General Ongoing Doctor Discussion

Wibbs

Yourself isit wrote: »

She's a brave woman.

I'd agree there.

Ifs she's good Wibbs will come around. He's fairly open minded I think.

Cheers Y, I would be more open minded than many might feel(and less than others might), but in this case? I have to say no. She might be good, bad, or indifferent, but being honest it won't be Doctor Who as far as I'm concerned. It may or may not stand on its own, but I'll see it as a reimagining of the story. I also saw Missy as a different character TBH. Never really felt like the Master to me. Though again TBH Simms didn't really hit the spot either. Too frenetic for the most part, except for his final outing.

martingriff wrote: »

You seen the script

I've seen the last series(and snippets of the previous with same). The clunky portending of "the future's female, I hope" stuff. And now this casting. As DD noted Who since the reboot has tended towards the "progressive" and "left leaning", which is fine and dandy until it gets to the point of a party political broadcast for same.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

It's actually just what always happens. People upset because the Doctor changing. A load of people just looking forward to the change. Different year, same ****.

Very different this time. OK DD I'll bet you a pint of whatever you fancy that the ratings will fall off a cliff by this time next year and she'll be the shortest lived inhabitant of the Blue Box since Eccy(the production crew too) and they'll make a last gasp effort to try and get back to the "original". I'll further bet that she didn't get a 2/3 year contract, not without options for leaving/being pushed. Yeah I'd again echo Yourself isit's take that she's brave to take this on.

Sonics2k wrote:

So you've never actually watched Doctor Who have you?

I can almost guarantee I've watched it more than your good self and for longer with it. In this very forum I have on more than a few occasions applauded RTD's casting and handling of Capt Jack and considered it an incredibly gutsy move to risk that on what was at the time an unsure reboot of a "family show" that much BBC money was riding on. And it wasn't nearly so hamfisted nor obvious as Moffat's "you go girl!" guff. Jack was just another character who also happened to be a trysexual, gender not an issue. With Moffat it is an issue and one he and his writers love to loudly bang the drum about.

Oh and as Y said I said the same of Capaldi. Though I felt the show started to flag before Smith left. I wasn't keen on him at all at first, but did come around to him and then for me it started to flag. I had real high hopes for Cap I have to say.

Sonics2k

Wibbs wrote: »

I can almost guarantee I've watched it more than your good self and for longer with it. In this very forum I have on more than a few occasions applauded RTD's casting and handling of Capt Jack and considered it an incredibly gutsy move to risk that on what was at the time an unsure reboot of a "family show" that much BBC money was riding on. And it wasn't nearly so hamfisted nor obvious as Moffat's "you go girl!" guff. Jack was just another character who also happened to be a trysexual, gender not an issue. With Moffat it is an issue and one he and his writers love to loudly bang the drum about.

Oh and as Y said I said the same of Capaldi. Though I felt the show started to flag before Smith left. I wasn't keen on him at all at first, but did come around to him and then for it started to flag.

I won't get into a pissing contest about who's been a fan longest, because it's just daft. You're older than me, so it's a given.

I will however point out the astonishing irony of you previously applauding RTD for the Capt. Jack story as 'an incredibly gutsy move' however when it comes to making the Doctor a woman, who claim this to essentially be PC nonsense?

Fun fact, Captain Jack's first appearance was in The Empty Child, which was written by Moffat, who created the character. RTD contributed, but didn't create the character.

You know I agree with you on the many of the PC gone mad things out there, but I wonder if you'd have the same opinion about this casting for the Doctor had this whole nonsense never happened?

Would you proclaim it 'an incredibly gutsy move' or still complain it was them being too PC?

FunLover18

Wibbs wrote: »

OK then, name a few positive non violent leading male role models in their own series in current media, in TV or film. The list of women who fulfil that is a long one(add in the Buffy style tiny women who are physically invincible). Actually don't bother. Pointless.

So you're concerned that without non-violent leading male role model, the next generation of children will grow up to be violent sociopaths or something like that?

I get the non-violent role model thing, I do, but why is the gender so important? Plenty of women have grown-up with the Doctor and other male characters as role models and vice versa. I've said it before on the series 10 thread, the Doctor is a role model because of his actions and his morals, not because of his gender. With other properties I think it would be gimmicky but as has been pointed out regeneration in itself is a gimmick to keep a show going after the lead actor decides to go and it's a fun gimmick but let's be honest they've wasted its potential thus far by just churning out white men. If you're going to use regeneration as a concept, you may as well make the most of it.

