BBC Approved Spoilers
23 October 2017 at 13:16 #62212janetteB @janetteb
I am now at the point where I cannot comment until I see the actors in character, and have given them a couple of episodes to really fill out their roles. Still not at all convinced by Bradley Walsh but he clearly loves the show and I hope will bring something good to it.
Whether the crowded Tardis set up works or not depends entirely upon character, actor and story. I think the problem in the Davison years was that the characters of “Team Tardis” were poorly written and not especially well acted. I found Teagan, Nyssa and Adric all equally annoying. Turlough was hamstrung by the character concept. I thought the robot was the best of the bunch. Davison definitely deserved better. However I really liked the combination of Ian, Barbara and Vicky with the first Doctor. (Not so much Susan though I think that the character is important and should be revisted in some way,) They were well written characters with the ability to act independently and make their own decisions, which didn’t always end well. At times they outsmarted the Doctor other times he was the wise elder.
Janette23 October 2017 at 13:20 #62213
Looking at the original TARDIS team, as we have been doing, it was noticeable that they worked it by separating them for very specific jobs.
By the way, ‘Graham’ would go very nicely with ‘Campbell’. Or, indeed, ‘Stewart’.;-)23 October 2017 at 15:22 #62215
And the Graun BTL comments close in record time for a Doctor Who story – as people look at two young actors with extremely strong CVs and wide telly experience – and whine ‘Diversity casting!’
Sorry, who was it on here who was scared Chris Chibnall was going to go for ‘boring’ casting choices? Boring is the last thing they’re proving to be!23 October 2017 at 16:22 #62217
@bluesqueakpip — yes, but nice to see Martin Belam stepping up to the plate BTL to call out the ‘it’s political correctness gone mad’ brigade. He’s a writer I really like and his articles on Who are always really interesting.
And yeah, CC’s casting choices have been anything but boring so far. Long may it continue. Interesting to note that those choices so far have almost all had a strong track record in soaps or continuing dramas as they’re called these days. I wonder if this signifies a likely direction of the show or just that CC prefers actors with experience in this area…23 October 2017 at 19:59 #62220
A number of TV producers and Casting Directors have been saying that a stint in a soap is the ‘new repertory theatre’. That is, it tells people that this actor can work to a tight schedule, act to the script given and has a reasonable emotional range. It’s become the ‘real-life training ground’ for post drama school/drama degree, or takes the place of training for those actors who come into acting from another route.
So it may not be anything more than that.24 October 2017 at 04:25 #62226ichabod @ichabod
@bluesqueakpip Wow — That sure makes sense, once it’s pointed out. Soaps ain’t Shakespeare, but they ain’t chopped liver, either. Skills and talent (and a little luck, as always) can shine out, given half a chance. But gawd, the Hate PC crowd will plotz over this. Or maybe their tired out, at long last, having spent their bile and resentment on the choice of Whittaker? Please, Lordy . . . !24 October 2017 at 11:15 #62231janetteB @janetteb
As @bluesqueakpip says soaps are where the work is these days, especially for young actors. Jenna Coleman worked in soaps as did Samuel Anderson. I’m guessing these days it is getting difficult to find a younger actor who has not appeared in a soap or two. Also soaps, (I imagine) are more ethnically diverse given that they are contemporary rather than historical.
Sad that reasoned discussion on line is being killed off by the nutters. thankfully we have our little corner of sanity here.
Janette24 October 2017 at 12:39 #62236
@bluesqueakpip @janetteb et al — yep, soaps have been considered the proving grounds for actors as well as writers for a long time now. Writers too, of course. I did some training with the sadly now-defunct TAPS was all very much based around writing for continuing drama, mostly Emmerdale but also Corrie, The Bill and Doctors too. Sad thing there is this sector has really contracted too and it’s much harder to get a shot there now than it used to be. And I imagine the same goes for actors and directors too.9 November 2017 at 13:06 #623569 November 2017 at 13:21 #62358MissRori @missrori
This is an intriguing look. Take away the coat, and it wouldn’t be out of place as an outfit for a female companion, especially so soon after Bill’s tenure. But Doctors need coats! 😉 It’s clearly an outfit for action, especially the boots. I’d bet a pack of trading cards that there are little TARDISes on those socks! 😀9 November 2017 at 14:16 #623599 November 2017 at 15:46 #62360toinfinityandbepond @toinfinityandbepond
Mork called, he wants his wardrobe back.9 November 2017 at 15:52 #62361
I was thinking more Rod, Jane and Freddy myself.
