Echo Chamberlains Doctor Who video is WRONG and here is why 

18:29 I don’t know how I forgot River in that list but needless to say I am ashamed. Additionally I was incorrect on the viewing figures on the church on Ruby road. It does include iPlayer views. When it was broadcast it received over 4 million viewers. I think the extra views i cite must come from iplayer streams but I could be wrong. Additionally at 8:53 when I discussed the show always being progressive with LGBTQ+ representation I should have mentioned Madame Vastra and Jenny Flint of the Paternoster gang being lesbians. That would have made more sense than mentioning 11 kissing Rory and his implied android relationship. Also I want to point out that saying things like “wrong” “echos right” “your lying” etc. if your gonna write a comment like that please provide some damn proof otherwise you look like a tool. If you can’t provide info and sources that debunk my claims then please do not act as though you do or that you are somehow superior. Rose Noble is in my opinion not a companion. Echos video makes it seem like she was more involved than she actually was. She was in the star beast and had cameos in wild blue yonder and the giggle but that was about it. Everything he actually described happened in a single episode

"The Doctor was never supposed to be cool" 11th Doctor: *look my bow-tie*

In the 60's william hartnell was credited as doctor who, not as the doctor.

People who don't like the show should just stop watching it. That's what I did. Began losing interest during the Smith era and completely stopped watching 5 episodes into Whittaker. I prefer the classic era myself.

did he actually say the doctor wasnt compasionate? WHAT?!

Hold on this guy thinks the Doctor isn't meant to be cool? As a kid I would wear a bow tie on any possible occasion just because I thought the 11th Doctor was cool.

My biggest problem is the ending where The Doctor kills all of the goblins and it’s instantly forgotten

Echo Chamberlain saying "The Doctor was never meant to be cool" should invalidate his entire argument.

4:18 The Doctor is not angry towards Wilfred, his anger is directed toward the circumstances (universe if you will). He is angry that after all the things that he had done he still has to die. If you watch the whole scene when he finally accepts the outcome, you can clearly see that he was never angry at Wilfred (if you can't get that from the scene shown here). He also states that it was honour for him to save Wilfred as he goes into radiation chamber. You can clearly see from after this whole scene in quiestion that he was angry that he had to die as he wanted to live, but never at Wilfred (he would never dare, and I would never forgive him if he did).

Actually doctor who is a family show so it’s for kids teenagers and adults I see kids that watch doctor who even my dad watched it when he was young

Well, it is a family show, which includes kids. But gay characters aren't inherently inappropriate. To kids, it's 'dancing'. To adults, it's of the horizontal kind.

Non doctor who fans: He’s called Doctor Who Doctor who fans: He’s called the Doctor! Doctor who lifelong fans who’ve engaged in all aspects of this franchise from new who, to classic who, to big finish, to the comics, to the novels, and beyond: He’s Doctor Who.

It's even funnier that he shows doctors that literally go against his point

Wow. Made a bit of a fool of yourself there. Still, credit for not deleting this video. Takes some courage to leave your mistakes public. Maybe you should actually go and watch some DW first next time before you stuff up the basic lore. Just saying.

Overall very nitpicky and attacking the presentation rather than the content. You're both wrong on some aspects, right on others, both making yourself look dumb trying to excessively make the other look wrong with absurd logics. Things like 0:58 or 10:36 are kinda embarassing and feel like pretexts to find ways in which he's technically wrong according to a dictionnary, instead of trying to make valid points. Also, things like "oh but there is an explanation" are irrelevant, an in-universe justification don't change anything to the fact some things were added for some specific reasons. For 10:36 it's even worse, nitpicking "he's called the doctor, not doctor who" is largely mocked by the whovians and multiple staffs like Capaldi call the character "Doctor Who", so your "i have more Who knowledge than you" is simply pathetic. Not to say he's right tho, he's also stating dumb issues, or missing large points, especially when criticizing stuff the previous era did before or for attacking political messages as a whole rather than the way they are integrated into a story, etc etc , but you're not really elevating the discussion's level. I thought it was a video about why another video is bad, and i end up in the middle of a D contest with "☝🤓 humm actually" being spammed every 20 seconds, the embarassing part being that your nitpicks can be nitpicked. Donna's child not being a companion ? except she was mentioned in the show as one, and had adventures with 14, etc etc the list goes on. You're trying to make your video look like it's attacking his statements when all you're doing is trying to show that you have a larger or more accurate Who knowledge, that you're a "true fan and "he isn't therefore you're right". Really embarassing

