General Ongoing Doctor Discussion

pixelburp

Mod note: Ok, I think this thread is getting a little off topic at this stage: there's overlapping discussion to be had about representation in TV & Film and appreciate it's somewhat relevant & topical, but it's dominating the discussion too much at this stage for what is in effect a Casting Announcement thread.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I wonder will anyone from the show be at Comicon, that's coming up now, I think?

pixelburp

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I wonder will anyone from the show be at Comicon, that's coming up now, I think?

Jul 20, 2017 - Jul 23 supposedly; I've seen no mention of any booth or presence. I can't imagine there'd be much to report at this stage as beyond the announcement, I'm not even sure if Whittaker's first scene has been filmed: I presumed it had but the director of the Xmas Episode (Rachel Talalay) claimed not to know who the new Doctor was. Could have been playing coy of course

The Master

Word on the street is JW's part of the regeneration will be filmed in November when the full series filming begins and that that'll be edited into the Xmas special

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ The brief Q&A from Saturday said that Whittaker didn't know what her costume would be yet as they hadn't started work on anything like that. If you believe that then they're obviously not that far into the process for next series.

I read something the other day about when RTD/Tennant were handing over to Mofatt/Smith that Mofatt was allowed to do the brief introduction scene for his new Doctor, so it's possible that the Christmas episode has been shot up to the end and Chibnal/Whittaker will do a brief scene separately to be added on at the end. So entirely possible that people working on the Christmas ep didn't know who it was. Or, they were all lying about it

AtomicHorror

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

^ The brief Q&A from Saturday said that Whittaker didn't know what her costume would be yet as they hadn't started work on anything like that. If you believe that then they're obviously not that far into the process for next series.

Yeah but 13 will presumably be wearing a version of 12's clothes in her only scenes.

gizmo81

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Off topic here but.....An interesting one of late is the casting of Naomi Scott as Jasmine in the new live action Aladdin film. She is British but of Indian heritage. Jasmine is, of course, a middle eastern character. Some people are really annoyed that they didn't cast a middle Eastern actress, some people are thinking "at least they didn't cast a white actress" and others are thinking "they're all brown, what's the problem?".

I saw this on Independent UK, I don't understand this argument, people migrate, Agrabah is a fictional place.

Princess Jasmine is a fictional character, people should pick their battles.

It's like the Doctor Who backlash, the character is an alien. I just don't understand the uproar.

The_Valeyard

gizmo81 wrote: »

I saw this on Independent UK, I don't understand this argument, people migrate, Agrabah is a fictional place.

Princess Jasmine is a fictional character, people should pick their battles.

It's like the Doctor Who backlash, the character is an alien. I just don't understand the uproar.

Didnt the American public vote to bomb Agrabah a few years ago?

gizmo81

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Didnt the American public vote to bomb Agrabah a few years ago?

Yes they did.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/18/republican-voters-bomb-agrabah-disney-aladdin-donald-trump

AtomicHorror

gizmo81 wrote: »

I saw this on Independent UK, I don't understand this argument, people migrate, Agrabah is a fictional place.

Princess Jasmine is a fictional character, people should pick their battles.

It's like the Doctor Who backlash, the character is an alien. I just don't understand the uproar.

The problem is that Agrabah and the people of Agrabah resemble a vaguely iffy mishmash of nations and cultures from across a region larger than Europe.

How do you authentically cast for what was already an unintentionally racist depiction of somewhere vaguely middle-eastern to south-asian?

Doctor DooM

Is this the first time a Doctor has been shown "in character" before they've nailed down the costume in the new series, instead of press shots?

Doctor DooM

Answer my own question: No, we saw Capaldi's eyes in the 50th...

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

gizmo81 wrote: »

I saw this on Independent UK, I don't understand this argument, people migrate, Agrabah is a fictional place.

Princess Jasmine is a fictional character, people should pick their battles.

It's like the Doctor Who backlash, the character is an alien. I just don't understand the uproar.