I like it. It’s certainly very 70s and definitely points to a less sombre direction. If Smith was channeling Troughton and Capaldi Hartnell/Pertwee then Whittaker looks like she’s going for T Baker/Davison9 November 2017 at 16:14 #62362lisa @lisa
I also think she’s channeling Mork from Mork and Mindy.
Another space alien that I admired. 🙂9 November 2017 at 16:34 #62363
smart bunch … no dress sense
Yes, the Doctor is back to proving that she comes from a race of people who genuinely think that gold eyeshadow and/or bow ties are a cool look. I bet the Doctor admires Mork’s dress sense. Either that, or she crash lands the TARDIS in a 1970’s church jumble sale. 🙂
I like it. It’s nicely androgynous – trousers that are actually culottes, men’s braces, stripey jumper that the TARDIS probably reknitted from one of the Fourth’s scarves. The coat also has a faint hint of Time Lord robe about it – though not in the Prydonian maroon and without the ginormous ceremonial collar.
Also serious arse-kicking boots. What every Doctor needs – and this one, probably more than most. 😈9 November 2017 at 16:42 #62364
I also like the shot: something very ethereal about it. Somehow Whittaker’s managing to look like she really has just appeared from another world.9 November 2017 at 17:36 #62365MissRori @missrori
A friend of mine pointed out that Thirteen’s outfit, minus the coat (because Doctors need coats!), wouldn’t be out of place on Bill — Twelve’s final companion. If that was intentional then well-played.9 November 2017 at 17:39 #62366
If that was intentional then well-played.
It would make sense, wouldn’t it? ‘Eek! I’m a woman! Quick, what do they wear? What did Bill wear?’9 November 2017 at 17:39 #62367Cath Annabel @cathannabel
I love it. And I bet you anything it features useful pockets unlike so many lady-garments. The colours in her stripes are close to 4’s scarf (and OK, yes, to Mork from Ork, a little tribute to RW perhaps).9 November 2017 at 18:58 #62370
My one reservation is that I’m not sure it follows Capaldi’s dictum of making the costume easy and inexpensive to cosplay. Which is a bit of a shame.9 November 2017 at 19:17 #62372Hellsingfan01 @hellsingfan01
what do people think of the doctor’s new look i personally can’t make my mind up if it’s the best outfit or the worst9 November 2017 at 21:49 #62373RorySmith @rorysmith
Coordinating with the Tardis is a smooth move. It looks so Jodie and so Who at the same time.10 November 2017 at 01:37 #62374
There’s a “Doctorish” feel to this costume, so I can’t be too down on it, but for me, this isn’t a great look.
Braces/suspenders on women have never seemed very practical to me. Women have hips to hold up pants; those who typically prefer braces are obese men for whom belts aren’t very effective. And the straps on the braces would seem to me potentially pretty uncomfortable across the breasts, depending on the woman’s build. So when braces are worn by women, outside practical clothes for manual work, I think they tend to be either a fashion statement, fetishised, or a self-conscious indicator of sexual orientation.
Take the suspenders away, and the “Doctorishness” of the costume does drop a little, so maybe a collared shirt would be required. Covering her ankles would also seem more practical. Perhaps that is getting a bit too boring and generic though. Still preferable to going overboard on quirkiness though.
What I’d really prefer though is that the Doctor doesn’t have a single costume, but changes more freely. I realise there’s some value in an “iconic” look that can translate into cosplay and so on, but that doesn’t mean that she needs to dress the same all the time, and can adopt period appropriate clothing for example, as female companions might do.
I’m a little late commenting, but I’m more concerned about the ensemble cast that appears to be planned. I’m hoping in particular that Jodie gets the opportunity to establish her Doctor’s character before the Tardis gets too crowded.10 November 2017 at 03:37 #62375Anonymous @
@cathannabel (mum is waving hello! She would be -soon she’ll see I’m commenting whilst at school which is only 2 minutes by car away & I really want to go home as the English lesson on monologues is tedious & it shouldn’t be….Anyway, hallo from us both).
I am actually a bit amazed that people are really commenting on this -or in any way commenting negatively about this? There wasn’t this level of criticism of Peter Capaldi’s clothing -but I could be wrong?
(Also, I wonder if people called Capaldi just ‘Peter’ as I read in the papers they call JW ‘Jodie’ & that smells a bit of anti-feminism? Other people would enlighten me, I’m sure, because I’m sort of new to that discussion but it was pointed out to us via an ideology unit in History).
I wonder @jimthefish whether the culottes or trousers could be sewn pretty easily? Mum is a bad seamstress -so she says but one thing she’s made was a type of 1980s overall with wide pants from cheap ‘parachute’ material?
