logo
12 thoughts about that Doctor Who finale

12 thoughts about that Doctor Who finale

Engadget2 days ago

Spoilers for 'The Reality War.'
The BBC and Disney chose not to share screeners ahead of 'The Reality War' to preserve its numerous twists. There isn't time to review it in the usual style, but I felt I'd be remiss not to cap off this run of reviews by talking about the finale. And it's not as if I've nothing to say about what the hell happened on Saturday.
'It's the end… but the moment has been 'prepared for.''
I refuse to believe that 'The Reality War' was planned and written as the execution of this run of Doctor Who . I'm well aware the BBC, Bad Wolf and Ncuti Gatwa claimed the intention from the start was for him to bow out after two short seasons. I'm not buying it.
On one hand, the rumors of disharmony behind the scenes, last minute reshoots and Disney's reported displeasure are hard to ignore. But there's far better evidence, which is to just watch the damn episode and try to think about what happened for more than a heartbeat.
Everything after the Doctor's triumphant return to UNIT HQ feels like it was hastily assembled and tacked on. In fact, there are times in which it feels like all of the main actors are reading from different scripts, and not interacting with one another.
Spot the join Lara Cornell/BBC Studios/Bad Wolf
I've seen some people grousing about the simple way the Omega storyline was resolved, but I think it was always planned that way. Russell T. Davies' has always ended the big dramatic plots of his finales early to make more room to show the aftermath for the characters.
Take last year's 'Empire of Death,' which dumps off Sutekh two thirds of the way in to spend the rest of the episode showing Ruby meeting her birth mother. For Davies, the big CGI space monsters are always the means through which he can spend moments with his characters.
And yet the character moments here are weird if not totally incoherent — the one highlight being the moment that Poppy disappears. The shot of the Doctor and Belinda absentmindedly handing her coat back and forth as it turns into an ever-smaller piece of cloth is sublime.
But when Ruby's protestations are finally taken seriously, the Doctor's decision to just hand Belinda a child comes totally out of left field. Not only does it not agree with anything that we've come to know about her over the last eight weeks, it's also totally pretty outrageous.
Which is why it's far more plausible that Davies, faced with no commission for a third season and with a lead actor looking to quit, just wrote a few pages of nonsense to justify the change.
'One day, I shall come back.'
Naturally, the rumors suggest the original ending would have seen Susan appear as a lead-in to the next season. Again, this isn't so much a hint as something the last two years have been very clearly laying the foundations for. The Doctor openly discussed that he has a child living in London (in 'The Devil's Chord') and the Susan Twist saga was designed to play up to that. Going to the trouble of hiring the 84-year-old Carole Ann Ford and putting her in brief cameos in the last two episodes — plus dropping references to that in 'Lux' — was clearly part of the plan. Now, after the extensive, patient buildup of that storyline, it appears that we'll not get the chance to see what Davies had intended.
Going back to the point about the BBC and Gatwa's claim that this was always meant to be a two-season deal, it's likely the show's original ending will be swept under the rug. And given Ford's age, it's likely that we'll never get the chance to give the actress the sendoff she really deserved in 1964.
'Davies has never been that sort of writer.'
A large amount of fan speculation this year was focused on the various structural and thematic coincidences. Each episode of this run could more or less map onto the previous one and went over similar ground. But, as far back as 'Lux,' I said that Russell T. Davies wasn't that sort of writer, building a mystery box that would resolve perfectly by its conclusion. His writing is a little more like a kid pulling toys out of a toybox and smashing them together at speed.
'The Reality War' is a great example of this approach, since while there were plenty of elements that came back, none of them were as vital to the plot's conclusion as they could have been. Anita was a convenient way of getting the Doctor out of the cliffhanger, but did nothing else for the rest of the episode. Hell, it's hard to take the suggestion seriously that she'd fallen in love with the Doctor but not realized he was, at least in this incarnation, more interested in men. Joy, too, from 'Joy to the World' gets a mention but with little emotional attachment given the events of that episode. And on the subject of its treatment of women…
'I was this really brilliant woman' James Pardon/BBC Studios/Bad Wolf
Doctor Who has spent much of its recent years trying to address its own blind spots around representation. This era has continued this tradition, broadening out the series' supporting cast, especially the team known by fans as the 'UNIT Family.' In 'The Reality War,' every one of the Doctor's allies, barring Colonel Ibrahim, is either a woman or non-binary. And yet, the sheer number of cast members means each one is almost aggressively underserved.
