General Ongoing Doctor Discussion

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Lord TSC wrote: »

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.

I guess it depends on what they mean by

"short term" here. One episode and then back to a man will draw a lot of anger and disappointment from people. I've seen more positive reactions to today's news than negative ones. If they mean 12 episodes and there's another new face for Christmas 2018, then I could live with that.

I suppose it could be an insurance plan.

cast a woman and gauge reaction but have a get out clause built in for when they lose their nerve.

Wibbs

Doctor DooM wrote: »

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

Yeah, like his casting of a woman as The Doctor isn't indicative? Are you serious? It's about as indicative as it can get.

Doctor DooM

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah, like his casting of a woman as The Doctor isn't indicative? Are you serious? It's about as indicative as it can get.

It is that impossible they have a direction and she's the best person that applied for the role?

Is it that impossible the work will simply be good?

Because the actor has two XX chromosomes?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah, like his casting of a woman as The Doctor isn't indicative? Are you serious? It's about as indicative as it can get.

Come off it, you can't say that. It's like saying they cast a Scottish guy last time so we knew it was going to be all kilts and bagpipes and deep fried mars bars.

pixelburp

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah, like his casting of a woman as The Doctor isn't indicative? Are you serious? It's about as indicative as it can get.

But beyond the gender there's nothing to be divined here. There's literally no information about the new series. Not even past form is applicable here as it's a brand new team. The RTD to Moffat transition was indicative of this.

Yourself isit

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Come off it, you can't say that. It's like saying they cast a Scottish guy last time so we knew it was going to be all kilts and bagpipes and deep fried mars bars.

The doctor being a woman will affect her in the past. The psychic paper won't work in some situations.

Although she could always be a countess or equivalent for most of history. I suppose. It's early capitalism that won't work.

"you're a woman and the head of police? Hahaha"

flazio

As I see it, Jodie Whittaker wasn't cast in a male role, she wasn't cast in a female role. She was cast as The Doctor.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Yourself isit wrote: »

The doctor being a woman will affect her in the past. The psychic paper won't work in some situations.

Although she could always be a countess or equivalent for most of history. I suppose. It's early capitalism that won't work.

"you're a woman and the head of police? Hahaha"

I don't see a problem with that happening, it just means the Doctor needs to think of another plan. A good writer could get a great amount of humour from the Doctor finding herself in those situations, without having her launch into a clunky lecture on feminism. How often does the Doctor actually jump in time instead of in space though? Once a series?

Yourself isit

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I don't see a problem with that happening, it just means the Doctor needs to think of another plan. A good writer could get a great amount of humour from the Doctor finding herself in those situations, without having her launch into a clunky lecture on feminism. How often does the Doctor actually jump in time instead of in space though? Once a series?

True. Time travel to the past is rare enough.

Doctor DooM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I don't see a problem with that happening, it just means the Doctor needs to think of another plan. A good writer could get a great amount of humour from the Doctor finding herself in those situations, without having her launch into a clunky lecture on feminism. How often does the Doctor actually jump in time instead of in space though? Once a series?

I honestly don't understand what is the the problem here. The Doctor will face new problems and conflicts. And..?

Storytelling requires conflict, then resolution. If the resolution is clever or funny and internally consistent then it is satisfying. You change the status quo of a character you get new challenges to play with. These are good things, not bad- I actually hate the psychic paper usually as it just bypasses why people should trust the Doctor.

Lord TSC

The Doctor won't be able to force herself into the leadership position.

But I'd be curious to see if they could have fun with a more invisible hand, guiding events in time, rather than openly leading them. A more nuanced approach towards affecting events.

I've always felt that for all the Doctor has been involved in so much of the history of the universe, no one seems to remember most of the time....

ixoy

What I'm curious now though is the companion. Will we get a full-time male companion? What sort of tone will they have? He's had a series of strong independent female companions which have largely been very positive.

Will we now get a strong male companion that the Doctor puts on a bit of a pedestal as we did with Rose / Amy / Clara? Will we get one that's more of a friend (like Donna or Bill)? Or will they just continue with the primary companion being female? I hope not - if we're switching the dynamic around for the Doctor then why not the companion? Outside of the novels, he's not had a strong long-term male companion yet in New-Who (Jack wasn't a companion long-enough in my mind to qualify and Rory wasn't strong and generally more of a side-kick to Amy).

Lord TSC

It absolutely needs to be a male companion. I wonder if any of the names linked for the Docs role, like Kris Marshall, might get linked as such.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I honestly don't understand what is the the problem here. The Doctor will face new problems and conflicts. And..?