The suspenders could be difficult to dye though but from The Mum’s perspective 🙂 they are more more comfortable than an under wire bra! She should really be commenting about this as I’m a bloke and know nothing about these items 🙂
And I’m happy to remain ignorant.
I love the 70s/80s colours but Mum has always judged clothes by comfort. Looks like the costume dept have gone for that? The boots & socks are good & the coat can be tossed off when it’s warm & I think @tardigrade that it could be good if the Doctor could change t-shirts under the culottes?
I think that not all women have hips to hold up pants? In fact mum would now be one of those people! Also she showed me photos of her at age 32 wearing ‘slacks’ which are above the hips & belted tight but since she was 34 there were low cut trousers? It was hard to get anything else she said once it was in fashion. This way I reckon the character is commenting on that ‘trend’ – grandma said to Mum ‘those low cut pants make your bum look bigger’ (we’ll address the low self esteem that came with that somewhere else: way to go Nan!).
The suspenders mean to me loads of comfort depending on bra-size (ooh I’m cringing talking on behalf of women when I shouldn’t be….) & stops the tight belt or the low cut jeans issue which can be uncomfortable and also a problem with …uhm, bending over?.. showing thong underwear. I remember a West Wing episode where that happened & the media went nuts so I think what others said above about it being androgynous is true. It looks kinda what Amy would do? An era of grabbing different things for comfort & fun & mixing them up & I like that in girls/ boys instead of expensive designer shoes/sunnies 😉
Sorry for the long ramble.
Thane10 November 2017 at 03:59 #62377Anonymous @
@bluesqueakpip Yes!!! Arse-kicking boots which she’ll need more than ever. I think there’ll be comments by other aliens? (not just us! 🙂 ) where they might say: “you’ve regenerated into the female of the species? Isn’t that considered weak?” All delivered in this arch 1970-ish high class manner? This is some of the material we’ve been discussing in English and also in History -classes, accents, fashion trends, feminism and the actual class work is manipulated by the discussion so we do that instead & its loads of fun!
I’m not sure why you’d need to cover your ankles @tardigrade? If she’d be in trouble for showing ankles in 1700s England, the Doctor could then wear period costume like the male Doctors did. Or, she could change History completely so that the kick-ass skirt & boot wearing trend would’ve begun sooner. 😀
Thane (Shutting up now)10 November 2017 at 05:37 #62378
@thane15 good to talk again- it’s been a while
I am actually a bit amazed that people are really commenting on this -or in any way commenting negatively about this? There wasn’t this level of criticism of Peter Capaldi’s clothing -but I could be wrong?
I wouldn’t comment on Jodie Whittaker’s personal choice in clothing, or Peter Capaldi’s for that matter. However, the costume chosen for her character is fair game though. If she was wearing a highly sexualised outfit for example, then it would be rightfully criticised, but I wouldn’t think of criticising what she chose to wear to an awards ceremony. I have in the past been critical of costumes chosen for the Doctor- Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy in particular, for trying way too hard to be quirky. I don’t think Peter Capaldi’s costume garnered much comment, due to its dullness. I will admit, commenting on the costume is more from a lack of much else to comment on at this stage than anything else.
I think that not all women have hips to hold up pants?
True- more than men though, and Whittaker would not be in need of suspenders. I can’t speak firsthand of relative comfort for women of suspenders and bra, though surely the first would necessitate the second anyway?
I’m not sure why you’d need to cover your ankles
It’s not showing the ankles that concerned me (though I guess the Doctor might choose something different for Victorian England if she wanted to avoid attention), but more practicality in all conditions. As someone who’s hiked through areas with leeches, seeing exposed ankles tends to give me a shiver. The reason you don’t see commandos in shorts isn’t related to prudishness.
Also, I wonder if people called Capaldi just ‘Peter’ as I read in the papers they call JW ‘Jodie’ & that smells a bit of anti-feminism?
