Do you still watch Doctor Who? Nah. Didn’t think so. The ratings for the latest episode were 2.2million, which is lower than the numbers the show was getting at the fag-end of the 80s when its enemies were Coronation Street, the BBC itself, and the worst enemy of all: apathy.
Of course, nowadays is not the same as themdays and lots of people will watch the new episodes on Iplayer which will undoubtedly give the final viewing figures a bit of a lift. But even so, the programme has undoubtedly slipped from the days when it was ubiquitous and zeitgeisty under David Tennant. Question is: can Doctor Who be great again?
The second question, I suppose, is why should I care? I am a 52-year-old man, so why am I getting excited and frustrated and emotional about a children’s programme and my answer is that the reason I’m getting excited and frustrated and emotional about a children’s programme is because I’m a 52-year-old man. In the words of the Doctor himself, what’s the point of being grown-up if you can’t be childish sometimes.
So, I care about this stuff, I want the programme to be good again, and because I am a democratic person unless people disagree with me, I am handing over the rest of this column to my Doctor Who friends – people like William and Michael and Jonathan who’ve been watching this programme in some cases longer than I have. I asked them how to make Doctor Who better and this is what they said.
One: Ditch the proselytising/'wokeness’
Doctor Who has always had a liberal aesthetic and that’s fine but it doesn’t have to be quite so on-the-nose. The programme’s audience is bright and can work it out for themselves. We don’t need the speeches. We need fun!
Two: Go easy on the past
Tegan and Ace are coming back this year which is great for people who know who Tegan and Ace are, but if there’s one lesson from the classic series, it’s keep the old companions and Doctors and Sea Devils and Daleks and Cybermen for special occasions and birthdays. Concentrate on new stuff. Remember that every episode is someone's first.
Three: Have fewer companions – ideally only one
When the Tardis resembles a bus station with lots of people milling about, it’s harder to find out about them and care about them. The show has always worked best with the Doctor and one sidekick (e.g. Doctor and Sarah or Doctor and Rose).
Four: Cast someone better as the Doctor
The Doctor is the star of the show: strange and eccentric and charismatic whereas Jodie Whittaker is a bit meh and beige. I remember writing a review of her first episode and saying that you could feel her straining desperately to overcome her conventional appearance, manner and voice to appear eccentric and I stand by that. Cast someone better.
Five: Have simpler stories and scripts
Not complicated this one: the idea is that you make the plots less complicated. And there doesn’t have to be a head-busting portentous story arc every season either. Have a strong central premise, a good plot told well, and then get on with the adventure, like Russell T Davies used to do when he ran the show. The good news is that Russell T Davies is coming back so the omens are good.
Six: Ditch the sonic screwdriver
The Fifth Doctor went hands free for good reason: the sonic screwdriver lets the Doctor solve a problem too easily.
Seven: Give the show a rest
Bit drastic this one, but the new series is exactly the same age (15 years old) that the classic series was when it started to go stale in the late 70s. Things go off and 15 years is a very long time indeed for a show to run and keep fresh. Maybe it’s time for the Doctor to head off somewhere and have some adventures off-screen, a bit of a rethink, and come back shiny and new in a few years, sans sonic screwdriver.
And finally, Eight: Always cast a white, middle-class, middle-aged man as the Doctor
None of my friends said this. I just put it in to wind people up.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel