General Ongoing Doctor Discussion

spookwoman

pixelburp wrote: »

Twitter is the ultimate in confirmation bias. No, I'll go one further, it's a garbage fire : look hard enough and you'll always find the worst aspects of any particular viewpoint. But choosing to believe those are the main opinions, or indeed ammunition in deciding to denounce those you disagree with, is just as unfriendly and counter productive as those screaming 'sexist'

But that's the thing Twitter etc is watched to see what's the latest thing and when you have the constant "sexist" not for having a female etc then it can influence who or what is cast. This just feels like they are dumbing the show down and casting for gender rather than the story.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Yourself isit wrote: »

It's it even filmed in Cardiff anymore? I don't see BBC Cymru on the logo anymore. They don't feature Cardiff.

Anyway It's a small island. London is only a few hours away, England only 30 minutes away. Bristol and bath are commutable. Not that Cardiff is that bad.

In the Q&A Whittaker did yesterday she mentioned Cardiff so I assume it is.
It's not that there's anything wrong with Cardiff it's just that it's not really a commutable job so you're based away from home for roughly 9 months a year. Depending on what your family situation is that's not an option for some people, or at least requires a bit of thought.

The Master

Some great posts in this thread.
Great to see so many posts in the forum and the casting choice has done the job of getting discussion going and raising interest in the show.

I'm delighted with the choice and look forward to seeing what direction the show takes and how Jodie Whittaker will put her stamp on the role

However

I personally believe anyone who thinks Jodie was chosen for the role based on her acting ability is completely off the mark.
A female choice of doctor is a gimmick. Simple as.

As usual with Dr who/bbc the casting choice was incestuous nepotism. Chibnall was showrunner on Broadchurch and he picked an actor from that show to be the lead in this one.

The Time Lords/ High Council of Gallifrey did not choose the gender of this incarnation of the doctor, Chibnall and the beeb did.

It's a gimmicky ratings grab that hopefully will be looked back on as a great decision

Hopefully it pays off and JW is given some good scripts and stories to work with and the show is the better for it.

Time will tell.....

Lord TSC

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

But the problem with that logic is you're applying human ideas of sexuality onto two alien characters. Has there ever been anything canonically stated about the mating system on Gallifrey? Has it been established that the concepts of heterosexuality or homosexuality exist in the same way it does for humans? Also, it's not like Doctor Who is a very sexual show, are the target audience going to be thinking along those lines?

I always found the River Song stuff a bit confusing, to be honest, but wasn't there something about her travelling backwards through the Doctor's timeline, so it's possible she already knows about 13?

River can come back as a dude. Problem solved :pac:

The Master wrote: »

I personally believe anyone who thinks Jodie was chosen for the role based on her acting ability is completely off the mark.
A female choice of doctor is a gimmick. Simple as.

Counter point.

Say they went with the idea hey wanted a woman first, good actress second.

There's a couple of billion women on Earth to choose from, and she won the role. She was chosen as the best choice, because Chibnell trusted her ability, even if it was from a pre-limited list.

The Master

Lord TSC wrote: »

Say they went with the idea hey wanted a woman first, good actress second.

Hence it being a gimmick.

Choosing the gender of the role before choosing an actor is crazy.

Think of all the fantastic actors out there that could potentially have been wonderful in the role but weren't considered because it had to be a woman.
Not to say Jodie may not be fantastic in the role

neonsofa

The Master wrote: »

Hence it being a gimmick.

Choosing the gender of the role before choosing an actor is crazy.

Think of all the fantastic actors out there that could potentially have been wonderful in the role but weren't considered because it had to be a woman.
Not to say Jodie may not be fantastic in the role

Has that not been happening to all the wonderful actresses who may have been perfect for the role up to this point?

Goodshape

I think calling it a gimmick is a bit too convenient an argument.

If the definition of "gimmick" is to make choices that increase interest in and viewership of the show... then, of course it's a gimmick. So was the cool modern Doctor in the leather jacket, and the young good looking smart-aleck, and the zany one with the hats and bow-ties. Maybe only Capaldi was in any way "traditional" Doctor Who casting.

So yeah, they looked at the ratings, at the demographics, at societies pulse, and made a decision like they always do.

It's not really an argument at all because it's nothing new. And they should have done the female "gimmick" a long time ago. After Tennant could have been perfect.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I read something today that said Whittaker wasn't even in the top 100 names backed at the bookies until Saturday when all of a sudden she was 2nd favourite. Wonder how that works? Does the promo show up at BBC on Saturday and staff suddenly have to run out for a smoke?
Same thing apparently happened with Smith and Capaldi before they were announced.

The Master

neonsofa wrote: »

Has that not been happening to all the wonderful actresses who may have been perfect for the role up to this point?

In a word, No

The Master

Goodshape wrote: »

If the definition of "gimmick" is to make choices that increase interest in and viewership of the show... then, of course it's a gimmick.

So it's a gimmick then?

neonsofa

The Master wrote: »

In a word, No

Well when you put it that way, you've completely swayed my opinion! :pac:

The Master

neonsofa wrote: »

Well when you put it that way, you've completely swayed my opinion! :pac:

The Master says "obey"

Goodshape

The Master wrote: »

So it's a gimmick then?

It's the same as it's always been.[/political-answer]

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The Master wrote: »

So it's a gimmick then?

A gimmick is by definition "a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or trade."

TV is a business. Everything they do is to attract attention and trade. People seem to see "gimmick" as a negative thing but it's just a part of business.

The Master

So this is the first regeneration used purely as a gimmick.

Hopefully JW is the doctor we all wish her to be

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The Master wrote: »

So this is the first regeneration used purely as a gimmick.

Hopefully JW is the doctor we all wish her to be

The whole concept of regeneration is a gimmick in itself.

Yourself isit

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I read something today that said Whittaker wasn't even in the top 100 names backed at the bookies until Saturday when all of a sudden she was 2nd favourite. Wonder how that works? Does the promo show up at BBC on Saturday and staff suddenly have to run out for a smoke?
Same thing apparently happened with Smith and Capaldi before they were announced.

Definitely a leak.

Yourself isit

The Master wrote: »

So it's a gimmick then?

You have an interesting avatar, master, given your thoughts on the gender of this time lord.

LordSutch

With the announcement of a female Doctor Who, surely the title 'Time Lord' is a misnomer, seeing as she will be a Lady, and (not a Lord).

Time Lady.

connemara man

LordSutch wrote: »

With the announcement of a female Doctor Who, surely the title 'Time Lord' is a misnomer, seeing as she will be a Lady, and (not a Lord).

Time Lady.

The time lords are the species I thought so not gender specific

Sleepy

FunLover18 wrote: »

Sorry but I still don't understand why gender is so important. It's not like up until this point little girls have never watched the show. I think the trend in this thread that boys need male role models and girls need female models is far more worrying and setting an example to young people that such a small thing as a gender swap is worth giving up on something you love is pretty damning because if a young boy were to read some posts of this thread if be very worried that they'd think they can't like Doctor Who anymore because it's a girl.

I've not said I'm giving up on the show because of the casting. I'm just against gender swapping established characters for the sole purpose of placating feminists. I'd be just as against making Lyra Belacqua a boy in a reboot of His Dark Materials in order to placate MRA's.

And you'll have to forgive me if I come across as old fashioned but yes, I do think that boys need positive male role models. The vast majority of children in a hetero-normative family look to thier parent of the same gender as their primary role model from a very young age and the trend continues as they grow. My 8 year old daughter actually stated that she loved the recent Wonder Woman reboot "because she's a girl". (Her brother loved it too btw.)

As much as some vocal minorities would like us to believe, society is not, never has been and never will be genderless. Our legal systems, social policies, educational opportunities, employment frameworks etc. should, of course, be entirely gender-blind but it's naieve imo to believe that the vast majority of young boys won't look to men as their main role models and the vast majority of young girls won't first look to women as theirs no matter how much the professional gender warriors would like them not to. There are, of course, exceptions to every generality. Some children will be gender-blind when choosing their role models and, once those role-models are positive, that's wonderful and should never be discouraged.

We need more positive male role models that don't automatically turn to violence as their primary means of dealing with problems. We need more female role models of that bent for that matter too (it's a bugbear of mine that most of the "strong" female characters we see in movies are all-powerful Mary Sue's that kick lumps out of their (all too often male) enemies rather than out-maneouver them with intellect). I see making The Doctor female as attempting to take a positive step in addressing the latter problem by taking a negative step in the former.

Sleepy

connemara man wrote: »

The time lords are the species I thought so not gender specific

I wasn't a huge watcher of the original series but I'm pretty sure Romana was considered a Time Lady?

Though perhaps they're all Timelords in the same sense that all humans are part of Mankind? Maybe they had their own gender issues back in the day?

Goodshape

LordSutch wrote: »

With the announcement of a female Doctor Who, surely the title 'Time Lord' is a misnomer, seeing as she will be a Lady, and (not a Lord).

Time Lady.

I could be mistaken but isn't it "The Doctor, a Time Lord" in the same way you might say "El Chapo, a drug lord". If that's the case then "lord" is gender neutral.

In the case of a title, like "Lord Sugar", then it is gendered – but I don't think it's "Time Lord Doctor"

Silver Lynel

I had a few thoughts on this "controversy".

I have been wondering what the reaction would have been if, say, the 6th Doctor had been a woman? So if instead of Colin Baker in 1984 we got a female actress instead. Would there have been such a controversy back then? Given the general content of the show would it have been seen as a pretty interesting angle?

What if even the eleventh doctor, replacing David Tennant, had been announced as being a woman back in 2010? Would it have been such a big controversial deal?

My feeling here is that the "outrage" we are seeing is because it really does feel like there has been an increasingly aggressive push for representation. Don't get me wrong, representation is a good thing. However, some of those who are most vocal in support of representation are actually sometimes horrible, aggressive, bullies. It can be disheartening to see those bullies get a "win".

To illustrate this, a website I follow shared the newest Blade Runner trailer yesterday. The very first comment under the trailer was "how’s your movie gonna show an all-white California in 2050? Seriously? How is this movie more white than the original version?". So immediately the movie is being criticized for having either too many white people or not enough non-white people.

There are people for whom this is the first place their mind goes to.

So it's clear that if you are a fan of a TV show there are other fans who are constantly nagging at the shows creators to put things into the show or to change the show to suit their preferences or ideals.

It's no big deal to think that the people creating a TV show are listening to some fans and ignoring others. On the other hand, the idea that certain groups of fans have the power to influence the nature of the show going forward is maybe a little bit frustrating and annoying? Where would that stop? Should Supernatural, Doctor Who and Sherlock just have a big cross over series where the characters are all having sex with each other because there was a push from opinionated fans?

The problem here is that plenty of people knew this change was obviously coming but they do not like the way it has come only after "lobbying" from certain movements. Movements that may actually be filled with quite irrational and unreasonably stubborn people.

If you Google "Doctor Who" now the top results contain.

"Doctor Who: Merriam-Webster perfectly shut down sexist trolls of the show."
"A female Doctor? She's the revolutionary Feminist we need right now."

So, to be honest, these are the types of people the shows creators have decided to pander too and, again, I feel like everybody knew this was coming. It's quite understandable if people are worried that the future of the show will contain an awful lot of Feminism related preaching.

I think this is the fundamental reason why many people are annoyed. It's not that there is a female Doctor. It's WHY there is a female doctor now.

I think that the problem comes with taking a beloved series that has a wide reaching appeal and then allowing a narrow interest group to dictate what should be in the show so that it may avoid being "problematic". Or it least it appears that way. I'm accepting here that I could have my own bias and could be reading too much into things.

I think that constant whining about female representation from certain interest groups has made people react negatively when it seems like those groups are actually getting their way.

And, of course, it's never enough.

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/886653343493312512

pixelburp

Sleepy wrote: »

[...]

We need more positive male role models that don't automatically turn to violence as their primary means of dealing with problems. We need more female role models of that bent for that matter too (it's a bugbear of mine that most of the "strong" female characters we see in movies are all-powerful Mary Sue's that kick lumps out of their (all too often male) enemies rather than out-maneouver them with intellect). I see making The Doctor female as attempting to take a positive step in addressing the latter problem by taking a negative step in the former.

I think there's a danger of over-emphasising the (male) Doctor's importance as a role model to boys/men. As mentioned previously in the thread, the impact of the Doctor just isn't as strong as it used to be compared with others such as Harry Potter, and pop culture in general has changed a lot since what was arguably Dr. Who's heyday of the 1970s.

To take a crude example from another geek franchise: we're a long way from the days of James T. Kirk being the celebrated hero, and the template for Star Trek's leading men lean towards much more thoughtful, complicated types such as Picard or Sisko.