I’m not very sensitive to these things. As an Australian, it wouldn’t be disrespectful to use first names- if I were introduced to the PM, my response would likely be “Nice to meet you, Malcolm”. “Mr Turnbull” would be a little stand-offish. But that obviously varies with culture – if I were introduced to Bill Gates, it would be “Mr Gates” for example. It’s “PC” / “JW” and so on that I don’t like using, since I feel like I’m speaking in code.10 November 2017 at 10:08 #62380Cath Annabel @cathannabel
@thane *waves hello to Puro* Hmmm. As regards the suspenders (or braces as we call them here – suspenders are to hold your stockings up!), the issue is, when one has breasts, whether they go straight down the front of the bosom area, which only works if you are of reasonably modest proportions, otherwise they tend to go one side or the other, which could look slightly odd. Looks like JW can carry this off, but some cosplayers may find it trickier! It’s def an androgynous look, which is fine, and largely practical. @bluesqueakpip Yay, arse-kicking boots!10 November 2017 at 10:33 #62381
Just on my last point, I had another thought. When discussing different incarnations of the Doctor, it’s usual to refer to the Doctor via surname (or number for fans). So it would be the Capaldi Doctor, not the Peter Doctor (even if that didn’t introduce ambiguity with Peter Davidson). That practise, I think, biases fans towards using a surname, even when the first name would be perfectly fine when referring to the actor. Perhaps with Jodie Whittaker not yet established in the role, that hasn’t taken on as firmly. That’s pure speculation though, assuming there is even some phenomenon to explain.
While doubtless there is some sexist sentiment in places, I wouldn’t want it to be thought that merely using Jodie Whittaker’s first name pushes you into that camp. The use of first names is well established in the entertainment industry- if I refer to the latest gossip on Tom and Katie then everyone knows what I mean- if I said “Cruise and Holmes” I imagine I’d get quite a few momentary blank looks while people mentally parsed that. (There’s me talking as if I’d have the slightest clue about said gossip 🙂 ).10 November 2017 at 12:50 #62382
@thane15 — I think it’s really only the coat that presents the real problems. It’s pretty obviously a bespoke item and unless cosplayers want to make do with a ‘that looks close enough’ then they’re going to have to fork out the big bucks for a replica. I imagine that Abbeyshot and Magnoli Clothiers are sizing up their patterns even as we speak. Personally I think Capaldi was right to say that the costume should be something that fans could easily emulate. And this is largely why I disliked Matt’s later plum outfit or pretty much any costume of the JNT era.
@tardigrade — I seem to remember Capaldi’s costume exciting a lot of comment at the time. Certainly it made the front pages of most websites here and into most of the newspapers, sometimes on the front. And certainly people never stopped complaining about the hoodies (which I personally loved). I don’t recall Matt’s getting a big reveal though. (On the names thing, I don’t think there’s any particular sexist intent here and merely that people tend to go for the shortest word with the least ambiguity of meaning).
And for those ambivalent about this costume, it’s probably worth remembering that the costumes often evolve over time. Capaldi’s first austere ‘dad at a wedding’ look didn’t really last as there clearly came a point that it didn’t quite fit the Doctor he was becoming, who was a little more funky around the edges. Chances are that the same will happen with Jodie as who her Doctor actually is evolves through the telling.
I think the most interesting thing about this image is that it gives us suggestions of just where the show is going. It’s going to be more colourful and sunny where the Capaldi years were all black-and-white costumes, noirish shadows and introspection. I’m now imagining something very much in the Tennant-era mould with lots of kisses to the 70s. At this point, I’m not ruling out Mandrels….10 November 2017 at 13:04 #62383Anonymous @
On the names thing, I don’t think there’s any particular sexist intent here and merely that people tend to go for the shortest word with the least ambiguity of meaning).
I said I think it smells of anti-feminism. If the same person writes Peter Capaldi or PC and then writes Jodie it’s a subtle dig -maybe too subtle -and those can be the worst kinds although I believe that real, honest-to-God sexism isn’t a cosmetic problem and this particular name calling issue could be considered one. It’s no slippery slope but a bridge, I think.
Thank you, Thane.
Aaand I think I’m done.10 November 2017 at 14:44 #62385
@jimthefish and @Thane15
I don’t think there’s any overt sexist intent in calling Jodie Whittaker ‘Jodie’ whereas the Capaldi Doctor is ‘Capaldi’ or ‘Peter Capaldi’. Personally, however, I’m making a firm effort to train myself into referring to this incarnation as ‘the Whittaker Doctor’.
We’ve definitely become more informal over the years, and we now refer to people by their first names so much, it’s often the surname that we don’t know. But there’s still a faint echo of the days when men were accorded a respectful surname (possibly with an even more respectful ‘Mr’) but women and children were called by their first names. So ‘the Whittaker Doctor’ it is, for me. 😉
As to discussing the costume: Capaldi got a review of his wardrobe. As did Smith, Tennant, Eccleston, and all the Doctors before them. We’re still discussing Colin Baker’s costume (usually in terms of horror) thirty years after it was first introduced. My personal take would be that it’s just as sexist to insist that the first female Doctor *shouldn’t* get the traditional costume critique.