I can see how an actor of Middle Eastern ethnicity could feel hard done by when an opportunity to play something other than a terrorist, wife of terrorist, put upon Muslim etc. passes them by.
The interesting thing with Scott is although she is of Indian heritage on her mother's side her mother was actually born in Africa. I believe go to Indian actor of the moment Dev Patel has similar heritage, as does Indian director Gurinder Chadha. So we can just assume Agrabah was colonized by the British at some point and that makes her casting fine.

I believe the original open casting call that went out for this specified "Middle Eastern" so it seems like they at least made more of an effort that something like Gods of Egypt or Exodus: Gods and Kings did recently.

I get the "pick your battles" argument and would probably mostly agree but at the same time, as I said above, it's not often someone of Middle Eastern origin gets the opportunity to play the lead in something this big.

Anyway... we're veering off topic again

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yeah but 13 will presumably be wearing a version of 12's clothes in her only scenes.

Yes, that's true, just because she doesn't know what her actual look will be doesn't mean she hasn't filmed the regeneration scene.

pixelburp

I think in that promo Whittaker filmed she was wearing Capaldis hoodie and overcoat. Though even if not I suspect it was a quickly cobbled together advert anyway. They usually just hurry the actor in for some photoshoots.

Does the beg the question as to what she might wear. It's not like the Doctor's clothing sticks to fashions so it's unlikely to be anything you'd see on the high street, but I wonder just how feminine her styling might be. Could raise problems for prospective male cosplayers

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

pixelburp wrote: »

I think in that promo Whittaker filmed she was wearing Capaldis hoodie and overcoat. Though even if not I suspect it was a quickly cobbled together advert anyway. They usually just hurry the actor in for some photoshoots.

Does the beg the question as to what she might wear. It's not like the Doctor's clothing sticks to fashions so it's unlikely to be anything you'd see on the high street, but I wonder just how feminine her styling might be. Could raise problems for prospective male cosplayers

A small part of me would like them to go full glam on it, cocktail dress, high heals etc. just to see how far cosplayers are willing to go

Das Kitty

Someone was asking if Time Lords are a species earlier. I think--and I'm not 100% sure where I read or heard this, but I reckon it was a canon source-- Time Lords are a class of Gallifreyan. There are Gallifreyans who are not Time Lords.

I'd be interested to see if Chibnall has the Doctor calling herself a Time Lady.

I would have preferred if the Master had kept that name when she became a woman. But then again, the Master is exactly the sort of character who would go and rename him/herself for sh1ts and giggles. That and dress like Mary Poppins!

I'm not mad keen on Chibnall's scripts in the past. But if he is crud, I think a lot of the fingers could point at Jodie instead. So I hope he surprises me for an extra reason.

It might return to the kids show roots, because more often than not during Capaldi's run, I haven't been able to show it to my kid.

conorhal

Goodshape wrote: »

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.

I know you'd prefer to characterize fans that disagree with this decision as bitter, but Jesus that rant sounds bitter, the bitterness of somebody that feels the need to destroy depictions of masculinity where possible, because it's not a 'win' otherwise. That's pretty sad.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Das Kitty wrote: »

Someone was asking if Time Lords are a species earlier. I think--and I'm not 100% sure where I read or heard this, but I reckon it was a canon source-- Time Lords are a class of Gallifreyan. There are Gallifreyans who are not Time Lords.

Didn't the Doctor steal the Tardis? As in he was not supposed to actually be a Time Lord?

Das Kitty

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Didn't the Doctor steal the Tardis? As in he was not supposed to actually be a Time Lord?

He did rob it, yeah. I think the idea with the Tardises is that they were meant for full crews to go on very boring missions. The Doctor has given plenty of different explanations as to why he ran off, but there's no definitive real reason.

He is a fully fledged Time Lord though. He has gazed into the untempered schism.

