A year ago, I wrote a conclusion for season one of Doctor Who’s new era on Disney+. In it, I expressed frustrations about the show’s handling but, more importantly, offered solutions for how to fix them in Doctor Who season two.
With Doctor Who season two over and Ncuti Gatwa out of the show far too soon, possibly replaced by Billie Piper, it feels apt to do the same again.
The Nostalgia Trap: Tennant, Piper, and the Panic Behind the Curtain
Though I could spend an age going into the depressing state of affairs in which the first instance of the Doctor being played by a Black actor is sandwiched by two former cast members drawing on nostalgia to win back audiences, it is concerning and seriously undermines his significance. I fear that the discourse about David Tennant and Billie Piper will take away from the brilliance of Ncuti’s performance over the last two years and divert attention away from the sorry state of affairs the show is in after Doctor Who season two.
But perhaps, with the show needing three episodes of David Tennant reprising the role for the 60th anniversary, and however long Billie Piper will be in the show again, it shows a panic behind the curtain as those at Bad Wolf Studios fear for the worst about the show’s future and the supporting funding from Disney+. As if to secure audiences, and thus funding, the show has to attract audiences back however it can, even if that means relying heavily on once household names synonymous with the show’s golden years, twenty years prior.
Regrettably, the show needn’t be so desperate if it could get the core principal ideas right. Now, I wanted to give the new era of Doctor Who the benefit of the doubt, but, as the late Sydney Newman succinctly put it, “I don’t like this much, it reads silly and condescending(…)”.
Newman, the original commissioner of Doctor Who wrote back in 1963 that discussions for the show were veering into fantasy and abstract ideas, and to do anything so “silly and condescending” would undo what the show stands for.
Admittedly, with Disney getting involved in the distribution of the show, now co-funded by Bad Wolf Studios, a company acquired by Sony Pictures Television in 2021, speculation amongst fans was that Doctor Who season one and two would now have the budgetary flexibility to tackle epic stories, with sprawling landscapes and equally mighty foes. Across the two series and two specials, the reality of the situation falls far short of even the lowest of expectations, with overreliance on computer-generated creatures and Classic Who villains returning, despite this new era being penned as a welcoming onboarding point for young and discovering audiences.
Legacy Overload: Why Classic Villains Aren’t Cutting It
Where 2005 was an excellent springboard into the show, establishing the Time Lords and Daleks, whilst keeping the series focussed on its lead companion Rose Tyler (Billie Piper); nearly twenty years later, the introductions of The Rani, Omega, Susan Foreman, The Toymaker and Sutekh requires additional contextualisation from previous episodes, with none of these Classic villains having the lasting iconography as either Daleks, Cybermen, Zygons or more recently, The Weeping Angels. This means that whilst series one required only the Daleks to sell the legacy of the show, since Russell T Davies’ return in 2023, he has had to rely on many moving parts in the hopes of coming close to the same effect he once had.
In fairness, to give credit to Davies, when the show returned in 2005, the decade-long hiatus positioned it in a way that allowed it to appeal wholly to a new generation. The absence from the show was put down to a genocidal war between Time Lords and Daleks, the likes of which would later be seen in The Day of the Doctor (2013), and that meant that every aspect of the show could be reinvented. The Doctor, once a travelling adventurer, is now hardened by the horrors of war. Christopher Eccleston’s incarnation sold that phenomenally with a sarcastic stoicism, a point distilled in The Empty Child (2005) double-parter, where, in its resolution, the Doctor exclaims, “Just this once, everybody lives”. Here, audiences see the Doctor leading as a hero, having done everything to save one scared little boy while carrying the regret of losing his species.
The Child in the TARDIS: How Doctors Reflect Childhood
Childhood and how the Doctor interacts with children is, and always has been, a core way to distil a Doctor’s personality. Eccleston, as mentioned, sought to do anything to save one scared child who wanted his Mummy in The Empty Child double-parter. Protecting the child, Ecclestone addresses the buried, suppressed guilt from the Time War. Fast forward to Matt Smith as the Eleventh Doctor and his bubbling, childlike wonder manifests instantly through his relationship with Amelia Pond. Perceived as her imaginary friend, the Doctor has an air of mystery, like a character from her bedtime stories. Then, in the episode Night Terrors (2011), where a child is scared once again, Smith does everything he can to cheer him up, even as far as zapping his toys to life to distract him from the horrors that lurk in his wardrobe.
Childhood and the Doctor’s identity are entwined. It makes sense then that Davies establishes Gatwa’s Doctor as one who will alter reality to save one child’s life, whether a stranger and her pram on Christmas Eve, or Ruby Sunday in The Church on Ruby Road (2023). Despite this, Davies also tries to weave in the story beat of Poppy, a child first introduced in Space Babies (2024). The reveal Davies attempted is that Poppy, of identical name and features, is the human child of Belinda Chandra (Varada Sethu), whom she longed to return to the whole time. This plot twist comes late into Doctor Who season two, and feels undeserved and jarringly contradictory considering the Belinda Chandra audiences had gotten to know.
