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.
philipallstar · · focus · HN ↗
[0] <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c621ln7vx7qo" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c621ln7vx7qo
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]
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]