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

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?!

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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 embarassin

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).

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.

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.

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 have to disagree with the comment about kids shows not being that dark. Steven Universe dealt with themes like loss, war, abusive relationships, ptsd, etc. Winx Club pre season 5 dealt with genocide, loss, and abusive relationships. Avatar the Last Airbender dealt with themes of genocide, war, loss, ptsd, and many many other dark subjects. These shows were aimed at children, but they still dealt with incredibly dark subjects. I'm not saying Doctor Who is a kids' show, but saying it tackled dark topics isn't really a good argument for it not being a kids' show.

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.

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?

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.