#<- not even specific to RTD2

[canisonicscrewyou]

tumblr keeps shoving hypercritical posts about the new season of Doctor Who in my face despite my best efforts. I think it's taught me something. And I'm gonna be so, SO honest when I tell you what it is.............

I think some of you just don't like Doctor Who?

[pennysbees]

remember when belinda was announced and everyone kept pointing out the similarities between her and martha. haha. yeah.

[whoify]

sorry i looked in the notes of that post and people are saying wish world felt like a moffat episode so i have to speak. literally while watching i was thinking how differently rtd and moffat tend to approach season arcs, and like not to dichotomize them bc it’s not like they have completely opposing methods, but rtd’s through-lines tend to be content based while moffat’s tend to be context based. bad wolf in s1, torchwood in s2, saxon in s3, whatever that galaxy is called in s4. just words or names being repeated so you start to wonder what they mean. and it hasn’t been that different in rtd2: s14 with susan twist and s15 with mrs flood. the hints at the finale now just have a face to go with them as well. to be clear i’m not even saying this is a bad or worse way to establish suspense, just that it’s different. it’s become a hallmark of rtd who to me and i’ve genuinely always liked that his seasons center around teasing a specific mystery.

but now think about s5-7. yeah we have olivia colman give a rundown of the next three years in episode one, but aside from that, the overarching through-lines are much more connected to actual plot level events. s6 especially���the silence and river and madam korahdbshs what’s her face aren’t just there for us to wonder what they are, but are impacting the story from ep 1. clara in s7 isn’t just a name drop but a mystery we solve right along with the doctor. everything comes together in one big conclusion in the time of the doctor.

s8 is actually much more alike to rtd’s typical method—tease something/someone continuously throughout the season with no context with a big reveal in the finale. s9-10 don’t really have anything like this which is a breath of fresh air on its own.

all this to say that saying wish world felt like a moffat episode is just categorically incomprehensible to me. i don’t think it was bad, i just think it felt so very rtd—from the big reveal (technically last ep whatever) to bringing back classic characters to the heavy handed politics. unfortunately like 70% of dw fans think “moffat” is a synonym for “i didn’t like it”

[yoghurtsgirl]

If I held that wish baby, I would wish that Russell T Davies never returned to Doctor Who

RTD2 has been a colossal mess. Last season was maybe the worst series the show has ever had, with the only truly good episode being Rogue. After The Empire of Death, I thought I was done with the show. Then I killed time by watching Joy to the World on Boxing Day and I thought I was done with the show. But on my quest to show my girlfriend Doctor Who, I thought hey it might be an idea to do the new stuff just so she knows why I don't like it. And guess what we found?

We both really liked this series. The Robot Revolution was a super fun camp introduction to the season, with Belinda instantly being ten times more of a character than Ruby Bloody Sunday was. Lux was creatively unique and even though I wasn't a huge fan of it, it was a big swing which I really enjoyed it taking. The Well was a surprisingly great base-under-siege sequel to Midnight, something I never thought could happen. Lucky Day touched on really interesting themes and emotional beats even if it didn't stick the landing. The Story and the Engine was absolutely fantastic, pure joy and the most original episode in all of Doctor Who. And then we got the Interstellar Song Contest - an episode with incredible production values but god awful internal politics.

And here we are. Wish World, a story has some real interesting meta commentary of conservative power-structures that suppress people who don't fit in with the patriarchal worldview, how the world the right-wing strive to get back never really existed, and they have to ignore literal holes in their philosophy for their fiction to make sense. The production design is superb and it does look lush, with redressings of sets in super clever ways. On a production design and on a commentary level it is better than last year’s first part of the finale, but it left me feeling nothing. It left me feeling very little hope for The Reality War. I've been let down before by this show, and been let down by you, Russell. Surely you won't do that again.

Well Russell, fool me once shame on me, fool me twice? Fuck you.

The Reality War. What a heap of absolute piss. There's something truly incestous about the show now. This god-damn boys club that's had its claws in the show since the 90's is still here, and it refuses to progress. When the show returned in 2005, Russell was on record saying the kids watching the show in twenty years would be running it, they would be Doctor Who. 20 years later the old bugger is still here. And I have to wonder, was it worth it? Is all this worth it?

The MCU-ification of the show - and all media, let's be honest - is a plague. I don't mind the deal with Disney, I don't mind the lil mid-credit scenes I guess. What I do mind is how the show is being made as content and that's it. It's jangly keys tv. It's not a show, it's not made as a production. It's made out of legal obligation. This show is being made for ten year olds who have been watching the show for forty five years. It's made so broadly and yet so fucking niche it's for nobody. I enjoy lil cameos here and there, I enjoy lil references to silly little lore. What I hate is building entire episodes - nay, seasons - off references to decade old plot points that haven't been referenced since 1983. Oh, speaking of which...

Susan Foreman. Hi Susan. I love Susan. Why were you here? Or specifically, why weren't you here? If I had a nickel for each series of Doctor Who which built up the big return of The Doctor's first companion, only for her to not actually appear, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot but it's weird it not only happened twice, but in back to back seasons no less. Her cameo in Interstellar Song Contest was nice, but it amounted to nothing. Why was she here? Who was she for? The Fugitive Doctor's cameo in Story and the Engine was nice, but amounted to nothing more than jangly keys. The Thirteenth Doctor's cameo here amounted to nothing because she pops in, and it's lovely to see her again, but her whole cameo only existed for one reason - to give me vindication on how good her era actually was and how no one fucking believed me. We had it so good, man

The Rani - why? She's a character that exists only to be The Master-lite. I do like her, but she's often just a less interesting villain archetype. She's camp, she's silly, but that's kinda about it. I'm glad her grand return happened so we can stop with the "oooh the Rani is coming back" speculation every damn year, but god almighty what was this? Mrs Flood is the epitome of making it up as you go along. There's no arc, there's no actual thinking things through. Go back and watch her first appearances in Season One - she's clearly not The Rani. She just exists to be a buzzword so people can make lore videos about. "Ooh, are you not excited this character who hasn't appeared since The Doctor was Scottish five times ago is coming back??"

No. Because I care about writing. I care about plotting. I care about this show. Well, fuck me. Because if I had a nickel for each time a season finale brought back a legacy character who aspired to be a God, reduced his character to just being another boring God, with a CGI body of a dog, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot but it's weird it's happened twice... two seasons in a row. Why is Omega here and why is he like this? He got Sutekh'd. Holy fuck. How was this allowed to happen.

Why is there no story? Why is it all fluff and waffle. And when there is a story, about the Doctor having a daughter and how if they fix the world she disappears from time, why does it not matter? They pretend it does, but it not only is obviously a reshoot but it clearly lacks all the emotional weight of times long gone. You cannot tell me RTD2 was made to be accessible for new fans, and at the same time mention Looms in the same sentence. Because Looms are canon now. LOOMS. FUCKING LOOMS. The most insane and worst part of 90's Who Lore. Hey, remember that time the Time Lords got cursed by a witch and made them sterile? No? Well that's canon now. Oh, and bi-generation was explained as something Time Lords can do to reproduce, and not actually a one off magical event based on a Time Lord myth. WHAT THE FUCK REASONING IS THAT FOR THAT ALREADY AWFUL IDEA???? The Doctor having children was such a huge part of the show in RTD1, and how he lost them (in the Time War or not) was super impactful. But now he's retconned his own era - the Doctor never had kids because he's sterile but Susan... exists...?

Susan is a real weird part of the show because she existed pre-all this lore about The Doctor and the Time Lords and regeneration came about. He left her on an alien world to live a life of her own, and said he would come back for her. He never did. His granddaughter. But because of all the new lore over the years, her place in the show was left super unclear. Was she a Time Lord? Could she regenerate? Would she age like a human or a Gallifreyan? Well fuck you, because now she's not even the Doctor's grandkid. I don't want those answers to be explored really, because exploring too much of the Doctor's past could be damaging, and damning in Susan's case. But the answer is now no, she's not even his grandkid, is fucking insane to me.