I can see why you think your points rebutted Echo's but they really don't. Like if you don't think about it for too long it makes sense, like saying "Ackshually Ncuti isn't the show runner so he can't be blamed for any of the changes made to the character" is technically true because you're right, he isn't the Showrunner. But for that to make sense you have to pretend like the actor portraying the Doctor has zero say whatsoever on how the character is written and the stories that they tell. I'm not saying I agree with 100% of Echo's points but there's not a single point from your response that Echo couldn't very easily make an argument against. This is like Hasan Piker tier commentary, you're responding to your assumption of his points. For example 12:26 Echo's argument isn't "Why is Ncuti standing up for trans people?" his argument is "why is Ncuti acting like he's taking a counter culture stance when its easily provable that every major institution, including the government of the country he lives is, is on his side" a point that you fob off by saying "hOw DOeS ThIS RElaTE tO thE sHOW?" It relates because his whole argument is that Ncuti and the writing team as a whole a forcing overt political messaging claiming that its to "reflect the attitudes of modern society" when it is Echo's opinion that those views don't reflect the culture but only the powers that reside over the culture. You could have pointed out the fact he didn't substantiate that point very well because all he did was point out that the leadership of the UK, Scotland and Whales are run by minorities, but you didn't. You can agree or disagree with the argument he made, but your analysis of it is way off. Or again at 13:35 he in the previous sentence explained what's bad about it. He dislikes that its only being done to sew discourse. Again you might disagree that it's only to sew discourse but if that's the case, say that. Once again you are displaying that you aren't capable of comprehending the broader, marco arguments he's making. You're literally responding sentence by sentence. A better route to have taken here would have been not to just play the video in its entirety and respond sentence by sentence, but by breaking down the major points made, the examples he gave and THEN rebutting those. This wouldn't have been very difficult, because his arguments aren't complicated or particularly nuanced. However they are very much based in personal opinion. You claim that he's getting "facts wrong" but he really isn't. Or at least he's not getting facts wrong that matter (like explaining the issues he had with the specials out of chronological order or referring the the Doctor as "Doctor Who", something that was and continues to be done to this day by Classic fans to this day). Speaking of opinion, his point at 14:07 is not 'incorrect' in the slightest. Rose being non binary (even though throughout the episode she claims to be transgender not non binary??) is literally the only explanation given for how she could survive the meta crisis and save the 14 and Donna. He's not literally saying Rose's identity itself saved the day, hes saying that the ending confusingly and arbitrarily relies on her identity to explain what would otherwise be an extreme plot contrivance. He worded it somewhat hyperbolically for the sake of comedic emphasis, but I refuse to believe that you couldn't tell that that was what he was doing. So this point comes off as an extremely intellectually dishonest misinterpretation of his point And are you kidding me? 14:27 Doctor Who is ABSOLUTELY a kids show, or at the VERY least its a family show (though I would argue the line between those two labels is extremely narrow and in this context, wholistically arbitrary). The Show having dark moments doesn't exempt it from the label of a family show. There's an enormous difference between the conceptual sci-fi horror of the cybermen (which are designed to be scary) and talking about sexual orientation. If you had spent more than 20 minutes writing this video, you could have just as easily constructed an argument saying that its okay to depict things homosexuality because its "no different to depicting heterosexual ideas". That would have been an actual argument. Instead you conflate the show depicting an offscreen suicide with teaching kids about sexual identity and pronouns which even if that isn't what you intended, is how it comes across because this video is so poorly agued. I think its much easier for parents (or families as a whole) to accept a character sacrificing themself to save the day than it is for a predominantly culturally conservative society to accept the ideas of transgenderism being peddled unquestioningly to their kids. That is the point he is making. He doesn't have to outright say that because he assumes that you can read between the lines and understand the broader point he's making through basic logical deduction and by recalling the points he made 5 minutes prior, but you're acting like the whole video is bad because he doesn't just hold your hand through his explanation like a primary school teacher. I'm not gonna go point by point for the whole video (although I very easily could because I don't think there's a single argument made that isn't as flimsy as wet tissue) but even putting aside my own biases, this video is just an extremely poor response. There are far better arguments to be made defending the progressive aspects of Doctor Who than anything in this resposne. It basically just boils down to whataboutisms and nitpicking the specific wording of his points. I'd wager he probably hasn't watched a lot of the modern era because it seems like he doesn't like it very much. But that doesn't negate his point. You can't respond to "I don't like how woke Doctor Who is" with "Uhm ackshually Doctor Who has always been woke because something something Captain Jack something something Daleks are Nazis" because that doesn't disprove his point. If anything it enforces it. If he was arguing that Doctor Who used to not have progressive elements but now does, then yes that would be completely inaccurate. But he doesn't say that at any point in this video. It actually perplexes me how you managed to watch his whole video and not formulate a single structured, well thought out argument. I agree with Echo's video almost entirely but even I could do a better job at critiquing it. For instance: - The whole video assumes you already agree with the premise that "progressive ideas" result in worse stories without substantiating it - The video's length requires him to condense complicated ideas into smaller bite sized chunks that prevent him from exploring his ideas in any detail - He conflates all classic Who with all of Doctor Who ignoring the fact that the revival onwards is tonally and thematically quite different - He states that the showrunners want to push a political agenda without quoting any of the numerous interviews where RTD has said exactly that which doesn't disprove his point, but was a major oversight -His ad hoc statements like "eat a bag of dicks" kind of infantilise his otherwise well articulated points - He doesn't address very many of the typical rebuttals you see against his arguments and finally he isn't really saying anything we haven't already heard before. However even that doesn't mean he's wrong. It just means that A LOT of people feel the same way he does. And your video fails to prove why those people are wrong to feel that way. All it does is say that you disagree which is fine. You're allowed to do so. But you haven't' proven him wrong, you've just disagreed with him. You basically just go "nuh uh, you're wrong" with a handful of very surfaces level critiques almost all of which completely ignore the broader points present in the original video. I don't normally even respond to these kinds of videos because I see it as a waste of time because I know its not going to change the mind of anyone reading it, however this response was so impressively bad in how it failed to address any of the arguments present with any intellectual depth that couldn't be condensed into a tweet, that I felt I had to write this bloody novel of a comment. To quote you, Anomaly, if you're reading this, don't take this as a personal attack. I just think you need to step up your game and do better.

