All New Who

{{ I think I have worked out on a conceptual writing level what has gone wrong with current Who, and by extension a large section of modern media.

The problem is the Entertainment Business, or at least the entertain part of it.

Take say the original three SW films. Now these films have some things to say, about right and wrong, good versus evil, about comradeship, friendship, love, choices and forging alliances, and even about a wider spirtual world. But they are first and foremost entertaining. They provide adventure, excitement, romance, spectacle, exploring the unexplored worlds and provide us with likeable engaging characters we want to follow as we want to know what happens next to them.
Its that simple.
Everything else, all the 'meaning' or 'messaging' is smuggled in under that surface entertainment. Entertainment is the lure, it's how you get your audience engaged and therefore receptive to what you really want to say.

The bulk of considered good and quality literature over the decades is in this vein, as too is the bulk of broad appeal entertainment on television and in film. There are exceptions of course, there always are, but by inlarge any messaging or political views a show wishes to convey is done so through making it entertaining and allowing the mesaging to arise through the narrative naturally. This applies as much to a work of high art as it does to Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

Much of modern media, Who included is not like this any more however. The message is no longer smuggled in, there is no vechicle of entertainment to deliver it to the audience. They just dump it on the audience, directly in the characters, in the dialgoue, in the settings and situations. The very plot and script itself will no longer exist to serve primarily as engaging entertainment, but to be primarily a means to deliver the messaging.

But the very reason messaging was traditionally smuggled in masked by the shows entertainment value is for what should be the very obvious reason- because if you dont audiences feel preached and lectured at and are not having a good time watching it. It wont be entertaining.
This might seem to be so obvious its hard to get your head round the idea it might somehow have been missed or forgotten by current writers. Yet here we are.

And it doesnt even work as an effective means of conveying such messaging, chances are whichever opinion the viewer has, in line or against the shows, the audience will be frustrated as it is unlikely to convert those who need to be as the message is too blunt and human nature means it will only make such people more not less defensive of their position, and it offends those who agree with your point already as they feel they are being told they are wrong about something they actually agree with, and that the show is talking down and patronising them. It pleases no one and annoys almost everyone.
And with nothing very entertnaiing going on besides the messaging frustration will quickly sets in and people will top watching. As has happened with Who and many other shows and franchises.

It also deprives your audience of one of the reaosn for watching or reading any drama, spotting the patterns and working stuff out. It takes away that satisfaction of noticing a subtley in the writing where it is really talking about somehting greater, or more important than it at first seems. When the message is concealed in the entertainment its fun to discover it. Humans are natural pattern spotters, we naturally get pleasure from spotting and solving patterns, as a million puzzle books or kids colouring books will attest too. We get intellectual pleasure out of it.
But if you just present the messaging up front and centre you take that pleasure away from your audience, or as Tolkien might have it you put everything in the dominance of the author. Its a tyrnanny on an audienbce, and like all tyrnannies the intended victims can feel its a form of oppression. It put them off rather than draws them in.

Letting the audience come to their own realisation is a far more effective way of changing minds than just yelling at them they are wrong, a person is more genuinely likely to have a change of heart if they feel they came to the position themselves, not by force. Otherwise we'd all be Jehovah Witneses by now.

If for example you hear the 13th Doctors speech at the end of Orphan 55 on climate change you will realise its not only not in character, its not even allegory, its not any more comparing the scifi situation of the episode to that of current day earth, it just directly speaks straight down the camera to current day earth. Its no longer even as crass as allegorical its just 1-1.



And its not entertaining. Partly in this case as one of the many issues with this episode is that the climate change theme only really comes into the story in the last 10 minutes making this pointing out what the episode was supposed to be about and the audience was supposed to learn from it seem all the worse. But also just because its too direct, too preachy, too lecturing. To those who already agreee they think "I know Im doing the best I can as an individual, I seperate my rubbish, I take my bottles to the recyling, I try to walk and not drive where possible, I use public transport, dont tell me I need to do more Im doing all I bloody can." And they get annoyed.
And those who dismiss climate change as a hoax, a conspiracy driven by the media will just hear proganda telling them lies, and the fact its delivered in this direct at audience awful manner means its easy to dismiss as propoganda, it sounds like propoganda. Its delivered like propoganda. Its framed like propoganda. It gives every excuse for the message to be rejected by everyone and to effect change in noone.