And look, nostalgia is a dangerous thing. Nostalgia is a really powerful tool but it's remembering a past that never truly existed, it's the memories of past events that should stay that. And it's always good to remember. But that same boys club running the show for the past 20+ years refuse to let go of nostalgia. Because Ncuti is gone. And Billie Piper is the next Doctor Who

I fucking mean this, that is the single choice that has forever broken the show. Hey, Doctor Who is Rose Tyler now. Rose Tyler, his ex, who he last saw hundreds and thousands of years ago and six regenerations ago. We've had five Doctor Who's since David Tennant (first) left the TARDIS. And Rose has not been relevant in the show since 2009. Why are we still doing this? Beyond the optics of regenerating into his ex, beyond the nostalgia-baiting, I have to ask. Does anyone even care about Rose Tyler like this anymore? I have no hope for the future of the show, because it refuses to let go of the past.

And poor Ncuti. I feel so bad for him. He was so hard-done by. Two seasons of poor scripts, awful plotting, negative character arc. He came in with nat-20 charisma and I love him for that, and in this season he got to pull back the layers a little more and have him be a more complex character. All for it to come undone here. The best Doctor who deserved better; he's joined that pantheon alongside Colin Baker, Paul McGann, Peter Capaldi, and Jo Martin. The only Dalek appearance in his era was a reused clip from Day of the Daleks (which, by the way, was a clip from the special edition that featured new Dalek voices by Nicholas Briggs, which means the original serial isn't canon but the special edition is? Oh my god, Russell T Davies is the George Lucas of Doctor Who...) The only Cyberman appearance in his era was in a comic strip. No, we're not doing old baddies unless we're turning them into big dogs. No, we have whole new baddies and monsters! Like... a Nazi, a victim of a genocide who is villainised to the extent the Doctor joins the cause to kill him, and a monster made of snot. WOW, SO INCREDIBLE THERE

There is no sauce here. Nothing special. The directing and blocking in this episode was truly awful. The lighting flat as a pancake. Insane uses of characters. Anita from that god awful Christmas special stands there as a doorstop and says nothing for the entire episode. They throw the main companion into a literal fucking box for half the episode and she does nothing. Rose, Donna's transgender daughter is also here. And again, she does nothing (at least this time she did more than only look at a bloody iPad though). Like,,, wow, go girlies!! Give us NOTHING!!! 

Also it's insane that the optics of the story where a fascist creates an alt-timeline where the men go to work and the women stay at homes to look after the babies, only for the resolution of the story to have the main female character stay in the sci-fi cube. Now that's what I call feminism. Reducing a female character to just being a mother. Belinda wanted to get home all this time because she was an independent woman who had a life of her own to lead, with zero set up of her wanting to start a family. She even hated the idea of being Mrs, of being seen as incomplete if she didn’t adhere to a family unit. But no, the Doctor commits suicide to change time and make her a single mother and rewrite her entire life. What the fuck. Also insane that Anita is a pregnant woman, yet her whole function in saving the day is to stay standing for uncomfortably long. It’s not like pregnant women need major physical support or anything. Fuck off. The gender politics of this episode Jesus fucking Christ. 

It’s truly fucked up. Why did no one stop this? Poppy getting erased from time, The Doctor awkwardly giving up his life to save his and Belinda's daughter, only for her to come back and re-write Belinda's entire timestream so she was a single mother. Because in this story, women are just for breeding or something?? Wtf is that about. It's insane that the Doctor died like this even. On paper I love the Doctor giving up his life to save one person. That's so so good and something that has been done before, and even in this era the idea of one person being missing is so heartbreaking and the Doctor would do anything to remedy that. But the emotional and thematic beat of the Doctor finally having a biological child (which is a heap of piss but let's go along with it for a moment) is completely gone because no, he doesn't have a kid. Poppy doesn’t matter because her life got completely rewritten too. We don’t even meet her dad. Fuck you.

This has been a whole ramble of a review, and I have so so many more thoughts on it. This is entirely unstructured, but I'm disappointed. My girlfriend Jane is disappointed. She's a pathological enjoyer of media, she's somebody who will find the good in anything and love it for that (is that why she's dating me, chat?) and she hated it. I hated it. And you should hate this too.

If 1980's Doctor Who was not worth saving, this shit isn't either. I said the same last year, and I'll say it again. I hope Disney pulls out. Doctor Who deserves better than Bad Wolf and Russell T Davies.

Sack Russell T Davies, sack Jane Tranter, sack Phil Collinson, sack Julie Gardner, sack Murray Gold. And then I'll come back to the show...

[truestoriesaboutme]

I'm seeing a lot of people who think Joy to the World ignores the character development of The Giggle and I don't think it does at all but to explain that we have to do something that it seems like no one wants to do.

Let's talk about the Bigeneration!

So what actually happened when the Doctor bigenerated? The text itself is very vague, which is probably for the best. You don't want to get bogged down in regeneration mechanics in the third act of the third act of your anniversary special. You're just supposed to feel it and move on.

But what actually happened though?

I don't mean in terms of the lore, necessarily. The lore is fun but ultimately subservient to the needs of the story. I mean, what happened in terms of the story and the meta narrative.

First, the meta narrative: Disney bought Doctor Who. That's what happened. More specifically, they bought exclusive worldwide streaming rights to any newly produced Doctor Who and nothing else. None of the previous seasons of New Who or Classic. And so, in order to sell it to new audiences on their services, Doctor Who has to, functionally, start over. They don't want to have a show on Disney+ that you have to go to a rival streaming service and watch 13 seasons of in order to understand. So RTD2 has to be, for all intents and purposes, a new show. Or perhaps more accurately, a new spinoff of an existing show that's also the same show.

But that's okay! Russell has done this before, back in 2005 when he created a brand new show that was also the same show. And back then, he dealt with Classic Who's previous cancellation by narrativizing it: it became the Time War. Don't know a thing about Classic Who? That's okay. That was before the Time War. So now that Doctor Who had to go through another backstage upheaval, it made sense to once again turn that into narrative.

This time it was a bit harder, though, because New Who was still going. So The Giggle had to function as a series finale for New Who while also being a backdoor pilot for the new spinoff which is also the same show. How do you do that?

First, you need David Tennant. Unambiguously the most popular New Who Doctor, RTD brought him back as the Fourteenth Doctor, a symbolic stand-in for the New Who Doctors in the same way that the War Doctor was for the Classic Who Doctors in the 50th anniversary. Throughout the 60th Anniversary specials, Fourteen carries the burden of every traumatic thing that happened to all of the New Who Doctors over the course of thirteen seasons of New Who. And so his story becomes about resolving all that trauma, about coming home to his best friend and retiring, about healing.

Meanwhile, all around him, the building blocks of a new television show are being pieced together, a new UNIT, a new TARDIS and a new emphasis on the supernatural.

And then it happens: bigeneration. A new Doctor physically splits off from the old one and, at that point, the show that started in 2005 is over and a new show has just begun. One that doesn't have to worry about the Time War or Trenzalore or The Flux or any of that stuff.

So based on all that, what does this mean for the Doctor(s) in the story? It means that Fourteen takes on all of the trauma of the last thirteen seasons so that Fifteen doesn't have to carry it. (Trauma, apparently, is carried in the trousers.) He retires and just fucking deals. Which incidentally, is why you're not seeing Fourteen helping out with world saving. It's not that he's just fucking around with Donna. Bitch, he's in therapy!

Meanwhile, Fifteen is the first Doctor since Seven to not have any Time War Angst. So, why is Fifteen still like that?

Well, have you even met Seven??

Trans writer Emily St. James has a great metaphor for finally dealing with gender dysphoria: it's like pulling up an old carpet and seeing all the stuff that was hiding underneath. When you finally get past the big thing that's been inhibiting your personal growth, that's when you're finally able to see everything else clearly for the first time and only then can the real work that you have to do on yourself truly begin. That's what's happening with Fifteen. He's finally able to deal with all the stuff that he couldn't even see because he was constantly having to deal with hitherto unheard of amounts of PTSD from countless universe ending apocalypses and companion deaths. Now he can finally work on self improvement.

And THAT'S what the Anita section of Joy to the World was about. About what comes next after recovery.

That and putting him in that cute Bob the Builder outfit.

[digitalwizard01]

I know it sounds super dramatic but I think it's time to swap showrunners again. We got RTD2 now let's get someone new. Or maybe even bring back Moffat, but id prefer someone new. Specifically somebody who just wants to tell good stories and has very little interest in big lore stuff. Basically what Tony Gilroy was with Andor for Star Wars Also they should at least let Moffat write a few more episodes cause he did write one of 15s best episodes so give him a few more

[leikeliscomet]

Who's Afraid of Tenmartha?