The Belinda Problem: Repeating Old Mistakes with New Companions
Initially established as a headstrong nurse, Belinda’s character assassination across the series is heartwrenching and a wasted opportunity. Instead, Davies repeats his legacy once more, positioning Belinda as secondary to the former blonde companion, much like how Martha Jones (Freema Agyeman) was introduced as a nurse and then existed to fill the shadow of Rose Tyler.
Rumours are swirling that the series was initially written for Millie Gibson’s Ruby Sunday but changed at the last minute to accommodate Varada Sethu, which could justify such disjointed character-building. However, this is a fraction of the issues the series faced in fleshing out stories, individuals and motives.
Where Are the New Voices? A Call for Creative Expansion
With reduced episode counts per series, now down to eight, as opposed to twelve or thirteen, making every episode count is more important than ever. Except when a quarter of each series is taken up by the finale, with Davies failing to stick the landing both times, this indicates a poor consideration of how the series flows together.
Likewise, with limited episodes, this should be a place to spotlight talented writers. However, there have only been five guest writers over the two seasons, and one of whom was a former showrunner. Another was co-credited alongside Davies for the revisting of a Midnight sequel. Steven Moffat (Boom), Kate Herron and Briony Redman (Rogue), Sharma Angel-Walfall (The Well), Inua Ellams (The Story and the Engine) and Juno Dawson (The Interstellar Song Contest) each offered something special to their episodes, with the strongest of the lot being ones solely credited to the guest writer.
As a result, Doctor Who should be a platform for spotlighting talent. For instance, if I were the showrunner, I’d proposition positions for emergent talent, including those in TV such as Jack Rooke (Big Boys), Lucy Prebble (I Hate Suzie); those in theatre like Prebble (The Effect) and Katori Hall (The Hot Wing King). And I’d look to the fandom itself: Daniel Hardcastle, a Sunday Times bestselling author and Big Finish contributor, is just one of many who understand the show inside and out, and with each writer will bring new audiences, discovering the show for the first time.
The show broadens itself by opening the pool of writers and becoming a global talent offering. In a similar vein to how it offered a spot to Douglas Adams, creating the famous serial Shada (1979), or when it pursued a route for JK Rowling to pen an episode, Doctor Who needn’t box itself into the same voices week in and week out.
Regardless of who writes the episodes, the messaging must be clear. If it makes a political point, does it align with the show, and if not, does it challenge the worldview or settle for the status quo? There have been instances over the past two seasons of Doctor Who where the socio-political commentary has been oddly positioned, such as some viewers believing The Interstellar Song Contest was positioned as anti-Palestinian, or that by introducing an Asian actress to play a bi-generated Rani, only to kill her off whilst her White counterpart, Mrs Flood (Anita Dobson) lived to escape, perpetuated a racial bias later repeated with Gatwa’s regeneration back into an actress solely derived to fuel conversation.
On the topic of Mrs Flood and The Rani, rumours suggest that the reveal to Mrs Flood wasn’t decided until partway through season two. Though a rumour, it reasonably explains the transition from Mrs Flood’s self-awareness and doomsaying dramatics being dropped to pursue a reveal as The Rani. By disregarding his setup, the fans call Davies into question for his ability to deliver scripts with justifiable payoffs, and, for some, who believe that Davies would be better positioned to pass the baton onto a new showrunner.
I believed Mrs Flood to be Iris Wildthyme, a character previously featured in Big Finish audio dramas. She was a self-aware Time Lady with a penchant for dressing up as other companions, most famously donning the face of Katy Manning, the actress who previously played companion Jo Grant. Iris Wildthyme, written and created by Paul Magrs, would have been an excellent opportunity for Davies to incorporate a postmodern villain without relying on Classic Who villains and giving the villain a tongue-in-cheek dramatic flair.
Props with Purpose: The TARDIS and Sonic Deserve Better
Then again, if I were the showrunner, not only would I give room for emergent voices, but there would be a deeper consideration of every aspect of the production, whether that be the TARDIS interior, the sonic screwdriver, the purpose of the companion show ‘Doctor Who: Unleashed’, or in favouring the work by Millennium FX over CG.
Many won’t see an issue with the TARDIS interior as it stands; my problem is that if it remains unchanged, the TARDIS, much like the sonic screwdriver, needs to be seen as an extension of who the Doctor is at that time. For instance, Ecclestone, fresh from the Time War, had a grungy interior, its arches barely holding itself together, whilst his sonic screwdriver was minimal and solely functional. This Doctor was a shell, just trying to get by. Matt Smith, comparably, was a bundle of chaos, whizzing with childlike glee and possibility. His original TARDIS design, between series five and six, was precisely that. Gadgets and gizmos on the control panel, with an eccentricity to having fun. Comparably, his sonic had prongs that flicked out, as if you can imagine the Doctor fiddling with them to manage his undiagnosed ADHD.
With Tennant and Gatwa, the TARDIS has grown substantially, taking up a sound stage at Bad Wolf Studios. To me, though, except for a jukebox in Gatwa’s TARDIS and the roundels being independently controllable LED lights allowing for manipulation of colour and lighting within the DP team, there’s not much that sells it as iconographic with a particular Doctor.