Chamberlain’s video will age like fine wine, this one will age like raw chicken. In the very few actual responses (Chamberlain could probably copyright claim this video) almost every single reaction point screams of somebody who started watching in 2008 and now calls themselves a “whovian” because that won’t get you laughed at in school anymore. This is reaction - but only in the same manner as a knee jerk.

1:54 - it may just be my head-canon but 12th saved child Davros from the Hand-Minefield. Could this not have been the reason for his ability to walk?

Twerking was not joke. He meant it.

You make good points. Though if I may suggest, cut down on how much of the other video you play back wholesale, and stick to the key points you're refuting. Otherwise it feels like I'm being forced to watch two videos at the same time.

"I don't want to come across as too judgemental, but" I'm going to be incredibly judgemental and scream "WOOOOKE!!!" at anything that is progressive.

There's three main reasons why I won't be following this new recasting slash rebranding era ( despite being a many years fan of the show and knowing it well; so please, don't use that card on me, I find it petty and obnoxious): first one, I love it's very long cannon and background history. Doctor who is more than just a alien character doing alien things, but a choral composition of brand new and well sedimented stories giving sense to the actions of that alien character being doing alien things. They have began retconning all those beautiful narratives, in a desperate attempt of coopting the fame ang glamour they had just for covering what it seems to me just a genuine lack of ideas. Being plainly objective, last three season where (beyond who was the Doctor or it's companions) just boring, full of filler and with very few interesting plot points ( and with a terrible feeling of shark jumping in more than a few of them). I bet joddie whittaker would've shine if she would've given the magnificient scripts from the previous season. Second, I'm not going to be preached and insulted, not I'm going to allow anyone to be preached and insulted at . Apparently being a good role model it's not possible if you are not checking a very long and sanctimonious list of faux-moral boxes. I'm old enough to have been through another such era (The sanctimonious outrage for everything and anything, the "holier than thou" attitude) and, truth to be told, it's only the flags -not the ways- used that's changed since then. It's obvious that I'm not perfect, but none is, so I choose very carefully who I'll allow to treat me with prudish condescendence ( or anyone else, actually). This is a light entertainment show, after all, so I don't have any need to. Third one: I couldn't really care less if The doctor is played by a man, woman ( or as they said in more than one occasion "variations thereupon"), a child, a white or coloured people or even a K-9 robotic unit. Really, that's not the point of it at all. The main gist of doctor who's charm and personality has always been the sense of wonder and awesomeness that comes from the perspective of a thousands of years old person who has seen or heard of it all -even the most bizarre , and at least twice- without being drag down to utter bitterness, or turning him/her/them/it into a ruthless dictator trying to "get the world right" by force -and he could-. He's a good role model for everyone -even when he's being a little bit naive or even childish- showing us the wonders of the whoniverse through his travels and his interaction with his companions, with kindness, compassion and a very undestanding point of view. But that "show them kindly the way" it's not what apparently have in mind for this new incarnation of the doctor ( in the words of the writters and the actor themselves), who it'd be full of judgement and activism. So it won't be the same character that I fell in love with. I'm willing to give it one or two episodes of grace just , and try my absolute best to be as imparcial as possible, just in case they could recapture this magic mystery of the Doctor.

With the viewers (at least in the US) i know people who cant watch because they dont have Disney+. I wonder how many of them will buy the DVDs or have purchased the Itunes version

the first doctor is the original doctor. just because chibnail wrote a horrible story beat doesnt change that fact. also all of your "refuting" seems to be just you going "nu uh youre wrong"

When I think of Doctor Who as a kids show I feel like it was a kid show in the sense that kids would watch with their parents for a shared sense of fear. lol

Thirteen also made the Houdini reference, and we don't know what they did anyway. Could have been completely illusion-related.