Chapter 3 & Conclusion - All’s Fair in Love and Shipping

So why do people actually like and ship Tenmartha? And what do I think about all of this? In Chapter 1, we covered the appeal of Martha as a desired Black woman and in Chapter 2, we went through the fandom craving for messy characters but there’s also a third answer that’s quite simple; people genuinely like Ten and Martha together.

Martha’s the smart medical student and Ten’s the charismatic Time Lord. They both look towards each other for an escape. Ten wants the joy and wonder of having a companion again and even admits to enjoying lying to Martha about Gallifrey still existing in Gridlock because he could be the wonderful mysterious traveller again. Martha’s the overachieving middle child, working as the glue to keep the Joneses + Annalise together. She wants a break and the chance to have something or someone to herself for a change. They’re both smart and quick-witted, but also push each other to be better. Their story isn’t just the tale of two characters who instantly agree on everything but one of two characters relying on each other to fill the voids they both possess, holding potential for interesting conflicts and great character moments. The two bounce off each other really well. Doctor and Doctor.

Tenmartha wasn’t born out of a dislike or hatred of Martha because the main part of anti-Martha Jones rhetoric is to keep her away from Ten. Martha antis hate Martha as the undesirable woman or the problematic woman, whilst Ten is the desirable man and morally grey bean, so in their eyes, they’re inherently wrong together. Instead, Tenmarthas seem to take the romantic subtext of series 3 put between them to have fun with it and create a healthier dynamic. One where Ten didn’t treat Martha as a rebound but instead acknowledged her greatness sooner rather than later. Creating an alternate series 3 where Martha was properly welcomed so the romantic, platonic and even sexual chemistries between them could actually be developed into a satisfying relationship for both parties. Sometimes this is with Ten specifically and other times it’s with other incarnations of the Doctor hence the births of ElevenMartha, TwelveMartha, NineMartha, ThirteenMartha and so on and so forth. And in all honestly, I don’t think any of this is that deep enough to go on hate campaigns against or go as so far to attack Tenmartha shippers. It’s especially not an excuse to engage in antiblackness and misogynoir toward Black Tenmarthas either.

Whilst I’m not a Tenmartha shipper, I see how unbalanced Martha Jones is treated in the Whovian marketplace of desire. I’ve written about compulsory sexuality before when specifically covering Thasmin and the double standards of attraction, romance and sex when it comes to gender and sexuality. I argue this applies to Tenmartha in terms of race just as it did for Thasmin, as compulsory sexuality affects race just as it affects gender and sexuality. The Doctor in the eyes of fans and showrunners must be a romantic and sexual being in order to be human, a lover, ‘really’ queer and palatable to a modern TV audience, yet they’re denied attraction to Martha out of every character in the universe. RTD Who’s explicitly romantic and reinforces these romantic and sexual standards for Ten, but sneakily draws the line at Martha Jones because she doesn’t fit the image of the desirable female companion and acceptable woman in what we consider ‘acceptable’ romance. And it’s because she’s a Black woman paired with a white male lead. Even in RTD2, we see a slight continuation of this depiction of not just in romance but also friendship. Martha, whether it’s romantic or platonic, is the only RTD companion who’s not allowed to participate fully with the Doctor. If she didn’t participate in these relationship dynamics by choice or had little to no attraction or just didn’t want to that’s one thing, but she was actively written as a character who did. And she was cut out. RTD stated Mickey deserved to lose Rose because of the sus emails on his computer but put that same cheating Mickey Smith with Martha. Mickey’s not good enough for Rose, but he’s good enough for Martha. If we saw Martha and Mickey interact and form a relationship on screen then maybe I’d get the appeal but essentially taking the two Black characters done dirty by Ten and Rose and making them a couple and telling your fans bon appetit feels shallow. Martha doesn’t even get to be with Tom Milligan either. Arguments about how Martha’s trauma would've ruined the relationship would've made sense if, again, we actually got this development on screen but it seems like a cop-out for what was supposed to be her happy ending in series 4. Rose and Donna had plenty of trauma of their own but they were still seen as worthy of romantic and platonic love. Donna’s got her endgame with Shaun and a lovely genius daughter, Rose Noble, broken bread with her mum and has Uncle Fourteen and Auntie Mel for company. In extended media Rose and Tentoo have a baby for crying out loud. But Martha can’t even be endgame with a side character? Ugh. In an interview, Freema Agyeman was asked about the handling of Martha’s character in series 3 and went on to state that whilst it was a relatable and important storyline to show about unrequited love, that Martha existed beyond that as character, stating ‘people also tune in for escapism and for romance and all of the magic and the, you know, the imagination so sometimes to be like grounded back down into hard truth isn’t very attractive’ I think that speaks for itself.

That being said romantic Tenmartha’s not for me. I’m not gonna be convinced Ten shouting at Martha for no reason was some edgy frenemies to lover concoction by RTD anytime soon, I’m one of those fans who likes the Doctor single and I very much enjoy my boring interracial pairings where the Black woman gets treated nicely by her non-Black partner. Vanilla’s a versatile flavour after all! But I can also admit it’s really not that serious when romantic Tenmartha appears on my TL. The constant gagging, hurling and digital vomit of the idea of the Doctor ever loving Martha will always feel more backhanded in comparison to a less than perfect ship. The repairing of Martha Jones and the idea Ten was the issue in isolation also feel a bit fake to me. Every doctor has done problematic things and that includes racially. Nine was weird to Mickey, Eleven was Churchill’s bestie, Twelve was rude to Danny and we all know what happened with Thirteen in Spyfall. So putting Martha with another Doctor isn’t inherently more ethical than Tenmartha either or the anti-racist serve fans think it is. Not to say fans can’t ship not-so-morally pure pairings ever but instead of the need to moralise and ‘purify’ the messiness of characters… maybe just embrace it? Accept that the Doctor is flawed and their relationships are too. Accept that Tenmartha is messy and problematic. But there’s not a lot of ships that aren’t in the Whoniverse anyway.

I will never though take complaints of racism in Doctor Who especially RTD1 seriously that begin and end with how it’s all Tenmartha’s fault. I will never take posts seriously about how the biggest and most worst form of racism that could ever happen in the Doctor Who fandom could be shipping Martha Jones with the Tenth Doctor. I will never accept anti-Tenmartha is done in the name of anti-racism or protecting Black women when to be Black and in this fandom and saying anything about the long antiblackness, misogynoir and colourism of Doctor Who and it’s stans is like pulling teeth. I will never take the idea that companions that look like me ever being romantically desired is some abomination and that its demonisation is a form of activism. Miss me with that shit. Ironically, the anti black racist attacks on Martha Jones and Freema Agyeman have been called out by Martha’s fans including ones who ship Tenmartha, but it’s not as prevalent for other shippers. The hard truth is that Tenmartha didn’t photoshop Freema Agyemen’s face onto the Aunt Jemima logo. Tenmarthas didn’t call Martha an affirmative action placement. Tenmarthas didn’t send threats to Black fans and call Black fans slurs. Tenmartha didn’t racially abuse Freema Agyeman to the point she was still hurt about it over 10 years later. Tenmartha didn’t play a key role in the Martha hate train. But Tenrose shippers did. To repeat from my first essay on Martha Jones, until the Tenrose-shaped elephant in the room is addressed, the fandom will never be a safe space for Black women or any Black person. Let’s rip that bandaid right off. If we’re gonna chat misogynoir let's chat properly, because the last thing we’re gonna do is reduce real life social issues to quote on quote, ‘ship wars’ in this house, okay?

Now, the purpose of this essay isn’t that Tenmartha is completely free from criticism but to share my personal feelings about it using some theory and maybe see if stans will self reflect into their bias against it. Me trying to get the fandom to be nicer to Tenmartha is the equivalent of trying to find a good Dalek. It's possible, but really hard and not something I expect to happen instantly or even at all. Either way, I know who’s afraid of Tenmartha and why and of course everyone’s entitled to their own opinions. But I don’t think there’s that much to be scared of at the end of the day. There are as many ships in the Doctor Who fandom as there are stars in the universe. There’s loads. Whatever your ideal romance looks like in Doctor Who,  it’s out there just for you. And if the romance’s not for you, you’ll find your space. And for some people, that space is for Smith and Jones.

