10 Biggest Doctor Who Criticisms (And Why They're Wrong)

If Doctor Who is being discussed and somebody mentions that it’s not like it used to be, then good. That means whoever is in charge is doing their job. Because, in the words of the Second Doctor: “Life depends on change and renewal." And so does Doctor Who.

It’s been that way since William Hartnell left. The Troughton era shifted its focus to base-under-siege plots and recurring monsters. After that we’ve had an Avengers-esque era, a Gothic period, and multiple other takes on Doctor Who’s premise all leading up to the present. Doctor Who is rooted in change and has been for decades. Because if a showrunner is handed the reins and proceeds to change absolutely nothing, then what’s the point of hiring them?

Without Russell T. Davies, Julie Gardner, and Phil Collinson making drastic changes to practically everything in 2005, Doctor Who would never have survived its relaunch. It was by leaving the serial format, cardboard monsters, and no hugging no kissing policy in the past that they managed to reinvigorate the show. Five years later, Steven Moffat refreshed it again by switching things round. And Chris Chibnall is almost definitely planning to do the same thing.

Doctor Who will always be changing. That’s how it carries on. That change isn’t necessarily better or worse (that’s entirely down to opinion) but it is necessary. In that sense, Regeneration is the perfect metaphor for Doctor Who itself.