4:25 - While 13 is a bit less short than prior revival companions overall - especially Eccleston with Rose during Father's Day - I would point to the "For all I talk about a flat team structure it really isn't. It's a mountain. And I'm at the peak" stuff from Villa. Not anger, exactly, but definitely mirrors the way 9 interacted with Rose over reusing human corpses as hosts in The Unquiet Dead. 8:58 - It was consistently progressive by the standards of its time for most of the classic era. Though the phrase 'leftist bubble' makes me specifically want to rewatch The Happiness Patrol which is pretty explicitly anti-Thatcher. 14:26 - While I'd agree that it's not a children's show (though I'd note Moffat wouldn't agree with that and has been fairly consistent in describing it as a children's show in statement's he's made about it - I recall getting into a minor argument with him on an online forum in around 2006, back when he still made occasional posts to Who forums), I would say it's a family show - Which often focuses on the 8 year olds in the audience, particularly since 2005 - There's a reason the old Fear Panel feature on the Doctor Who website in the first couple of years had a panel of four the youngest of whom was around 6-8 I think (the oldest I think was 12-14 or so) rate how scary the upcoming episodes were, and the show in the classic era had a reputation for childen watching from 'behind the sofa'). Discussion of the show from the BBC in a modern context has been more focused on 'three generational viewing' - Children, parents, and grandparents (notably not teens and young adults, who tend to bow out of things they think are too young for them even if the thing is also appealing to an older demographic - family programming tends to have a lull in teens and young adults). RTD has stated how he sometimes needed to tell guest writers to write it for their 8 year old child, Moffat has comment that he always kept his sons in mind when writing it (while also commenting about micromanaging the size of the action figures so they'd be compatible with non-Who toys when children are playing with them), and so forth. Though I suspect this might be a difference between how the show tends to be pitched in the UK vs how it tends to be pitched in the US. (Either way, there's nothing wrong with gay and trans rep in children's or family entertainment - It would have been hugely helpful to myself if I got some explicitly queer rep alongside the dead animals but, alas, I didn't watch either Byker Grove or Grange Hill growing up which were basically the only places those existed in children's television during my youth - and I doubt there'll be anything in the new series that tops Moffat having Amy Pond try and seduce the Doctor into bed while engaged to Rory in S5, leading the Doctor to bring Rory along as a companion alongside Amy for how explicitly sexual it is. Not kidding about the dead animals, by the by. The Animals of Farthing Wood was a bit of a media obsession I had growing up, broadcast at 4pm in a children's slot. And constantly depicted the group of animals that served as the show's protagonists being killed, often horribly, including child and infant animals. The first deaths were a newt family - two parents and a child - who were strongly implied to have died in a fire. Most of the other deaths weren't ambiguous - of particular note is the infant field mice who were impaled on a thorn bush by a 'butcher bird' as their mother watched, openly weeping, and their father failed to console her. It wasn't exactly shy about the blood on that one - most of the other deaths were 'clean' in their depiction - Death by a bullet? You see the corpse, but no wound. Not even a corpse for the two hedgehogs who were crushed by a truck attempting to cross a motorway. Or the implication that dead animals in a children's show was useful for me growing up - Watching the first series at around 7 helped me develop the emotional tools needed to process death and grief before a classmate of mine died of an illness when I would have been around 10 years old.) 18:00 - This goes into the classic era as well. The relationship between 5 and Peri feels like an elder brother protecting his younger sister; 4 and Sarah Jane are best friends, there's a strong affection between 3 and Jo Grant, Troughton and Hines played 2 and Jamie as close to an an old married couple as they could get away with in the 60s - Hines has stated as much since. (As for 'didn't mentor you' - What the hell does this guy think the relationship between 7 and Ace was? Ace was absolutely a mentor to Ace. A manipulative bastard who often fell into the trickster mentor archetype, taking her to places where she'd encounter things that helped her overcome childhood trauma relating to her mother, but... A mentor all the same) 20:00 - It does include UK iPlayer viewers - BARB, the ratings body that measures UK viewing and which Wikipedia usually goes with for it's ratings information, has been using 'four screen' as their metric for several years now - Television, PC, Phone, and Tablet - and has been including people who watch iPlayer via their television set as part of television viewing since you've been able to watch iPlayer on a television set. What it doesn't do is include viewers that are later than 7 days (the +28s are no longer made public unless a magazine reports on them, though that's what the industry typically measures television viewers based on these days), or viewers outside of the UK no matter how they watch.

The original Doctor is Hartnell. Glad I gave up on the show during the Capaldi era. Became unwatchable back then. From what I've seen it's horrendous now.