<- Chapter 2

[gayleviticus]

i think my opinion on the rtd2 era (but more specifically series 15) is that it has the vibes of 'what if we took out the 5 best episodes of a typical 13 episode season and left the remaining 8'.

those remaining 8 arent necessarily bad. i'll even acknowledge that some like 73 yards and dot and bubble are quite cool. but it doesn't feel to me like doctor who is coming out with the big hitters anymore. it's like the cream of the crop have been surgically removed from each season.

i think that if you took out Thin Ice, Oxygen, Extremis, World Enoguh and Time, and Doctor Falls from series 10, it would feel remarkably similar to series 14. the quality of the existing episodes hasn't dropped, but the ceiling is just a lot lower

[roxannepolice]

Rant 3/phantom pains of Schrödinger's lore in ChibnallWho/"the history between" doesn't mean much to the author. that is, it does. but it doesn't. but it does. but not really. but./can someone in the group chat please read my time sensitive questions I posted 25 hours ago?

Between bracing myself to finally open the advisors reviewed thesis, waiting for anyone at work to give a newbie a hint, and reading a fairly good criticism of the political stance in ChibnallWho, I guess it's a good time to let go off some steam about this era. Now, an important clarification for tumblr: when I criticize the show, I am not in any way bashing on people who enjoy it! Good for you, and that's why I try to tag these appropriately.

But yeah, this is going to go deep into what I mean when I say the writing in this era is just bad, something even its defenders sometimes concede. This often turns into dicussions of political/social messaging in seasons 11-13, which is as fair criticism as any. Yes, it often veered into confusing to downright appalling. But for me, that's not what "bad writing" means. You can make an excellent story about a likeable rapist and murderer. You can make compelling propaganda of pretty much any economic stance (well, maybe except for "the solution to problems with Amazon is to blow up their trucks so now everything has to be delivered on foot I guess", that's something straight from Monty Python). And of course, the "too woke" "criticisms" aren't anything valid like at all.

No, for me the bad writing in ChibnallWho lies in the general sense of confusion as to who exactly is the target audience here: someone who's very well acquaintanced with the lore(s), or someone who's completely new to the show. Now, this is also inspired by some criticisms of RTD2 is that it is too expository, leading into the show-within-a-show theorizing. And of course, exposition can be done well or not-so-well, and there's good argument some parts of exposition in s14 were on the nose. But the thing about a television series, especially one as long as Doctor Who, is that any episode can be someone's first - and the writer's job is to make it so it won't be their last. What this means is that the audience needs to be provided the information necessary to grasp at least the emotional level of the story, if not every bit of earlier lore logic. In the case of Doctor Who there's also a part of establishing which part of the lore is valid to the story at hand, considering that both within the show itself, but also the huge multimedia lore, there are bound to be contradictions. And that's ok! You have a good story idea that will require a retcon for a better pay off, go for it! Like, if you really think the Doctor should get to save Gallifrey for their 50th birthday, then go ahead, just reduce the Time War to a local conflict between Time Lords and Daleks instead of underlining just how widespread across time and space it was, and logistically impossible to contain by removing one party (this is one of the many cases of "I don't like what Moffat did, but I agree the execution is functional").

Basically, Lancelot having an affair with Guinevre isn't relevant to him storming a wedding and killing mortally wounding giving a fleshwound to the bride's father.

So, essentially my issue with ChibnallWho writing is simultaneously trying to cut itself off from lore/earlier seasons, while relying on it for any emotional pay off. To give a counterexample from this very era's one of best written episodes: when the Doctor goes on about what being turned into a Cyberman means and that she won't lose anyone else to that, that's bloody powerful! And it's powerful regardless of whether you know it's specifically about Bill, or just go on the information provided within the episode - that the Doctor lost someone to this. Unfortunately, The Haunting of Villa Diodati is an honourable exception in this and many other aspects.

So, to start from the beginning. There's a frequent criticism that team TARDIS was overcrowded in seasons 11 and 12 with three companions, to which an immediate defense is that it's not the first time there were three companions at once. Fine. But combine this with the following: it's not just three companions introduced at once, it's three companions introduced at once, plus a brand new Doctor, plus a brand new sonic, plus a brand new TARDIS interior (that's absent for nearly full two first episodes). So you're basically left with four strangers and no point of reference in your getting to know them. And by no point of reference, I mean something that I haven't noticed anyone else pointing out: Thirteen is literally the first Doctor since One to have no established elements in their first season, at all (barring the TARDIS and sonic, again, completely redesigned).

It's a bit hard to discuss One to Two regeneration relying only on stills and audio, but Polly and Ben are there to act as audience proxies for this Beatle-hairstyled guy with a recorder being the old man he was a moment ago. Three's first season all revolves around UNIT, established in Two's era. Four inherits UNIT and Sarah Jane. Five inherits Adric, Nyssa, Tegan and the Master for his welcome. Six has Peri. Seven has Mel, the Master and the Rani. Eight's movie is all about the Master. Even the reboot for Nine has the Nastene consciousness as a hello and the whole season revolving around the Daleks. Ten gets Rose and Tylers, and Cybermen, and Daleks, and Sarah Jane, and K-9. Eleven gets the previously established River Song and a Classic Who villain reunion in the season finale. Twelve gets Clara. Thirteen gets.... Twelve's suit that she should have stayed in and Daleks, nearly three months from her first episode.

And the thing is, I understand how this would have appeared to be a good idea on paper! Complaints about the show getting lost up it's own self-referential ass have been around for years by this point, and even Moffat tried to go for a soft reboot in s10. Chibs literally asking him to set the TARDIS on fire is as symbolic a new beginning as they get. A bold, intriguing idea. As is trying to explore Titanic with nothing but a snorkel.

Because in practice it had two fundamental flaws, one more general and one specific to the story as it unfolded. The general one has been hinted at: this is basically why there's the sense of overcrowding on the TARDIS, while also leaving the audience feeling they don't really know anyone on board. Are we getting to know the new Doctor from the companions' perspective? The companions from the Doctor's? The new villain (and a really unfamiliar one, Toothboy isn't a familiar threat like plastic pollution metaphor or pshysically inevitable end of the world) from an alien's or humans' perspective? The new worlds from all of theirs? We sort of end up relating most to Grace, except she dies in the first episode. The thing is, it is in confrontation with the established that we learn most about the characters. Nothing characterizes Nine more than his interactions with the Daleks, going from torturing one to deciding he can't commit another planetary destruction to stop them. Basically, between a kind straight Black navy officer and a White lesbian strangling her wife in a jealous rage, you're likelier to recognize Othello in the latter. Something tells me this is why RTD had Fifteen interact with another Doctor, Donna, Mel, Kate, UNIT, the Toymaker and even toothied Master before sending him on his own merry way.

The second problem has more to do with the direction the story actually went in. Because just from the above, and indeed after s11 it was a frequent praise of the era, it would look like Chibs is going for something easily accessible to new audiences. Great. But then comes s12 and basically all of the emotional pay off comes from the audience's attitude to the the lore! Or, maybe I'll put it this way: all charitable interpretations of it are rooted in not only lore literacy, but specific readings of established lore. And not only is the lore hardly established for the newcomers, but it's also not established which parts are to be cherry picked for the returning audience. Nowhere is it better visible than in Fugitive!Doctor's TARDIS being a police box. This was clearly meant to tell the audience yes, this is indeed the Doctor's TARDIS, but if you know how much of a deal pre-Hartnell Doctors would be, you'd also know the TARDIS doesn't just look like a police box, it was stuck looking like one in 1963. And so we end up with secret third Doctor theories between classic series 6 and 7.

And this is the fundamental problem with the timeless child. It shakes the lore to the core, but without establishing what this lore is, and how the audience is supposed to feel about it. Oh, you can go for post-colonial criticisms, but that relies on you reading the Time Lords as the british empire, a reading not clear to all of the audience, as exhibited by an actual academic article (because yes, I spent my hard earned money on a collection of academic articles about ChibnallWho and no I absolutely won't share a pdf should anyone dm me) written by an author more rooted in feminist than post-colonial critical theories seeing the new origin of Time Lords as replacing a masculine creatio ex nihilo ethos by that of a feminine explorer-scientist [appreciative]. You're basically supposed to get a phantom pain of a lore that's both alive and dead until observed, the presumed intention being that you will have a positive or negative feelings about the cat, without considering most people will be either abstractly impressed by the metaphor, or equally abstractly disturbed by animal abuse. It's criticising the roman empire by debunking it being founded by Mars's children raised by a she-wolf.

