|
2019, y'all! https://www.starburstmagazine.com/doctor-bbc-confirm-series-12-broadcast-2019
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Davros1 posted:2019, y'all! The rest of the article makes for more troubling reading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:The rest of the article makes for more troubling reading. The rest of the article is speculating about a single five year old quote and literally no other evidence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
Yeah, obviously I hope it's not the case (and can I just say again that I would never have thought, years ago, that I'd be hoping for Chris Chibnall's continued involvement with Doctor Who), and given the press's willingness to take random poo poo from fan forums as substantiated fact in the past, I'm not exactly worried yet. Although I can also think of worse things than getting two good years of Chris and Jodie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:I feel like there’s a bit of a Five embodiment. Almost generically nice, three companions... Five was great dammit
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
Not that I believe it, but I'd be curious as to who exactly they could grab as a showrunner after Chibnall. It doesn't feel like there's a successor lined up right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Five was great dammit He was... sweet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
Fair Bear Maiden posted:Not that I believe it, but I'd be curious as to who exactly they could grab as a showrunner after Chibnall. It doesn't feel like there's a successor lined up right now. Get John Steinberg and/or Robert Levine. (Only kind of joking.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
Fair Bear Maiden posted:Not that I believe it, but I'd be curious as to who exactly they could grab as a showrunner after Chibnall. It doesn't feel like there's a successor lined up right now. cartmel
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
They need to bring in an Oscar winning director and writer. Someone who knows actors and loves the series. Only one man can do it, his name... Peter Capaldi.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Teek posted:They need to bring in an Oscar winning director and writer. Hasn't Peter Jackson wanted to do something with Doctor Who for years?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Hasn't Peter Jackson wanted to do something with Doctor Who for years? Like the Stephen Fry script, that seems to have faded away. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Like the Stephen Fry script, that seems to have faded away. Man, I remember reading DWM in early 2006 when I was 14 years old and when it announced that a two-part story would be written by Stephen Fry (Title: TBC) in the then-forthcoming season two and all I could think was, "The Blackadder guy? Awesome!" because my frame of reference was much narrower at the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
gently caress it lets get Phoebe Waller-Bridge the job, Killing Eve owned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:gently caress it lets get Phoebe Waller-Bridge the job, Killing Eve owned. haha I feel like she would be way too scary for the people at the BBC
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Well if you were going to go for a perhaps unrealistically (in the sense that I have a hard time imagining you getting them) big name in tv writing for Doctor Who it's either Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Charlie Brooker or Jed Mercurio.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:gently caress it lets get Phoebe Waller-Bridge the job, Killing Eve owned. Sandra Oh as the Doctor would make me so happy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RichardsonBF/status/1063863024073826305
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Fair Bear Maiden posted:Not that I believe it, but I'd be curious as to who exactly they could grab as a showrunner after Chibnall. It doesn't feel like there's a successor lined up right now. Paul Cornell. I don't if he has much experience as a TV producer, but maybe they could split the showrunner/head writer roles like they used to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Not Cornell. We saw what his vision of the show was going to be when he did "Scream of the Shalka". No thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:I feel like there’s a bit of a Five embodiment. Almost generically nice, three companions... It's the opposite of One. Thirteen is a sweet young(ish) woman alert to and considerate of other people, and honest to a fault. Yaz is Ian, Ryan is Susan, and Graham is Barbara.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
The tough thing is that we're running out of Old Guard Who fan/tv professionals. The closer we get to the end of the Reign of Chibnall, the closer we get to a complete wild card in the role of showrunner, maybe even a non fan who wants to "shake things up." Granted, I had a similar fear when the cast Matt Smith--that we'd only ever have young sexy Doctors--and that fear turned out to be groundless when Peter was cast. And also when Matt turned out to be awesome. But eventually we could get someone who doesn't "Get" Doctor Who and will Ruin The Show Forever (as the folks at the old DW General Wiki would say). I'm hoping for 5 or so seasons under Chibnall at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Astroman posted:The tough thing is that we're running out of Old Guard Who fan/tv professionals. The closer we get to the end of the Reign of Chibnall, the closer we get to a complete wild card in the role of showrunner, maybe even a non fan who wants to "shake things up." I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, given that it was the norm for the bulk of the original series' existence, after all. DW used to be treated as a (somewhat, depending on the show's era and who was running the Beeb) choice assignment by TV professionals, rather than a cool kids club for elevated fanboys like it became at times under both RTD and Moffat. I think if Chibnall does decide to move on, it wouldn't automatically hurt the show to be run by people who weren't devoted fans (or worse, the type of writers who lustfully drooled over Ace in their NA novels).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
I think that getting people in who aren't necessarily fans would be a good thing. Although I liked Force Awakens and Last Jedi, I think Abrams and Johnson approached them as Star Wars fans first and as filmmakers second. I think that happens on Doctor Who some of the time as well and I think it's better to get someone who's not burdened by any longtime fandom.
Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Nov 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I think that getting people in who aren't necessarily fans would be a good thing. Although I liked Force Awakens and Last Jedi, I think Abrams and Johnson approached them as Star Wars fans first and as filmmakers second. I think that happens on Doctor Who some of the time as well and I think it's better to get someone who's not burdened by any longtime fandom. Agreed, though I should add that it can certainly be a detriment if they go too far in the opposite direction, and get a writer or showrunner who views the show as just fluff for kids and doesn't take it seriously. It's a fine balance that has to be struck between "someone who only has a passing knowledge of the show" and "fanboy who's eager to show people how they think DW really ought to be done".
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
To each his own, but as a fanboy since the 80s, I've been pretty happy overall with the 3 fanboy showrunners we've had and want more of the same. To me, "doing a fresh new take on DW" means poo poo like "The Half Human Aliens The Doctor and his Brother The Master look for their Father Ulysses while fighting Spider Daleks" or "Geordi, he's the alien, right?" Count me a a hard no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Astroman posted:To each his own, but as a fanboy since the 80s, I've been pretty happy overall with the 3 fanboy showrunners we've had and want more of the same. It also means Jon Pertwee's first season, the Hinchcliffe/Holmes era, Douglas Adams writing "City of Death", Christopher Bidmead's episodes, etc., etc. All people who either never worked on the show, or who had experience on the show but weren't slavishly devoted fanboys who put a fresh spin on the show.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
Not DW, but Wrath of Khan was written by non-fans, and its spectacular. I don't think we'll hit "non-fans" as much as we'll hit a generation of people who came up with RTD Who as Who, and that'll be weird, since we're already in double digits of seasons now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
If RTD taught those writers that Doctor Who should be queerer and queerer, that can only mean good things, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 08:33
|
|
|
To me, the fact that Doctor Who, on tv, audio, and in print has been pretty much taken over by the fans is a feature, not a bug. You can always bring in a new writer with a different perspective, but I like the idea that the showrunners know and respect the history and canon. I know it's cool to slag on fanboys as being pathetic in their worship and slavish devotion and they all wrote Ace fanfiction, but if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have the show back in this sucessful form. And those guys incude not just the showrunners, but 2 of the last 4 Doctors. And if we're talking about the merits of Original Series writers who came in not knowing the series at all and had a fresh take, I will point out that also includes Pip and Jane Baker, who said they'd never watched the show before... A reboot of the show by a non fan is liable to become something like Discovery with grimdark Hard Men Making Hard Choices and not getting the spirit of what the show is about. That's not to say DISCO isn't improving, nor does it imply that fans will always make great shows because Fuller claimed to be one. But it's more likely a non fan who is specifically coming in with a "fresh new take" and "reimagining the show for modern audiences" will make the show something it never was. Granted, it may not be possible to avoid the creative fatigue and ratings slip which will cause this to happen if not now, then in a few years. But as long as we still have Big Finish we'll still have real Doctor Who I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 11:00
|
|
|
I think that's a false dichotomy. Some fan writers have taken more boundary pushing approaches to the series -- the Rebecca Levene era was probably the most notable -- while others have taken far more traditional approaches -- Nick Briggs is conservative fandom defined. So the fan response is multitude. I agree with you that the show being run by fans isn't a bad thing, but I strongly believe that the show's been at its best when it's been pushing itself and to go new places. Who shouldn't be one thing. It should be all the things. Astroman posted:A reboot of the show by a non fan is liable to become something like Discovery with grimdark Hard Men Making Hard Choices and not getting the spirit of what the show is about. That's not to say DISCO isn't improving, nor does it imply that fans will always make great shows because Fuller claimed to be one. But it's more likely a non fan who is specifically coming in with a "fresh new take" and "reimagining the show for modern audiences" will make the show something it never was. This is largely incidental, but Fuller's version of the show is barely there in what we saw on screen. His scripts for the first three episodes -- the only ones he's credited for -- were significantly rewritten after he left the project. This is part of the reason why so many elements were dropped between those episodes and the rest of the show. He's also very clearly a fan, again proving that there's any correlation between being a fan and having a traditional approach to writing for a series.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 12:02
|
|
|
If anybody is at all interested, I'd suggest looking up the Leekley Bible; the story bible intended to be used for an American reboot of Who in the nineties (despite popular belief, actually not the one the McGann movie was intended to kick-start, it was a few years before). It's a fascinating look at what a total scorched-earth, not-a-continuation reboot would've been like, by somebody who has no real emotional connection to the show. It actually has some neat ideas--I really like the planned Cyberman design--but yeah, it's probably good that we didn't get it. I don't think we'll ever see a reboot of Who like that now, or for a very long time. What allowed both 90s Hollywood attempts at Who to happen was because they were done by Americans, at a time when Americans knew Doctor Who as a weird old sci-fi show that aired on PBS, and the BBC saw it as something that had run its course. That's different now; it's something the BBC hold close, and there's a reverence for it among anybody who they'd get to do it (since they wouldn't be shipping it off to America). And even in the States it's a known thing in the public consciousness, people would notice if you went nuts throwing absolutely everything out in a remake. And all of this is to say nothing of how heavily circulated that older stuff is now; in the 90s you'd probably have to really look to find a classic Cyberman episode, nobody would bat an eye if they turned up as space pirates in a revival. But these days most of the show's library is easily available by streaming, with clips circulating YouTube and interminably long Wikipedia pages if you're actually curious. The show's history is so readily available now that you couldn't throw big parts out if you tried.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 12:34
|
|
|
Astroman posted:And those guys incude not just the showrunners, but 2 of the last 4 Doctors. Frankly, I know Tennant and Capaldi were huge Doctor Who fans as kids and it's always had a special place for them, but I think this thread has a tendency to overstate it (entirely affectionately, of course - it's one of the thread's in-jokes that Capaldi has his own TARDIS in his garden shed etc.) if not to overestimate it. In any event, I don't think either Tennant and Capaldi brought any kind of fannish obsession about what the Doctor should be like to the role; I would honestly be very surprised if there was any kind of Mark Hamill style story about Tennant confronting RTD and saying, "I hate what you have done to this character."
