Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 12:24:59 GMT
Oh dear god. I can imagine the avalanche of angry rant emails they must have received. I feel sorry for the person who had to delete them all. Some people take this waaaayyyy too serious...
I have yet to see a link to the original statement so if this is real, it acknowledges that toxic fandom can have a legitimate voice. Which sucks. Apologising in advance to anyone who has disliked the last two seasons because of "the writing." I question the legitimacy of it as an official statement made by the BBC... It could be, that's a distinct possibility, but the last one on Can You Hear Me?'s treatment of mental health issues was made to (and vetted by) the Radio Times. I don't know why this wouldn't be the same and, as far as I can tell, the RT haven't published an article noting that new statement. The closest I could find was an opinion piece, but that's not quite the same thing. I wish people would cite their sources... And in 1986 there was an Open Air episode where one particular fan gave their feedback on the last season, wonder what became of Chris Chibnall... While it's become an albatross around Mr Chibnall's neck, he was in the right on that day. The more I've seen that interview, the more I'm impressed by how well Pip and Jane Baker handled the back-and-forth, given the mad scramble that was going on behind the scenes between Season 23/24. The fact that everyone's able to have a bit of a laugh about it and smile towards the end was a good sign. I wonder if Chibnall's impression of the series improved under Andrew Cartmel's tenure?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 13:14:59 GMT
The BBC publish fortnightly complaint reports, the last one went up to March 1st which is the day this ep dropped but won't have given any complainers much time to send their angry, entitled nonsense. SO wait 2 weeks and we'll see how many really complained. I bet it's a tiny, tiny amount. It's fine having an opinion, even a negative one with valid reasoning phrased well but actually complaining to the BBC because you think Doctor Who wasn't very good this week? Sad, sad people. On Chibnall's infamous appearance it's worth noting that when his first Who ep aired in 2007, 42, he was asked by DWM about his comments as a boy (and he was only a 16 year old boy, let's remember). I know the mods aren't crazy about copying from other sources but these answers are pertinent to the discussion and no-one can buy 13 year old DWMs now. His comments put a lot of it in context - indulging apologizing to the Bakers and realising he himself would now be fair game. And that's when he was just writing a mid-season filler ep. Anyone thinking he's somehow said he can't be criticised is just talking nonsense. There's such a difference between what many in the cast and crew have called out - bile and hatred fulled by misogyny and racism, and those that just don't like the direction of the show. Anyone here who thinks they're being assumed to fall into the former when they merely fall into the latter should mark the distinction. Anyway, when asked about his 16 year old self, Chris said... DWM:"And I have to mention Open Air - the 'viewer's reactions' TV show which you appeared on back in 1986, slagging off The Trial of a Time Lord - as DWM #375 revealed. So… are you happy to admit to that, these days? CC:You do things when you're 15, 16… the interesting thing is, having joined the BBC Wales family through Torchwood and now Doctor Who, and these things pop up in conversation, and you think 'My God – I did that!'. These things that you can barely remember… from my point of view, I was a 16 year old who got a phone call one Sunday night, asking 'Do you want to come on the telly tomorrow to talk about Doctor Who?'. And all I really thought was, a morning off school – fantastic! A morning away from the A-levels. And also, nobody got to go on telly then. It wasn't like now where you can get on doing a tap dance in the street. I had no idea what was going on, really. I know the show was Open Air, but I don't think we knew who was going to be on – it was just 'Come on and talk about this series of Doctor Who'. There was no agenda, really, it was completely cack-handed. [Writers] Pip and Jane Baker were there, and [producer] John Nathan-Turner was on the phone, I think. I haven't seen it for twenty years! What's weird is sitting here talking to you about it, something that was just one morning when I was 16, and bears no significance on my life other than that people now come up to me and say things. I went to the Children in Need concert in Cardiff last year, and someone came up and said "I like your glasses now – they're better than the ones you had in '86!". So it's a significant event, I suppose, in fandom terms, but I have no sense of the context of it. And also, I think, when you're a 16 year old, you're opinionated and mouthy, and if somebody asks you something, you're just going to be honest. I think I was pretty unfiltered! I wouldn't ever want to watch it