And this is also visible in the Doctor's own reaction to the revelation, which I guess you might argue is complex, but I would say it's more shifting from establishing moment to establishing moment. She goes from being shocked by it (again, no part of the text informed me I shouldn't cherry pick her characterization as including calling Time Lords the most rotten civilization in the universe, also is it even established that's the second time Gallifrey was destroyed?), to describing it as empowering, to apparently not thinking about it for 100 years, to having an identity crisis, to stating her identity is about what she does, to bemoaning the could-have-beens, to deciding she doesn't want to know, to her deepest desire being wanting to know it after all (the vision of ttc in potd). Like, come on, not finding your glasses means your room is messy, not complex. The effect is infantilizing more than anything else, I mean it's been what, three months since the last time a villain informed a heroine she has an epic origin that's also very horrible in The rise of Skywalker? Which impression is amplified by the only clue as to the Doctor's personal, not performed, attitude being that she apparently finds the cliche chosen one story of a boy abused by his adoptive family turning out to be a wizard, and a special wizard at that, comforting. Probably not the intended reading that wouldn't even be available if Rowling got cancelled earlier, but there as things are.

And of course, this has a lot of bearing on how thoschei dynamic is executed. On the one hand we have the entire emotional pay off rooted in the "history between them", on the other vague references to Classic Who and expanded universe, on the third characterization of the Master that is rooted more in fanon Freud-for-dummies woobification than anything this character's motivations have ever been established as. Like, between the charitable reading "Thirteen is hostile to the Master because of the events of s10" and the anti-charitable reading of "Missy's development was retconned in the Master's hostility", the answer is, it doesn't bloody matter to the story at hand, or else it's the writer's job to point to it as meaningful (again, as Maxine Alderton did with cybermenification in THOVD). Another case of "I don't agree with Moffat, but I agree the execution was functional", but you can juxtapose this with the way Simm!Master was presented in s10 - yeah, he got cured and kicked out of Gallifrey; that's really all you need to know, because his role in this story is being an unrepentant asshole and no amount of gifs slowing down John Simm turning his eyes down before saying "Eh, you wouldn't understand" will change that. The same goes for "see, the Master didn't destroy Gallifrey over everything that's been done to them, but over Theta being hurt uwu" interpretation - neither the reading this was the motivation, nor anything relating to the Master suffering from the Time Lords have been established in the text, neither as it unfolded nor as a pay off reveal! This basically relies on the attitude that the most charitable reading is by default the intended one, which is how you end up with "op means that Taylor Swift being gay shouldn't make you ignore all other gay women musicians".

A little bit of an aside, but people remember O was an actual person the Doctor met in unknown circumstances, not just a creation of the Master from the beginning, right? Like, this is taken into account in all "he's so desperate to be friends again uwu" readings, right?

So this is why "if the history between means anything" quote falls flat to me. The meaning is rooted in lore that's brushed aside in the same breath. The author relies on it being meaningful for the audience, while providing only the bare bones of "we were friends, but took completely different paths" background, and that by the end of the first act. Just as he relies on the audience having an emotional attachment to the lore without doing anything to create that attachment.

[patches-and-potions]

Reality War Spoilers Ahead:

in short: what the fuck

Okay. This is it. This episode sums up every issue I’ve been having with RTD2’s era.

In a short list:

Sidelining Belinda and continually bringing Ruby back

Treating the Doctor as the Absolute Moral Authority on Everything

Refusing to have more complex character dynamics than Good Guy and Bad Guy.

More specific gripes:

Panjabi!Rani and Omega being defeated in under ten minutes. What was even the point of Omega being back if the Doctor just zaps him with a lazer. Stupid fucking Marvel Endgame bullshit.

The Doctor feeling weirdly entitled to Poppy?? Like, first of all you stole her face from Captain Poppy, even if it was just subconsciously. You have zero claim to Captain Poppy, I didn’t like that. Second of all, this wasn’t a consensual or intentional baby?? Literally Belinda and the Doctor only have her because they’re trapped in a heterosexual brainwashed relationship?? IDC if she came from their shared subconscious or whatever, it’s creepy. But noooo she’s super real and we can’t just let her not exist. Weird fucking vibes there.

Also, nonconsensually altering Belinda’s reality to give her a baby?? So the Doctor isn’t Super Sad?? Ew??? Sir you already have a daughter who you were an asshole to!

I didn’t mind that The Doctor is willing to tear apart the universe for his fake baby. I do mind that it was treated as Morally Correct. And I mind that there was zero mention of Susan or Jenny. Y’know, his established daughter and granddaughter. Both fully capable of regeneration aka being recast with Black women if RTD felt uncomfortable with continuing to have a white actress for either role.

What the fuck was Kate’s line, “We’re all your children.” She would not fucking say that. RTD keep away from UNIT you clearly don’t understand their dynamic with the Doctor. She is not the Doctor’s friend. Also quit your incessant need to pair off every single woman in the cast. We get it, you don’t believe that women can be happy single. Yes I’m anti-dustbuddies and firmly a Lesbian!Kate truther (source? I’m a delusional lesbian and I think Jemma Redgrave is hot.)

Ruby Sunday needs to get off my screen. She’s not the main companion, and I want all of her initiative to go to Belinda. Why are we literally shoving Belinda into a box and then focusing on Ruby and the Doctor? Hello, how blatant can you get. Oh yeah the woman of color can take the baby and get off the screen for RTD’s new favorite blonde teenage girl.

I’ve never liked Timepetals, I don’t think the Doctor’s soulmate is a 19 year old girl he met while freshly traumatized, shoot me or whatever. Billie Piper should not have come back. I’m a firm believer that it should have been a Martha return and her new companion should be Belinda or a timeskip!Poppy. Hell, I would’ve taken Georgia Tennant over Billie Piper.

Why bring Mel and Susan Triad back and then do nothing with them. Mel is the only other person there with a connection to the Rani.

Why is the Rani literally just pre-redemption!Missy without any of the nuance.

Loved Jodie back, hated the weird Thasmin fanservice. I’m sorry they had zero chemistry in their seasons together, Yaz only got a personality in her last few episodes.

Why do all of the blonde women in this episode have a vaguely wavy bob with bangs. There is more than one haircut I swear. Put Ruby’s hair up in a pony or give her clips or something.

[aletterinthenameofsanity]

Feelings about Bringing Back Moffat For RTD2 + Other Writers I Think Should Get the Chance

Whelp, just found out that Steven Moffat is going to be writing an episode of Fifteen and I'm just like...eh? about the whole prospect. Like, not as terrified as I once might have been but like...hoping he grew as a writer. Because even though I vastly prefer his one-offs to his overarching season ideas...let's not pretend that you couldn't see the warning signs looking back. The focus on either women as mothers (Doctor Dances) women companions as operating in service/deference to the Doctor (Empty Child/Blink) or women as the Time Traveller's Wife (Girl in the Fireplace, Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead). Empty Child/Doctor Dances, Blink, and Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead are all fantastic episodes and I think Blink is the strongest one-off (though let's all remember that the ending was suggested by Gatiss, not Moffat) though I will adore Empty Child/Doctor Dances until I die (though let's not forget that Jack Harkness was an RTD invention).

I really hope he learned his lessons through writing latestage Clara and Bill as companions, but I'm honestly just as scared of his racial undertones as am of RTD's. Let's not forget that both of the black companions under Moffat (Bill&Danny) were both dehumanized/turned into Cybermen in order to service Clara and the Doctor/Missy's arcs (though Bill's ending is far better handled in terms of giving Bill her own ending than Danny's, imo), just as RTD really callously handled Martha's treatment, especially in historical episodes. That is not to say that I don't have some hope due to how Bill's race was handled in Thin Ice, but let's just say I'm cautious about getting super excited like some people are.

All of which is to say...I want Toby Whithouse to write a one-off in the RTD2 Era. Or many. I want his examination of the fucked-up and complicated psychological aspects of the Doctor/Companion relationship and even the Doctor themself (I mean he is the one who wrote School Reunion, God Complex, A Town Called Mercy, Under the Lake/Before the Flood, and Vampires of Venice).

ALSO more women and writers of color. I want to see what kind of new voices in sci-fi can be brought to the table and explore more aspects of their experiences, especially as it pertains to historical/future episodes. I'm done with pretending that Demons of the Punjab wasn't one of the best episodes of Doctor Who, and that was specifically because an Indian writer (Vinay Patel) was brought in to write it. (Also, can we see Vinay back as well? He also wrote Fugitive of the Judoon which was another banger. He's also really good at exploring character feelings/implications of time travel/memory.) I also think that Joy Wilkinson, who wrote the Witchfinders, could be a fun choice as well. I really liked the Witchfinders and I'm curious to see how she might tackle a subject matter like that again.

