Really well made video, keep it up. Personally however, I have to say I disagree. I think Steven Moffat says it best, in the current media landscape, it simply isn't possible for a Doctor Who episode to be cheap anymore. Even the "smallest" ideas as you put them require all new sets, an all new cast and who knows how much else. The show isn't like other shows with a few set locations and a static casting sheet. Every episode has to be a large production if you want to be able to explore your ideas in any meaningful way whatsoever. You cite Heaven Sent as a 'cheap' episode when that could not be further from the case. Also to your point that Classic Doctor Who always looked cheap; it was only around 1979 that the seams began to show and 1982 when it became impossible not to notice. So anyway, good video, very entertaining but I think the truth of the matter is more complex than its made out to be here

They have the budget now, but they don’t know where to spend it. They need to put less into effects and more into locations & writing.

For me is great the only episode I didn't like was space babies, but Boom,73 Yards and Dot and Bubble was amazing so far. This season is already superior of any season of Chibnal's era

Remember the creature in The Lazarus Experiment? It was garbage, but I was *fine* with it. It's the story, the characters, the emotional impact I care about. Give me 13 episodes a year, each of which takes place in a single room, and if the story, characters, and emotional impact are on par with 73 Yards and Dot and Bubble, I would be *so* happy. I don't watch Doctor Who (or anything really) for the special effects. I find it hard to believe that anyone does. Having only eight episodes this year is hard to swallow. They've been mostly so very good, but most of them could have been made with fewer effects just as well. I want more.

Definitely, best stories are the smaller scale ones like the latest episode, Blink, Boom, 73, Heaven Sent etc (though I doubt if any of them were cheap)

I like higher quality stuff but for some reason (this may be a bit weird) I think that the TARDIS is too realistic to the point where its unrealistic. Like in the 2005 opening, the TARDIS looks like something from real life but in newer episodes, its way more darker and doesn't seem realistic. Well I mean nothing in the stories are "realistic" but like the looks of it

While I agree that spectacle can sometimes get in the way of good writing, I think there's a danger of blaming bad writing on the fact that it has good visual effects. The mid to late 80's had quite a few examples of both looking cheap and bad writing. You did touch on this before, but it's worth repeating that I don't think there was ever a time when the makers of Doctor Who ever went out of their way to make the series look cheap. To gain credibility with the average viewer, the look has to be of a certain standard. I say this because I remember that some fans wanted the series to lampshade the fact that it was cheap back in 2005 and, if they had gone too much down that road, it would have bombed hard. Rose, with its obviously plastic Mickey, and Love and Monster, with its cheap looking Absorbalof are not the most fondly remembered episodes.

I think the main problem with this season is that they have the funding to do these ambitions ideas but dispite being grest episodes as a season we are missing a base line for these otherwise extrodinary episodes.

I think im the only person in the world who cant see the new budget onscreen. The cinematography looks more like a soap than ever

Idk, I think that there's a level of romanticism towards low budget production that while i empathise with on some level, because i absolutely agree that story is vital and sfx are not, I dont share. I dont think about the Zarbi and go "see thats why they shouldnt have tried", I see "damn, it's a shame they didn't have the money or technology"

