Well,the woman I mentioned refuses to watch any "Doctor Who" made after 1989 (she called it "a fraud" and David Tennant "the Not-Doctor").

Adrift, The Torchwood season 2 finale which was very good, and dinosaurs on a spaceship was just as good as anything else in season 7. You are being overly harsh, and is the showrunner of a successful show.

I is? Oh good! I hope it's "Fargo"- that's a great show!

But seriously, I though "Adrift" was so-so, and "Dinosaurs" awful-plus, without wanting
to sound like Michael Medved, had the villain threaten to "break in" a woman after marrying her. Which I found somewhat inappropriate for a show whose audience
includes numerous children.

Can I call him Chris Chinball?

One of the b*tchier aspects of "Doctor Who" fandom : making up insulting names for the show's producers. See also "Graybag Williams", "John Nathan-Turnoff" "Rufus T. Doofus",
and "Steven Moffprat".

Verity Lame-Butt
Phillip Pinchstuff
Barry Wets

Always been the same! How childish.

I've just re-watched this.
Chibnall is going to be brilliant.
Different, but brilliant.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWU6XL9xI4k

Personally, I felt the most emotional thing about this was Murray Gold's score (which was all the same, recycled from Series 5). It's not a slight on Chibnall's writing at all here, as much as I confess to not being a fan of his stuff. It may say more about Moffat's writing as I simply struggled to care about Amy and Rory half the time anyway, and then Brian was just shoehorned into two otherwise standalone episodes - trying to use him for some last minute emotional resonance to show us the supposed impact of stranding the Pond's in the past just didn't work for me. It was what Series 6 and Series 7 were worst for - emotional manipulation. By this point I just didn't care.

Again, in this case not a slight against Chibnall, and I know I sound like a right misery guts... but I just don't care enough about the characters here at all to be upset this was never filmed, when realistically I feel such a scene should have been filmed and I should have cared about it. My biggest hope is that Chibnall can write characters I care about - as Moffat eventually achieved in the end with Twelve, River and Clara.

The subject title of this thread is rather unpleasant and unfair. I'm no fan of his work but he's still a respected, award winning writer who knows the show and respects the history of the show. Those people that have been missing the RTD era might be pleased as his DW stories have always felt more like RTD than Moffat so I think his era will be very RTD-like.

He wouldn't have been my choice, but he is a good choice none-the-less.

But Chibnall's work as a producer and writer of television drama is a legitimate subject for discussion, just like the work of Davies and Moffat.

And all Chibnall's detractors here are saying is that they do not see any reason, based on Chibnall's previous sci-fi and fantasy work, that he would be a good producer for "Doctor Who"-it's not like we're saying something really unpleasant or unfair like " Chris Chibnall should be punched in the face!"

Given the show has been losing ratings and getting negative media coverage over
the last few months, it feels like the show needs somebody genuinely talented with
new and interesting ideas. Chris Chibnall is a Doctor Who fan whose episodes attracted little praise (unlike, say, Paul Cornell or Neil Gaiman)* who also made a commerically successful non-SF show (Broadchurch), so it feels like the BBC is giving it to another member of the "Fan Mafia" rather than, say, asking if talented producers from outside DW fandom would be interested in it.

Bear in mind the only other genre shows Chibnall has produced are the patchy first two seasons of "Torchwood", and a fantasy, "Camelot", that was an expensive failure that also garnered very negative reviews. It's like the BBC hiring the people behind the 2013 "Lone Ranger" to make a new Western drama.

To me, the decision to pick Chibnall as producer smacks of profound cowardice and laziness on the part of the BBC.


*Of course, Cornell and Gaiman aren't interested in being DW showrunners, and in any case are following careers outside television.

What would you do if in 2018 hes actually really good?