[synthient]

Just thinking about how the date Belinda wants to get back to will be the irl date of the episode they finally manage to get there, that reminds me of series 5 where they did something very similar with Amy's wedding day which was also the date the Tardis exploded, the difference being that Amy at first intentionally kept travelling instead of returning to that day to make the night before last longer (and then when the Doctor realised it was when the Tardis would explode he tried to stop River from taking her there but it was inevitable at that point) whereas Belinda wants to get back to where she belongs and the Tardis seems to be avoiding the date...

Also an interesting parallel is how in the first episode of series 5 the Doctor first met Amy when she was a child and when he returned he didn't realise at first how long he'd been gone, and it sounds like Belinda will also be away for longer than she realises at first with the hours vs months thing? (Side note also, if the date she's trying to get back to is the day she was taken, maybe something happened in her absence that led to the Doctor finding her a few months later and it would be a paradox to send her back as if she'd never gone missing and that's why it's not working? Or maybe the date they're trying to get her back to is after she's been missing if they know about that and take it into account but the Tardis just can't seem to get even slightly close enough to the right date?)

Could all just be a coincidence, but the fact that the animated poster thing for the title of the Reality War had those big red cracks in the walls... Series 5 showed that if the Tardis is killed, (at least in the specific explodey way they did that time) all of time and the universe goes with her, with existence-erasing (reality-altering) cracks spreading everywhere in anticipation...

(and the cure was stored conveniently in the trap some enemies made for the Doctor, and Amy was able to restore the Doctor and the Tardis to the universe thanks to having grown up with one of those time cracks in her bedroom wall and it never eating her despite being right next to her all that time and eating her parents and technically Rory survived better by being removed from existence after he was lethally shot so that he could be part of Amy's subconscious memories for the autons to create a replica of who would overwrite his auton programming to romantically protect and save Amy after killing her and oh no way The Tardis Did It all along back then too (kind of) knowing she would be assassinated and setting things up so she could survive...???)

But yeah anyway main point do you think they could be drawing attention to series 5 on purpose or is "the date this episode airs is important in-universe" just a thing that happens sometimes?

Huh! Wow. Well. I thought I'd been broadly spoiled on most of the convoluted 11 twists by now, but somehow "Rory is technically a mannequin" is still news to me

Ty for the breakdown! Since I've only watched the tail end of 11, I wasn't really equipped to make the connection on my own between Reality War's cracks in reality, and the crack in the wall/Tardis explosion plot. But RTD2 seems to be referencing and drawing from a lot of Moffat-era elements - Belinda as Impossible Girl 2, Mrs. Flood's Clara and Missy signals, my hunch that the whole Tardis plot stems from Twice Upon a Time - so it definitely checks out.

If the cracks could be a sign that the Tardis is injured, then that raises a few intriguing possibilities for the finale:

The Doctor/UNIT/etc thinks they've successfully killed whover the S2 Sutekh is. But instead, they accidentally hurt its puppeteer, the Tardis. (Clara in the Dalek vibes)

The Tardis has overstretched herself, and is now sick/dying because she expended too much energy on reality warping

The Tardis has lost control, and now the Doctor/UNIT/etc don't know how to stop her without destroying her (and endangering the universe in a different way)

[schrodingersbobbynash]

in comparison the beginning of rtd2 was fine i guess but two specific issues i still have are 1. having everyone laugh after someone makes a joke to make it clear to the audience that it is both a joke and funny instead of trusting that we know what a joke is, and 2. specifically in space babies whenever the doc and ruby go heavy on the baby comfort saying like "ohhh poor baby it's ok it's ok dont cry!!" none of the babies are even a little bit upset. if ur gonna cgi the mouths moving just go ahead n cgi the whole face babes we know u can do it

[higheldertala]

doing a little rant about the doctor and gender. i gather this discourse is getting stale but im gonna give my two cents anyway.

anyone who’s read my opinions on the ch*bnall era will know i really didn’t like how the doctor’s gender was represented during this era and unfortunately that seems to has passed on to the rtd2 era. not that the topic of gender in doctor who is new, i would say the topic of specifically time lords and gender became more prominent with our favourite misogynist st*ven m*ffat when he introduced missy, explicitly claiming that she could never call herself the master while being in a woman’s body. thanks m*ffat!

i think it’s safe to assume that time lords shouldn’t care about gender. at least not in the way humans do. they’re aliens, they wouldn’t follow human societal gender constructs. that would seem like a simple conclusion but apparently not to the white boomer men writing the show. even within the show the doctor has stated that time lords don’t ‘obsess’ over gender as written by said m*ffat (before of course immediately contradicting this just one episode later, showing time lord do actually obsess over gender to the point where it’s literally ever other line of their dialogue).

okay back to the point. as within the ch*bnall and now the rtd2 era the doctor’s gender is ascribed upon by others. no where in these eras does the doctor ever proclaim their own gender, it is simply assumed by other characters and then never questioned or challenged, much to my frustration. and sure perhaps the doctor doesn’t care what human gender humans assign to them but for me this greatly robs their character of agency. even from a genderfluid or agender perspective, if the doctor just says this out loud then that would be enough for me to be satisfied that the doctor gets a say in it.

secondly the doctor’s gender is still just being used as a joke. the doctor’s gender (and ability to change bodies) isn’t treated seriously and more just a funny little quirk the audience can point and laugh at, being presented as ‘lol i was a man/ woman 5 minutes ago isn’t that so funny’. not only is this such a cisgender/fixed binary way of viewing gender it’s also really insulting to actual genderfluid people who do change their gender. their gender and the ability to fluctuate gender isn’t a joke, it’s a person’s identity and should be treated with respect.

in the star beast, gender comes up in the resolution of the episode where it has no place to be. it’s makes no sense to add gender to the equation as it provides no further explanation of the resolution. and the line about the ‘male presenting time lord’ is completely baffling in every single way. rtd has clearly shown he understands the existence of the spectrum of gender and non binary gender yet with this single line contradicts this by resorting back to gender stereotypes and essentialism stating ‘a man could never understand emotional intelligence of letting something go ’. in an attempt to make GirlBoss™️ moment, rtd has just created average sexism. truly two steps forward then one step back. and to further bring this back round, again timelords would not care about gender and are unlikely to perform gender sterotypes this way so why bring it up at all. the doctor’s emotional vulnerability whilst present as a flaw in their character, is in all incarnations regardless of the gender of the actor playing the doctor. to suggest that the 13th doctor would be immune to this flaw is again sexist and also a fundamental misunderstanding of the character, with 13 has been one of the most emotional constipated and closed off incarnations. it honestly makes me question whether rtd has even seen the 13th doctor’s era at all.

unfortunately i think my desire for gender to be discussed and explored within the show seriously is not gonna happen any time soon, and honestly to prevent further frustrations i would rather the topic is not raised at all, if it is gonna be treated so carelessly and flippantly.

[rosencrypt]

RTD2 Trilogy is about (false) dichotomies

After Wild Blue Yonder I'm having Thoughts about Doctor Who.

Knowing the expression but not the song, I assumed the relevance was that the Doctor is all about exploring the open, unknown sky. Having now seen the episode and had a chat to my Beloved about Jungian dialectics, Persona's Shadow Selves etc., I'm appreciating the title choice much more.

This is a story all about inherent contradictions. The ship is at the end of the universe, but the universe is everything. The ship is both agoraphobic and claustrophobic. There's nothing beyond, but also Nothing beyond. There's a countdown to a bomb detonation, but that's a good thing, but also the Doctor is running to stop it, but also we want him to fail, but also we still don't want the ship to explode? It even extends to the viewer - we all know that Donna survives to feature in the next episode, but I've seen a lot of people (and in the moment I was one of them!) worried that she might actually die in that corridor.

