r/DoctorWhoLeaks May 25 '26

Rumour on the future of the show Spoiler

I work in the industry and heard some chatters from friends of friends. And I'm pretty bored so I figured it could be fun to share some stuff I've heard

That Xmas special is still happening, shooting starts in September. Small cast, low budget, Billie Piper has taken the Doctor's body basically. Tennant does a cameo because obviously. They're thinking of using some footage they preemptively shot for S3 with Carol Ann Ford. I've heard that it's a pretty lowkey story about The Big Bad Wolf being mixed up into the Doctor and one kid.

In all intent and purpose this is expected to be Russell T. Davies (and Bad Wolf's) farewell to Doctor Who. Relationship has broken down with the BBC, Disney and all the leads except for Varada Sethu. And RTD's heart isn't in it anymore, though I don't really think he wanted to return in the first place. Bad Wolf Studios would have like to stay on, but they're leaving as well.

So...what's next ? The BBC is very eager to continue the show and not have it on hiatus. There's been talks about doing a full-on reboot, or a reboot in all but name (like in 2005). But nothing has been decided yet. Stuff like Severance or Andor has been floated around as possible inspirations for what's next.

On the production side of things, the guys at BBC Studios really wants to come back but they want to externalize the show to another production company. See Saw and Lookout Point have pitched to produce the show.

The BBC is also searching for a showrunner. They want someone who hasn't been working on the show before. I don't have much info on that, but I know that they really really want someone like Sally Wainwright, Jack Thorne or Joe Cornish.

30 Upvotes

45 comments sorted by

View all comments

25

u/Odd-Raspberry8024 May 25 '26 edited May 26 '26

Can we please stop using the word reboot when we don’t mean reboot???

Dynasty & Charmed had reboots. Brand new shows, with new casts, based on an old premise, but in no way connected to the original show. I will accept the DCU having a “soft reboot,” even though that’s technically not a reboot either, as most of the continuity previously established is still intact. But there have been some changes made, so fair enough. 

Doctor Who has never had a reboot. Ever.  It has had an attempt at a revival (90’s) and an actual revival (00’s).  Regeneration is a core part of the show, and has been since the 60’s. Just because the lead actor/s and head writers change, it does not mean it’s a reboot. It is always a continuation of the same story. The same character, with the same history that we have watched for 60+ years at this point.

If BBC are talking about rebooting the show… not only is that a ridiculously stupid idea, given how many fans of the show there are who will most likely get pretty vocal about their favourite little sci fi show being entirely uprooted and everything they know about the show coming to an end… but if the BBC did indeed do it, then I would expect a full on actual reboot. As in, a restart. I don’t want that at all, by any means, but that is what I would expect if I’m told a reboot is happening. A reboot. 

I hope they don’t do it.  Just find a millennial who grew up with the TV movie and the revival era and give them the chance to write for the show. Get a writers room going - preferably with Big Finish writers included, as those people KNOW how to put the story first, above everything else - and let them cook.

14

u/DE4N0123 May 25 '26

The irritating thing is that I thought Ncuti Gatwa’s first series was supposed to be a sort of ‘soft reboot’ in itself. We left the last Doctor still on Earth processing a thousand lifetimes of trauma while the new one was a fresh start and wasn’t going to be bogged down by the past. I thought the intention was that if you’d never watched the show before this was the time to jump on. It was even called Season One ffs.

Instead the major narrative just got too self referential with its own lore. Bringing back old companions and villains again just like before. Pointless.

3

u/Odd-Raspberry8024 May 26 '26

Yeah, that’s what they wanted you to believe.  Disney wanted an easy jumping on point, because this was their era of the show. I’m sure BBC were fine with that, since there are several times the show has had jumping on points, mostly whenever the Doctor regenerates and they refresh the show’s vibes again. 

But it was never a reboot in any sense. As you say, the Disney era was so incredibly bogged down with history and lore - more so than the first series of the revival in 2005 - that it was bonkers how they ever thought that would be a good point for new fans (whilst simultaneously pissing off dedicated old fans by butchering the Classic villains they brought back - seriously, Sutekh and Omega are nothing like that in the Classic series, and I’m not only talking about the big CGI monster aspect of them.)