again, put it that way. I can't believe people have still got videos of it… DWM:Wait up for the Trial of a Time Lord DVD, whenever that happens. It's bound to be on there! CC: Yes, I guess so. Oh God. The suit is terrible, the glasses are terrible, the hair's terrible, the tie is my dad's… it's excruciating, on every level! But also the chances of me sitting here talking to you now being a Doctor Who writer twenty years later, were minuscule. That was never going to happen! So it's so hilarious, actually… DWM:You weren't sitting the day after your first Torchwood episode went out, waiting for Pip and Jane to turn up on This Morning saying what a lot of rubbish it was? CC:No, but that would have been absolutely fair enough - I'm a fair target! But if you'd done something like that as a 16 year old, and someone came up to you in the street tomorrow and said "…and another thing about that!", it would take you a while to realise what they were talking about – that they thought it was the most significant thing about you. And it will be the thing that Doctor Who fans of a certain age will think is most significant about me, until my episode actually goes out. I've done all sorts of plays, four series of Born and Bred, Life On Mars, all that kind of stuff… but yes – I'm absolutely fair game! And I'm sure there will be plenty of sixteen year olds foaming at the mouth at my episode. But that's part of the circle of life isn't it? Do say I smiled at that point! But it kind of is. You never know what's going to come back and haunt you. I wish I was as elegant a fan as Paul Cornell, where all that would come back and haunt you is a string of beautifully written fanzine articles. My enthusiasm betrays me at times! I have to say that I actually saw it about a year later and thought "Oh blimey, on TV that came across much more viciously and vituperatively than it felt in the studio." And also Pip and Jane reacted badly to it, it hit them. But my memory is that I was struggling for words, and things came out that I thought in retrospect weren't the most polite words. But we did correspond about a year later, both of them and me, I did apologise for being rude and they accepted that. So it ended on good terms, which a lot of people wouldn't know…"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 16:07:41 GMT
On a slight tangent to lighten the increasingly trenchant nature of the discussion, but thinking of 'Biteback', presented by Sue Lawley on Sunday afternoons, I clearly remember this piece from 1995 (still have it on VHS somewhere as with the Did You See..? stuff), where Gary Russell, Adrian Rigelsford, and others discuss the proposed TVM.
Now famous for the bit 7 mins in where Gary is asked by the interviewer to explain to viewers what this new fangled 'Internet' thing is (it was a new thing to me at the time too, before I went into IT).
"Well the internet is this marvellous thing where Doctor Who fans.... all over the world just talk to each other via their computer. 90% of it is all rubbish in total rumours, but amongst that there is this small bit that might be fact".
Thanks Gary!
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Mar 7, 2020 16:33:38 GMT
On reading daver's comment (about the increasingly trenchant nature of the discussion - trenchant? Wasn't he in the Sea Devils?) I deleted my last post for its total pointlessness.
In this sort of discussion there comes a point when 'insistence is futile, you will not be converted' applies to us all.
I don't decry people who love what was done in 'The Timeless Children', but nor do I think people who disagree with it, however strongly, can necessarily be assumed to be 'the wrong sort' of fans. As long as they're polite about it. If they aren't, well that's a different problem entirely and has nothing to do with views on Who one way or another. Personally I can't imagine ever wanting to contact the BBC about any programme, for or against.
Whatever else happens in other places, let's not fall into the usual human trap of dividing ourselves into the two tribes of DU about this. (The We-We and the Not-We-We, presumably. ) Disagreeing on this one - or indeed many - topics shouldn't mean division.
(That was this week's sermon, delivered a day earlier than usual...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 16:48:07 GMT
On reading daver's comment (about the increasingly trenchant nature of the discussion - trenchant? Wasn't he in the Sea Devils?) I deleted my last post for its total pointlessness.
In this sort of discussion there comes a point when 'insistence is futile, you will not be converted' applies to us all.
I don't decry people who love what was done in 'The Timeless Children', but nor do I think people who disagree with it, however strongly, can necessarily be assumed to be 'the wrong sort' of fans. As long as they're polite about it. If they aren't, well that's a different problem entirely and has nothing to do with views on Who one way or another. Personally I can't imagine ever wanting to contact the BBC about any programme, for or against.
