associated with Russell got the gig after he left and we are still living the consequences.

I am just trying to explain why these people seem to be the only people writing for the show. They have little merit for me but unfortunately the BBC thinks they are brilliant. Russel gave them a foot hold. The BBC think the show's initial success can be continued and the key are these writers who grew up around Russell. The BBC think they have found a tv gold mine with these people. I dread to think how long they will take to realise it is fools gold, especially in an age when the only measures of success - e.g., viewing figures and maybe DVD sales are dismissed as being no longer relevant in the digital age.

Bernard Marx wrote:Why is it that everyone involved on a series that bases itself on a series made between 1963 and 1989 and prided itself on being intelligent are suddenly utter fools? Why is this brand the pure antithesis of idiot-proof? Why can’t it just hire a decent writer for once?

Unfortunately the show has always given rise to cults of personality within fandom, where if fans feel there's enough of a crisis going on with the show, they will raleigh around someone proscribed as a savior or a channel for their frustrations.

Back in the 80's that cult figure was superfan Ian Levine, who could be a real bully to any fan followers who he thought weren't towing his line. And frankly his understanding of the show has rarely been based on smarts. His was of the attitude that "bring anything back from the past and you get my vote".

He was the purveyor of fan porn, and the show did amend itself to his continuity tastes in the 1980's, for the worse I would say. And notably he was one of RTD's biggest sycophants too (despite being also RTD's whipping boy in the show itself, i.e. the Slitheen, Absorbaloff) and was praising Last of the Time Lords to the hilt for its fanwank.

Part of what gave the Fitzroy Tavern bunch, and RTD, their sense of being right was precisely in backlash to the years of Ian Levine's influence. In effect, they made a big thing about how they were the anti-Ian Levine.

They were superfans but made a big deal about not being that. And about how throwaway they thought the classic show was, and how unimportant all the little details should be to the non-fan audience, they made a big thing about 'the mouth of babes' as the best alternative to the show being catered to 'the mouth of Levine', and how they didn't take the show that seriously (well, as long as they didn't hear a word against the new series).

Also I think the reason why the personality cult in fandom is so strong is that the show may appeal to the smart kids, but often those smart kids might be misfits and a bit awkward when it comes to communication. Especially when factoring in those on the autism spectrum.

The louder voices in fandom then become seen by some of those fans as able to communicate their feelings and concerns about the show better than them, and gradually the more that figurehead sets their terms for what a fan is supposed to be, the more a relationship of dependence can be cultivated.

Levine I think got so strong because he spoke to a feeling that the BBC were clearly wrong to appease Mary Whitehouse in 1977, and the fans who wanted the show to stay the same way it was before, should've been listened to but were ignored, and only through Levine could they be heard again and could the show be drawn back to how fans like Levine wanted it. I think that's how it started.

And then the following generation, the fans of RTD became fixated with how the show should get back to the popularity of the 1970's at any cost and sacrifice.

Tanmann, thanks for the response. You’ve shed light on quite a few things I hadn’t considered. Your point about said smart kids being potential misfits and on the spectrum also rings true, especially given that I could probably classify within that field myself.

The fact that Levine praised RTD left, right and centre, only to also be frequently mocked and parodied in his scripts, only highlights how farcical the whole situation is.

Bernard Marx wrote:The fact that Levine praised RTD left, right and centre, only to also be frequently mocked and parodied in his scripts, only highlights how farcical the whole situation is.

Well that's the other issue.

It seems easy to convince some fans that they're being 'clever' and the show's being 'clever' enough, by mocking and making farce of a designated target as 'stupid' or 'myopic'.

The early Davison era was chiefly bigged up for being a welcome backlash to the 'silly' Williams era more than any other reason. Warriors seemed to get away with its worst idiocy simply by posturing against what everyone already thought was the greater stupidity of the arms race.

And likewise RTD's genius was always framed by how 'wrong' most complaining fans would've got it in his shoes, by being myopic about the fact there was a casual audience to appeal to.

Over and over again I got told some variation that RTD was being sharp and succinct in his handling of continuity in a way most fan writers would've gotten boring and indulgent about. And yet it was clear to me his handling of tedious comedy scenes and soap domestics was anything *but* succinct.

It was also clear to me that RTD's digs at Levine, and the obese in general were utterly cheap and moronic. But RTD's sycophants tended to be so willing to champion how "right-on" it was to give the finger to fans like him, that they probably thought they were an intellectual cut above to enjoy that trash, rather than a cut below.