Regarding Davros, with the exception of Dr Who fans basically deciding amongst themselves that whatever happened to Davros was the result of a Thal weapon exploding (or whatever it did) somewhere close to Davros's laboratory, I don't believe we've ever had an actual explanation in the show. During the Capaldi story "The Magician's Apprentice, The Witch's Familiar" we see a young Davros trapped by handmines, so surely if they just decide "right, that is how Davros got hurt, barely survived..." would it not coincide nicely that as Capaldi chose to save Davros at the end, would he not actually be healthy person now...? Would that fit...or am I nuts??

Watch any tenth doctor episode (or any doctor in general) and then tell me that the doctors not cool.

I agree with most of your points but it most definitely is a show aimed at kids. Yes, there’s more mature themes and that’s why it’s so great, I’d call it a family show more than anything. Not that it helps his point though, the whole reason they’re doing the revamp is to fit the new young generation. Also I partly hate this video because you made me watch that whole damn video when I stopped at the 5 minute mark before 😂 Oh and yeah, this guy definitely isn’t a doctor who fan. He literally did both the most heinous crimes of writing ‘Dr Who’ and calling him that as you said. My guess is that his only research was watching the tons of other conservative ‘doctor who is dead’ videos.

Two utterly *heartbreaking* romances for The Doctor that you missed (not including River, as you put that in your Pinned Post): Madam Pompadour (The Girl In The Fireplace) and The TARDIS herself (The Doctor's Wife)! Also, we don't know how Galifreans procreate, but if it is the same as humans, we know that The Doctor has a granddaughter, so they *must* have had an intimate - probably romantic - partner at one point, in-order to produce a child, and then that child had the grandchild. By extension, to say that The Doctor doesn't love also excludes *non romantic love* which is *also nonsense* because we know they love The Master (they were "like brothers", they are 'frenemies', etc), Amy & Rory were their "family" (The Doctor's words, not mine), they clearly love their granddaughter in the original few seasons, they clearly loved their "daughter" (The Doctor's Daughter) or they wouldn't have cried their eyes out at her funeral, wouldn't have cried when their Companion Adruc *died* (Earthshock) in the classic series (I'm still not over that...) etc etc etc. If The Doctor didn't love, even in a non-romantic way, they wouldn't have *emotional reactions* when bad things happen to the Companions, and other people they encounter in their adventures. What utter nonsense that original video was. I watched it out of curiosity, and literally spent the entire video face palming, sighing, saying corrections, and yelling "HAVE YOU EVEN WATCHED THE SHOW?!" 🙄😭🤣

EC for the win i reckon

I'm thrilled you made this video although I do have a few things to point out, that will help your case a bit more. It was initially intended for children. I really enjoy how it pushes that boundary of what we understand as a kid's show. If you're not as familiar with the classic show that is fine, although I think some classic ideas of how the Doctor can be loving will help here. There's this idea that they want Who to go back to the '70s or even early '80s all over again. We don't live in the 1970s anymore. The UK is out of its post-war era and that's fine, although I think fans like Echo want those 70s ideals and morals back. If we were not having discussions about gender and inclusion as a society, we would be having some other discussion, good or bad that some people may not care for. Guess what, that topic would be covered in the show, as the Daleks reflect the Nazis and so on. It's a commentary on society and will always be a commentary on society with the idea that you should always treat people with respect and kindness. If the show were to return to the 70s, an era, myself included, so many people love, it would die because it would make it less modern. Also, I love how Echo talks so much shit about the Gatwa era, as if we've seen his first season. Fine, you want to say his era is too liberal, okay, but let his era reach the point where we can have plenty of evidence of it being his era, we've only seen one of his episodes. It's as if Echo's looking for the show to have a consistent identity and it does not because it constantly changes. that's what makes it amazing. Also, we did have a communist writing for the show during the Jon Pertwee era, while his stories did not reflect his ideology, this gives an example of how the show has been inclusive on both the liberal and conservative sides of the spectrum. Persons of color playing white figures of history, I'm eh on. I'm trying to sort of work that out for myself. I think it is fine here, but if someone's trying to make a historically accurate film or TV show, maybe not so much, with the inclusivity rule still in play. That's the only thing I'm a little rough on. Anyway, I appreciate you making this video.

so you're saying the echo chamber kid was right?

No, Tom Baker was not cool - furthest thing from it. He was alien, captivating, other worldly, but never cool. Cool is generally confirmative without making mistakes or being shown up. Sarah and even K9 are constantly teasing him - he makes claims with authority and then turns out to be wrong. Capaldi's Doctor *thought* he was cool - but the scene you're showing with the guitar on the tank is a great example of how his perception of himself differs from those around him. Clara and Bill would both call him out on everything. I actually think Ncuti would work a lot better if Ruby would threaten to take his sugar away. The issue isn't that he thinks he's cool, it's that he doesn't make mistakes and doesn't get called out. When he catches Ruby's drink - any other Doctor would have tried to catch it, fail and then try to hide their embarrassment. Sorry - bow ties are only ironically cool.

10:36 actually the doctor was called both doctor who and the doctor. if you look at the credits from the 60's it says Doctor Who and not the doctor, later on tho they changed it

To further enlighten this chap Echo Chamberlain's regarding Doctor Who NOT being a children's show, he needs to watch cool Tom Baker stories "The Brain of Morbius," "The Deadly Assassin" and "The Talons of Weng Chiang" to see excessive, yet awesome violence.

You said you had some intelligent rebuttals, can we expect to see them soon?

Rose is a companion, not an on-screen one though, however I'm not entirely sure that counts as it was just a throwaway mention at the end of the giggle, great video though.

The new WHO as awful can't stand it....Calpaldi was the last decent doctor all went down hill after that

Jon Pertwee didn't use a costume department, he just had those clothes, that drip. He was out there with his style, made the character his own and his era like every other has tackled progressiveness. Is nothing new

Has anyone else been recommended loads of reactionary Doctor Who videos like Echo's despite clicking "Do Not Recommend Channel" on pretty much everyone of his ilk? I've been recommended a huge amount recently.

Instead getting all butt hurt over it, you new kids on the block have to realise that us older fans are used to Dr Who being a lot deeper and a not as simplistic, it never used to patronise it's audience as it does now

The doctor isn't supposed to be cool... shows 3 probably the coolest one. I would like to see how EC reacts to Alpha Centauri from '73 who uses It or the Sontarans who are a monogender race. And my god people need to recognise that streaming has massively changed TV viewership even 5 years ago an EC is bringing up 60's Who when it took to '82 for us to finally get Channel 4 next he'll bring up City of Death: Part Four getting 16m views and ignore that it was because of the ITV strikes literally removing a 3rd of the channels.

Every doctor who episode from know on shoud have a big huge masive dance number

While I still prefer the show from 1963 up to 1981 especially the Tom Baker era, you won't find me whining like Echo Chamberlain, Bowlestrek or Nerdroctic while picking on Doctor Who like loud children.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I'm sorry, the blokes' name is Doctor Who. Yes, in universe its just "the doctor" but he is colloquially known as Doctor Who. Most of the actors thar played them even commonly reffer to the character as Doctor Who

I haven't watched DW since Clara joined the show, but science fiction has long been a medium to place progressive ideas and it always amuses me how many people complain that sci-fi is "too woke". How is it so many people lack this basic understanding? These ideas are put into a futuristic show because they'd be unbelievable in a modern show, that's the point. That's also why science fiction with regressive social or political ideas is called "dystopian".

Good, bad, or indifferent, every one is entitled to their opinion. I saw the original video, and I completely agree with all the points that Echo Chamberlain made about how the BBC has turned a once great series into a unwatchable mess. With each episode of this season the viewing figures keep spiraling downward. And sadly, at this point I doubt the series will recover its long time fans and become relevant again. IMHO, the only way to ultimately save Doctor Who is by putting it on a 5 to 10 year hiatus.

Yeah, it's pretty clear this guy Echo hasn't watched much Doctor Who and has no idea what The Doctor represents as a character or what the show represented down the generations. It's like these geeks who bang on about Star Trek suddenly becoming WOKE and inclusive to all, when Shatner was snogging black girls in the 60s.

This is interesting. Most culture war talking points run along the same lines. One side wants representation and to reflect political realities, or to show political aspirations, while the other wants a form of escapism which has no real politics or at least is bathed so deep in the prevailing politics that it seems apolitical. This argument goes back and forth, and we understand it as such. One side wants Dr Who to be all black Doctor and Trans people, the other side want it to be Tom Baker will no dee and a screwdriver. We get it. Echo's video does not do that. Echo presents the idea that Dr Who is good because it is bigoted and that if one were to remove the bigotry, one would ruin the series. I think this is nonsense. I watched some - not lots - of Dr Who growing up and I never really got a sense that the classic series only worked because it was a British man who was better than anyone else. If anything it seemed to challenge that idea. Echo lists a man born in Scotland and says he is not Scottish, a man who has lived in Wales for all but two years of his life and says he is Zambian, says that a person born in Southampton is Indian. This is base racism, and obviously so. And it is that attitude that he thinks is "Dr Who", that he believes needs to be reflected in Dr Who or Dr Who loses the thing which defines it. If Dr Who isn't based on post-war end of colonialist narratives, then it is changed too much. For Echo, the point of Dr Who is the racism he takes from it. And from that it is worth noting that this is not that he wants Tom Baker and high adventure stories, and an end to all this "woke ideology". He does not want Dr Who to not be political, he wants the politics, but he wants that politics to be pointed against people he has decided are not British.

10:37 well in the credits for classic who, the doctor is called “doctor who” 😂

13:35 - we have two options. Be proud of ourselves, or be ashamed of ourselves. Shame is never acceptable when it comes to being all that we can be. The people who accuse us of making our sexuality our whole personality are missing the point. Like it or lump it, it IS a part of us. I refuse to feel shame for it, which means sometimes, probably only times some people ever see me, it shines as my dominant facet. More often than not, I'm as dull and as boring as the accusers.

Yet the show is not good. Hm.

I blocked Echo, and I’m glad I did.

What a load. The original criticisms still stand.

4.30 - While the 13th doctor doesn't chide the companions, she is very parental at times with a "Do as I say, not as I do" and "Shut up, listen, and follow orders" communicative approach which to a certain extent is what I think the OG was referring.

What does it matter? It's total trash in any event.

Echo Chamberlain?

This may sound insane... But if you don't like Doctor Who anymore, then don't watch it :)

Wait until they find out about Thoschei being canon since the masters first appearance, and the book that was being written about their divorce

I'd love to finish watching your video, but I can't listen to EC any longer. Hope you upload more, though!

Theirs reimagining and there is what the BBC has done here! It’s Shambolic! And that’s being nice!

They got their dance showpiece.

Are there parts to Ncuti's Gatwa's portrayal that I feel might be a step too far out of the Doctor. Yes, I feel the Night Club scene portrays the Doctor as too comfortable around humanity, lacking that "I'm not one of you" factor. That alieness. So far he just seems like a quirky human. But so far, that's the only problem I'm having with his portrayal. His general confidence, charisma, stage presence and the way he carries himself is certainly on par with most previous Doctor's, which is miles above what Whitaker was giving. I'm not sold on him yet, but he held his own onscreen with Tennant for his first appearance, that alone speaks volumes.

Echo Chamberlame is certainly living up to his name.

11th is my favorite as well!

Please make more these are good

thank you for this I do wish people would wait and watch it before saying anything

i like all the doctors and i been a fan since 1963

He lost me on that "pizzazz" line. Is he telling me that Tom Baker didn't have pizzazz??!

I don't think that The 13th Doctor ever have a relationship with Yaz!👩‍❤️‍💋‍👩👭 I think is a relationship of friendship!😂 Haha! The 13th Doctor era was less WOKE than the 15th Doctor!😂

I really wasn't happy with the Jodie Whittaker/Chris Chibnall era of Doctor Who which was terrible. The Timeless Children (Worst episode ever) made me so mad that I stopped watching it for a while. The 13th Doctor was poorly written and Jodie Whittaker really didn't suit the role. I've started watching the new series with Ncuti Gatwa and so far, Ncuti Gatwa hasn't been too bad as the new Doctor. I liked Church on Ruby Road and Space Babies. The Devil's Chord was average. I am giving Ncuti Gatwa a fair chance. What a lot of people don't understand about Doctor Who is that The Doctor is not a human and is an extra terrestrial who Regenerates and changes his face, his body and his personality to cheat death. Although The Doctor changes, it is still the same character, a character has been recast, reinvented and has had different personalities time and time again. Ncuti Gatwa is not the showrunner, Russell T. Davies is the showrunner. Russell T. Davies is the one to blame, not Ncuti Gatwa. I thought Ncuti Gatwa could bring something new to Doctor Who. He does have great chemistry with co-star Millie Gibson. Doctor Who is a fictional fantasy and it's not real life. It's just a TV show.

So what about the quote from Donna Yes we know - we know everything and you know nothing There all that power but there’s a way to get rid of it Something a “male “ presenting timelord will never understand Wasn’t preaching feminism 🤷‍♀️

Your just making half this stuff up, or glossing over things. try harder, your explanations were laughable.

"dishonesty and bad faith" THE VIDEO...

so many things wrong with The star beast episode. Stunned you can defend this poop

I love the doctor for being who he is or her.💙💙

I've watched it since childhood and everything echochamberlain said was spot on. Maybe it's because I'm British that I agree. The show has been bastardised, sorry. For instance can you imagine any of the other doctors twerking? Come on.

Sorry but the whole definition of an upgrade is that the current version is better than previous versions and. as this was the first female doctor this was shoehorned in for woke purposes purely and utterly.

07:00: How can you discuss the Doctor being cool without mentioning 11 and his bowtie and (brief) fez?

Both reviewers miss the mark. Anomaly Source obviously never saw the original series.