Surely, casting the producer of one of TV's biggest shows in the last 5-10 years *is* a great idea? Russell T Davies had written/produced "Queer as Folk", "The Second Coming" and "Casanova", none of which hinted at his brilliance for sci-fi. You have to go way way back to "Dark Season" or "Century Falls" to find some half decent sci-fi.
Moffat? The so-so "Jekyll", "Coupling", "Press Gang" and "Chalk" hardly give us the promise of a great Doctor Who showrunner (although "Coupling" has some wonderfully wibbly wobbly timey wimey episodes). We've never actually had a producer hired on the merits of their sci-fi/fantasy output (or are we saying RTD's DW novels and Moffat's Comic Relief special were their credentials, rather than the huge huge shows they wrote and made prior to DW?).

In defense of Chibnall, Robert Holmes' first few contributions to Doctor Who were mediocre and he turned out one of the most beloved script editors and writers of the entire show.

Said it before, but so what.. Charlie Brooker would be awesome as showrunner.

Yeah but, Krotons was an old script that Dicks fiddled with and was a last minute replacement for a story that fell through. Likewise Space Pirates, that was a replacement for a story that fell through at a late stage, and then had to be extended by two episodes to accommodate another story pull. So we forgive him his sins...

As for Chibnall, I don't have too much of a problem. Quite liked most of his episodes, and he clearly cares about Doctor Who. Can't go wrong...

Then I'd be pleasantly surprised.


By that logic, the people behing "The Great British Bake-Off" should be given the helm of "Doctor Who".



The thing is though, "Dark Season", "Century Falls" and "Jekyll" were fairly good
sci-fi/fantasy shows. We have seen Chibnall work on genre fare before and it's been
consistently bad.* Chibnall seems to me someone who likes "Doctor Who" but has no
idea how to make it well.


*(Chibnall's "Camelot" was made by the Starz channel in America, and there were even disparaging comments about "Camelot" on the official Starz website! It also
only has 44% on Rotten Tomatoes).

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/camelot/s01/

BIB: Bad in your opinion. There are some of us on here that love 42, The Sillurian two parter and etc.

Brooker's written the excellent sci-fi "Black Mirror", but I don't think he'd make a good
DW showrunner- he doesn't seem like he'd be able to make stuff for family audiences
(witness the high obscenity count on his shows!).

Also, in one of his reviews he said some very unflattering things about the post-Tom Baker Doctors, which might not make for jovial DW convention attendence...



Interesting-even Chibnall himself admits "42’s not a brilliant script":

http://www.starburstmagazine.com/fea...who-and-beyond

But I didn't, I enjoyed it, it had adventure and danger and was so fun.

Here's something to think about: if "Broadchurch" had been a flop, would Chibnall have
gotten the showrunner role? Because I don't remember anyone talking about his
"The Great Train Robbery" or "Spooks: Code 9".

Some interesting stuff in that interview like what had to be cut from Hungry Earth/Cold Blood (some of which may have fixed one of the problems a lot of people had with it) and this bit

I liked Hungry Earth & Cold Blood. The only think that I found unconvincing was the somewhat wedged in middle age romance between the scientists.

You are right it is interesting to know some of the decisions that have to be made. He was told one thing to write which then became something else and as showrunner he will be able to have his own consistency on stories.
I do wish they would on the boxsets though do 'uncut' versions of episodes as it must be disappointing to not have the writers original 'vision' seen on broadcast.



It is an interesting read overall but given its three years now since that interview Chibnall obviously has some confidence he can take the helm and be the showrunner. Broachchurch has probably given him that confidence that he can run the show.

Maybe the break from writing for 'Who' for a few years is a benefit as he's developed other things and grown as a writer. I'm interested to see who he gets to write for Series 11 and what tone he will go for.

Chibnall had little input into Camelot because the studio interfered so much. He's really ranted about Camelot and was a bad experience it was, and how badly it turned out.

Which studio? "Camelot" was produced by number of production companies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1672189/..._=ttpl_ql_dt_5

Also Chibnall was the co-creator, and one of the executive producers of "Camelot", and he also wrote or co-wrote 8 of its ten episodes. It's not like he was a helpless patsy
who could only stand back while the Evil Yanks ruined his wonderful show.

It's being a bit generous to call "Jekyll" fairly good.