AtomicHorror

conorhal wrote: »

I know you'd prefer to characterize fans that disagree with this decision as bitter, but Jesus that rant sounds bitter, the bitterness of somebody that feels the need to destroy depictions of masculinity where possible, because it's not a 'win' otherwise. That's pretty sad.

How did you get that from his comment?

He seems to want the critics to go away, which is pretty far from wanting to "destroy depictions of masculinity" whatever that even means.

The critics will never go away, and we need them, but in this case it would be very nice to see their dire predictions unravel, and there's no bitterness in wanting something new to turn out well.

conorhal

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How did you get that from his comment?

He seems to want the critics to go away, which is pretty far from wanting to "destroy depictions of masculinity" whatever that even means.

The critics will never go away, and we need them, but in this case it would be very nice to see their dire predictions unravel, and there's no bitterness in wanting something new to turn out well.

Who says those demanding (and they did demand it) this change have any interest in 'something new to turning out well'?
That comment isn't interested in anything turning out well. It's interested in taking something that turned out well and using it, because they're bitter that it did turn out well. They aren't interested in Dr Who, they're interested in some ideological victory and couldn't care less if things turn out well so long as it doesn't for anybody that cares. That's pretty much the definition of bitter.
It was a decision driven by the gendered envy and hatred of a male success. Which is why third wave feminism is dying, because it's mired in bitterness.

jasonb

So, I made it to last night without finding out who the new Doctor was. Then, while looking up a review of the most recent Twin Peaks episode for my Wife (and let's face it, Twin Peaks is a program that you need to get online analysis about after each episode!) I was hit with pics/links all about Jodie as the new Doctor. I was raging, it didn't even occur to me when going to the site that I might find out, which shows how tired I was; of course 'Den of Geek' was going to have Doctor Who stories!

So anyhow, now that I know, I spent about an hour catching up on this thread, and clearly the announcement has caused a lot of response, some of it emotional.

Personally whether the Doctor is male or female doesn't really bother me. I only started watching from 'Rose' onwards, but I'm pretty much used to the cycle now:

I don't like this new Doctor, it's not the same
Actually, they're not bad
Actually, I really like them
Bugger, they're leaving
I don't like this new Doctor, it's not the same

So, for me, male/female is just another change, like young/old, or Scottish but with an English accent/English/Scottish with a Scottish accent.

As for Jodie in particular, I quite like her, she's been good in anything I've seen her in, and it probably doesn't hurt that I find her cute. Of course, part of me thinks that's a rather 'sexist' opinion to have when judging a new Doctor but I assume female and gay fans have found previous Doctors cute and have liked them all the more for that too, so I'm letting myself off the hook.

As others have said, when it comes down to it, for me it'll be all based on 'is it any good or not', and that will depend on a lot of things, not least the new show runner. I'll tune in and see what the season is like.

Regarding the speculation about could she be a 'temp' Doctor, for only an episode or two, I think that would be excellent if they kept it all under wraps, and we'd get a real surprise regeneration. But, now that they've picked a female doctor, I don't think it will happen, as it would only confirm some people's view that it's a gimmick, and with the added pressure on Jodie of being the first female to play the role (Doctor Donna not withstanding) it would be unfair on her to only give her a couple of episodes. For the idea of a temp Doctor to work, it would either have to be a big name (like the War Doctor) or a 'predictable' male actor (a lot of people thought Kris Marshall was getting the job) who would then be replaced by Jodie after a couple of episodes.

TLDR: I don't mind what the gender is, I like Jodie as an actor, I'll watch it to see how it goes, and I wish I'd been able to get to the Christmas episode without knowing!

pixelburp

Das Kitty wrote: »

Someone was asking if Time Lords are a species earlier. I think--and I'm not 100% sure where I read or heard this, but I reckon it was a canon source-- Time Lords are a class of Gallifreyan. There are Gallifreyans who are not Time Lords.