Whatever else happens in other places, let's not fall into the usual human trap of dividing ourselves into the two tribes of DU about this. (The We-We and the Not-We-We, presumably. ) Disagreeing on this one - or indeed many - topics shouldn't mean division.
(That was this week's sermon, delivered a day earlier than usual...)
Spot on. Its OK to agree to disagree, but no one here airing negatives actually hates the current programme, wants cancellation or sackings. Lets accept differing perspectives and not be so serious. To air a conflicting point of view is not to invalidate or disrespect another's contribution. And please don't take my own contributions as being emotively held views, anyone. number13 says it all, really, its not worth falling out about.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 7, 2020 17:13:11 GMT
On reading daver's comment (about the increasingly trenchant nature of the discussion - trenchant? Wasn't he in the Sea Devils?) I deleted my last post for its total pointlessness.
In this sort of discussion there comes a point when 'insistence is futile, you will not be converted' applies to us all.
I don't decry people who love what was done in 'The Timeless Children', but nor do I think people who disagree with it, however strongly, can necessarily be assumed to be 'the wrong sort' of fans. As long as they're polite about it. If they aren't, well that's a different problem entirely and has nothing to do with views on Who one way or another. Personally I can't imagine ever wanting to contact the BBC about any programme, for or against.
Whatever else happens in other places, let's not fall into the usual human trap of dividing ourselves into the two tribes of DU about this. (The We-We and the Not-We-We, presumably. ) Disagreeing on this one - or indeed many - topics shouldn't mean division.
(That was this week's sermon, delivered a day earlier than usual...)
Spot on. Its OK to agree to disagree, but no one here airing negatives actually hates the current programme, wants cancellation or sackings. Lets accept differing perspectives and not be so serious. To air a conflicting point of view is not to invalidate or disrespect another's contribution. And please don't take my own contributions as being emotively held views, anyone. number13 says it all, really, its not worth falling out about. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeing what's so trenchant or fiery about the discussion on here. As far as I can see, this thread's been really tame, civil and nobody's called each other wrong or idiots for holding differing opinions. Unless you mean this business with the viewer complaints, but even then, I think a lot of us are just being faectious about it - I'd like to think fandom can have a laugh about itself sometimes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 18:05:04 GMT
Spot on. Its OK to agree to disagree, but no one here airing negatives actually hates the current programme, wants cancellation or sackings. Lets accept differing perspectives and not be so serious. To air a conflicting point of view is not to invalidate or disrespect another's contribution. And please don't take my own contributions as being emotively held views, anyone. number13 says it all, really, its not worth falling out about. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeing what's so trenchant or fiery about the discussion on here. As far as I can see, this thread's been really tame, civil and nobody's called each other wrong or idiots for holding differing opinions. Unless you mean this business with the viewer complaints, but even then, I think a lot of us are just being faectious about it - I'd like to think fandom can have a laugh about itself sometimes. Not just you. I was beginning to think there's been a whole bunch of offensive posts deleted or something!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 22:26:39 GMT
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeing what's so trenchant or fiery about the discussion on here. As far as I can see, this thread's been really tame, civil and nobody's called each other wrong or idiots for holding differing opinions. Unless you mean this business with the viewer complaints, but even then, I think a lot of us are just being faectious about it - I'd like to think fandom can have a laugh about itself sometimes. Not just you. I was beginning to think there's been a whole bunch of offensive posts deleted or something! Not as far as I'm aware. I'm just being pedantic myself. I don't know TV Zone as an outlet, so a citation as to where they got their notice would've been nice. Even the statement itself is fairly tame. *waves hands* Whether or not you liked The Timeless Child is no indication of the integrity of your character. People are allowed to like what they like. I'm an editor with an English Major, so I dig down into things as a matter of course. Just my nature. ( I'm also really excited by the implications and have been rotten at keeping it on the down-low.) Regardless of whether or not they liked Child, I hope everyone's had fun with the new season and hope that the next will give everyone even more to enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Mar 7, 2020 23:23:49 GMT
Well, if there is one lesson we can take away from the Timeless Children, it is how much scope there is in the fan base for forgiveness, re-evaluation and acceptance- despite all the current outcry. Might I remind everyone that we have here a story written by a certain Chris Chibnall- which contains actual clips from the Sixie era and we even get a glimpse of Sixie and his enemies? Who would ever have thought this could ever happen? All this other ranting and raving online is like chatter in the wind in comparison.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 23:26:31 GMT
Not just you. I was beginning to think there's been a whole bunch of offensive posts deleted or something! Not as far as I'm aware. I'm just being pedantic myself. I don't know TV Zone as an outlet, so a citation as to where they got their notice would've been nice. Even the statement itself is fairly tame. *waves hands* Whether or not you liked The Timeless Child is no indication of the integrity of your character. People are allowed to like what they like. I'm an editor with an English Major, so I dig down into things as a matter of course. Just my nature. ( I'm also really excited by the implications and have been rotten at keeping it on the down-low.) Regardless of whether or not they liked Child, I hope everyone's had fun with the new season and hope that the next will give everyone even more to enjoy. But as Nucleus says...no-one on here is saying that it is a sleight on anyone's character and no-one's saying you have to like (or dislike) anything. It's like there's some argument only some are seeing here. I mean clearly there are people who have plenty of indicators as to their bad character but not liking an ep of Doctor Who isn't one of them unless they're actually taking that position for ulterior motives and that's not the case here. Hey - a few of those types were posters here. Looking for trouble and generally to cause ructions - but I don't think anyone here now can be described even remotely like that. There are no (lets use the overused word of the net discussion) trolls here now. There have only been a couple in this forum's history, honestly, and they're long gone.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Mar 7, 2020 23:46:06 GMT
Not as far as I'm aware. I'm just being pedantic myself. I don't know TV Zone as an outlet, so a citation as to where they got their notice would've been nice. Even the statement itself is fairly tame. *waves hands* Whether or not you liked The Timeless Child is no indication of the integrity of your character. People are allowed to like what they like. I'm an editor with an English Major, so I dig down into things as a matter of course. Just my nature. ( I'm also really excited by the implications and have been rotten at keeping it on the down-low.) Regardless of whether or not they liked Child, I hope everyone's had fun with the new season and hope that the next will give everyone even more to enjoy. But as Nucleus says...no-one on here is saying that it is a sleight on anyone's character and no-one's saying you have to like (or dislike) anything. It's like there's some argument only some are seeing here. I mean clearly there are people who have plenty of indicators as to their bad character but not liking an ep of Doctor Who isn't one of them unless they're actually taking that position for ulterior motives and that's not the case here. Hey - a few of those types were posters here. Looking for trouble and generally to cause ructions - but I don't think anyone here now can be described even remotely like that. There are no (lets use the overused word of the net discussion) trolls here now. There have only been a couple in this forum's history, honestly, and they're long gone. I’ll third that. It would be nice if anyone feels that they or their opinion is being attacked could point to specifics within this or any other series finale thread. I don’t recall reading anywhere here that people are being told what they may or may not like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2020 0:00:02 GMT
Not as far as I'm aware. I'm just being pedantic myself. I don't know TV Zone as an outlet, so a citation as to where they got their notice would've been nice. Even the statement itself is fairly tame. *waves hands* Whether or not you liked The Timeless Child is no indication of the integrity of your character. People are allowed to like what they like. I'm an editor with an English Major, so I dig down into things as a matter of course. Just my nature. ( I'm also really excited by the implications and have been rotten at keeping it on the down-low.) Regardless of whether or not they liked Child, I hope everyone's had fun with the new season and hope that the next will give everyone even more to enjoy. But as Nucleus says...no-one on here is saying that it is a sleight on anyone's character and no-one's saying you have to like (or dislike) anything. It's like there's some argument only some are seeing here. I mean clearly there are people who have plenty of indicators as to their bad character but not liking an ep of Doctor Who isn't one of them unless they're actually taking that position for ulterior motives and that's not the case here. Hey - a few of those types were posters here. Looking for trouble and generally to cause ructions - but I don't think anyone here now can be described even remotely like that. There are no (lets use the overused word of the net discussion) trolls here now. There have only been a couple in this forum's history, honestly, and they're long gone. Like a summer cloud, yeah. I can sense a bit of caution there because, well... it's the internet, but I honestly think we're all fine. I clarify as a matter of habit more than anything else. Better to have the context and not need it, than need the context and not have it. Everyone seems very comfortable. I certainly am to read through it. ^_^