Storytelling requires conflict, then resolution. If the resolution is clever or funny and internally consistent then it is satisfying. You change the status quo of a character you get new challenges to play with. These are good things, not bad- I actually hate the psychic paper usually as it just bypasses why people should trust the Doctor.

There is no problem. You're agreeing with me, I'm agreeing with you.

Some people seem to have this worry that all the episodes now will be the Doctor bashing silly men over the head with feminism and giving clunky speeches on how great women are and all men are useless. A lot of this worry seems to be based on previous episodes that were, in my opinion, badly written, even if with the best of intentions.

My above post is simply pointing out that the Doctor now being female will obviously come up against previously nonexistent problems, especially if visiting the past, which provide an opportunity for a good writer to do something other than flash a psychic paper, which I agree was used too often.

Doctor DooM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There is no problem. You're agreeing with me, I'm agreeing with you.

Some people seem to have this worry that all the episodes now will be the Doctor bashing silly men over the head with feminism and giving clunky speeches on how great women are and all men are useless. A lot of this worry seems to be based on previous episodes that were, in my opinion, badly written, even if with the best of intentions.

My above post is simply pointing out that the Doctor now being female will obviously come up against previously nonexistent problems, especially if visiting the past, which provide an opportunity for a good writer to do something other than flash a psychic paper, which I agree was used too often.

I know I was being rhetorical, it wasn't directed at you

AtomicHorror

I don't understand how anyone can look at the canon depictions of regeneration and honestly find sex change to be somehow implausible, let alone impossible. There's no version of a technobabble explanation for regeneration that I can come up with that makes it possible for The Doctor to change so radically every time- that allows Romana to change species- but somehow forbids a simple sex change.

As to a companion- the obvious direction seems to go with a man but I think this problem with the Doctor's sex was actually made worse with the 10/Rose 11/Amy companion fancies Doctor thing. I'm not saying that kinda thing can't or shouldn't be done, but we got a break from it with 12 and it would be nice to continue with 13 at least at the start.

Wibbs

Doctor DooM wrote: »

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...

Well Baker was most of my childhood before girls featured in my sights(I even met the chap when I was a kid and he was a really nice man), I thought Davidson pretty good after my initial shock as Baker had been so long a fixture, Baker 2 didn't really appeal and TBH I thought McCoy a woeful actor. I liked McGann and really liked him in the 50th short. I'd love to see more of his Doctor. Of the new Who I liked Eccy(as much because I felt he had more to add), and Tennant and warmed to Smith and was sadder to see him go than I would have thought at the start(which I mea culpa'd here). I really really hoped Cap would be better. For me he took a while to settle in, but there were real flashes of greatness let down by writing and pacing. I don't directly remember much of Pertwee and TBH watching him since(when an ex got me a DVD of one of his tenure. Another got me a boxset of Baker) I didn't dig him at all. Oh I thought Cushing was meh , but his Daleks were cool. And from what I heard of Richard E Grant I could never get the fan crush on him at all. Of all the Old Who, I'd love to have seen Romana return from E space or whatever it was called. If that's narrow DD, then colour me narrow.

Now granted, I would not be one of the hardline, I've a sonic screwdriver in my pocket and am not glad to see you cosplay/comicon fans. Not by a long shot. I suppose I would be the more old style watching on the sofa with (a lot of)extra nerd thrown in. EG I liked Rose as a character(down voted by all ). So maybe I'm coming at it from a different angle? Hardly "narrow" though.

The nerdy girl market is huge and under subscribed.

In what universe are you living in? Fantasy and science fiction is currently near dominated by roles for women. Men are nearly always either muscle, or daft, or bad, or secondary, or all of the above.

pixelburp wrote: »

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

Yep I'd agree there PB. It is a new blank slate, but as I said it's a rejig, a retcon of the original, it's not Doctor Who for me.

martingriff wrote: »

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.

See my response to PB.

pixelburp wrote: »

Theres no way any of us can be sure, PC has nothing to do with it.

If you thinks "PC" is nothing to do with it, I have to think you're living in the same universe as DD. Of course it is(though I hate the term).

Doctor DooM wrote: »

It is that impossible they have a direction and she's the best person that applied for the role?

Is it that impossible the work will simply be good?

Because the actor has two XX chromasomes?

Yep. IMHO Doctor Who is and always has been a man and this is the biggest change since the series started back in '63. It's a retcon as far as I'm concerned and I suspect as far as the majority of non "nerdy" viewers is concerned too.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Come off it, you can't say that. It's like saying they cast a Scottish guy last time so we knew it was going to be all kilts and bagpipes and deep fried mars bars.

We're really though the looking glass here Alice, if you can't see the difference.