'The Reality War,' after all, is focused on unpacking a false reality called into existence by an ultra-conservative YouTuber who ignores and erases disabled and queer people. But the show's treatment of these characters both during the action-packed finale, and afterward, is rough. When the team starts working together, the legion of people around the Doctor get little to nothing of note to actually do.
Anita is quite literally reduced to the role of a human doorstop (she holds the door to the Time Hotel open to counteract Conrad's wish). Kate orders Shirley to fire the lasers. Susan (Triad) builds the zero room. Mel does quite literally nothing once she's sneered at the Rani. And then there's Rose.
Rose's brief inclusion would have been extraordinarily poignant if she'd helped defeat Conrad once she's been pulled out of oblivion. Instead, she's just there so the Doctor can point out she was erased because Conrad hates (and/or ignores) nonbinary transfem people. And after that moment, Yasmin Finney essentially disappears from the episode once again, making her less a character and more a prop.
It gets worse with the treatment of Ruby and Belinda — the former marginalized and almost aggressively ignored by the characters to the point that I assumed their rejection of her claims was a sign the reality hadn't actually been fixed. But the latter goes from not having a child, to having a fictional child in Conrad's world, to forgetting she exists when Conrad's wish is undone. When the timeline resets and she no longer has any memory of a child, the Doctor then opts to sacrifice his life in order to bring that child back into existence. I mean, what? Given Davies' politics, and the (ostensibly) pro-abortion subtext of 'Space Babies,' the Doctor suddenly re-writes the universe to force his companion — without her consent — into motherhood.
'It's funny, but is it going to get them off their tractors?'
I'm a Brit, reviewing a uniquely British show for a predominantly American audience, and so try to view the series through that lens. Doctor Who has been a fixture in the US since the '70s and was a mainstay on PBS through the '80s and so it's not an unknown property. The revival series may not have been an instant hit, but quickly built a respectable audience on BBC America. But while in the UK the series is a mainstream hit, its US demographic can be roughly broken down into genre nerds and anglophiles.
Consequently, there was a degree of nervousness about how the revitalized series would be received by the far broader audience on Disney+. Davies' had spoken about the need for the series to recruit new fans, downplaying the series' six-decades-long backstory. But despite that aim, it never felt that the series was making many concessions to its potential audience. Don't forget, the Ncuti Gatwa series is playing out in the shadow of specific events from its 2021 series and the second and third of its three 2023 specials. And yet, rather than starting from a clean(-ish) slate, the series threw itself headlong into a multi-year story about its broken reality.
'In the '70s or '80s depending on the dating protocol…' The Two Ranis / Two Ronnies gag was great, but did anyone over the age of 30 get it? (BBC Studios/Bad Wolf)
And on that subject, I don't think we really needed to see the Rani or Omega again, especially as Conrad was a compelling enough villain on his own. I'm the sort of Doctor Who fan who bleeds TARDIS Blue if you were to cut me (but don't do that). But I'm also sufficiently interested in new experiences that I'd rather the show avoid relitigating and revisiting the same coterie of classic series villains.
Omega wasn't a mainstay anyway, and his second appearance (in 'Arc of Infinity') was tedious enough that his absence wasn't missed. Similarly, while the Rani offers a different spin on the homegrown foe trope, it's hard not to just write her as a female Master. And, let's be honest, as much as I'm trying not to invoke Steven Moffat here, Missy was so well done we didn't need to go back to that well ever again.
Similarly, I can't help but wonder how many folks who persisted with the series until this point bailed out. The late Craig Hinton coined the term 'Fanwank' as a catch-all term for the sort of self-indulgent storytelling that exists to satisfy the author's own obsessions. You know, fan fiction that makes Captain Kirk the father of Jean-Luc Picard or that Han Solo and Luke Skywalker were secretly friends in childhood. Having the Rani bi-generate to rebuild a new Gallifrey with Omega as its progenitor is the sort of self-indulgence most people grow out of.
Doctor Who isn't Star Trek James Pardon/BBC Studios/Bad Wolf
Several times this season, we've seen Doctor Who smash its face into the limits of its own storytelling. Its premise is far more elastic than many others, but there are themes it simply cannot meaningfully engage with. 'Lux,' 'Lucky Day' and 'The Interstellar Song Contest' all gestured toward big real-world topics (structural racism, abuse and radicalization, genocide and reputation laundering) that are simply beyond the capacity of a science fantasy show about a quasi-immortal clown solving problems. And here we're learning another big fact about Doctor Who : It's not Star Trek .
The battle between UNIT and the big dinosaur skeletons was shot and edited as if we were watching the crew of the Enterprise. Now, I'm not watching Doctor Who for the gritty realism but there's a moment when you can go through silly fun and into ridiculousness. And when the UNIT tower, consciously modeled on the Avengers' Stark Tower, starts spinning around to shoot its lasers, you have to wonder how many people had to sign off on that image thinking it was okay.