While the Alpha Male knucklehead hero still exists, they're tending to be second-tier characters now, the 'brawn' in the grouping or narrative, acknowledged as a bit damaged or limited & certainly not to be celebrated: again to take an example from popular SciFi, you look to someone like Amos from The Expanse; a borderline psychopathic 'shoot first ask questions later' type of person, who once upon a time might have been the hero in this sort of story, not content to play by our rules. Instead the lead male is Holden: idealistic to a fault, and someone who recognises the slippery slope of violence, avoiding it if he can.

Equally, if there's a (arguably overused) template in US Network TV at the moment, it's the "Stoic cop matched with Eccentric (sometimes British) genius". Said genii aren't always perfect or someone to hero-worship perhaps, but Sherlock from Elementary, Crane from Sleepy Hollow, Rick Castle, Lucifer etc., are characters not immediately taken to solving their problems with violence, and favour intelligence, savviness or whatever to win the day. Fiction has changed.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Silver Lynel wrote: »

There are people for whom this is the first place their mind goes to.

Most likely people who are still not seeing themselves represented in TV and film.

So it's clear that if you are a fan of a TV show there are other fans who are constantly nagging at the shows creators to put things into the show or to change the show to suit their preferences or ideals.

It's no big deal to think that the people creating a TV show are listening to some fans and ignoring others. On the other hand, the idea that certain groups of fans have the power to influence the nature of the show going forward is maybe a little bit frustrating and annoying? Where would that stop? Should Supernatural, Doctor Who and Sherlock just have a big cross over series where the characters are all having sex with each other because there was a push from opinionated fans?

There is a huge difference between pandering to fan-fiction writers on Tumblr and listening to calls for better representation. I know lots of show runners who do allow themselves to be influenced by overly vocal internet fans when it comes to character relationships or story lines and that is the worst thing you can do as a writer or show runner. It has ruined plenty of decent TV shows. However it is not at all the same thing as actively casting more diverse actors in your show because your already diverse fans would like to be better represented onscreen. Particularly when it's a show like Doctor Who that has a built in gimmick that allows you to change your leads on a regular basis.

The problem here is that plenty of people knew this change was obviously coming but they do not like the way it has come only after "lobbying" from certain movements. Movements that may actually be filled with quite irrational and unreasonably stubborn people.

How do you know it came only from lobbying? Chris Chibnall was only appointed as show runner fairly recently and he said that personally he always planned to have a female Doctor. So were people lobbying him before he was even appointed?

And, of course, it's never enough.

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/886653343493312512

While women and POC are still ridiculously underrepresented in film and TV it is not enough. How many Doctors and companions have there been through the years? The Doctor has always been a white man and how many of the companions have been white women? How many black characters have been on the show for more than a one off role? I count 3.

pixelburp

On the subject of the BBC n' all, the notion of creative inspiration and the relative cynicism towards any gimmickry in TV, Films, scripts etc.: if an idea doesn't necessarily come from the purity of artistic inspiration - the writer him/herself - does or should it become automatically redundant or demeaned?

I mean sure, even if we run with the theory that whole concept of a female doctor is part of some mandate or agenda from the BBC, there's still the base pragmatism of a head writer requiring to be on-board with the idea: after all, no more than any other job, as much as management may want something, it still falls to the grunts in the trenches to make these things work & ship a successful final product.

Accepting that there's any ulterior motive coming from on high, ultimately there's really only 2 possibilities born from this: either Chris Chibnell hates the idea (or at best doesn't like it), and is trying to mould something despite his reservations, or is intrigued enough by the challenge or conceit that he gives his all to turn it into a workable narrative.

It's not an entirely original idea to have the Doctor female in the first place: as mentioned Tom Baker broached the idea way back in the 80s, though admittedly it has otherwise tended to be plumbed for comedy (Comic Relief & Joanna Lumley for example, or there was a Big Finish audio, 'Exile' with Arabella Weir as the Doctor), so conceptually it exists, and it's not hard to imagine many creative, imaginative Dr. Who writers playing with the idea already; what IF the Doctor was female? How would that work?