Then again, it is working. They're getting the column inches on social media. All publicity is good publicity, though nearly always on the back of a planned gimmick.

Doctor DooM

I hope they make a "do I look like Joanna Lumley?" joke.

Doctor DooM

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep. IMHO Doctor Who is and always has been a man and this is the biggest change since the series started back in '63. It's a retcon as far as I'm concerned and I suspect as far as the majority of non "nerdy" viewers is concerned too.

Just because it's a change doesn't mean it does anything to continuity. It has nothing to do with retconning. When Ultron turned Tony Stark into a woman in the Avengers comics most people hoped that would be retconned out, but it wasn't

I'm truly sorry change scares you. But Doctor Who is about change. You can always go back and watch the Baker episodes if you want to see Baker episodes.

Yourself isit

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I honestly don't understand what is the the problem here. The Doctor will face new problems and conflicts. And..?

Storytelling requires conflict, then resolution. If the resolution is clever or funny and internally consistent then it is satisfying. You change the status quo of a character you get new challenges to play with. These are good things, not bad- I actually hate the psychic paper usually as it just bypasses why people should trust the Doctor.

I don't think anybody said it was a problem except that the doctor won't be as free to use the psychic paper in patriarchal societies.

ixoy

I wonder if this is the best actor for the role - they just happened to be a lead on his own show? How much did he look around?

Lord TSC

ixoy wrote: »

I wonder if this is the best actor for the role - they just happened to be a lead on his own show? How much did he look around?

Define "best". If he thinks she is someone he can trust 100% to portray the character of the Doctor he writes in his script, who he trusts to be his Doctor to the level he wants, then surely she is the best option.

Wibbs

Doctor DooM wrote: »

When Ultron turned Tony Stark into a woman in the Avengers comics most people hoped that would be retconned out, but it wasn't

And sales fell off...

I'm truly sorry change scares you. But Doctor Who is about change. You can always go back and watch the Baker episodes if you want to see Baker episodes.

Now with a statement like that you're just being snarky for the sake of ego, or in Board's parlance "attacking the poster, not the post", basically just "being a dick", but no doubt that's OK. My estimation of you.. actually I didn't really have one, so *shrug*.

Wibbs

ixoy wrote: »

I wonder if this is the best actor for the role - they just happened to be a lead on his own show? How much did he look around?

To be fair that's common. Showrunners/producers/directors will usually hire folks they have worked with before. RTD asked Eccy to fill the role because they had a long collaboration together on other projects and had a mutual respect for each other. I wouldn't see that as an issue TBH.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

For the love of all that is Time & Space, nobody tell those bitching about the casting of a Female Doctor, that they're also bringing back K9... as a Cat!!!

Wibbs

Also Starring LeVar Burton wrote: »

that they're also bringing back K9... as a Cat!!!

Joke alright, but it would be equally daft in a few levels.

AtomicHorror

Wibbs wrote: »

Joke alright, but it would be equally daft in a few levels.

Neither sex change or dog to cat transformation is a fraction as weird as some of the stuff we've been expected to take seriously on Who.

JP Liz V1

I am just happy no Miranda Hart or Kris Marshall

Doctor DooM

Wibbs wrote: »

And sales fell off...

Now with a statement like that you're just being snarky for the sake of ego, or in Board's parlance "attacking the poster, not the post", basically just "being a dick", but no doubt that's OK. My estimation of you.. actually I didn't really have one, so *shrug*.

Sales didn't fall off. It was reversed within 2 issues. My point was in sci-fi properties these things happen all the time and it's not a retcon.

However when they did a run with a female Thor initial sales increased, although they fell off over time.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/thor-is-selling-more-comics-as-a-woman-1692608223

Most people agree that it's a good story line though, because the character is interesting (she has cancer, and needs to stay in Thor form and worthy of the hammer to survive).

I am not being snarky. Your posts today are genuinely making you look like you're afraid of change. You have literally said multiple times, it's too much of a change.

If you think that's me attacking you, I'm sorry. This is not the first fandom things like this have happened I am in, and the standard thing to say to people who're upset is that it doesn't take away the thing that brought you to the property in the first place. You can always go back and watch Transformers G1/ Star Trek Prime universe/ the original Star War movies/ The post Infinite Crisis DC universe etc etc...

pixelburp

Wibbs wrote: »

If you thinks "PC" is nothing to do with it, I have to think you're living in the same universe as DD. Of course it is(though I hate the term).

You took my line out of context. I was responding to ebbys' defence that he was bucking the PC line that Dr. Who was doomed. Being PC or not doesn't negate simple hyperbole that we have no inkling what's in store for this oncoming season. Predicting doom with certainty is just pessamisticially foolish at this point.