I think so: in Hell Bent we saw ordinary folk in the countryside, presumably they're 'just' Gallifreyans, while I do recall in the (admittedly non-canon) Virgin / BBC novels before the show came back that Time Lords were a bunch of Houses and a particular class of Gallifreyan; not sure about the regeneration portion, if that's exclusive to the Time Lords, cos if it is it certainly casts the race in a new, less egalitarian light.

Das Kitty wrote: »

It might return to the kids show roots, because more often than not during Capaldi's run, I haven't been able to show it to my kid.

Yeah I can imagine; Moffat's tenure has got darker and darker as he has gone along, and certainly even I was taken aback at how grisly some moments were in Series 10. Honestly I kinda liked it and recalled the Doctor Whos of yesteryear that delighted in giving kids a scare

jasonb wrote: »

So, I made it to last night without finding out who the new Doctor was. Then, while looking up a review of the most recent Twin Peaks episode for my Wife (and let's face it, Twin Peaks is a program that you need to get online analysis about after each episode!) I was hit with pics/links all about Jodie as the new Doctor. I was raging, it didn't even occur to me when going to the site that I might find out, which shows how tired I was; of course 'Den of Geek' was going to have Doctor Who stories!

Ironically, the BBC ended up making the least amount of fuss over the announcement compared with other years; no waffly 30 minute 'live' show or build-up - just bam, there it was. I guess they knew rightly it was going to cause a huge amount of chatter anyway, so why prolong it?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

pixelburp wrote: »

Ironically, the BBC ended up making the least amount of fuss over the announcement compared with other years; no waffly 30 minute 'live' show or build-up - just bam, there it was. I guess they knew rightly it was going to cause a huge amount of chatter anyway, so why prolong it?

I was surprised they didn't keep it for Comic Con. Would have been a pretty spectacular piece of news to break there. But as you say they must have known it would get enough attention anyway and also that there would be some negative attention too. No need to put anyone directly in the firing line of that so soon.

It's a shame they can't keep the identity of the new Doctor secret right up until he/she appears on screen but I suppose once they get to a certain point in production it becomes impossible to keep it secret.

pixelburp

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I was surprised they didn't keep it for Comic Con. Would have been a pretty spectacular piece of news to break there. But as you say they must have known it would get enough attention anyway and also that there would be some negative attention too. No need to put anyone directly in the firing line of that so soon.

It's a shame they can't keep the identity of the new Doctor secret right up until he/she appears on screen but I suppose once they get to a certain point in production it becomes impossible to keep it secret.

I can't help but cynically wonder that they didn't do a public announcement on the verrrrrrrry slim chance the reaction from an audience would cause heckling or disruption. Safe to say the choice has been divisive if nothing else, and while the overall reaction has been positive, and I'm certainly not suggesting those against Whittaker are agitators or anything, Comic-Con is a pretty intense, pressurised distillation of geek culture: it'd only take 2 or 3 belligerent a$$holes on either side of the argument to cause a scene.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Completely irrelevant but I'm just seeing the BBC salaries that were released today. Doctor Who not a high paying job it seems.

Goodshape

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Completely irrelevant but I'm just seeing the BBC salaries that were released today. Doctor Who not a high paying job it seems.

£200k to £250k? It's not bad to be honest! There aren't many drama actors in a higher bracket.

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40653861

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Goodshape wrote: »

£200k to £250k? It's not bad to be honest! There aren't many drama actors in a higher bracket.

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40653861

Well, it's higher paid than anything I'll ever do but I'm surprised it's not more. Although he does get money from BBC Worldwide and possibly the production company too, but it's still considerably lower than I thought it would be.

My expectations of actor's pay is probably influenced by US TV shows, to be fair.

ixoy

That salary is poor by the standard of a US network, especially for a highly visible lead. Game of Thrones stars get $1 million an episode. Dropping down a tier, someone like Stephen Amell (Arrow) would get at least half a million a year.
It's relevant because it'd show they'd never get certain actors who are now working in the US where they can earn a lot more.