He's back... RTD returns as Doc Who Showrunner...

[Deledrius]

Now it tells its audience what they wish to hear.

Which apparently means having an Easter-Egg-Per-Second counter in the corner.

[Frustration]

I see Doctor Who as having the same basic problem. It's one thing when the Fourth Doctor, in "The Face of Evil", warns us that the very powerful and the very stupid are similar in that they change the facts to fit their views rather than the other way around. The BBC is controlled by the government, but the message is anti-authoritarian and pro-skepticism. When, rather than suggesting universal themes in their stories, the people behind DW tried to convey specific political ideas (against Thatcher specifically), people lost patience with them.

There have been a bunch of cases, even back in the best days of New Who, where the show was used in a self-congratulatory fashion. And it's definitely pushing social agendas - but reinforcing the dominant opinions rather than subverting them. Granted, questioning authority used to be popular in certain circles, so it would be argued that was also "preaching to the choir", but it's also done more overtly and with less storytelling skill. Douglas Adams was very good at working political themes into his stories, but his very worst writing happened when he had a political opinion he wanted to make clear ("Zaphod Plays it Safe").

To steal from Tolkien: the better a story is, the better its message goes through; applicability is better than allegory, because it suggests an idea and lets people judge it themselves, rather than telling them what their conclusions should be.

[Deledrius]

Generally speaking, I agree.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I'll admit to not being the biggest expert on classic Dr. Who so it's possible that this commentary doesn't apply as well as I expect, but with that caveat I would say that just because Classic Who addressed some real-world issues it doesn't mean that the modern version being overtly "woke" or addressing political issues can't still amount to reduced quality. I think it's all about how exactly it is/was done.

For instance, after having shown my wife all of TOS Star Trek I wanted to show her some of Star Trek Continues, which I've long considered to be so well done in almost every category that it basically is Star Trek - that if not for the different actors, you'd never be able to tell their episodes from the real thing. Watching through some of them again, I felt almost the same way except I noticed this time through that their social commentary gets I think a lot more "heavy handed" than in the classic series, and it's to the project's detriment.

Yes. Moreover, classic Star Trek is taking minority sociopolitical positions and presenting them to the majority. The most recent Treks are taking majority positions and echoing them back to the majority.

*Any* presentation of an idea can be done poorly. But there is always a difference between challenging the audience and pandering to it, and Trek originally challenged its target audience. Now it tells its audience what they wish to hear.

It sounds more like you're the one being challenged, and you're used to being told what you already agree with but consider controversial.

[Frustration]

Or maybe I object to poorly-presented ideas even when I agree with them, and have absolutely no tolerance for *stupid*, poorly-presented ideas.

[Thebestoftherest]

That is a good point. I like doctor who but at least the new series had a hard time showing it ideals.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Or maybe I object to poorly-presented ideas even when I agree with them, and have absolutely no tolerance for *stupid*, poorly-presented ideas.

Which ideas are stupid, exactly, and which are just poorly presented, by your reckoning?

[Yukaphile]

Man, I still need to make it past the Second Doctor.

[sayla0079]

Man, I still need to make it past the Second Doctor.

All the Doctors have their strengths and weaknesses.

[Yukaphile]

No kidding.