Eating its own tail
Doctor Who 's critical and popular success has always waxed and waned, and that's nothing to be worried about. There was, however, a sense during Chis Chibnall's era that he wanted to recapture the glories of Davies' era. After all, David Tennant's initial tenure saw the show become the biggest thing on British TV with ratings often passing the 10 million mark . I suppose it comes as no surprise, then, that Davies would repay the compliment by giving Jodie Whittaker's 13th Doctor a cameo. It's a shame that it's as equally incoherent as the rest of the episode's finale, but it does a far better job of addressing the #Thasmin plot — the implied romance between the Doctor and her companion Yaz – than Chibnall's own era does.
Naturally, Davies was better able to capitalize upon this nostalgia, recruiting the stars of his own era — David Tennant and Catherine Tate — to come back for the 60th anniversary specials. That was a nice piece throwback to help get the series back on track ahead of its rejuvenation with Ncuti Gatwa at the helm. Obviously, while hiring one of the stars of the series' most recent heyday for a short tenure for the anniversary was a nice treat, the series now needs to strike out on its own. Or, at least, that was the thinking until Ncuti Gatwa regenerated into Billie Piper.
Billie Piper
I was 20 when Doctor Who came back and was as sneery as the rest of the country when Billie Piper was announced as the show's companion. Piper was a teenage singer — the youngest UK Number One act — and while not a one-hit wonder, her music career stalled. Aged 18, she married the 35-year-old radio DJ and TV presenter Chris Evans and became tabloid fodder. Naturally, the whole country had to eat crow when it turned out she wasn't just a fantastic actor but a true powerhouse and star. Her return for 'The Day of the Doctor,' as the psychic interface of Gallifreyan superweapon The Moment, was a joyous one. And while the leaks had revealed Piper would be replacing Gatwa, it was still nice to see her appear on screen.
Given Piper was not credited as 'And introducing Billie Piper as the Doctor' it's clear that her inclusion is another hedge. If nothing else, she can take the role for the revival series' 20th anniversary and hopefully pull in more eyes to whoever replaces her. But as desperate as the move seems, I'd be happy to see her remain in the role for an extended period of time — she's brilliant, clearly has plenty of affection for the show, and has enough star power to carry the series on her back. So, if Piper is back, let her be back for a long time and let her bask in all of the adoration she so rightly deserves.
'There are worlds out there…'
At the risk of armchair psychologizing, I suspect all Doctor Who fans of a certain age carry the wound of 1989 very deeply. The show had entered a creative renaissance thanks to the work of Andrew Cartmel that had invigorated long-serving producer John Nathan-Turner. Just as it had found its feet and started to produce era-defining work in a model that could have sustained it through the 1990s, the plug was pulled. There have been many (many!) post mortems as to the causes but James Cooray-Smith's recent essay on the subject is probably the most concise. In short, a combination of executive snobbery, personal enmity (John Nathan-Turner was not well-liked by his bosses) and budgetary issues caused the show's demise.
1989 to 2005 was beset by false dawns, the BBC's self-sabotage and fans essentially taking ownership of the property. Virgin Publishing had the license to publish tie-in novels that evolved into the New Adventures line. In the gap, the need for new Doctor Who was filled by writers: some professional, some fans who would go on to become professionals with a monthly book series. And then, in 1999, a production company called Big Finish secured the rights to produce new audio adventures featuring classic Doctors. But aside from the abortive (and mostly awful) 1996 TV movie that served as a pilot for a US version of the show, Doctor Who was dead.
It wouldn't be until the second series of the reboot, when David Tennant took the role and it became the biggest thing on TV, that the worry the show would go away again started to fade even as ratings and public enthusiasm declined with Steven Moffat at the helm. But those fears have returned in the last decade, especially given the lukewarm critical and audience reception to Jodie Whittaker's tenure. And with Disney pulling back and the BBC's own budget crisis, the risk to Doctor Who 's future — with no new series confirmed to be in the works — is grave.
On one hand, the BBC has said we may see the situation change in a year, but then it said that in 1989 as well. I'm going to hold off writing an obituary, however, because if Doctor Who is to go back on the shelf, it's going to be taken very good care of. After all, many of the fans who kept the flame alive during the first wilderness years would go on to make the series proper. And I'm sure the next generation of fans are ready to cut their teeth on their own projects that'll one day grow into whatever Doctor Who becomes in a decade or more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Held at gunpoint: BBC team detained by Israeli forces in southern Syria
Held at gunpoint: BBC team detained by Israeli forces in southern Syria