The lesson? There's a reason messaging has generally been smuggled in under the guise of entertainment. It works, really well. Trying to do it the other way round is a colossal failure. Who and other shows really to need stop doing it and remember they have to entertain first then make their points.}}

In effect we are being slowly infantilised, they don't trust the audience with subtle stuff so they shove it in your face. That's why the diversity quotas are so tedious, its not subtle. Martha Jones characterisation was subtle, the writing was great and the stories were great, but we got the message, it wasn't sledge hammered. I think this is what makes great films today, subtlety, films like Gravity, it has all the things you mentioned Petty, about love and redemption, but you would never know it, on the surface its an exciting all adrenalin sci-fi film, but underneath its about loss and finding oneself. That was the art of film at its best.

{{ Gravity is a good example too Figg. If in it the message was just consistently pointed out and driven at the audience by everything that the characters said or did it would not be a better film for it. And an awful lot of current media seems to have forgotten this simple truth that entertainment should first and foremost entertain, this has been trampled over in a fervoured desire to get their messages across. }}

{{ Some good Who to remind us it was a thing and hopefully will be again in the future.
A nice fan made trailer for the excellent tense psycholigical epiosde Listen.
And a couple of favourite scenes from it that nicely encompase all the previous stuff discussed above about the character of the Doctor. Completely spoilery.}}

Trailer


Fear is a super power


Who's at the door?

{{ The Doctor can be so cruel- this was how one poor bastards 11 hour shift at the Inforarium went!



In other Who news- latest rumour for being the new Doctor is Rakhee Thakrar.



Well she gets two ticks in the right-on check box for the BBC straight off the mark then!
She seems to have started out on soap Eastenders and more recently a Netflix series called Sex Education. Not seen her in anything myself so no idea if she seems like a good match for the role or not, if she is next Doctor I just hope she has been cast for the right reasons and not just for literal brownie points for the BBC.
On the plus side Ive heard she tends to be a more serious actor and would incline towrds a more 9/12 style of NuWho Doctor rather than Jodies bubbly nursery school teacher persona, so thatd be a breath of fresh air, a serious female Doctor. }}

Though I wouldn't mind looking at that face for long periods of time, she's not The Doctor.  Too young.  Perhaps she has the same crazy acting skills as Jodie Comer in which case it may be okay, but like with Comer I don't know if she'll have the bulldozer qualities needed to push through the crap that buried Whittaker.

If we're to have a lady doctor, she'd better be tough as nails.  I could actually see Krysten Ritter doing it - she has the acting chops and I think she's done enough that she can push others around the way she needs to, despite looking young (she's pushing 40).  But I'd rather have an old battle axe, frankly.

Edit: Okay, Thaknar's almost as old as Ritter. Geez, actresses these days look 10 years younger than you'd expect.

Looks very bland to me.

If they give her cutesy suspenders or a hair band it's over.

{{ Age doesnt bother me so much, I prefer an older Doctor but as Peter Davidson (5th Doctor) and Matt Smith (11th) proved a younger actor can carry the role if they have the acting chops.
But you need something else to bring to the Doctor than just acting skills. One of the issues with the current Doctor is I still dont know who she is personality wise, thats partly bad writing, but also that Jodie hasnt brought much to the role or performance. Previous actors in the role have all had some oddness, some quirkiness, some eccentricity of their own which they then bring into the performance as the Doctor. Tom Baker is the most famous example as he himself says he wasnt playing a character he was playing Tom blown up large. And when folk started talking about the alien quality of his Doctor, his eccentricness Baker was rather shocked as he had not thought of himself as being eccentric (but he is as watching any interview with him will quickly etablish). Or the 7th doctor and his spoon playing and magic tricks- all eccentric quirks and skills that Sylvestor McCoy brought with him to the role and the writers incorporated into his version of the character.
And that tradition continues, and the best writers will take aspects of the actors they have offscreen and incorporate them into the writing (Moffat famously did this with several things- many of 11's lines were actually things Matt would say, such as when the cast were called to set and he'd turn to Karen and Arthur and say "Come along Ponds" or 11's clumsiness and tendency to accidently break things as Smith was famous on set for snapping off bits of the TARDIS by accident, or 12 and his tendancy to snack which comes from Peter Capaldi's habit of nipping off between takes and getting lost in the pursuit of a pasty and a sandwhich) I dont feel Chibnal or Jodie have brought this to the table in their version of the Doctor and the result is bland, uninteresting and a Doctor with no solidly defined characteristics or personal story. What we got instead was what felt like rewarming of old ideas- so 13 references famous historical figures as personal friends like 11 did but without the humour or consitency, they made a big deal out of giving her TARDIS a custard cream biscuit dispenser, but it felt like a redo of 11's love of Jammy Dodgers biscuits, she hates the use of guns like 10 but lacks any moral direction or purpose in doing so, and so it goes on. Even her big major plot line the Timeless Child, Gallifrey is destroyed and the Doctor has to deal with that- just like 9 and 10 did only badly written. Nothing feels like their own.
So when it comes to casting the new Doctor I dont care what sex they are or colour but they need the acting skills to handle the huge shifts in pace, tone and genre the show has within it, or even within a single episode, and have the right sort of personality that lends itself to the role. }}

In that respect Figg's suggestion of Jodie Comer would work. I think Krysten Ritter would too but Comer probably has even more quirkiness.