Every single one of these clickbait hate channels that have made a video chastising Gatwa or Davies have made the point "it's a kid's show". lol. Doctor Who is not a kid's show. That commonly belabored point alone tells me that the people making these videos are NOT fans and have never watched/paid attention to the show at all. And if indeed, 'Doctor Who' was a "kid's show", why the hell are these angry middle-aged boomers watching it? The short answer is . . . they're not. This is the new thing to up their YT numbers. These are not Doctor Who fans. Echo Chamberlain's voice sounds AI generated. Are they even a real person?

Thank you for this video

Watching americans fight over Who when every single non american knows the show is esentially over and has accepting it is hilarious.

"Echo Chamberlain's Doctor Who video is RIGHT but I am going to pedantically nitpick everything I can whilst I Cope And Seethe." There, I fixed it for you.

next you'll be saying gatwa is half british or scottish or something. Guy is a rwandan refugeee about as scottish as homer simpson.

To AnomolySource: I appreciate you pointing out any mistakes that were made by Echo Chamberlain's video about the current state of Doctor Who, but, speaking just for me, the damage has already been done. I admittedly had a problem with making the Doctor a woman cause, just to me, the character has always been male. But other that that, I don't have a problem with the character being seen as white, black or any other skin color or that he be viewed as being heterosexual or LGBTQ. His appearance doesn't matter that much to me - but what does matter very much to me is the STORY/PLOTLINE for any DW episode or chapter. And that specifically is where the current direction of DW has failed me. In the past, DW had a unique and enjoyable history of science fiction, science fantasy and adventure that I enjoyed. Now all that has gone and been replaced with gender identity and politics. And for me, DW and all sci-fi for that matter is supposed to be a joyful escape from all that. IMHO, Chibnall and Co. have already ruined DW with their completely useless story of the The Timeless Children (giving the DW audience an origin story that no one asked for or wanted) and if the Powers-That-Be that are now in charge decide to stop making a show about a unique character that travels through time and space to visit new worlds and do extraordinary things and instead intends to make DW much more focused on gender equality, identity politics and musical numbers where the Doctor defeats villains and monsters by "twerking" at them, then for me, and for so many others, Doctor Who is dead! The curiosity, mystery, and the adventure is gone as they're turning Doctor Who into Doctor WHO CARES. They're taking this show down a path I don't like and refuse to go along with. Therefore, I'll say what I said in a previous post: To the Doctor, I may not have always understood everything you said or did but I shall miss traveling throughout the cosmos with you. You were an advisor, a teacher, a warrior and a friend. But now, Doctor Who is dead and now, I LET YOU GO. November 23, 1963 December 25, 2017 Fare Thee Well, Doctor. May You Rest In Peace.

we need more videos like this on YT, thank you ❤️

well done :)

Who are both wrong and make terrible points to back up your biases. Watch the new show and make your decisions from there. You might be mended, Echo - not so much so. Come back and watch this in 20 years time to see how you could have got it better prior to the show airing.

The bloke you are quoting is a really confused chap - who would like to be a nice person, but has little idea how to be one, also, he has little idea about history and none about jokes. That writes off a very large amount of The Doctor. I am so glad you have called out all the nasty points he imagines and has misunderstood or invented. He loves talking doesn't he. So do I. Thanks for doing the job for me. You win a sub from me. My father and I both worked on the show by the way.

Wow thats all strong!!!!

I think it's pretty obvious where Chamberlain got the 4.7 million, he just switched 4 and the 7 in the 7.49 million lol

Jeez - I mean, I know it's just one person's opinion, but I've never heard anyone with such a completely wrong take on Doctor Who, and someone so utterly bitter about a new actor playing the Doctor - thank you for doing this video, and telling this guy how wrong he is, even if he will never actually watch it!

First Doctor: white! Second Doctor: white! Third Doctor: white! Fourth Doctor: white! Fifth Doctor...

Thank you! RU-vid has been trying to shove that sh-- looking video down my throat since it came out, and I had no intention of watching it. Watching you dismantle it, though, was a pleasure. There is only one, teensy, little point I'd quibble with you on, and actually slightly agree with Echo. The Doctor has never been meant to be "cool" in the generally accepted sense. Oh sure, you and I love the Doctor, they're awesome, but in the dorkiest way possible, really. Or maybe they're dorky in the awesome-ist way possible? Either way, they aren't cool in a conventional sense. They are a hero for the geeks, the freaks, the queers, the squares, the marginalized people of all stripes, and have been since the beginning. What Echo falls to comprehend, in his tiny, bigoted mind, is that Ncuti is 100% a part of that. This season is gonna be fantastic.

I just find it weird how the video they made constantly critiques the existence of Ncuti's doctor for being black when like... it doesn't really matter. It's been made into a racial issue when like... it's not an issue. The show is about change.

I haven't watched the video that you are commenting on, but from watching THIS video it is clear that you both got alot wrong. Also seems to me (I could be wrong) that you haven't watched alot of "classic" Who.