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Held at gunpoint: BBC team detained by Israeli forces in southern Syria

On the morning of 9 May, I was part of a BBC Arabic team which left the Syrian capital, Damascus, for the southern province of Deraa. From there we planned to go to the frontier with the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. We wanted to get close to the Syrian territory that has been seized by the Israeli military since December, when Israel's prime minister said it was taking control indefinitely of a demilitarised buffer zone and neighbouring areas following the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime. We were a team of seven - myself (a British citizen), two Iraqi BBC staff, and four Syrians - three freelancers and one BBC cameraman. Israel says it struck near Syria palace over violence in Druze areas First Druze crossing in 50 years as Israel courts allies in Syria Israeli strikes in Syria a challenge to Turkey We were filming near one of the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) observation posts, close to the town of al-Rafeed, when an official from the UN told us that the Israeli side had inquired about our identity and had been informed that we were a BBC crew. We next drove north towards Quneitra city, which has been located inside the buffer zone since a 1974 disengagement agreement between Syria and Israel, which captured the Golan during the 1967 Middle East war. About 200m (660ft) away from the city, an unguarded checkpoint blocked the road. To the side of the checkpoint we spotted Merkava tanks, one of which was flying an Israeli flag. From a nearby tower, two Israeli soldiers were watching us - one of them through binoculars - and my colleague held his BBC ID up for them to see. The BBC has complained to the Israeli military about what happened next to my team, but it has not yet received a response. A minute after we started filming in the area, a white car approached from the other side of the checkpoint. Four Israeli soldiers got out of the car and surrounded us. They pointed their rifles at our heads and ordered us to place the camera on the side of the road. I tried to explain that we were a BBC crew, but things escalated unexpectedly quickly. I was able to send a message to my BBC colleagues in London saying that we had been stopped by the Israeli military before our phones and all equipment were confiscated, more Israeli soldiers arrived in a Humvee military vehicle, and our car was thoroughly searched. The soldiers escorted us through a barrier into the city of Quneitra and stopped at the crossing point that separates Quneitra from the occupied Golan. There, the soldiers began reviewing the footage as we sat in our car, while one pointed his rifle at my head from metres away. After more than two hours, one of the soldiers asked me to step out of the car and speak on a mobile phone. I didn't know who the person on the line was. He spoke broken Arabic. He asked why we were filming Israeli military positions. I told him I was a British BBC journalist and explained to him the nature of our work. I returned to my car, and the rifle was again aimed at my head. After another hour of waiting, one more vehicle arrived. A group of security personnel got out of the car carrying blindfolds and plastic zip ties and asked me to step out first. The lead officer, who spoke fluent Palestinian Arabic dialect, took me by the hand towards one of the rooms at the crossing point which were previously used by the Syrian army. The floor was strewn with broken glass and rubbish. He told me that they would treat me differently - no handcuffs, nor blindfold - unlike the rest of my team. I was in shock. I asked why they were doing this when they knew we were a BBC crew. He said he wanted to help get us out quickly and that we had to comply with their instructions. Moments later, another officer entered and told me to take off all my clothes except my underwear. I initially refused, but they insisted, and threatened me, so I complied. He inspected even inside my underwear, both front and back, searched my clothes, then told me to put them back on and started interrogating me - including personal questions about my children and their ages. When they eventually let me out of the room, I witnessed the horrific scene of my team members, tied up and blindfolded. I pleaded to the officer to release them, and he promised to do so after the interrogations. They were taken one by one to the same room for strip search and questioning. They returned with their hands still bound but not blindfolded. The team's interrogation lasted more than two hours, during which all our phones and laptops were examined, and many photos - including personal ones - were deleted. The officer threatened us with worse consequences if we approached the frontier from the Syrian side again, and said that they know everything about us and would track us down if any hidden or un-deleted photo was ever published. About seven hours after our detention - it was past 21:00 - we were taken by two vehicles, one in front of our car and the other behind us, to a rural area about 2km (1.2 miles) outside Quneitra. There, the vehicles stopped and a bag containing our phones was thrown towards us before the vehicles left. Lost in the dark with no signal, no internet and no idea where we were, we kept driving until we reached a small village. A group of children pointed us to the highway, warning that a wrong turn could draw Israeli fire. Ten tense minutes later, we found the road. Forty-five minutes after that, we were in Damascus. Israel demands complete demilitarisation of southern Syria 'We just need peace': BBC speaks to Syrians watching Israel's incursion Israel seizes Golan buffer zone after Syrian troops leave positions