Agent Coulson

I don't think anyone can blame the woman for taking the role and it was very brave of her to take it.


If they hadn't been laying the groundwork and foreshadowing a female Doctor for a lot of Capaldi run to his detriment playing the Doctor and just regenerated her at the end of his time I feel that may have served them better.


It wouldn't be Doctor Who to me and many others but I don't think the BBC really care about me or the many others.


This is a money making decision plain and simple.


They may go on to make a world class Sci Fi show (which I highly doubt) with a female lead but it won't be Doctor Who to me.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Agent Coulson wrote: »

They may go on to make a world class Sci Fi show (which I highly doubt) with a female lead but it won't be Doctor Who to me.

You are entitled to feel this way, I'm not going to try to change your mind, but I find it odd that for a lot of people it seems that the defining characteristic of "The Doctor" is that he was a man, which seems kind of silly given how many other amazing qualities there are to choose from.

Mr.Saturn

Whittaker's one of like 4 things you could say were brilliant in Broadchurch across the whole lot. It figures Chibnall'll bring the one person that's been able to handle everything he's thrown at'em and still make it good. I mean, Jesus, I'm infinitely more paranoid about Chibnall taking the helm considering he's got 1 great series of Broadchurch and then 2 not-so-great, oversaw the car-crash that was Torchwood series 1 and his contribution to Who itself are, at best, mid-series filler. Whittaker gives me the most hope in his impending arrival.

Sonics2k

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I don't think anyone can blame the woman for taking the role and it was very brave of her to take it.


If they hadn't been laying the groundwork and foreshadowing a female Doctor for a lot of Capaldi run to his detriment playing the Doctor and just regenerated her at the end of his time I feel that may have served them better.


It wouldn't be Doctor Who to me and many others but I don't think the BBC really care about me or the many others.


This is a money making decision plain and simple.


They may go on to make a world class Sci Fi show (which I highly doubt) with a female lead but it won't be Doctor Who to me.

I'm genuinely curious. Why won't she be the Doctor to you?

I've seen a load of people say this online, but have yet to give any real reason as to why. What if she plays the character brilliantly?

Is your sole reason for saying she's never be the Doctor because she's a woman?

Goodshape

To those complaining, Wibbs and Agent Coulson, why must The Doctor always be male? Is there some established canon being disregarded here?

campo

Agent Coulson wrote: »

They may go on to make a world class Sci Fi show (which I highly doubt) with a female lead but it won't be Doctor Who to me.

Ah Star Trek Voyager

AtomicHorror

Wibbs wrote: »

OK DD I'll bet you a pint of whatever you fancy that the ratings will fall off a cliff by this time next year and she'll be the shortest lived inhabitant of the Blue Box since Eccy(the production crew too) and they'll make a last gasp effort to try and get back to the "original". I'll further bet that she didn't get a 2/3 year contract, not without options for leaving/being pushed. Yeah I'd again echo Yourself isit's take that she's brave to take this on.

Boards needs bookmarking and reminder functions.

Do we know when the next series is due to debut?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Boards needs bookmarking and reminder functions.

Do we know when the next series is due to debut?

No idea. If they're smart they'll wait until after summer next year. Ratings are generally lower in the summer months. A dark cold Saturday evening with the fire lit is more likely to see people watching TV than a bright summer's evening.

Penn

Wibbs wrote: »

I've seen the last series(and snippets of the previous with same). The clunky portending of "the future's female, I hope" stuff. And now this casting. As DD noted Who since the reboot has tended towards the "progressive" and "left leaning", which is fine and dandy until it gets to the point of a party political broadcast for same.

This is kinda where I stand with it too. I have absolutely no issue with the Doctor being female. Good stories and characters are what makes the show. But the last few series' and particularly the last few episodes with Bill went so far over the top with "Time Lords can be women and wouldn't that just be great!" that it ruined every scene it was mentioned in.

This actress deserves a fair shot, and though I haven't seen her in anything (well, I've seen Attack The Block which a few people here say she was in but I can't remember her from it) I'm absolutely going to give her a fair shot. My worry isn't with them casting a woman. My worry is that the fact the Doctor is now a woman is going to be continuously referenced or used regularly as comedy or plot points that it's just going to be irritating.

Doctor DooM

Wibbs wrote: »

Very different this time. OK DD I'll bet you a pint of whatever you fancy that the ratings will fall off a cliff by this time next year and she'll be the shortest lived inhabitant of the Blue Box since Eccy(the production crew too) and they'll make a last gasp effort to try and get back to the "original". I'll further bet that she didn't get a 2/3 year contract, not without options for leaving/being pushed. Yeah I'd again echo Yourself isit's take that she's brave to take this on.

