Dear Russell T Davies: Welcome Back? 

If the intention is not to put the show "in the hands of a closely gatekept, antiquated version of what it "should be about", then might it be a mistake to hand it back to the people who were running it 13 years ago, and go one stage further by handing over the show to their production company? Reviving RTD is gatekeeping. It is about deciding the show should have a certain tone and style and storytelling sensibility, and that version is now antiquated. It's like the BBC in 1990 deciding that the way forward for the show is to go back to 1977. There were other names in the frame after the Chibnall disaster, notably J. Michael Straczynski, but the BBC didn't want the responsibility anymore, so have happily handed it off to the old boss who, by his own account, volunteered (with a few conditions, like having complete control). What I want from the show is a balance of innovation, wit, and bold new storytelling - stories that really showcase what the format can do. Is RTD the man to deliver that? We'll see, but history suggests no.

@@drmacclevoid honestly fair, I was worried that the RTD reclamation was just an appeal to people saying how the show was in the 2000s is the way "it should be" after Chibnall couldn't follow through with the changes that could have set things in a more interesting direction. But at least RTD has always fought for interesting new angles on the show, particularly between season 1 and 2 of the revival. I am optimistic about there being a healthy amount of shaking up the formula, maybe even the sort that would recreate the experience of watching old who on vhs, revival season 1-4 on DVD and moffat era as it aired as I did, even if there are fresher potential show runners waiting in the wings.

Just because shows need to appeal to the modern audience, doesn't mean the show should be 'for the modern audience'. The modern audience, and by extension, buyers, doesn't know what it actually wants. Take modern family cars. Hideous monstrosities that are completely impractical for their purpose, more like a fashion statement than social mobility. What people really need is something they didn't even realize they wanted. That's how you make a good show or product.

​@@mattevans4377 The show has improved given the resources the modern BBC has and a more streamlined culture of TV media. There's plenty to criticize about modernity but I'd rather not live in the past because of it.

@@tequilasunset4651 I never mentioned anything about the past. Modern shows can be good, so long as they don't aim 'for the modern audience'.

What about a good show with no campiness? Is that possible?

You might be asking a bit much of the BBC there

It never hurts to ask.@@Lycel

​@@drmacclevoidIt also doesn't hurt to show gratitude for what you have.

@@HOTD108_ Hahahah! Very good.