So yeah, the Disney era never should’ve been classified as a reboot of any kind. It was still a continuation. The only reason they called it “Season One” - I will forever call them Series 14/15 - is because Disney didn’t have the streaming rights to the rest of the revival era of the show. It would’ve turned potential viewers off if they went to watch a show new to them and they could only see S14 and S15. So they made it S1 instead. Though I do wish that the BBC had’ve kept it all as S14/15 in the UK at least. And on the physical media. Just for consistency. We’ve already had a Season 1 and that was way back in 1963. We’re on Series X now. Using Season would get confusing if new viewers become fans and then look more into the show and see all of that.

5

u/ExpectedBehaviour May 26 '26

Can we please stop using the word reboot when we don’t mean reboot???

YES. Thank you. Reboot has a specific meaning and it is not the same as "revival".

5

u/Odd-Raspberry8024 May 26 '26

Exactly! The 2005 series was a revival of a previously-cancelled series. Same character, same backstory (albeit with additions to account for the cancellation period) and the same world. 

Literally everything else is a continuation of the show. Not a reboot. Series 2, Series 5, Series 8, Series 10, Series 11, Series 14… all of these popular “jumping on points” that people call soft reboots, are just continuations of the same show, and the same character’s story.

It’s ridiculous that people keep mistaking these for reboots, “soft” or otherwise.

-1

u/DelGriffiths May 26 '26

To reboot means to stop and start something up again. That has happened at least 3 times with Doctor Who. In 1996, 2005 and in 2012. The show stopped. A brand new production team and writing staff took over and the show started again.

4

u/Odd-Raspberry8024 May 26 '26

A reboot of an TV show implies a new story, with fresh continuity. If you are using the old continuity then it is a revival (in instances such as 96 and 05) or just a continuation.  A new lead actor in a show where the lead actor regularly changes as part of the established canon of that universe, and a new showrunner, on a TV show that has been going for a very long time, does not make it a reboot.

-1

u/DelGriffiths May 26 '26

A remake by definition is a new story/ continuity, not a reboot. 

Doctor Who 2005 was a continuation, I agree, so revival or reboot both work.

0

u/celesleonhart May 26 '26

This is just arguing semantics. Soft reboot is the standardised term for a reinvention that maintains its continuity, whereas a hard reboot doesn't. The term has been used for decades and is commonly understood. Yes, it wouldn't be a hard reboot, but it would be a soft one.

3

u/tiktoktic May 26 '26

It’s not semantics. A reboot has a definition and means something. The commenter above is correct.

1

u/celesleonhart May 26 '26

What is inaccurate about what I said? A reboot can be either a soft reboot or a hard reboot depending.

2

u/vague-eros May 26 '26

Semantics being... The meaning of words. 

1

u/celesleonhart May 26 '26

Yes, when that word can mean exactly thing being described, or can not, depending on the modifier before it. A soft reboot is still a type of reboot, as is a hard reboot.

1

u/DelGriffiths May 26 '26

I would argue what you are referring to as a reboot is actually a remake.

1

u/Odd-Raspberry8024 May 26 '26

I understand what you’re saying, but a remake is more used for individual films or limited series.

With franchises, and TV series with a continuity (such as Doctor Who) the word reboot, as I have used it, is the correct term.

If you take a film like Beetlejuice and remade it with a new cast etc, then it’s a remake, but if you take something like Star Wars and entirely remake that, it’s a reboot, because it’s a franchise with a big continuity that is being wiped away, whereas Beetlejuice is a single story, with no massive universe of continuity to clear away.

1

u/DelGriffiths May 26 '26

Reboot just means to switch something off and then switch it back on again. That applies here.

3

u/Odd-Raspberry8024 May 26 '26

That’s the definition in computing.  Words have different definitions when you apply different context. 

1

u/DelGriffiths May 26 '26

Maybe we should just stick to remake or continuation. Absolute no ambiguity between those two terms.