Skip Navigation
7 comments

  • Pretty goofy take. As much as the Timeless Child is a "controversial" story, the Fugitive Doctor has been just about as universally-embraced as you can get.

    Edit: I should clarify - the article itself is fine. The headline writer definitely tried to milk the "controversy" aspect of things, which...is what headline writers do.

  • "Resurrected" — yeah, sure, I guess. If it's controversial not actually touching on the Timeless Child at all, and still bringing back Jo Martin's Fugitive Doctor, the objectively best thing we got out of that storyline.

    TL;DR — Doctor Who continuity (and even more so canon) is a "best of" mixtape at best, but Metro is gonna Metro regardless. If they can home in in the last perceived controversy around the show they recall, that's what's going in the headline.

    • The Timeless Child accomplished its goal of opening up a world of storytelling possibilities, should anyone choose to play in that sandbox - and RTD has done so sparingly, but consistently since his return to the franchise.

      It's definitely bizarre that Chibnall himself didn't do anything with the idea besides put it out there. But all in all, I'm way madder about him re-destroying Gallifrey than I am about anything to do with the Timeless Child.

      • Agreed. Chibnall's method of lore building seems to be like the guy at brainstorm meetings who just goes, "So here's an idea..." and then checks out for lunch.

        The Gallifrey massacre especially needed a lot of workshopping before it reached the screen. First creative question, why did this need to happen? Surface reason, to traumatise the Doctor. Deeper reason, so there would be no Time Lords who the Doctor might ask questions that Chibnall couldn't answer?

7 comments