General Ongoing Doctor Discussion

Wibbs

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

It's preaching tolerance, gender equality, kindness, diversity etc. etc. None of these are bad things to be teaching kids.

Is it also a good thing to be preaching/teaching kids that male = bad, female = good? It's like I've taken crazy pills here. And yep I can easily quote numerous examples of this in Nu Who under Moffat's tenure. Now one can say "ah sure it's all a joke, witty banter". Cool, but it never goes the other way. Not once. Said "joke" is always in one direction.

That example earlier of a general regenerating into a woman. Imagine that in reverse. Woman character regenerates into a man and says; "back to normal am I? First time I was a woman, good lord how do you cope with all that ego?" Never. Going. To. Happen. Or when River reckons "thinking looks weird on a man, stop it". Or when Clara says something along the lines of "the universe is full of testosterone, it's unbearable". Imagine if a male main character said something like "thinking looks weird on a woman, stop it", or "the future's male. I hope". There would be attacks of the vapours all over the place. Imagine if a woman character around for decades was cast as a man? Eh...

That's the issue I have. It's all in one direction and obvious with it. And you actually think that's gender equality? Interesting take on that you have.

mewso

While I still watch I think I accepted a while ago that I'm just too old to get too bothered by any changes they make with Who. I'm not the target audience and haven't been in about 30 years. I was genuinely thrilled when Capaldi got the job because I didn't think they would ever give the job to an older actor but fair play they did. My worry now is that they won't dare do it again. I liked his take on it because I prefer the Doctor to be distant and, you know, alien.

As to the female in the room I'm open minded. I'm more concerned about Chibnall to be honest. I thought the last series of Broadchurch was terrible so I'm not very confident. I get what Wibbs is saying and Doctor Who is full to the brim with various PC stuff but as I've said I don't get too worked up about it that much anymore. Would there have been children of African descent on the streets of Victorian London? Who cares to be honest. Female Doctor? Meh. I do sadly expect the male roles will remain bumbling fools in general but who know they might surprise me. They did by giving Capaldi the job.

Someone also mentioned Happy Valley as an example of well written drama featuring a female lead and I totally agree but where that show had a realistic and flawed female lead it's extremely rare and more often than not, as Wibbs has said, the female role has little to no obvious flaws. The danger here is that this new Doctor will be amazing in everything she does bamboozling those silly men as she goes. I look forward to be being proved wrong. Unlike Wibbs I'll give it a chance.

mewso

Wibbs wrote: »

That example earlier of a general regenerating into a woman. Imagine that in reverse. Woman character regenerates into a man and says; "back to normal am I? First time I was a woman, good lord how do you cope with all that ego?" Never. Going. To. Happen. Or when River reckons "thinking looks weird on a man, stop it". Or when Clara says something along the lines of "the universe is full of testosterone, it's unbearable". Imagine if a male main character said something like "thinking looks weird on a woman, stop it", or "the future's male. I hope". There would be attacks of the vapours all over the place. Imagine if a woman character around for decades was cast as a man?.

Its just the way things are at the moment if you ask me. It will change eventually. Even out. The whole identity polictics stuff is a strange one. Whenever there is something going on be it in the gaming or entertainment world the extremes on both sides come to the fore and both sides write off the other citing the lunatic fringe as the reason why they can safely ignore that side of the argument. Want to genuinely criticise Anita Sarkeesian? Didn't like Ghostbusters? You are a sexist hater. Happy to see someone taking a feminist look at games? Thrilled that a major film franchise gave all the lead roles to women? You are part of an authoritarian movement that wants to force your world view on us all.

The more measured voices in the middle will win out eventually and proper debates and discussions can be had about the merits of all of this. Not now unfortunately and until it can happen I prefer to stay out of it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

mewso wrote: »

Someone also mentioned Happy Valley as an example of well written drama featuring a female lead and I totally agree but where that show had a realistic and flawed female lead it's extremely rare and more often than not, as Wibbs has said, the female role has little to no obvious flaws. The danger here is that this new Doctor will be amazing in everything she does bamboozling those silly men as she goes. I look forward to be being proved wrong. Unlike Wibbs I'll give it a chance.

Yes, as I've already said the problem with a lot of female characters on TV is they're written by people who can't write for women. Not always but the majority of the time they're written by men. That is a problem caused by a lack of diversity in the writers rooms. If you think of things like Happy Valley, Fleabag and Catastrophe what do they have in common? The female characters are realistic, they also happen to be written (or co written) by women, and they compliment their male counterparts without ever feeling the need to put them down. They have as many flaws as the male characters and they're called out on them. Wynonna Earp is another great example of a show with realistic female characters that hold their own beside the male characters without the male characters suffering. That show has a pretty even split of male/female writers.

I actually think having the Doctor be played by a woman is a better way to deal with gender issues on this show than to have the companion be female. If they stick to the general premise of the Doctor, that he/she is an alien rather than a male/female human, then there's no need to write the character as a "female character". On the show the character continues as they were but for kids watching they get to see someone who looks like a woman doing all the things the character did when he looked like a man. There should be no need to have it suddenly be a "feminist" show where every episode is about her overcoming evil chauvinistic men and putting them in their place.

Wibbs

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There should be no need to have it suddenly be a "feminist" show.

Too late. It has been for at least two seasons. And I guarantee worse it will get. As I said observe the new show runner's other projects. Unlike Mewso I'm not sure about any evening out, certainly not at the BBC which has become an almost farcically Right On ripe for parody entity. I suppose it's to make up for the decades when they harboured sex perverts and kiddie fiddlers in plain sight.

ebbsy

mewso wrote: »

While I still watch I think I accepted a while ago that I'm just too old to get too bothered by any changes they make with Who. I'm not the target audience and haven't been in about 30 years. I was genuinely thrilled when Capaldi got the job because I didn't think they would ever give the job to an older actor but fair play they did. My worry now is that they won't dare do it again. I liked his take on it because I prefer the Doctor to be distant and, you know, alien.

As to the female in the room I'm open minded. I'm more concerned about Bignall to be honest. I thought the last series of Broadchurch was terrible so I'm not very confident. I get what Wibbs is saying and Doctor Who is full to the brim with various PC stuff but as I've said I don't get too worked up about it that much anymore. Would there have been children of African descent on the streets of Victorian London? Who cares to be honest. Female Doctor? Meh. I do sadly expect the male roles will remain bumbling fools in general but who know they might surprise me. They did by giving Capaldi the job.

Someone also mentioned Happy Valley as an example of well written drama featuring a female lead and I totally agree but where that show had a realistic and flawed female lead it's extremely rare and more often than not, as Wibbs has said, the female role has little to no obvious flaws. The danger here is that this new Doctor will be amazing in everything she does bamboozling those silly men as she goes. I look forward to be being proved wrong. Unlike Wibbs I'll give it a chance.

D'ont know if I will, but a very good post.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Wibbs wrote: »

Too late. It has been for at least two seasons. And I guarantee worse it will get. As I said observe the new show runner's other projects. Unlike Mewso I'm not sure about any evening out, certainly not at the BBC which has become an almost farcically Right On ripe for parody entity. I suppose it's to make up for the decades when they harboured sex perverts and kiddie fiddlers in plain sight.

At this point, to be honest, I feel like telling you to suck it up. Women have had to put up with **** like this in TV and in film for decades. It's too bad if men have to put up with 2 or 3 years of people getting it wrong in an attempt to do something right. I'm not a fan of the ham-fisted ways gender diversity is addressed a lot of the time but the fact it's being addressed at all is a good thing and if you think it's not then I don't have a lot of time for your opinions.

Wibbs

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

At this point, to be honest, I feel like telling you to suck it up. Women have had to put up with **** like this in TV and in film for decades.

So in your head knowing what went before that makes it A-OK to deliberately set out to repeat the mistakes of the past in the other direction, so long as it's being addressed? Brilliant "thinking" going on there. Sounds more like some daft revenge vibe rather than a cogent argument or welcome development and apparently it's all grand to be doing this on kid's telly.

It is getting them attention and no doubt Guardian readers will be all snug and smug in their fair trade Uggs made from seaweed, but hopefully the middle will continue to march with its feet and let the show continue to fall further in the ratings and returns and they cop on. It is the BBC though, so when pigs fly.

The_Valeyard

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

At this point, to be honest, I feel like telling you to suck it up. Women have had to put up with **** like this in TV and in film for decades. It's too bad if men have to put up with 2 or 3 years of people getting it wrong in an attempt to do something right. I'm not a fan of the ham-fisted ways gender diversity is addressed a lot of the time but the fact it's being addressed at all is a good thing and if you think it's not then I don't have a lot of time for your opinions.

No time for opinions, then why respond on this thread?
And just because something wasn't done a particular way in the past doesnt mean we go around trying to agenda drive a show to make up for it. If that were the case the Doctor should be black to make up for British colonial actions in Africa. It's a silly idea.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Wibbs wrote: »

So in your head knowing what went before that makes it A-OK to deliberately set out to repeat the mistakes of the past in the other direction, so long as it's being addressed? Brilliant "thinking" going on there. Sounds more like some daft revenge vibe rather than a cogent argument or welcome development and apparently it's all grand to be doing this on kid's telly.

It is getting them attention and no doubt Guardian readers will be all snug and smug in their fair trade Uggs made from seaweed, but hopefully the middle will continue to march with its feet and let the show continue to fall further in the ratings and returns and they cop on. It is the BBC though, so when pigs fly.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

No time for opinions, then why respond on this thread?
And just because something wasn't done a particular way in the past doesnt mean we go around trying to agenda drive a show to make up for it. If that were the case the Doctor should be black to make up for British colonial actions in Africa. It's a silly idea.

Are you both willfully misinterpreting my points here?

I din't say it's okay to do a complete reversal of roles and have the male characters reduced to little more than bumbling idiots. I said they are getting it wrong in an attempt to get it right and if you have to put up with that for a year or two then too bad. Women have put up with it for years before anyone even tried to address it and now they're putting up with grown men having hissy fits because people are trying to address it.

You both seem to think there's an evil feminist agenda at work here to replace men entirely when in reality all they're trying to do is more accurately represent the real world, which has changed rapidly even since New Who came back.

As for why I have responded to this thread, I have been trying to have a conversation with people who aren't happy with the new casting. Most posters, even if they're not happy with it, have engaged in that conversation but the more posts Wibbs and yourself make the more I see that your problem is of a different kind entirely and I'm wasting my time trying to engage you on it because it's a much bigger issue than Jodie Whittaker being the new Doctor.

The_Valeyard

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Are you both willfully misinterpreting my points here?

I din't say it's okay to do a complete reversal of roles and have the male characters reduced to little more than bumbling idiots. I said they are getting it wrong in an attempt to get it right and if you have to put up with that for a year or two then too bad. Women have put up with it for years before anyone even tried to address it and now they're putting up with grown men having hissy fits because people are trying to address it.

You both seem to think there's an evil feminist agenda at work here to replace men entirely when in reality all they're trying to do is more accurately represent the real world, which has changed rapidly even since New Who came back.

As for why I have responded to this thread, I have been trying to have a conversation with people who aren't happy with the new casting. Most posters, even if they're not happy with it, have engaged in that conversation but the more posts Wibbs and yourself make the more I see that your problem is of a different kind entirely and I'm wasting my time trying to engage you on it because it's a much bigger issue than Jodie Whittaker being the new Doctor.

Ah so our problem is with women. Cheers for that completely wrong, stupid and ridiculous post.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Ah so our problem is with women. Cheers for that completely wrong, stupid and ridiculous post.

Show me where I said that.

The_Valeyard

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Show me where I said that.

"Wibbs and yourself make the more I see that your problem is of a different kind entirely and I'm wasting my time trying to engage you on it because it's a much bigger issue than Jodie Whittaker being the new Doctor."

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Ah so our problem is with women. Cheers for that completely wrong, stupid and ridiculous post.

Show me where I said that.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

"Wibbs and yourself make the more I see that your problem is of a different kind entirely and I'm wasting my time trying to engage you on it because it's a much bigger issue than Jodie Whittaker being the new Doctor."

Nope. I don't even use the word "women" there.

Listen, this is pointless, it's derailing the thread, I'm out.

The_Valeyard

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Nope. I don't even use the word "women" there.

Listen, this is pointless, it's derailing the thread, I'm out.

So, explain what my bigger problem is so?

Nope, cant?


And you dont need the word 'women' to be inferring certain things.

Wibbs

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Ah so our problem is with women.

Of course it is TV. We're clearly sexist dinosaurs because we call out obvious Right On pandering BS from the BBC*. While apparently others are happy to cheer a direction in a kid's show that they would rightfully be clawing at their breasts if it went the other direction.

Oh and IIRC Moffat himself used to publicly poo poo the notion of making the Doctor a woman.




*not just on the Woman Doctor, the show itself has been a pandering mess for one dimensional plastic diversity pretty much since Moffat took the reigns, but especially since Capaldi came along. Compare Captain Jack and Bill. The former is a more subtly developed more complex character(and saying subtle in the same sentence as John Barrowman... ). Bill is basically "I'm a lesbian. No really. I am. Nope. Defo don't like men in that way. Oh and my mum's dead. And Black". A large proportion of the writing under Moffat's reign is extremely weak and inconsistent in character. Including the Doctor. There is some leeway given because the Doc is an alien so he's "mysterious", but he often just comes across as a dick. For no good plot/character reasons either. Moffat can't do plot twists(or humour) that drive the narrative to save his life. Missy is the Master? No lead up, no foreshadowing, just "oh right, so you are. And a woman. And insane". A cardboard cutout chewing the scenery. Compare that to how it was handled when Tennant and RTD was in play. Lots of clues, Easter eggs laid about, but until the last minute when Jacobi opened that watch it was coming as a shock, but made perfect sense in retrospect. He did similar with Bad Wolf. Clues in plain sight coming together at the climax of the arc. Moffat's the impossible girl rip off of that plot device was far more hamfisted. As usual.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The_Valeyard wrote: »

So, explain what my bigger problem is so?

Nope, cant?


And you dont need the word 'women' to be inferring certain things.

I can't infer anything. You infer, I imply.

From your posts it seems that your issue is either HOW they're addressing gender diversity OR the fact that they're addressing it at all.

Other posters have engaged with the issues surrounding how they're doing it, to be fair even Wibbs had a go at engaging on that issue but both your posts keep coming back to the idea that there's some sort of left wing bra burning agenda at play here and it is pointless to keep going around in circles on it.

The_Valeyard

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I can't infer anything. You infer, I imply.

From your posts it seems that your issue is either HOW they're addressing gender diversity OR the fact that they're addressing it at all.

Other posters have engaged with the issues surrounding how they're doing it, to be fair even Wibbs had a go at engaging on that issue but both your posts keep coming back to the idea that there's some sort of left wing bra burning agenda at play here and it is pointless to keep going around in circles on it.

It just appears the reason for it is agenda driven not canon driven. I have said in the past id like to see Maggie Smith or Eva Green as The Doctor, but currently it feels like this is a move by BBC to satisfy the Guardian readership or something.

And to fit the canon it will need to explain why the previous 13 regens were all male, just to make it fit correctly. Like the way in Previous Season The Doctor spent time trying to figure out why he chose that face, his reason behind it. So when the changeover happens, it needs to make sense, and not simply be 'oh look im a woman now' approach and take away from The Doctor as The Doctor.

conorhal

mewso wrote: »

While I still watch I think I accepted a while ago that I'm just too old to get too bothered by any changes they make with Who. I'm not the target audience and haven't been in about 30 years. I was genuinely thrilled when Capaldi got the job because I didn't think they would ever give the job to an older actor but fair play they did. My worry now is that they won't dare do it again. I liked his take on it because I prefer the Doctor to be distant and, you know, alien.

As to the female in the room I'm open minded. I'm more concerned about Bignall to be honest. I thought the last series of Broadchurch was terrible so I'm not very confident. I get what Wibbs is saying and Doctor Who is full to the brim with various PC stuff but as I've said I don't get too worked up about it that much anymore. Would there have been children of African descent on the streets of Victorian London? Who cares to be honest. Female Doctor? Meh. I do sadly expect the male roles will remain bumbling fools in general but who know they might surprise me. They did by giving Capaldi the job.

Someone also mentioned Happy Valley as an example of well written drama featuring a female lead and I totally agree but where that show had a realistic and flawed female lead it's extremely rare and more often than not, as Wibbs has said, the female role has little to no obvious flaws. The danger here is that this new Doctor will be amazing in everything she does bamboozling those silly men as she goes. I look forward to be being proved wrong. Unlike Wibbs I'll give it a chance.

As somebody that hasn't really watched with any consistency since Eccleston was Dr. Who (the best since Baker IMHO) I've noted the 'controversy' with passing interest and a shrug.
I think what's most exercising people is the reason a woman was cast. It wasn't in service to fans or to the story but rather as an act of pandering.
Worse, it was pandering to noisy bunch of individuals that probably don't even watch the show. The BBC have gone and done what Marvel did a few years ago, with disastrous consequences for their sales figures, they pandered to advocacy groups that demanded diversity but the same people demanding it didn't bother to support what they demanded by actually buying the comics and the sales figures slumped in half. As far as they were concerned the fact that Iron Man was now a black woman meant ‘job done’, on to the next cause! The evidence for this regards Dr Who is that those who championed this change were still unhappy because of the ‘missed opportunity for casting a woman of colour’ in the role.

I think it could actually be cool if Dr Who’s writers actually acknowledge the gender swap as weird, go full Blake Edwards ‘Switch’, and have the Doctor’s reaction to suddenly being female be ‘what the actual f$%&?’ After all, there’s got to be some fun to be had an mileage to gain from this turn of events. I suspect, as you say, however they won’t and like Marvel you’ll end up with rather dull ‘empowering’ storylines by writers too afraid to actually give the character any flaws least a female Doctor seems less empowered than a male one. Viewer numbers will fall off as a result and this will be naturally blamed on sexism.
I also think they missed a trick in the casting, I'd rather they had gone with sombody more quirky and mercurial like a mooted Emma Thompson or Helena Bonham Carter.

The_Valeyard

And on a separate note, would they every release the soundtrack from season 9!!!!!!!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The_Valeyard wrote: »

And to fit the canon it will need to explain why the previous 13 regens were all male, just to make it fit correctly. Like the way in Previous Season The Doctor spent time trying to figure out why he chose that face, his reason behind it. So when the changeover happens, it needs to make sense, and not simply be 'oh look im a woman now' approach and take away from The Doctor as The Doctor.

Maybe they'll do that though. Maybe they'll spend time exploring it and why it never happened before. I don't really see how that explanation could be explored before it happened on the show. Like other than a few hints that it's entirely possible for a gender change upon regeneration how do you fit that into any of the previous Doctor's story lines without it seeming out of place?

I still take issue with the "it's not canon" argument when we've already seem Moffat change things that were previously canon and with flimsy reasoning.

And although it seems like an entirely unsubtle move to cast a woman I still think that with good writing it could actually be a much better way to address gender issues. As someone pointed out before a scene in the past where the psychic papers won't work because we're now seeing a female face could say more about gender issues than 10 badly written episodes where the male character is sidelined or ridiculed by a female one.

Good writing could go a long way to addressing some of the issues people have so I will be interested to see who they get on board.

exaisle

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Could a moderator fix the thread, whenever I click into it I'm back to page one.

No problem with the thread here....it's probably just a time loop.... ;-)

Penn

exaisle wrote: »

No problem with the thread here....it's probably just a time loop.... ;-)

On the touch site, because the thread was originally posted in another forum and moved here, it always brings me back to page one.

pixelburp

I feel like there's close to a no win situation here, or a very fine needle to thread at best. It comes across like some people are searching for, or at least wanting to find some agenda or discrepancy in the writing of the introductions, yet it's bound to come up anyway, even if it's the first time the docs previous incarnations get referenced. So where's the medium between addressing the regeneration cycle switching genders, and not over egging the pudding? Seems like whatever Chibnall comes up with it won't please some people

Someone posted a pic of an article from tom baker's time saying the next regen could be female. Interesting

Goodshape

Looking forward to next year when a few of the posters on this thread hold true to their promise and stop watching or contributing here.


One female in 50+ years of a character who's most defining characteristic is a total change of person every now and then? That's unacceptable?

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

bluewolf wrote: »

Someone posted a pic of an article from tom baker's time saying the next regen could be female. Interesting

I saw this too, I assume it's what you're talking about.

It's from 1986 when the BBC put the show on hiatus. The original co-creator, Sydney Newman, was asked for his thoughts and he sent a letter to the BBC.

He wrote to BBC Chairman Michael Grade, asking the BBC to”engage the concerns, fears and curiosity” of young viewers, challenging them “don’t you agree that this is considerably more worthy of the BBC than Doctor Who‘s presently largely socially valueless, escapist schlock!”

He first stated that they should rehire Patrick Troughton in the lead and then “at a later stage Doctor Who should be metamorphosed into a woman” but that he wanted to “avoid a flashy, Hollywood Wonder Women because this kind of heroine with no flaws is a bore. Given more time than I have now, I can create such a character.”

Goodshape

bluewolf wrote: »

Someone posted a pic of an article from tom baker's time saying the next regen could be female. Interesting

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/doctor-who/246974/doctor-who-female-lead-was-considered-in-1986

denofgeek.com wrote:

Doctor Who creator Sydney Newman considered the idea in October 1986.

He mentioned the possibility of a gender change in a letter to BBC One's controller of the time, Michael Grade. Newman wrote that "at a later stage, Dr. Who would be metamorphosed into a woman."

LionelNashe

One of my earliest memories is getting a routine vaccination of some sort, probably before my fourth birthday, and I said that the woman with the needle couldn't be a doctor because she was a woman. Then, she gave me the injection and it hurt more than I expected, and I thought she might have made it hurt as revenge for my comment. I learned my lesson. I have no objection.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

To lighten the mood a bit...... Any thoughts on who we'd like to see as a companion?

We have pretty much no information about the new series so thoughts on what kind of companion or even just actors you'd like to see on the show?

I'm happy to keep the male/female dynamic as long as there's no romantic stuff going on.

She had good rapport with her Adult Life Skills co star so perhaps a small boy who dresses as a cowboy?