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2020 10:37:04 GMT
6 out of 5. Brilliant! Fantastic from beginning to end! A great finale to the best season of Who since it came back. I await the dvds to see but from what I heard it’s the real shake up the shows been needing
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on Mar 13, 2020 11:52:02 GMT
Hello again. The sheer volume and toxic nature of a lot of the commentaries on the Timeless Children does mean that genuine, quite interesting and sensible observations about the narrative choices made by Mr Chibnall in the Timeless Children are often ignored or dismissed. Doctor Who is probably the most analysed programme on the television. This is helpful to budding scriptwriters because a whole panoply of views that are constructive and reasoned rather than destructive are useful. Such views can illustrate why screen-writing is such a difficult writing discipline. With that in mind, I found a very interesting commentary not being rude and obnoxious but giving reasoned explanation why this particular commentator thought The Timeless Children didn't work. Of course it is opinion, but it is at least constructive, well-argued and above all respectful opinion. I'd be interested to see what others think about it. It is about 20 minutes long and gives some interesting alternative narrative routes that Mr Chibnall could have taken. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnFIhjXFzNk
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 13, 2020 13:49:19 GMT
Hello again. The sheer volume and toxic nature of a lot of the commentaries on the Timeless Children does mean that genuine, quite interesting and sensible observations about the narrative choices made by Mr Chibnall in the Timeless Children are often ignored or dismissed. Doctor Who is probably the most analysed programme on the television. This is helpful to budding scriptwriters because a whole panoply of views that are constructive and reasoned rather than destructive are useful. Such views can illustrate why screen-writing is such a difficult writing discipline. With that in mind, I found a very interesting commentary not being rude and obnoxious but giving reasoned explanation why this particular commentator thought The Timeless Children didn't work. Of course it is opinion, but it is at least constructive, well-argued and above all respectful opinion. I'd be interested to see what others think about it. It is about 20 minutes long and gives some interesting alternative narrative routes that Mr Chibnall could have taken. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnFIhjXFzNkNo. I don't think so. It's calmly narrated but it's still blathering on about the same nonsense. And it makes the same mistake over and over. The Doctor is revealed to be the one the Timelords stole regeneration from, she's so special, she's a god! No she isn't. She was a child that was abused and lied to, experimented on. A child of ANOTHER race that had regeneration as their birthright. Not once does Chibnall say that the Doctor is somehow a god fallen from the heavens or some sort of Angel, and this review is filled with that assumption. And not once in the nearly 60 years of the show has anyone said that regeneration is what makes the Timelords special. TIME LORDS, not REGENERATION Lords. The snide aside to Rey is just that, to pull your attention to another franchise that did get an origin story wrong, that did misunderstand what it means to be the hero, and let that colour the rest of the review going forward. Don't get me wrong, some of the suggestions on alternate takes on the Timeless Child could have worked, might even have been better, but that's a road not taken and pointless. Let me posit a LOTR angle. Is Aragorn any less a good and heroic man because he is the rightful king? No, he isn't. It's still his actions that define him, still his choices to resist evil. Similarly with the Doctor. Is the finale great? Nope. But it does open up possibilities. The comments about Chibnall returning to a "failed Cartmel Masterplan" are...gah. There's so much wrong with the Cartmel Masterplan (IMO) that it irks me, but the idea behind it was sound, to make Who bigger. This I think has the same goal, not just pandering to another decade of (sorry Nick!) Daleks Daleks Daleks, Cybermen Cybermen Cybermen, Master Master Missy, ad nauseum. I need to think some more on this as the above is an initial ponder.
