Thanks for posting that. Good to know the BBC is moving on from Davies, and investing in a full season with a new production company.
Star Trek is in far worse shape these days. According to Riker, this is the first time in decades where there is no TV or movie even in the planning phase.
Main line Star Wars is a train wreck, unfortunately. I was one of the apparently few people who was looking forward to something new, even deconstructive, in the sequel trilogy. I'm so sick of Palpatine vs. Skywalker chosen bloodline nonsense you can't even imagine, and the last thing I want is to have my nostalgia pandered to.
The ancillary stuff is a lot better however. I hear good things about Star Wars Visions but I haven't seen it.
Yes, I agree on Andor. But that was a quiet side-project done by good people, and not the main focus of Kathleen Kennedy and her recruits. Both it and Rogue One were made by Tony Gilroy.
Development on ‘09 started after production wrapped on enterprise in March 2005, although there wasn’t a lot in it. Production in earnest was certainly underway 18 months after.
There is a new movie in the early stages of development. Some news was teased at Comic-Con in July and the directors spoke about it a few weeks ago.
"After years of an unclear future, it seemed as though “Star Trek” finally found a path back to the big screen as “Spider-Man: Homecoming” writers and “Game Night” and “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” filmmakers Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley boarded the film."
I love Star Trek, I love Star Wars, and I love Doctor Who. I have very fond memories of watching Tom Baker's episodes on PBS back in the day.
But once you have nothing to draw on but nostalgia I think it's time to move on. I liked the Doctor better when they were just an outlaw Time Lord in a stolen car doing good and getting into adventures, and not the eldritch abomination they've become, whose mere name causes the galaxy to shiver in terror. I liked Star Trek better when the humans weren't the most powerful force in the galaxy, one-shotting Borg cubes, but they were an upstart species getting a foothold in a universe bigger, stranger and far more dangerous than they imagine. In both cases, nostalgia leads to a sort of narrative power creep.
Star Wars has the same problem. Everything has to be about the Palpatines versus the Skywalkers. It would have been such a better story if it turned out Rey really was a nobody, if the entire plot had the courage to examine its own mythology from the outside and establish that the universe really is bigger than these two players, but we don't dare subvert tropes when the viewer has the media literacy of a mollusk and can't accept a protagonist who isn't Space Goku.
There's no wonder left to any of it. No mystery, no awe. No sense that the universe is bigger than you can imagine. God forbid something take a risk with the fucking franchise. Maybe we should just let it all die.
> Everything has to be about the Palpatines versus the Skywalkers. It would have been such a better story if it turned out Rey really was a nobody, if the entire plot had the courage to examine its own mythology from the outside and establish that the universe really is bigger than these two players, but we don't dare subvert tropes when the viewer has the media literacy of a mollusk and can't accept a protagonist who isn't Space Goku.
This isn't anything to do with "media literacy" - that as a criticism is quite vague, I think. The actual reason is because the two directors were fighting to undo each others' work, and spend hundreds of millions to do so.
I'll be honest, I think Dr Who is due for a 1989-style shelving for a while. I've loved watching the show since I was young, but I think the quality has fallen off significantly recently. Capaldi was the last "great doctor" in my opinion. Whittaker is a good actress, I thought she performed well in Broadchurch (ironically also written by Chibnall), but her writing was just awful, and it feels like they've just spent the last couple of seasons nostalgia-baiting the fans, like with the Midnight episode
Capaldi had strong episodes throughout his run, but yes, I personally did dislike some of the storylines. The Zygon stuff felt very weak to me, and I never understood the "The Hybrid" storyline. But heaven sent/hell bent were bangers, and I definitely enjoyed his finale Cybermen episodes.
But yes, the moon suddenly reappearing in between shots, perfectly fine and identical to before, was very silly
Doctor Who has been "woke" for a long time. I believe the 4th doctor discuss what pronouns to use for an alien. There have been several episodes essentially about slavery in the 10th and 11th doctors runs. Also you should read about The Happiness Patrol, a 7th doctor episode
Could you please define what you think "woke" means then? Because I'm working off the definition of "being aware of and attentive to social and political injustices, especially regarding race, gender, and inequality"
That's pretty much the definition that the term started with (arguably it was a bit more general in some sense: just along the lines of 'politically aware and engaged'). It seems to have morphed, but I find that when it's used pejoratively there's not one fixed definition beyond 'I don't like it'.
