Handman said:
Well, it was really just a culmination of not really liking Series 11, and not seeing much of an improvement in Series 12. Dull characters, inconsistent Doctor morals always taken to be right or unquestionable (rather than called out for being inconsistent or outright wrong, like leaving the nonwhite Master to the Nazis or wiping Ada Lovelace's mind), just not really seeing any development of our characters, constant exposition and hamfisted, obvious lessons (as opposed to arriving at them naturally).
All in all the show just doesn't seem to have anything to actually say thematically, and doesn't have any characters I gravitate to.
I get that. I didn't like her erasing Ada's memories either, frankly I feel like she could have been a really cool companion for an entire season. And in season 11 I thought the companions were pretty bland, but I've grown to like them a lot more in 12.
Add on to that the rumors I heard, which were pretty much confirmed by Judoon and from what I hear only moreso in the finale, and I figured it was time to stop watching something I wasn't really enjoying anymore anyway. The show felt more like an obligation than something I looked forward to each week.
I love, love, love the 60s era of the show. I loved watching Hartnell's Doctor grow as a character, from a man who just ran away and willing to bash a caveman's skull in to the reluctant hero we see in The War Machines. To Troughton's embrace of the mischievous do-gooder, not quite the epic hero we see by the time we reach the new show, but on his way. The implications of the most recent series run completely contrary to what I love about the show, about an ordinary man who ran away and became great through his actions, the thought that anybody could be like the Doctor. And Hartnell was the one who started it all, starting off in a clearly unheroic role and growing as a character into what we would come to associate with him for the next 50+ years.
To suggest that Hartnell was not the first incarnation of the Timelord known as the Doctor, running around in a blue police box doing heroic deeds (as the Ruth Doctor insinuates), completely undermines his entire character arc. To suggest the Doctor is a super special chosen one completely undermines the fact that the Doctor has always been the unlikely hero, doing what he does not because of some destiny but because he believes it's right. To suggest that none of these changes actually undermine any of that calls into question why the changes were even made in the first place. It's just a sad state of affairs and I can't wait for it to be swept under the rug like the Morbius Doctors were for over 40 years, the half-human angle for 20, and all the countless other things, and we can just ignore it and go back to having fun adventures again.
Season 11 got a lot of flack for not using classic monsters, but I think the deeper issue people had with it was a lack of overall connectivity with the show's overall continuity. To me the current season is an attempt at course correction. There are classic monsters used, but also ties to the Davies run and the additions to the lore we thought we knew everything about. To me this isn't undermining anything, but recontextualizing what's already there. Undermining in my opinion would be more like how Moffatt made the first Doctor suggest a female companion needed her butt smacked so Capaldi could correct him and look more virtuous by comparison.
I like the idea that we don't know everything about the character, and think the changes/additions are a pretty natural way to add some mystery back in. There's a big chunk of the Doctor's life that we've seen, and each new tv adventure adds on to only one end of that chunk. With many of the classic Doctor actors dead or aged out of their roles, the only way to be able to add anything to the other end of that chunk is to say there was more that came before we just never saw because it wasn't relevant at the time. That allows new, living actors to be cast and stories to play out without having to recast characters we've seen already.
If the first Doctor didn't know he wasn't technically the first, didn't know he was special, etc, but chose to do what he did and chose to be who he was anyway, does that really hurt his arc? Are you what people say you are or what you choose to be? Not trying to get into philosophy but I think that's an important question if changes to pre Hartnell lore really bug you. While a chosen one/destiny narrative isn't the most original approach one could take, is there a better narrative device to add to the Doctor's story, considering their main character status and how much dumb luck seems to save them already? I almost feel like it's just connecting dots that were already there at this point, and the Morbius stuff was a clever open end to hook onto to explore the idea.
The show isn't exactly what I expect, want, or what I would do if I was in charge. But people are clearly trying to keep it alive, and I'm along for the ride. I hated when I heard that Moffatt added in a new incarnation of the Doctor in the middle of the ones we know, and counted the Metacrisis Doc as a separate regeneration entirely. But it didn't ruin the show or even the numbering, and when I actually saw the 50th anniversary I thought it was one of the best episodes I'd seen in years. A lot of people hated when Nu Who came out and Gallifrey was gone, but the show continued fine without it.
I think the nature of a show that is about changing history, which has also run for so long, with constant continuity changes, is that these sorts of changes are baked in to the premise. Look into the differing Cybermen origin stories, or multiple iterations of Atlantis, or the different usages of Shada. Or consider the repurposing of Genesis of the Daleks to be the first strike of the Time War. Anything that happened happened but also maybe didn't, and you kind of have to get on board or decide it's not for you. I understand if it's not for you, and I get if you don't like the writing or specific character actions or execution of the ideas and plots. I don't understand having a problem with what the show has always been and with it doing what it's always done to itself, having a big concept that ties the new to the old and gives some answers while asking new questions.
Another point I want to make quickly is that the Hartnell arc you like so much has the benefit of being over already, so you know how he starts and how he ends. Whittaker is still going but you seem to be judging her character are without knowing where it's actually going to end up. I don't know if they will give her a satisfying arc overall and have her grow and change as much, but we can't know for sure until her run is over.
I don't want to blindly defend the show, sure there are problems and choices and people may take issue with them. Like you said, it seems to be either thematically unclear or hamfistedly humanitarian and environmental. What I personally take issue with is the opposite of blind defense, blind hatred based on taking for granted what others say or what contextless plot descriptions include. Sorry if these are jumbled thoughts, I'm taking care of a toddler while trying to thoughtfully reply so I'm a little scattered.