What an intelligent, articulated, and well-argued position regarding DW and the plus/minuses of an increased budget. This really could be argued for a lot of other tv franchises and movies such as Marvel and so on. As it happens, I fully agree with the host’s viewpoint. As AI comes into the picture and companies go out of their way to try and better one another, it increasingly appears to be at the detriment of good writing and sometimes characterisation. In this present season many of the stories have had interesting concepts but have failed to be well executed and this has shown particularly with the too frequent cop-out endings. My other issue with a special effects driven world is that it creates environments so far removed from reality. When you put the rubbish bin out at night or perhaps go for a forest day walk you may see beautiful sunsets, perhaps lush greenery, enchanting moonlight but you don’t tend to see swooping landscapes of mammoth proportions and the visuals of what you see heightened x 100. The beauty of reality can never really be matched by computers and special effects. The reason one goes wow when standing on a mountain peak is different to the reaction of a teenager saying wow great effects when watching a sci-fi movie. The upside of technology is obvious, but have we reached a point where a saturation of special effects wizardry has made the viewer become switched off or even bored with this excess. Where does the concept of beauty being inherent in the everyday come into play. Even as far as filming goes. Once great cinematography relied on the skills of the camera crew and staff to use natural light, create real shadows and camera angles that helped create a vibe or feel to a place and/or time. Similarly with modern day photography. Once you had the chance to get an amazing image from 24 or 36 film exposures. The photographer needed to know the skills at craftsmanship of setting correct exposure settings as well as light detection and more. Along came digital technology, initially frowned upon by purists but now used excessively, even incessantly to create images that are more computer generated than human made. The problem with technology is that humans generally fail to have the capacity to know when to stop and leave it aside. This therefore can also lead to lazy ‘cop-outs’ be it with the writing of a script, the image originally taken with a camera, or an artist using computer art over physical brushes and a canvas. I am not saying technology is bad and advances should be ignored. What I am attempting to imply is that humans need to become better at realising the importance and benefits of traditional physical skills and human thought rather than simply solely turn to the latest technology in the creation of a product be it film, art, or photography. Many will disagree with me and argue the more ‘impressive’ the effects (usually meaning how convincing they create something that looks stupendous) the better. Star Wars is a franchise that provides a clear example of this. When the first to be released film ‘A New Hope’ came out in 1979 the world went crazy over the latest effects. This was understandable as they were break through technologies at the time. However, move forward to the prequels decades later, which incorporated even more ‘impressive digital’ effects but was generally poorly received by the public. What many missed was the fact that the original three movies had something more than just dazzling effects. They also had great characters. The individuals were generally engaging from the terrifying menacing Vader to the tomboy Luke, the strong female lead of Lea and the swashbuckling mockery and gusto of Hans Solo. In The Phantom Menace the characters were poorly acted but worse terribly written. They came across as wooden, manufactured, and dull. Star Wars being a huge epic space opera had dropped the quality bar with poor writing. It had nothing to do with special effects. Now DW is no space epic (maybe to some perhaps) but British charming escapism featuring a very different hero figure and near endless possibilities to tell great stories. Why near endless because budget, or lack of more precisely, did make some narratives impossible to visualise on screen effectively. As the video host provides using the example of The Web Planet (a story I have never been able to sit through). Yet through such constraints ingenuity often flourished and character development was always given priority. To an extent fans came to love the ‘classic’ dud scenes within great stories such as the crawling clam shell that Harry accidentally Sullivan puts his foot into (Gensis of the Daleks). DW fans themselves gave more importance to narrative and character over special effects. Star Wars fans would never have accepted such a thing. So, this in effect made shows like DW and Blakes 7 more endearing, engaging, and special to viewers who could warm to the characters and therefore become invested in their adventures. DW probably has not yet fallen completely into the trap of ‘because we can, we should’ however the Space Babies embarrassment is an example to be concerned by. Why Steven Moffat made a comment that DW can never be created cheaply is one he needs to expand on because the evidence clearly shows otherwise. The man who wrote Blink, sitting alongside RTD who wrote ‘Midnight’ contradicting each other over comments regarding both narrative and budget. There is one thing money can never buy and that is heart and soul, and I would argue that they are the two factors that define DW as something special, something apart from the big blockbusters. The first to screen Star Wars film had it in droves, but after Return of the Jedi, everything seemed to focus on complexities within narrative and characterisations increasingly became either more vapid or worse annoying. Many people feared that Disney co-funding new DW would lead to such outcomes and to an extent there are certainly signs that Disneyfication has begun. It is crucial the fans recognise and be honest about this gradual shift in tone towards pizazz over charm or DW will eventually morph into something far removed from what it once was. We do not need another Marvel hero but the world still has a place for DW. Fingers crossed that is what the future will provide.

I agree on the whole but you lost me at Wild Blue Yonder wanting you to focus on VFX. It mostly focuses more on the characters and plot than the visuals, and whenever the visuals are highlighted it's for the idea of the imagery, definitely not the execution of it. A lot of the VFX in the episode looks cheap even by New Who standards. It's fine if you didn't like the episode but it just doesn't seem that relevant to your argument, especially since you mention it did get a lot of praise.

Short answer; Yes.

This is exactly what i said about the show when i heard them going on about the big budget they were going to have when the disney deal was announced. It's now like a cinematic movie every week and has lost its uniqueness because of that and that uniqueness that's now lost is as you say it's character gravitas and i don't like how they have sexualised a character that's supposed to be an alien from the planet Gallifrey it's like they are trying to turn him human when he is not. Plus all this weird political messaging and sexualisation of what is let's face it a children's program, i find highly concerning coupled with RTD openly admitting in an interview that and i quote " the entertainment is for the adult's and the messaging is for the kids " that just screams indoctrination to me.

Unsure what in space babies you think wouldn't be achievable in a lower budget. Like the cgi on the monster might not be as good but besides that it was just them hanging out with babies or a fairly dull set. There are rtd1 s1 episodes with way bigger scope. It was just a really weird episode to start the season off with. Kinda feel like bomb should've been ep1 then SB and DC

I think you missed the point of wild blue yonder mate I couldn't disagree on that more

Great essay I think it still keeps the cheapness

For me, I'm yet to see WHERE this "big budget" is.. The episodes so far appear simple and low budget to me, and nothing DW couldn't have achieved before Disney's deep pockets came into play.

Nah, just stories that are engaging. Budget is irrelevant

Boy did not just badmouth Wild Blue Yonder

Its missing subtlety and grace, its missing passion for the lore, its missing everything that made Who fun and interesting. Now its just being used as a way to deliver what ever weird political message they're stuck on.

Under Moffat, Doctor Who consisted of people standing round doing nothing but talking. Now it has a budget and should stay that way. No more stinkers such as 'Heaven Sent' and 'Hell Bent' please!

Not sure about the budget issue, BUT...I do know that Doctor Who would be far more watchable and not see such a mass exodus of viewership if they got rid of Ncuti Gatwa.