{{ It's not so much quirkiness in performance as in the character of the actor.

Talking about writers using stuff from the actors this is favourite example.
In the excellent two part 10th Doctor story Human Nature the Doctor temporarily makes himself forget who he is and becomes a human leaving his companion Martha to keep an eye on him, he also leaves her a set of instructions as a recording he made. In the episode however we get the first 4 rules, then Martha fast forwards the footage restarting it at rule 23.
But in order to get the footage for the fast forwarded bit Tennant just had to talk nonsense for a minute or so, the sped up bit was of course never broadcast at normal spe ed. Everything inbetween rule 4 and 23, including the rule about pears, was never shown in the episode. But it did eventually turn up as part of the bonus stuff on the series DVD so fans got to know about it.
And heres what Tennant said in full-



As I said this was never broadcast save as a silent sped up bit of footage, but Moffat took it anyway so that 12 also has the same aversion to pears.



So this is a case of Moffat taking something from one actor playing the Doctor and incorporating it into his Doctor.

Oh and on the subject of 12 and snacks.



But note how much its made a subtle but ever present part of his personality.







With 13 we got, as I previously mentioned the custard cream dispenser-



but it gets maybe 2 passing references from then on ( I couldnt find anothger clip with custard creams in them) and doesnt inform on her character at all, she doesnt eat a lot of biscuits, show any particular delight in them or go out her way to make sure she has some. It feels exactly what it is- 'oh thatll be quirky and 11 liked biscuits too' and slapped on top of her character as a thing. And thats where trying to make the Doctor eccentric and quirky can be a bad thing, you have to have the skill to do it right, and Chibnal doesnt. }}

I think regardless of age, sex, or colour the actor needs charisma, needs charisma coming out of their back end there's so much charisma. Tennant has charisma, Eccy has charisma, Smith has charisma and Malcolm Tucker has charisma. Jodie has zero charisma. She is talented actress in other things but she doesn't have that special zingy extra factor that makes you want to watch her. When I watch Tennant for example I am watching 'The Doctor' without question I am totally engaged and enchanted. Watching Jodie I see the cracks, the curtain has been lifted and I just see a mediocre actor failing to enchant but trying really hard to force us to believe that she is quirky, and she isn't quirky at all, she is a bit beige. Paterson Joseph has charisma, Jodie Comer has charisma, and Joe Gilgun has charisma in buckets, we need someone like that.

{{ Agreed Figg, Jodie lacks that onscreen presence the Doctor needs, even when they are standing at the back of a crowd they should be where your eye is drawn to, they should always command the screen and be the dominant presence whenever they are on it. Jodie is the first actor in the role who just doesnt, or can't, do this. }}

Maybe that's why she needed her 'fam' so many people around her to fill in the gaping holes. It didn't work though because they were even more boring and vacuous than her.

Good actors will make anything watchable. They just wanted to fill slots rather than find good actors.

{{ there was a leak a while back, so has to be taken with some sceptism, that one of the reasons Bradley Walsh choose toleave when he did (his character has no real reason for leaving and the excuse given in story for it is very weak) was the infamous 'cancer' scene.
Apparently this scene was much longer and Bradely felt it was easily his best scene and work in the show, however in the editing room apprarently Jodies performance in that scene was so bad they had no choice but to cut most of it to what was broadcast, and thats why the Doctor in that scene seems so lacking in any ability to offer words of comfort or act like the Doctor.
Sadly I found it all to believable a rumour, as it would explain why it went to air as it did when they must have known it would be found quite offensive by many and out of character for the Doctor.
Heres the scene as broadcast, judge for yourself if it was edited round her performance.
Ok turens out I cant show the scene as it doesnt exist on youtube, presumably pulled by the BBC every time, which isnt suprising given th euproar it caused among fans.
So instead heres a transcript of it which is best I can do- }}

GRAHAM: The thing is, Doc, I worry about getting sick again. You know, about the... about the cancer coming back. And I didn't know who to say it to, so I thought I'd say it to you. You know, seeing as you're a doctor. You know, cos once... once you have it, it's with you the whole time. Not quite a shadow, but... Hey, don't get me wrong. I mean, my check-ups, they're all fine, but it... it made me think, you know and, er, I thought I should talk about it, cos those nightmares, I mean... Well, they made me realise that the fear is... is... is still there, you know.
(Long pause.)
DOCTOR: I should say a reassuring thing now, shouldn't I?
GRAHAM: Yeah, probably.
DOCTOR: I'm still quite socially awkward, so I'm just going to subtly walk towards the console and look at something. And then, in a minute, I'll think of something that I should've said... that might've been helpful.
GRAhAM: Okay. Well, I'm glad we had this chat, eh?
DOCTOR: Yeah.
GRAHAM: Yeah.

Actually that bit of writing in the hands of a good actor could have come off quite well.

{{ It was from Bradley Walsh, Jodie on the other hand is very cringey and just not the Doctor in this scene at all.
Compare for example 11 comforting Amy when she realises they made no difference to Van Gogh committing suicide- }}

{{ best can do to find the actual scene about cancer is from a reaction vid to the epiode. Jump to 13:44}}

From that dialogue I would say its very poor. Could anyone imagine any of the past Doctors saying anything so crass, because I can't. The Doctor isn't socially awkward, nor is he a sociopath. He has saved whole planets and species because he cares, because he has more empathy than most humans. He can be brusque or flippant but never crass. And most of all what the fuck is the point of having a 'fam' if you would let them feel so alone with a bad disease. Surely to have a 'fam' with such attitudes would be the height of selfishness.

If she was strongly reacting the lines could have made sense, but instead she showed no feeling.

I had two friends, boyfriend and girlfriend. He died in an accident while they were staying in a different part of the country. I knew I should have called her, but my emotions were so strong I didn't even know how to call her - what could I say as a disembodied voice over the phone? I couldn't deal with the rawness of it, and to my everlasting shame I never made that call. I can see the scene working that way.

halfwise wrote:but instead she showed no feeling.

{{ Which is why its not beyond belief that this scene was cut down due to Jodies performance in it not being up to scratch. Maybe it managed to make her Doctor seem somehow even worse than the final version did due to her showing a lack of emotion and caring.

And whilst I do appreciate what you say Halfy, about not having the right words, you like most of us have not been alive for over 2000 years and been through all the stuff the Doctor has in that time, this is not their first time having to comfort someone or deal with trauma.
But possibly the bigger issue with the whole cancer story idea is the Doctor is a) a doctor, they are qualified as 11 mentions that he had slipped out while his companions slept to do 'a bit of locum work in Brixton. Lovely practice, very short staffed.' b) she has a timemachine, she could just take Grahame to one of the many places weve seen in the far future, such as the New, New Earth Hospital, or c) probably have something onboard that will cure it completely no trouble, in the episode with the Gangers one of them has copied a woman who is dying from a blood clot in her brain and 11 just gives her a pill to clear it up- "Ah, that's not a problem. I have something for that. It's small and red and tastes like burnt onions. Ha. But it'll get rid of your blood clot."
But Chibbers just doesnt mention any of the possible ways she culd help Grahame and just has do this awkward "I dont know what to say" thing instead. }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ The Doctor can be so cruel- this was how one poor bastards 11 hour shift at the Inforarium went!



In other Who news- latest rumour for being the new Doctor is Rakhee Thakrar.



Well she gets two ticks in the right-on check box for the BBC straight off the mark then!
She seems to have started out on soap Eastenders and more recently a Netflix series called Sex Education. Not seen her in anything myself so no idea if she seems like a good match for the role or not, if she is next Doctor I just hope she has been cast for the right reasons and not just for literal brownie points for the BBC.
On the plus side Ive heard she tends to be a more serious actor and would incline towrds a more 9/12 style of NuWho Doctor rather than Jodies bubbly nursery school teacher persona, so thatd be a breath of fresh air, a serious female Doctor. }}

If you weren't aware Rakhee Thakrar currently voices the 8th Doctor companion Bliss in the Time War boxsets for Big Finish, she's pretty good in them though I've not seen any of her live action roles:

https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/The_Eighth_Doctor:_Time_War

(A 5th boxset hasn't been announced yet, but the 4th ended on a rather big cliffhanger so I assume Bf plan to continue the series at some point)

{{ Im way behind on my BF Time War stories so I wasnt aware of this, though I find it encouraging if she gets the role- she should know the character of the Doctor pretty well and as played in the hands of a good actor in McCann. }}