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
Astroman posted:To me, the fact that Doctor Who, on tv, audio, and in print has been pretty much taken over by the fans is a feature, not a bug. You can always bring in a new writer with a different perspective, but I like the idea that the showrunners know and respect the history and canon. I know it's cool to slag on fanboys as being pathetic in their worship and slavish devotion and they all wrote Ace fanfiction, but if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have the show back in this sucessful form. And those guys incude not just the showrunners, but 2 of the last 4 Doctors. You're coming at it from the perspective of fanboy showrunners and writers being "caretakers of the lore", I'm coming at it from the perspective of "a fresh pair of eyes never hurts". You're worried that non-fan writers and showrunners will poo poo all over the show's history by turning it into DW Meets Poochie or something, and I'm saying that it's entirely possible to be too obsessed with DW lore to the point where a showrunner starts disappearing up their own backside, which both RTD and Moffat did on several occasions (albeit in entirely different ways). Also given that a cornerstone of the show has been change and evolution since the moment Hartnell turned into Troughton, I'm not entirely sure what "make the show something it never was" is supposed to be. It's always had moments of radical change in terms of how the Doctor, his companions, and various villains and characters are portrayed. Some worked, some didn't. I also don't get the "reinvent the show for modern audiences" concern, since that's exactly what RTD did when he started the revival in 2005. He didn't go back to the show's original formula, he took a lot of inspiration from more modern shows when he started working on it, and Moffat continued in that vein (and in both cases, there was a fair bit of it that was to the show's detriment, in my view). So you can't really fret about a showrunner potentially reinventing the show for a more modern audience because that ship has already sailed. If what you mean is "I don't want writers who treat the show with disrespect because they never watched it and don't take the show or its history seriously", then fair enough. I'm just saying I don't think that's necessarily going to happen. And for every Pip and Jane Baker, I can point out the numerous times many posters in these threads over the years posted various takes on "get the gently caress out of here with this bullshit" during both RTD's and Moffat's time on the show. Numerous RTD episodes in particular have been raked over the coals in previous years for making GBS threads on the show's legacy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 14:37
|
|
|
I think the Pip and Jane episodes were bad because they weren't very good writers, not because they weren't fans. Maybe they didn't take Doctor Who seriously enough - I really don't know - but good writers who don't take Doctor Who too seriously would probably still turn out better episodes than, say, Ian Levine. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:He was... sweet. He always struck me as a bit petulant, tbh. Someone described him as a dad a good way into a long car journey, and the kids in the back are acting up. I always thought that was spot on. Eight, though - at least early Eight - is definitely the most straight fowardly 'nice' doctor, imo
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I think the Pip and Jane episodes were bad because they weren't very good writers, not because they weren't fans. Maybe they didn't take Doctor Who seriously enough - I really don't know - but good writers who don't take Doctor Who too seriously would probably still turn out better episodes than, say, Ian Levine. I'd say it's a bit of both. PnJB were bad writers, and I get the impression that they viewed DW through the lens of "silly sci-fi show for kids" and wrote for it as such, which I'm sure was a regular bone of contention between Grimdark Saward and Captain John Nathan-Turner of the Light Entertainment Division.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:I'd say it's a bit of both. PnJB were bad writers, and I get the impression that they viewed DW through the lens of "silly sci-fi show for kids" and wrote for it as such, which I'm sure was a regular bone of contention between Grimdark Saward and Captain John Nathan-Turner of the Light Entertainment Division. That's a fair point although I guess I don't mind so much because I don't think "silly sci-fi show for kids" is an intrinsically bad thing. For instance, Demon Headmaster is a silly sci-fi show for kids and it's potentially one of the best television programmes (for kids or otherwise) ever created.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:That's a fair point although I guess I don't mind so much because I don't think "silly sci-fi show for kids" is an intrinsically bad thing. For instance, Demon Headmaster is a silly sci-fi show for kids and it's potentially one of the best television programmes (for kids or otherwise) ever created. It's all in how you approach the material, really. A good writer recognizes that kids are a lot smarter than most adults think and writes entertaining material that isn't condescending or preachy. Whereas a bad writer just thinks they can put any old poo poo on screen and kids will eat it up because they're morons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Vinylshadow posted:https://twitter.com/bbcdoctorwho/status/1062293809017565184 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 16:02
|
|