Don't take this the wrong way Wibbs... but this is the view of someone who is a bit... old fashioned!

Ratings mean less and less for DW every year. This is not me mindlessly defending the show. I think they made several bad choices over the last couple of years that also didn't help- Capaldi had some bad episodes at the start, the character was unlikeable in a non fun way, The Clara arc muddled a lot of things- but ratings don't matter much for it.

You can't walk through forbidden planet without falling over Who merch and it does gangbusters in what they would have called serialisation terms in the old days. Netflix, BBCA etc. The only series that made, in real world terms, more bank for the BBC in the last few years was Top Gear.

For example, one of the biggest programmes in the world is WWE Raw. I'm a fan of the ol' wrassling and I can tell you it's fecking unwatchable to anyone with a brain. But it makes insane ad revenue so it gets kept around... and guess what, even they're moving to an online model slowly but surely (the phenomenon of "cord cutting" is beginning to become a problem for American tv).

Also, no offence Wibbs, but you have a hugely narrow view of what is Who. If I read one more post about Baker or Ecclestone...

It not being Who because it's different? The whole series is predicated on change! It's just one more change. It's just another attempt at revitalising and reaching a new market. It's what the series has done over and over (Pertwee's Bond pastiche, Baker's gothic horror era, McCoy's Cartmel plan, Eccelstone's brooding damaged anti hero, Tennant's lovesickness, Smith's childishness)... it's actually a logical choice for me. The nerdy girl market is huge and under subscribed.

pixelburp

Ultimately what makes me scratch my head is simply that we've been here before, many times and you'd think by now that we'd save our judgement for the actual scripts and final episodes themselves.

I mean sure, that theory works both ways and enthusiastic support may yield disappointment, but I think it's a better option to simply say "I'm sceptical but let's wait and see" than declaring the death of Dr. Who because of a gimmicky tweak to something itself a clear gimmick.

Next year is a blank slate. New show runner, new doctor. Let's see how it goes.

It worth remembering too that the arrival of the Moffat years was met with giddy excitement over its strongest writer taking over. Can't say the same for his departure, his star has certainly fallen. So who knows what the future may yield, it's nothing if not uncertain

AtomicHorror

Goodshape wrote: »

To those complaining, Wibbs and Agent Coulson, why must The Doctor always be male? Is there some established canon being disregarded here?

Only that gender changes during regeneration had not been shown on screen or mentioned during the first 900 years of the Doctor's life, or at least the parts depicted on TV. There's an absence of evidence, if you like, which is admittedly not much to hang your scarf on.

Penn wrote: »

This is kinda where I stand with it too. I have absolutely no issue with the Doctor being female. Good stories and characters are what makes the show. But the last few series' and particularly the last few episodes with Bill went so far over the top with "Time Lords can be women and wouldn't that just be great!" that it ruined every scene it was mentioned in.

This actress deserves a fair shot, and though I haven't seen her in anything (well, I've seen Attack The Block which a few people here say she was in but I can't remember her from it) I'm absolutely going to give her a fair shot. My worry isn't with them casting a woman. My worry is that the fact the Doctor is now a woman is going to be continuously referenced or used regularly as comedy or plot points that it's just going to be irritating.

Sounds to me like you don't stand with Wibbs at all. He's adamant: she is not the Doctor and never will be, Doctor Who is over barring a retcon. You seem a lot more open-minded than that by far. You're both basing your misgivings on what Moffat has done recently, that said. I don't know if that's fair, since Moffat is well and truly out.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Only that gender changes during regeneration had not been shown on screen or mentioned during the first 900 years of the Doctor's life, or at least the parts depicted on TV. There's an absence of evidence, if you like, which is admittedly not much to hang your scarf on.

There have been characters who changed gender though, have there not? Missy being the obvious one. I believe there was a character on Gallifrey in one of Clara's last episodes that was now a black woman but was previously a man, possibly Timothy Dalton? So it's established as something that happens.

Wibbs

Sonics2k wrote: »

I won't get into a pissing contest about who's been a fan longest, because it's just daft.

I didn't, you did.

I will however point out the astonishing irony of you previously applauding RTD for the Capt. Jack story as 'an incredibly gutsy move' however when it comes to making the Doctor a woman, who claim this to essentially be PC nonsense?

Fun fact, Captain Jack's first appearance was in The Empty Child, which was written by Moffat, who created the character. RTD contributed, but didn't create the character.

You know I agree with you on the many of the PC gone mad things out there, but I wonder if you'd have the same opinion about this casting for the Doctor had this whole nonsense never happened?

Yes. I most certainly would. I'd have had zero issue if say Romana another time lord(or lady as they once were) showed up and shared the Tardis. Indeed back in the day when she did, she showed she could fly it better than him and was generally a voice of reason when old Tom went a bit OTT. That would have been interesting.

FunLover18 wrote: »

I get the non-violent role model thing, I do, but why is the gender so important? Plenty of women have grown-up with the Doctor and other male characters as role models and vice versa. I've said it before on the series 10 thread, the Doctor is a role model because of his actions and his morals, not because of his gender.

I disagree. It is because of his gender. And has been for a long time. Since the start actually. Even in the bad old days where women were "ladies", dolly birds and screamers he(and Prof Quatermass, who he was very similar to) was extremely unusual in that he was a man who wasn't the guns and ammo action hero type. He was cerebral, the boffin and faced down such action macho types and won. That remains an extremely unusual male type in drama(at least with "good guys", the 'baddies" are often that type).

MacGyver was mentioned earlier and yep he was another one, but both stood out as non mainstream(MacGyver was going toe to toe with the atomic steroid stuff of the Arnie/Rambo era). Today in amongst the post Buffy pantheon of female roles across the board that best the silly men at every turn and are naturally brilliant because bewbs(QV Lucille Skywalker), he's as needed as ever as a male role. But no, now we get yet another addition to the pantheon of you go girlz. It's all very banal at this stage.

Answer me this if you will: Which gender is the most violent in the real world. Which is most likely to lash out with fists? Outside of some relationship stats, it isn't women. Who needs a positive non violent role model more? Who is more likely to look up to a man growing up? Though given the current trend to write women characters as violent arse kickers(even though most cast weigh about as much as a bag of sugar), who knows what odd messages are being received.

Goodshape wrote:

To those complaining, Wibbs and Agent Coulson, why must The Doctor always be male? Is there some established canon being disregarded here?

He was always a man. From the very start. The notion that he could become a she is only in the last two series. Hell even the aforementioned Romana when "trying on" different bodies back in the day, stayed "female".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9eEk-S6RUc

Doctor DooM

Just to be clear: In everything I've said here, I agree with pixelburp. If the series sucks it sucks. I don't think it will be good, I don't think it will be bad. We're in exactly the same wait and see sitch you get with every new Doctor.

Penn

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Only that gender changes during regeneration had not been shown on screen or mentioned during the first 900 years of the Doctor's life, or at least the parts depicted on TV. There's an absence of evidence, if you like, which is admittedly not much to hang your scarf on.



Sounds to me like you don't stand with Wibbs at all. He's adamant: she is not the Doctor and never will be, Doctor Who is over barring a retcon. You seem a lot more open-minded than that by far. You're both basing your misgivings on what Moffat has done recently, that said. I don't know if that's fair, since Moffat is well and truly out.

I meant I stand with Wibbs' particular point about how clunky the constant references to the possibility of the next Doctor being a woman were, and that once it's done so often it becomes more of an agenda being pushed as opposed to natural dialogue. The Master regenerated into a woman. The General regenerated into a woman. Lots of references to how the Doctor might be a woman in his next regeneration. Just so clunky and done so often. And while I agree that Moffat is going, my fear is still that references to the Doctor being a woman are going to be equally clunky. I hope I'm wrong.

AtomicHorror

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There have been characters who changed gender though, have there not? Missy being the obvious one. I believe there was a character on Gallifrey in one of Clara's last episodes that was now a black woman but was previously a man, possibly Timothy Dalton? So it's established as something that happens.

Which is why I said "during the first 900 years". The Doctor mentions the Corsair, we've seen the General switch (that's the one you thought of), the Master... and Romana did one better during her regeneration. Which segues nicely to...

Wibbs wrote: »

Hell even the aforementioned Romana when "trying on" different bodies back in the day, stayed "female".

She changed species during her regeneration. Are we really suggesting sex is harder to switch than species?

Necronomicon

Don't give a fiddler's about the gender. Michelle Gomez was phenomenal as Missy, and if Whittaker can follow Capaldi half as well as Gomez replaced Simm I'll be delighted.