> That's pretty much the definition that the term started with
No, it started as being aware of issues black Americans were facing. Then it got co-opted and contorted by the far left in America into all sorts of crazy issues.
It got co-opted and contorted by the right in America. The right intentionally pretended that "woke" was an umbrella term for "all sorts of crazy issues" that it never was. The more "crazy issues" that they could add onto the pile the better, in order to make the word useless to the left. If anyone on the left continued to use "woke" intending its original meaning, those listening would associate their own thoughts about the extra unrelated issues, muddying the speaker's message.
It's good that the left has got to the point where they're disavowing woke[0], although they're only doing it to not plummet further into the depths of unpopularity, but to say it was never co-opted by the radical left in the first place is so breathtakingly untrue even they haven't done that.
Traditionally (in the modern pejorative sense), it means "things the speaker doesn't like", in much the same sense as "common sense" means "the speaker's opinions".
It definitely is a lot more specific than that. It means, at the very least means having certain views on the causes of injustices, and on the policies required to fix them, and even on how one judges whether there has been an injustice in the first place.
Also, well, women in major non-romantic roles in the 1960s! I'm struggling to think of another major TV example of that from the time period, honestly.
> I believe the 4th doctor discuss what pronouns to use for an alien.
An alien, not a human.
> There have been several episodes essentially about slavery in the 10th and 11th doctors runs.
Progressive in 1830 maybe. In the 21st century saying that slavery is bad thing is hardly revolutionary.
> The Happiness Patrol, a 7th doctor episode
A bit of left wing subtext and some caricature? So what? Very common at the time. Lots of comedians doing the same. Nothing like woke, not even a bit controversial.
More like "go woke because you've run out of ideas." The only "woke" thing about Whittaker was that the doctor was female, something they would have done in earlier episodes (in fact, did do) and wouldn't have made a big deal about it.
But they had no reason for people to watch Who by the time you got to Whittaker, and the show should have been cancelled already but it was making too much money, so they treated her like a Cousin Oliver and made the fact that she was the First Female Doctor (not even true) into a huge thing because they had nothing else.
I think the episode written by Malorie Blackman about some random time criminal appearing during MLK and Rosa Parks' protests would fall under "woke" too, but that was just a shit episode because of bad writing. A competent episode writer could probably have done something better with that time period/setting
Probably the fact that in one episode[0] the Doctor's incarnations were actually mostly women except for the most recent few - who obscured this important fact - smelled a lot like "yet another man taking credit for a woman's work".
idk, Who, Trek, Star Wars have been woke since the 60s. At this point, it seems more likely that you've changed woke to mean "anything I don't like". Or you watch too much Fox
Staggers me when I see viewpoints like this about Who, Trek and the like. Take a second to consider, maybe it isn't the show's outlook that changed, it's you?
Who has always been progressive. Trek, too. If you were your current age in the 60s I bet you'd be railing against Kirk kissing Uhura.
Maybe Capaldi ended on a high note. I was done with the show after the moon episode and quit watching. I couldn't keep suspending disbelief after that. It wasn't just one bad episode the whole thing felt tired.
Capaldi was a great actor and it was nice that he got some good scripts (I really liked the one where he was in Doctor Prison, great concept), but his run felt to me like a show running out of ideas.
I didn't watch the Whittaker doctor. Heard it was awful and wasn't surprised. I eventually saw the pilot and it was indeed, awful.
Back when it was airing, I sort of lost interest around Capaldi. I think his episodes were a bit too "mature" for me, when I preferred funny scifi show. But I've come to appreciate a lot of his episodes more. But he did have some really dogshit ones, like the moon episode, The Caretaker (Where a school gets attacked by a dalek knockoff), and Sleep No More, which was so bad that me and my girlfriend spent the whole episode talking about other stuff when having a marathon rewatch. Both of us are big fans of doctor who in general
Implying it hadn't already fell apart in the Matt Smith era, where there was a season finale that made less sense than the end of Neo Genesis Evangelion (I think I'm talking about The Pandorica Opens, but it's honestly all a blur, and was at the time I watched it too). Moffat hyped up future episodes but could rarely deliver, RTD just hit you with a massive sucker punch on the 2nd or 3rd last episode and WOW.