And as the Doctor* says, humans are capable of believing two opposing ideas at the same time (can a superstition also be a fact?). Apply this to Wild Blue Yonder, the song. As humans we know that although it sounds jolly it's also a war propaganda song - it's both catchy and an explicit endorsement of horrific violence. To an adult who understands the reality, like Wilf or the Doctor, teaching children to sing the song is grotesque. The Not-Them however only mimic. They ask questions and can algorithmically regurgitate information, but they only take things at face value. They are children. War is a game, and they want to play! RTD may here be critiquing cycles of inherited conflict or possibly the glorification of violence in fiction (probably both), but he's definitely using the Not-Them as a mirror. If Nothing exists out there, then there is nothing but what we send. If we fill the nothing with e.g. songs about how jolly it is to soar with scouts ahead and bombers galore, we shouldn't be surprised when nothing flies to fight, guarding the nation's border. After all, Nothing can stop the U.S. Air Force.

Consider The Star Beast in this light. It's also all about things not being as they seem! The Meep vs the Wrarth Warriors, the controlled UNIT troops, Rose. Then we have less episode-specific concepts, like the DoctorDonna and Fourteen being both a wholly new incarnation and a return of Ten.

Probably here I should speculate about the final episode, but it's 1am and I should be in bed. Basically, Doctor Who is many things at once. It's good! It's bad! It has 60 years of continuity, including I'm pretty sure at least 3 previous appearances by Isaac Newton, but the only bits that count are the ones any given writer feels like acknowledging at the time. The TARDIS is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.

In this way, these specials are much truer celebrations of the series than they at first appear. They're both anniversary stories, but they don't feel that way - more like beginning and midseason episodes from the Fourteen and Donna series we didn't get. They're so much bigger, and madder, and better. And what's more Doctor Who than that?

*And also Visser One in Visser! I KNEW I'd seen that emphasised in a SF thing recently, but it took hours for me to remember.

[whoreviewswho]

Wokeness, Responsibility and if RTD is problematic - The First Black Doctor and the Meaning of Mavity

Is Russell T Davies a problematic figure? Is he too woke or not aware enough? Is he doing something wrong to illicit negative responses from the conservatives as well as the progressives? Is it something in the programme, something in the marketing or is he doing nothing particularly bad at all? Well, perhaps you and I, faithful reader, can come to some sort of conclusion. Let's find out together as we take a dive into the controversial choices behind RTD2 and the mind of the man behind them.

"The Doctor is the last of their kind - one of the last of their kind - and has never, like, fit in anywhere... and I really relate to that. I felt like there were lots of parallels... I was about two when we left Rwanda, so very, very, very wee... and something that I don't have much memory of. But it's something that has felt like this thing over my head. This thing that's guided my life, that's kind of like informed every aspect of it. It's the reason why my family came to this country. It's the reason for lots of things." - Ncuti Gatwa, DWM 598

Doctor Who's relationship with racial representation is complicated. Fuck that – Doctor Who has a lot of precedent for being racist. The original series is littered with explicitly harmful depictions of race from the pro-slavery parable that was The Ark to the notorious depiction Chinese culture in The Talons of Weng-Chiang and several examples of mindless, mute brutes in the Troughton era. This is before we even get into the less obtuse complexities of white, British actors donning any number of over-the-top costumes, extravagant voices and, frequently, some thick makeup to portray everybody from high priests of the Aztec empire to Egyptian and Syrian sultans. And, of course, there is the most pertinent example of these tendencies in The Celestial Toymaker, which we shall be getting back to shortly.

In the first article of this series, I referenced a video from YouTuber Princess Weekes called Martha Jones Deserved Better (And Other Correct Doctor Who Takes). In this video, Weekes breaks down a number of problematic elements from the revived series and, specifically, RTD's first tenure as showrunner. It is well worth a watch and gets into a lot more detail on these issues than I feel inclined to dismiss here but some of the key points include the problematic use of both Mickey and Martha within the 'disposable-black-love-interest' trope and the broader implications of Martha's relationship with the Doctor as a time travelling companion, for example, the poor optics of the Doctor becoming human and deliberately hiding with Martha in, of all places in the history of universe, pre-WWI England as if that would be a low-key and safe environment for her. These examples are emblematic of his mishandling of black characters across his first five years on the show.

With this in mind, let us fast-forward to the eighth of May 2022. On the day that turned out to be almost exactly two years before his first full season debuted, Rwandan born Scottish actor Ncuti Gatwa was announced as the newest actor to portray the eponymous hero in Doctor Who. On Christmas Day 2023, Gatwa made history as the first black leading man in the franchise's history. He is not, as will forever be rightfully and dutifully noted, the first black actor to play the role of the Doctor. That honour goes to Jo Martin's guest appearance in 2020 as the Fugitive Doctor. It will forever remain true, however, that Gatwa is the first black actor to assume the role as the leading man. As he put it himself in Doctor Who Magazine #598; "I'm the first Doctor of colour, fully". Ncuti's time as the Doctor, however long it may reign, will forever be associated with the man who spearheaded his casting – Russell T Davies.

Significantly, RTD2 does not begin with a black Doctor Who. As everybody reading this will know, it begins with the very white David Tennant, standing on a clifftop not wearing his predecessor's clothes. However, this is not to say that the three 60th anniversary specials entirely avoid engaging with race – far from it. I would think it much more reasonable to say that all three of them go to some lengths to be mindful of how characters of non-white and mixed race are depicted.

Let us take a glance at The Star Beast and, given that Donna Noble is particularly relevant to this conversation, I feel obliged to contextualise her two romantic partners from RTD1 and how they illustrate his similarly poor optics. Take her fiancé Lance, portrayed by Don Gilet in The Runaway Bride. He is introduced as a successful and charismatic love interest for Donna. She more or less works for him at H.C. Clements and falls head over heels for him before he reveals himself as a turncoat at around the halfway point. Soon after this, Lance, proving himself to be an irredeemably villainous figure, is killed by the Racnoss. It is perhaps notable to remember that there is nothing at a script level, insofar as Lance's characterisation and implied background, that suggests any specific racial or cultural background. Therefore, it is possible that his being a black man was not a choice made until the casting stage.

Fast forward to The End of Time when we learn of Donna's life since she returned home and discover that she is engaged once again, this time to Shaun Temple, as played by Karl Collins. Shaun returns in The Star Beast alongside Donna and their daughter Rose. In regards to Shaun, there is frankly very little to say because he is a very thinly drawn character. He is a supportive husband and father, he drives a taxi and he has a decent sense of humour. This makes up an exhaustive list of character traits he exhibits. Really, he is less of a supporting character and better resemble a minor role. He only exists as an extension of Donna and Rose's characters and serves to be a convenient mouthpiece for RTD to get out exposition. 

Rose, on the other hand, plays a key part in the plot and is pivotal to the conclusion. She is a strong and well-rounded character of mixed race who is essential to the story. That being said, and as the previous entry in this series explores in-depth, her actions in this story and the character herself are intrinsically connected to her trans identity, more so than her racial one. Regarding the supporting cast, it is also worth noting that Ronak Patani, an English-Indian actor, features as UNIT Major Singh. While a small role, it is a positive example of diversity in RTD2's casting and character roles.

Like Lance, Singh is likely an example of 'colour-blind casting', the practice of casting actors of any given race or ethnicity in roles and stories that place no particular emphasis on their respective backgrounds. Bridgerton (2020-present), for a popular example, frequently casts diverse ensembles despite the stories being told making little engagement with the implications of such a choice – Bridgerton is not a series about black people in high societal roles in the 1800s. There is an obvious appeal to this, not least of all the opportunity to cast phenomenal actors in roles they would conventionally be rejected from. 

In a similar vein is the notion of 'colour-conscious casting', a similar practice but one that provokes an active dialogue between the casting and content of the work. Hamilton is perhaps one of the the most recognisable works in this vein. Lin-Manuel Miranda's musical features a primarily non-white cast and retells the political history of the United States and the life of Alexander Hamilton. In Miranda's own words, Hamilton is "America then, as told by America now". Miranda's explicit intention here is to present the oppressive, white history of his country through the lens of Black and Latinx culture – being culturally and racially diverse is an essential component of Hamilton's thesis.

There has been criticism of these practices over the years with some black voices proclaiming it a problematic and racist approach. Playwright August Wilson, in 1996, spoke strongly against the practice insisting that "The idea of colorblind casting is the same idea of assimilation that black Americans have been rejecting for the past 380 years. . . . In an effort to spare us the burden of being “affected by an undesirable condition” and as a gesture of benevolence, many whites (like the proponents of colorblind casting) say, 'Oh, I don’t see color.' We want you to see us". This line of criticism has extended to works such as Hamilton, suggesting that the practice perpetuates the belief that white stories and white voices are the ones most valued in Western society. In an article by Emi P. Cummings for The Harvard Crimson, they articulated that "Any moment a white actor adopts the role of a person of color and vice-versa, there is an underlying suggestion all humans navigate their surrounding environments in the same manner. Race and ethnicity are minimized and reduced to negligible factors that can be transferred from person to person. In reality, one’s racial identity is an inalienable entity paramount to how they perceive themselves and are received by others."