For me the far more important change is the show runner. As one of the five or so fans of Moffat left on the Internet, I'm more concerned about how Chibnall takes the reins than how his first Doctor takes to the role.

martingriff

This is my final comment on this until the new season untill I see how she does. But everyone who is against the doctor being female will ye watch the first episode or 2 she is in. If so will you go in with an open mind and who knows she will shock you are are your minds already made up.

Wibbs

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I believe there was a character on Gallifrey in one of Clara's last episodes that was now a black woman but was previously a man, possibly Timothy Dalton? So it's established as something that happens.

Indeed. This

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93nJQj2Z97M

First thing she says? "back to normal am I?" Followed by "Only time I've been a man, dear lord how do you cope with all that ego". It's as cringey and yes "sexist" as Sean Connery's James Bond referring to women as "dear". And Capaldi's turn has been pushing that sorta thing a lot, especially in the last series. But apparently this is to be celebrated? Just because the silly pendulum has swung the other way, it doesn't make it a good thing.

Penn wrote:

And while I agree that Moffat is going, my fear is still that references to the Doctor being a woman are going to be equally clunky. I hope I'm wrong.

It almost assuredly will be and you won't be.

ebbsy

Just because someone doesn't like a female playing the role doesn't mean they have to be attacked for it, or called sexist or a non - fan.

I've been watching it since the Pertwee era. Do I like this situation ? I certainly do not. Will I bow to PC pressure ? No way.

When the arse falls out of this then we will understand the mistake that has been made.

Wibbs

Of course there is also the possibility of a bait and switch. That is that she's not the next Doc, or she's a temporary one, but that the next Doc will be a yet unannounced bloke. Capaldi did mention that this time the regen is "complicated". Great way to get attention and nothing stirs attention like controversy(QV this very thread). Good way to boost ratings and could be a way for an actual surprise reveal happening in the spoilers/twitter universe we live in.

Doctor DooM

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. This


It almost assuredly will be and you won't be.

It is a new show runner and a new writer. We have no idea what the new series is going to be like.

pixelburp

ebbsy wrote: »

Just because someone doesn't like a female playing the role doesn't mean they have to be attacked for it, or called sexist or a non - fan.

I've been watching it since the Pertwee era. Do I like this situation ? I certainly do not. Will I bow to PC pressure ? No way.

When the arse falls out of this then we will understand the mistake that has been made.

'When'. You don't have to bow to anything, no one is demanding it of you, but predicting doom without even an episode aired is just silly. Theres no way any of us can be sure, PC has nothing to do with it.

Lord TSC

Wibbs wrote: »

Of course there is also the possibility of a bait and switch. That is that she's not the next Doc, or she's a temporary one, but that the next Doc will be a yet unannounced bloke. Capaldi did mention that this time the regen is "complicated". Great way to get attention and nothing stirs attention like controversy(QV this very thread). Good way to boost ratings and could be a way for an actual surprise reveal happening in the spoilers/twitter universe we live in.

I read some stuff a few weeks back that has so far been pretty bang on. What I read, claiming to be a leak of the Xmas script, implied....

(Obviously, possible spoilers for the Xmas special)

As part of the Xmas special, the Doctor visits various moments of his life, trying to show 1 that he needs to regenerate to do all of the things 13 has done. At the end, 14 briefly sees his future in the same vein, wherein he meets his regenerated self, and realises that he's good to regenerate, having seen what follows. The leak also speculated that as well as meeting 13, he would meet 14 too, as 13 would only be a short term Doctor. Said leak said that 13 would be a "big name" (presumed it meant someone more famous, but could have meant a woman), before moving into a more stable, long term name.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Necronomicon wrote: »

For me the far more important change is the show runner. As one of the five or so fans of Moffat left on the Internet, I'm more concerned about how Chibnall takes the reins than how his first Doctor takes to the role.

What interests me about Chibnall is that he has no background in kids TV, unlike SM and RTD. Doctor Who is a family show but the target audience is essentially children. Is he going to come in and make a kids show, or is he going to give it a more mature feel? One problem I've had with Who for a long time is that the tone never seemed certain. One minute it felt purely like a kids show I was far too old to be watching, other times it took itself far too seriously. If Chibnall can come in and strike the right balance and keep it I'll be happy enough.

martingriff

ebbsy wrote: »

Just because someone doesn't like a female playing the role doesn't mean they have to be attacked for it, or called sexist or a non - fan.

I've been watching it since the Pertwee era. Do I like this situation ? I certainly do not. Will I bow to PC pressure ? No way.

When the arse falls out of this then we will understand the mistake that has been made.

If that happens I am sure you will come and gloat will you come in and admit your wrong if the opposite happens