Likewise, with the sonic screwdriver, Capaldi’s sonic leant into the futurism of the TARDIS redesign, whilst Whittaker’s had a rustic approach, given she handcrafted it from Sheffield Steel. Even when the Doctor became Tennant once more, the sonic screwdriver borrowed its redesign from previous versions it had along the way. And then came Ncuti’s. Best described as a Sky TV remote control, it lost all identity of what a sonic screwdriver should be. The otoscope base design from Classic Who is long gone; instead, it feels self-aware of the streaming model Doctor Who season one and two now sits in, instead of offering an additional layer to Ncuti’s Doctor. With the next Doctor, the sonic screwdriver and the TARDIS should both be given a rejig to reflect who the Doctor is, what they mean, and what the show wants to be at that time.
To expect deep consideration in every decision regarding hero props is hardly a tall order, especially as production designer Michael van Kesteren nailed the minutia when creating the latest sonic device for The Rani (Archie Panjabi). As mentioned in Doctor Who: Unleashed, van Kesteren paid serious consideration to every aspect of the design, from the syringe design reflecting the character’s scientific background, the red wrap mirroring her outfit worn in the 1980s by originating actress Kate O’Mara to the nightshade purple gem atop the device, alluding to her sinister and deadly plotting. On an unrelated note, I’m surprised this prop from Doctor Who season two hasn’t yet been released as a playable toy, similar to the blue and pink versions of the sonic screwdriver, but the licensing side of things is a whole other beast to conquer.
Budget vs Brilliance: Why Less Could Be More
Whilst I am sure that behind the scenes, the executives at the BBC and Disney are clamouring to discuss a deal for the show’s future or perhaps to bring it in-house once again, I seriously would welcome a reduced budget and creative constrictions to the show. Though this may sound counterintuitive, creative problem-solving emerges due to restrictions. For instance, in Joy to the World (2024), writer Steven Moffat stated that Anita (Stephanie de Whalley) is in the script because budgetary constraints prevent Gatwa from traversing the world shown by multiple sets. Instead, he had to stay put and befriend the hotel manager, Anita. (Source: RadioTimes.com). As it happens, Anita was one of the most welcome additions to that episode, outperforming Nicola Coughlan’s Joy, around whom the episode revolves.
Further, reducing budgets will force the show to consider different and new crew, such as those behind the camera, and directing the episode, much like how Doctor Who season one welcomed Dylan Holmes Williams to direct 73 Yards (2024) and Dot and Bubble (2024).
I also wonder if the show will develop cohesiveness within its decision-making if it experienced tighter budgets. For example, Boom, written by Steven Moffat, features a sprawling set built to showcase the Anglican Marines’ base. However, when you consider the time and money that would have been put into that build, one showcased on Doctor Who: Unleashed, solely for it to be used in a short part of the episode, raises the question as to whether the opportunity cost of that build was the best allocation of its resources both in time and finances.
From a story perspective, not only does it encourage creativity, but often, the most compelling story is when something is stripped back to its core idea. The re-introduction of the Daleks in 2005 wasn’t a sprawling galactic battle, but instead, a lone creature trapped underground. There was horror in its stalk-eye, knowing it had to fight to survive. Similarly, Midnight (2007) is set in one claustrophobic cabin throughout the episode, excluding the bookending scenes. Keeping it confined makes the tension feel earned and amplified, something The Well (2025) failed to comprehend.
Going back to Doctor Who: Unleashed, the show could also consider developing as a show to become an outreach platform to bridge the gap between fans and filmmakers. By continuing the partnership with Screen Alliance Wales and ScreenSkills, the companion show could be positioned to work alongside local institutions, such as Swansea University or NFTS Cymru Wales, to offer opportunities for students to work closely with the production and to develop their ideas into the show. For all its merits, I also believe that the companion series needs a tighter focus on highlighting the production process of each episode rather than the more in-depth segments being relegated to YouTube fodder.
The promise of this new Doctor Who era was to reimagine the show for the streaming age. Bigger budgets, global audiences, and radical representation. And yet, what we’ve seen in Doctor Who season two is a struggle to balance legacy with innovation, nostalgia with necessity. For all its spectacle, this era has faltered where it matters most: story, character, tone, and identity.
The show’s future doesn’t rest on returning faces or bigger guest stars. It rests on clarity of vision. The TARDIS is a vessel for change. The Doctor is a character of infinite possibility. The show must embrace both, not just in marketing, but in meaning. Going forward into season three, in whatever form that takes, the show needs to correct the course set during Doctor Who season two. That doesn’t mean jettisoning what’s come before, but rather, learning from it. Root the show in coherent storytelling. Embrace limitations. Celebrate new voices. Let the TARDIS feel lived in. Let the sonic say something. And reconsider who is best to steer the ship both in front of and behind the camera, as there are still ample adventures for the show to go on.
Doctor Who: Season Two is available to stream on BBC iPlayer for UK audiences or via Disney+ for international viewers, where available.
Discover more from Cinamore
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