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on Mar 13, 2020 14:02:38 GMT
Hello again
Thank you for your response, Charlesuirdhein. You make some very valid counter-arguments. I just thought the commentator had an interesting viewpoint, that make you think about the narrative choices made.
We don't know where Mr Chibnall is going with this, he may not even take it any further, but this revelation certainly shakes things up. This is the only place where we can discuss our programme without the rancour that exists elsewhere. Thanks again for responding.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 13, 2020 14:05:37 GMT
Hello again Thank you for your response, Charlesuirdhein. You make some very valid counter-arguments. I just thought the commentator made some interesting points, that actually as you say, make you think about the narrative choices made. We don't know where Mr Chibnall is going with this, he may not even take it any further, but this revelation certainly shakes things up. This is the only place where we can discuss our programme without the rancour that exists elsewhere. Thanks again for responding. Well of course
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on Mar 13, 2020 14:15:29 GMT
Hello again.
Your last point about repetition of Who staples ad nauseam is a extremely valid. It what makes this 56 year old show so difficult to write for. It is very difficult to come up with something fresh.
It is why I couldn't take part in the Paul Spragg Memorial opportunity last year. I quite simply had no ideas!
Series 11 for all its faults was a laudable attempt to do something different. We had three adventures set in history. We had a new villain in Mr Toothy. Series 12 has attempted to do the same but used elements from Who's past.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2020 16:02:31 GMT
Hello again Thank you for your response, Charlesuirdhein. You make some very valid counter-arguments. I just thought the commentator had an interesting viewpoint, that make you think about the narrative choices made. We don't know where Mr Chibnall is going with this, he may not even take it any further, but this revelation certainly shakes things up. This is the only place where we can discuss our programme without the rancour that exists elsewhere. Thanks again for responding. I am in agreement with you doctorkernow. It does provide a rational discussion and is perfectly valid, with a wealth of evidence of how prior existing continuity generally ties together consistently. It has also received 6,600 likes to 326 dislikes at this point in time, which suggests that many others think so too. I would not dismiss it out of hand myself. Thanks for posting it.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Mar 14, 2020 7:36:14 GMT
Indeed, it's absolutely wonderful to have a place to discuss it like mature adults rather than beating each other over the head about it verbally. No matter how much I have invested in the series, I don't think it's worth that.
I still have very mixed feelings about all this - as I hopefully managed to say previously, however this works out, Chibnall has managed to put a sense of mystery about The Doctor's origins back into the mix for the first time in quite awhile, and that is very enjoyable...
But I also hope that The Doctor doesn't really turn out to be something other than Gallifreyan (or to be the source of regeneration).
If that doesn't somehow make The Doctor too much of an over-the-top Space Messiah that was bordered on too closely in previous seasons, I still think it may be somewhat at risk of undermining The Doctor's character and identity somewhat. For a very long time (3/4 of my life), I've enjoyed thinking of The Doctor as an exceptional Gallifreyan that exemplifies what a Gallifreyan is capable of being. I'm not sure I like the idea that we have to go outside a species entirely to find someone so exceptional.
I worry it might be a mis-step on the order of the Eighth Doctor being half-human. I don't know if I like the implication that The Doctor has to be half human to care about humanity, or that his fondness for the human race could simply be born out of partly being one of us. It's always been flattering to think The Doctor is particularly fond of us because in spite of ourselves, we are sometimes what Gallifrey still generally refuses to be.
That said, one reason I don't think it's worth getting too worked up about, is because I think that Chibnall clearly cares about the show a great deal and has obviously put a lot into it, so whatever he is up to with The Doctor's origins, I hope I can trust it's in that spirit rather than someone throwing the show's history out the window just because they think they're more clever than everyone that came before.
I do get the occasional twinge of "What would Verity Lambert have thought of this?" and so forth, lol, but a lot of things have happened the last two seasons that make me feel like the show is in good hands regardless.
I should also add that I very much liked that something was going on with Gallifrey besides it languishing in limbo or in ruins. It's one of the reasons I gave the final episode 5 stars in spite of quite a bit of "Oh no, I hope he isn't serious".
Just my two cents' worth of couse, others likely see a number of things differently and more power to them.
|
|