Also implying that the wheels weren't kinda getting loose when 10ant said his final farewell at that (otherwise fairly underrated IMO) episode where the Master was hungry.
Much like the show in the latter years of its first run it collapsed under the weight of its own canon, and writers/showrunners that enthusiastically embraced that canon and alienated the casual audience.
IMO they should never have brought back the Time Lords. That was the genius stroke of the 2005 reboot. Just make the Doctor an intergalactic oddball, let the adventures run from there. What's weird is that Russell Davies was the one who understood this... then when he came back to the show he shoveled nostalgia on top of nostalgia and sank the thing.
I never even watched the Chibnall era so I'm not fully informed but from reading about the Timeless Child arc it just sounds like a show disappearing up its own arse. It's supposed to be a family show, younger kids don't care about that kind of stuff. Just make it fun.
The Chibnall episodes sucked, but then Russell T. Davies came back as showrunner. If you haven't seen the first three episodes he did, with David Tennant returning as the Doctor, you're missing out!
I liked the regular season that followed too. It had good and bad episodes, just like the last time RTD was showrunner, but the good ones were very good.
(I haven't watched the most recent season yet, but that's less because I'm unexcited and more because I want to save it.)
Chibnall episodes most certainly did not suck, neither did his writing. It was simply s different take on Doctor Who. A good one.
What killed it for good was what came (back) after. Bad decision. Bad precedent set. Bringing the RTD and Tennant gang back was the single most important and devastating mistake ever made on this show.
All of the big franchises are collapsing under the weight of nostalgia and self-reference. Reboots like Picard are shockingly, almost insensitively, retrospective.
It deserves a "1989-style shelving" much more than it did in 1989 itself. The viewing figures are tumbling off a cliff at a time when the BBC in general needs them more than ever.
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
[0] <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c621ln7vx7qo" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c621ln7vx7qo
consumer451 · · focus · HN ↗
Star Trek is in far worse shape these days. According to Riker, this is the first time in decades where there is no TV or movie even in the planning phase.
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
krapp · · focus · HN ↗
The ancillary stuff is a lot better however. I hear good things about Star Wars Visions but I haven't seen it.
sien · · focus · HN ↗
Star Wars Jedi Survivor was also highly enjoyable.
The big films have been sad except for Rogue One.
But there is some Star Wars stuff that is out there and is really good.
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
hdgvhicv · · focus · HN ↗
xoxxala · · focus · HN ↗
"After years of an unclear future, it seemed as though “Star Trek” finally found a path back to the big screen as “Spider-Man: Homecoming” writers and “Game Night” and “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” filmmakers Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley boarded the film."
<a href="https://www.darkhorizons.com/next-star-trek-film-tackles-corrupt-starfleet/" rel="nofollow">https://www.darkhorizons.com/next-star-trek-film-tackles-cor...
krapp · · focus · HN ↗
But once you have nothing to draw on but nostalgia I think it's time to move on. I liked the Doctor better when they were just an outlaw Time Lord in a stolen car doing good and getting into adventures, and not the eldritch abomination they've become, whose mere name causes the galaxy to shiver in terror. I liked Star Trek better when the humans weren't the most powerful force in the galaxy, one-shotting Borg cubes, but they were an upstart species getting a foothold in a universe bigger, stranger and far more dangerous than they imagine. In both cases, nostalgia leads to a sort of narrative power creep.
Star Wars has the same problem. Everything has to be about the Palpatines versus the Skywalkers. It would have been such a better story if it turned out Rey really was a nobody, if the entire plot had the courage to examine its own mythology from the outside and establish that the universe really is bigger than these two players, but we don't dare subvert tropes when the viewer has the media literacy of a mollusk and can't accept a protagonist who isn't Space Goku.
There's no wonder left to any of it. No mystery, no awe. No sense that the universe is bigger than you can imagine. God forbid something take a risk with the fucking franchise. Maybe we should just let it all die.