So let's get to how colour-conscious casting pertains to Doctor Who for the first time with Wild Blue Yonder. In the cold open for this special, we find ourselves in the year 1666 and English-Indian actor Nathaniel Curtis emerging from his home in period appropriate garb. We quickly learn that Curtis is portraying a significant historical figure; Sir Isaac Newton, a white English man. For many viewers, the choice was received positively but it was not without its criticism. As popular YouTuber JayExci noted on X, "I'm not a rightoid and I'm not mad about it. I just think it's weird to cast someone of a historically inaccurate ethnicity to play a well known historical figure in the same way it would be weird to have a bodybuilder as Churchill or a teenager as current year Trump...It's not a big deal but I really feel there are better ways to achieve representation. Just portray a wider range of historical figures or whatever. One thing I actually did respect the Chibnall era for was finally exploring the history of parts of the world that aren't in Europe".

It is not a coincidence that this is a scene where a notable change happens in-universe. As a consequence of the Doctor and Donna's interaction, Newton fails to attribute the term 'gravity' to his theory of gravitation. Instead, he decides to call it the theory of 'mavitation'. The term 'mavity' then continues to be used in place of 'gravity' in-dialogue for all subsequent Doctor Who episodes to date. Most fans I have seen describe this change as a running joke or plot thread but I think that it has more weight than that. What 'mavity' signifies is the fact that Doctor Who stories are not beholden to the real world. Doctor Who, especially in RTD2, is a fantasy series that can play fast and loose with the established facts of the real world and make sweeping changes to its universe at the drop of a hat. This is also what is being demonstrated with Curtis' casting. He is not the same as the real Isaac Newton. He is different and changed and not beholden to the real world. Mavity is not just a random, ongoing joke but a statement of intent about race and representation in Doctor Who.

And so was the Toymaker. Let's get into this then. In 1966, a four-part Doctor Who serial that came to be known as The Celestial Toymaker aired on the BBC. In the words of Elizabeth Sandifer, from her article The Most Totally Closed Mind (The Celestial Toymaker); "this story is unrepentantly racist". The Toymaker, in his original conception and presentation, is a racist caricature of Chinese people. He is dressed in traditionally Chinese clothes, he is referred to as "the Mandarin"– he is, in Sandifer's words, "a nefarious, evil Chinese man who twists good Victorian children’s culture into sadistic and evil games".

With this in mind, it seems like an all-round terrible idea to revive the character for television in 2023. Like virtually every aspect of the Doctor Who universe, the Toymaker had already made numerous reappearances in expanded media before his return in The Giggle. To some extent, it is easy to see why. Throughout the wilderness years, The Celestial Toymaker serial was held in high regard and the concept of the Toymaker more broadly, an immortal and god-like entity who whiles away the doldrums of his existence by challenging lesser beings to sadistic games, is a really compelling one. These revivals have, for the most part, steered well clear of the 'celestial' connotations as they were onscreen, instead opting for the more cosmic definition of the word; he is the celestial toymaker who sits above us all in the sky.

But RTD is too clever for this. RTD thinks. So, he brings back the Toymaker and drops the racist adjective entirely. A sensible decision but then he goes that step further, the step he continues to take. He steps into the spotlight on an episode of Doctor Who Unleashed. On the issue of racism with the Toymaker, Russell made the following statement; 

"I can absolutely guarantee you, on transmission, people will pipe up, saying, in 1966, this was a racist character. And if we haven't acknowledged that in some way, we look ignorant, I'm very, very aware of it, and it's baked into him. And that's part of the reason bringing him back. He's a villain, of course he's going to do terrible things, and that's one of them. I did not want to whitewash the Toymaker then, so I gave him this side of putting on accents. He's a murderer. He's a mass murderer. So, I like the fact there's that very slight thin thread of him playing with race, playing with voices, playing with accents, using it as an attack."

This was an approach I can't imagine many people predicting. Instead of reintroducing the Toymaker with an entirely different characterisation and set of aesthetic qualities, instead of attempting to severe ties with the character's history as a racist caricature, RTD decided to double-down on it and make the Toymaker a racist entity who relishes in cultural appropriation in-text. Now, as per RTD's vision, the 1966 Toymaker was in-fact actively and intentionally racist. He chose to appropriate the Chinese because that is the sort of thing his character is liable to do. There is still an objectionable issue to this approach that some fans have noted, however, which is that, despite the intended reasoning, The Giggle depicts racist acts despite the story itself not actually being about race in any meaningful way at all.

But we should get to the bigger elephant in the room here; the debut of Ncuti Gatwa. Unlike tradition, David Tennant's Fourteenth Doctor does not regenerate into his successor. Instead, RTD introduces a new concept which he called 'bi-generation'. Instead of regenerating, the Doctor splits off into two seperate bodies, one still resembling David Tennant and the second resembling Ncuti Gatwa. In a lot of ways, this is a great idea. In a subtextual and meta sense, the Fourteenth Doctor embodies the BBC Wales version of Doctor Who. He is rundown and burnt out. The return of an old face becomes, not just a turn toward nostalgia but, a signifier of a character and a programme that is too tired to keep moving forward and out of ideas. Gatwa's Doctor is the clean break, free of all of the emotional baggage that the last version of the show had built up over the years. The old version of the show has a definitive ending and is retired for good while the new version races off into the future, entirely unimpeded by the past and ready for new adventures.

This is also a terrible idea and another exercise in poor optics. Intentionally or otherwise, RTD has now created the perfect out for any racists watching the show to never accept Gatwa as part of the fold. As Charles Pulliam-Moore states in his article for The Verge, The new Doctor Who debut felt like a timey-wimey slap to the face, "everything about the way 'The Giggle' brings Fifteen into the picture — from the way he’s left standing in his underwear while Fourteen remains mostly clothed to the implication that the two Doctors will seemingly coexist — makes it seem as if Davies is trying to placate the contingent of fans who don’t want to accept a queer, Black actor playing the Doctor role by keeping Tennant in the mix". RTD has created an entirely plausible read where the Doctor splits off into a queer black man, while the original, the 'proper' Doctor in the eyes of bigots, walks off into the sunset.

Unfortunately, the problems do not end here. As Pulliam-Moore goes on, "The trappings and optics of “The Giggle” also add an unfortunate kind of magical negro quality to Fifteen’s heart-to-heart talks with Fourteen... The concept of a time traveler “doing rehab out of order” certainly sounds cool on the page. But within the episode itself, it frames Fifteen less as his own person living for himself and more as a source of emotional support for Fourteen, who ends up being inspired by Fifteen’s sage wisdom". And all of this in the same episode as the deliberately racist Toymaker. 

Ncuti Gatwa made his leading debut in Doctor Who with The Church on Ruby Road. The Christmas special introduces a new leading lady with Millie Gibson and introduced the threat of goblins which received minor backlash for their association with negative Jewish stereotypes. Thankfully, their depiction and the story offered little reason to draw this connection. As for the Doctor himself, the story adopts a distinct colour-blind approach presenting the Doctor, at a script level, with no particularly defined racial subtext. He is safely written as a standard, vaguely defined Doctor archetype that happens to be performed by a black actor.

At the time of writing, we are just shy of two weeks from Ncuti's first season dropping in iPlayer and Disney+. Of the eight episodes, we now know that none of them are written by black authors leaving, to date, the sole black writer of the first mainline black Doctor to be Abi Falase and her novel Eden Rebellion. So, in 2024, we have RTD as the loudest voice and architect of Ncuti Gatwa's era. I suppose that this series of articles exists in this moments as less of a definitive statement and something more like a prolonged literature review in preparation for what RTD2 is really going to be like. RTD has his heart in the right place. He remains a good intentioned and intelligent writer whose ambition often exceeds his abilities. Is there anything inherently bad about saying that racism is something evil people engage with but being disabled is certainly not reserved for them? Not at all. RTD is an excellent writer who means very well. He also sometimes, despite all of this, goes about things in the wrong way. 

And I think that that is okay :)