Squeezed by China's Slowdown, Internet Users Lash Out at Elites
Squeezed by China's Slowdown, Internet Users Lash Out at Elites

New York Times

timean hour ago

  • New York Times

Squeezed by China's Slowdown, Internet Users Lash Out at Elites

What do a Chinese commencement speaker at Harvard, an actress posting selfies and a trainee doctor at a Beijing hospital have in common? Not much — except that they've all found themselves at the heart of fierce online debates in China about privilege and inequality. The three disputes, which have dominated Chinese social media in recent weeks, all featured accusations that the main players had gotten ahead by dirty means, whether that was true or not. The Harvard graduate faced questions — unfair ones, some say — about how she had gotten into the elite American university; the actress, about how she could afford the flashy jewelry she wore in her selfies; and the doctor, about how she'd obtained her job at the hospital. All three were depicted as having had a leg up because of parents with connections. There is no evidence that the Harvard graduate did anything wrong, while Chinese government investigations have found fault in the other two cases. But many commentators, in state-run media and elsewhere, have said that the outcries over all three may share a common root: a sense of resentment and anxiety that in China's fiercely competitive society, merit may be irrelevant. Such concerns are longstanding, but they have grown more urgent as China's economy slows and opportunities for upward mobility seem to be disappearing. The government, fearing social unrest, has vowed to address inequality. China's leader, Xi Jinping, has pledged to work for 'common prosperity' and crack down on corruption. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

India set to count its population after a six-year delay
India set to count its population after a six-year delay

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

India set to count its population after a six-year delay

After a six-year delay, India is finally set to count its population in a two-phase census that will conclude in 2027, the government has announced. India's decennial census is one of the world's largest administrative exercises and provides critical data for planning welfare schemes, allocating federal funds, drawing electoral boundaries and making key policy decisions. It was originally due in 2021, but has been delayed several times since. The last census was conducted in 2011. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government had initially cited the Covid-19 pandemic as the main reason but critics have questioned what has taken so long to resume the exercise. On Wednesday, India's home ministry said in a statement that the much-awaited census will be conducted in two phases, with 1 March 2027 as the reference date. For the snow-bound Himalayan regions, which includes the states of Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh, and the region of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir, the reference date will be 1 October 2026. It did not, however, specify when the survey would actually begin. For the first time, the government will also collect the caste details - a politically and socially sensitive issue in India - of all its citizens, the statement added. The last time caste was officially counted as part of a national census was in 1931, during British colonial rule. India's census is conducted under the Census Act, 1948, which provides a legal framework for conducting the exercise, but does not specify a fixed schedule for when the census must be conducted or when its results must be published. In 2020, India was set to begin the first phase of the census - in which housing data is collected - when the pandemic hit, following which the government postponed the exercise. In the years since, the government further delayed the exercise several times without any explanation, even as life returned to normal. Experts have spoken of the consequences this could have on the world's most populous country - such as people being excluded from welfare schemes, and the incorrect allocation of resources. "The census is not simply a count of the number of people in a country. It provides invaluable data needed to make decisions at a micro level," Professor KP Kannan, a development economist, had told the BBC in 2023. Follow BBC News India on Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store