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
This isn't anything to do with "media literacy" - that as a criticism is quite vague, I think. The actual reason is because the two directors were fighting to undo each others' work, and spend hundreds of millions to do so.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
voidUpdate · · focus · HN ↗
jordanb · · focus · HN ↗
voidUpdate · · focus · HN ↗
But yes, the moon suddenly reappearing in between shots, perfectly fine and identical to before, was very silly
mr_roboto · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
voidUpdate · · focus · HN ↗
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
voidUpdate · · focus · HN ↗
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
voidUpdate · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
rcxdude · · focus · HN ↗
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
No, it started as being aware of issues black Americans were facing. Then it got co-opted and contorted by the far left in America into all sorts of crazy issues.
joshtynjala · · focus · HN ↗
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
[0] <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/18/opinion/woke-liberals-restitution.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/18/opinion/woke-liberals-res...
DonHopkins · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
jimbokun · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
krapp · · focus · HN ↗
rsynnott · · focus · HN ↗
graemep · · focus · HN ↗
rsynnott · · focus · HN ↗
graemep · · focus · HN ↗
An alien, not a human.
> There have been several episodes essentially about slavery in the 10th and 11th doctors runs.
Progressive in 1830 maybe. In the 21st century saying that slavery is bad thing is hardly revolutionary.
> The Happiness Patrol, a 7th doctor episode
A bit of left wing subtext and some caricature? So what? Very common at the time. Lots of comedians doing the same. Nothing like woke, not even a bit controversial.
jordanb · · focus · HN ↗
But they had no reason for people to watch Who by the time you got to Whittaker, and the show should have been cancelled already but it was making too much money, so they treated her like a Cousin Oliver and made the fact that she was the First Female Doctor (not even true) into a huge thing because they had nothing else.
voidUpdate · · focus · HN ↗
jvyvinomigg · · focus · HN ↗
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Timeless_Children" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Timeless_Children
jimbokun · · focus · HN ↗
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
nilamo · · focus · HN ↗
afavour · · focus · HN ↗
Who has always been progressive. Trek, too. If you were your current age in the 60s I bet you'd be railing against Kirk kissing Uhura.
AvocadoPanic · · focus · HN ↗
TheOtherHobbes · · focus · HN ↗
jordanb · · focus · HN ↗
Capaldi was a great actor and it was nice that he got some good scripts (I really liked the one where he was in Doctor Prison, great concept), but his run felt to me like a show running out of ideas.
I didn't watch the Whittaker doctor. Heard it was awful and wasn't surprised. I eventually saw the pilot and it was indeed, awful.
voidUpdate · · focus · HN ↗
wisty · · focus · HN ↗
Also implying that the wheels weren't kinda getting loose when 10ant said his final farewell at that (otherwise fairly underrated IMO) episode where the Master was hungry.
afavour · · focus · HN ↗
Much like the show in the latter years of its first run it collapsed under the weight of its own canon, and writers/showrunners that enthusiastically embraced that canon and alienated the casual audience.
IMO they should never have brought back the Time Lords. That was the genius stroke of the 2005 reboot. Just make the Doctor an intergalactic oddball, let the adventures run from there. What's weird is that Russell Davies was the one who understood this... then when he came back to the show he shoveled nostalgia on top of nostalgia and sank the thing.
I never even watched the Chibnall era so I'm not fully informed but from reading about the Timeless Child arc it just sounds like a show disappearing up its own arse. It's supposed to be a family show, younger kids don't care about that kind of stuff. Just make it fun.
Wowfunhappy · · focus · HN ↗
I liked the regular season that followed too. It had good and bad episodes, just like the last time RTD was showrunner, but the good ones were very good.
(I haven't watched the most recent season yet, but that's less because I'm unexcited and more because I want to save it.)
jvyvinomigg · · focus · HN ↗
What killed it for good was what came (back) after. Bad decision. Bad precedent set. Bringing the RTD and Tennant gang back was the single most important and devastating mistake ever made on this show.
Wowfunhappy · · focus · HN ↗
In all seriousness we clearly have very different taste! I just found the Chibnall episodes boring. I wanted to like them!
I think GGP shares my taste though, based on their comment.
TheOtherHobbes · · focus · HN ↗
nephihaha · · focus · HN ↗
jvyvinomigg · · focus · HN ↗
Mr Eccleston was right.