Basically, I'm going the long way around to coming back to what I think should be the main mantra here: "we should probably give it a chance", because at the end of the day, regardless of what motive is behind the decision, the reality is that the writers are going to have to come up with something; make it palatable, and make it entertaining to the audience - that's the real yardstick here, and what the series will be judged on in retrospect. In 10 years time when (presumably) the hubbub is long gone, that's how people will likely look back on the season.

Was it actually any good?

Silver Lynel

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Most likely people who are still not seeing themselves represented in TV and film.

Dude, I almost NEVER see myself represented in TV and film but when the newest trailer for the newest thing drops I don't automatically think "ah, looks like I'm not represented once again" and start whining about it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

How do you know it came only from lobbying? Chris Chibnall was only appointed as show runner fairly recently and he said that personally he always planned to have a female Doctor. So were people lobbying him before he was even appointed?

I don't know. That's why I tried to ask how people think a female doctor would have been received in the 1980s or in 2010.

For me there is an appearance that this decision was made due to pressure.


I also think it's interesting to note how people who don't like this change are portrayed.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

pixelburp wrote: »

I think there's a danger of over-emphasising the (male) Doctor's importance as a role model to boys/men. As mentioned previously in the thread, the impact of the Doctor just isn't as strong as it used to be compared with others such as Harry Potter, and pop culture in general has changed a lot since what was arguably Dr. Who's heyday of the 1970s.

To take a crude example from another geek franchise: we're a long way from the days of James T. Kirk being the celebrated hero, and the template for Star Trek's leading men lean towards much more thoughtful, complicated types such as Picard or Sisko.

While the Alpha Male knucklehead hero still exists, they're tending to be second-tier characters now, the 'brawn' in the grouping or narrative, acknowledged as a bit damaged or limited & certainly not to be celebrated: again to take an example from popular SciFi, you look to someone like Amos from The Expanse; a borderline psychopathic 'shoot first ask questions later' type of person, who once upon a time might have been the hero in this sort of story, not content to play by our rules. Instead the lead male is Holden: idealistic to a fault, and someone who recognises the slippery slope of violence, avoiding it if he can.

Equally, if there's a (arguably overused) template in US Network TV at the moment, it's the "Stoic cop matched with Eccentric (sometimes British) genius". Said genii aren't always perfect or someone to hero-worship perhaps, but Sherlock from Elementary, Crane from Sleepy Hollow, Rick Castle, Lucifer etc., are characters not immediately taken to solving their problems with violence, and favour intelligence, savviness or whatever to win the day. Fiction has changed.

The other thing I wonder about this "no positive role models for boys" angle is what age group are they talking about with this? Very young kids aren't watching late night TV, or I'd hope they're not. They shouldn't be getting exposure to things where violence is frequent in problem solving. If you're talking about teenagers, well, in this day and age they have access to more media content than previous generations and are probably beyond the age of being influenced by Doctor Who anyway.

I think the thing people fail to acknowledge time and again is that Doctor Who is essentially a TV show for children, or for family viewing at least. And as numerous posters have pointed out already if we're still teaching small children that they can only aspire to be like people who look like them then we're doing something very wrong.

There have been generations of girls, of black children, of Asian children, that grew up without ever seeing themselves reflected on screen or seeing themselves reflected positively on screen. But now the idea that young white boys might not see a positive male role model on one specific show seems like a terrible thing to do. So maybe for one series they don't get to dress up as the current Doctor, there are still 12 other options there to choose from, and Netflix and DVDs and hours of repeats to tide them over.

Silver Lynel

pixelburp wrote: »

It's not an entirely original idea to have the Doctor female in the first place: as mentioned Tom Baker broached the idea way back in the 80s, though admittedly it has otherwise tended to be plumbed for comedy (Comic Relief & Joanna Lumley for example, or there was a Big Finish audio, 'Exile' with Arabella Weir as the Doctor), so conceptually it exists, and it's not hard to imagine many creative, imaginative Dr. Who writers playing with the idea already; what IF the Doctor was female? How would that work?

Maybe I wasn't being very clear, and was rambling a bit too much, but I was also trying to get at this point.

I think that the idea of a female doctor has been there for a long time and I think that for a long time there would have been no backlash to be honest.

I think in the current environment it seems like the decision is there for some kind of ideological reason and so many people are treating it like some kind of political victory. That's strange and I would totally see it as something that could rub people the wrong way.

I don't think a female doctor is a bad decision by any means. I think it's clear to see where any skepticism is coming from though.