Discussing Whittaker’s personal clothing choices is another matter. But this is a costume, for a role. If we can’t discuss a costume because a female actor is wearing it, then we are treating the Whittaker Doctor differently to any previous incarnation. Just because she’s a woman.10 November 2017 at 14:49 #62386
@bluesqueakpip — on the nomenclature, I’m happy to be guided by people who feel more strongly about this than I do and maybe we should aim for some kind of consistency but personally from here on in I’m going to stick to PC, JW etc. as it’s just easier to type, if a little impersonal….
As to costume discussion, yep, it’s definitely always been a ‘thing’ for as far as I can remember. I can just about recall all the jabber when PD’s godawful cricket costume was unveiled….10 November 2017 at 18:00 #6238710 November 2017 at 18:41 #62388Whisht @whisht
Spoilers page? Whisht?
yep usually they don’t go together, but I live in the UK so kinda impossible not to see JW’s costume.
I type “JW” but will admit “Jodie” is easier and more pleasant to say, and “Whittaker” is tougher (more syllables) and reminds me of a certain whistler.
I reckon I wouldn’t invest in culottes if I was a cosplayer (or even a crosscosplayer… crossplayer?).
A few wet night shoots in wintry Cardiff may make a quick costume re-evaluation to a jumpsuit likely.
To be honest, the ‘look’ isn’t one that I immediately thought “yeah – I get it”.
For me it does feel like 70’s/80’s TV children’s presenter (Rod Jane & Freddy a good shout @jimthefish) and that just doesn’t feel right.
Not even ironically.
But I am still looking forward to this doctor (and that coat looks like its got a hood – and maybe hoods are now a ‘thing’).10 November 2017 at 19:58 #6238910 November 2017 at 20:26 #62391
I see that Bradley Walsh has had an extensive lecture on not saying anything. Nothing. Zilch. Zero.
About the only thing we learnt is that he didn’t have to audition; Chris Chibnall just asked him directly if he’d like to play the part.10 November 2017 at 21:08 #62394
@bluesqueakpip A man called Graham…
He talked of the high security at the BBC. Probably probed as well…10 November 2017 at 23:45 #6239711 November 2017 at 04:42 #62400
That last picture does concern me a little- the decision to spray-paint her skin silver is an unusual constuming choice- her hands are the same colour as her coat :-). Someone’s got a bit heavy-handed with the Photoshop filters.11 November 2017 at 12:22 #6240212 November 2017 at 10:58 #62408
Yes, I’m hoping that we’ll see some crossplaying (great word) as JW.
While I very much like the costume my one worry is that it looks like it might very much have been designed with a specific ‘concept’ in mind a la PD or CB. PC’s costume definitely evolved as his character did and I would have liked JW to have that same flexibility. And it seems MS’s did to an extent too, or at least he was allowed to be playful with it.
It’s too early to tell, of course, until we’ve actually seen the s11, but I do hope that it’s not the case that CC has too fixed a conception that doesn’t give JW enough wiggle room to evolve and grow her interpretation of the Doctor.12 November 2017 at 13:34 #62409Habemus Doctorem @habemusdoctorem
I’m note sure this is the right thread or even new news but anyway
We’re delighted to confirm that #ChildrenInNeed (Friday, 17 Nov on @BBCOne) will
include a sneak peek of this year’s #DoctorWho Christmas Special!
— Doctor Who Official (@bbcdoctorwho) November 12, 201712 November 2017 at 16:38 #6241112 November 2017 at 19:48 #62412
Jodie Whittaker’s new coat is actually somewhere between sky blue and lilac…
You heard right maybe a cross between sky blue and lilac
— Edward Russell (@edwardrussell) November 12, 201712 November 2017 at 21:15 #6241312 November 2017 at 21:32 #62414
Yeah! Due to the lighting apparently. You can also see that it has a hood in the design & that’s supposedly confirmed on the costume. You can see the beginnings of a slit up the back too (In the design). Cosplayers take note!
Presumably it won’t be long until she’s photographed in costume on location (& we can see exactly what’s what.)…16 November 2017 at 03:16 #62429winston @winston
I am a little late seeing this so I need time to think on it …..but I like the coat and every Doctor needs a good coat. The boots are good and look like comfortable and apropriate footware for time travel. The braces might be her “thing” like 11’s fez and 4’s scarf and every Doctor needs a “thing”. I am curious to see how she chooses her clothes oe whether she will just find them like 11 did. Lots to wait for.17 November 2017 at 19:50 #62432Habemus Doctorem @habemusdoctorem
“Here’s a sneak peek of this year’s #DoctorWho Christmas Special, Twice Upon A Time! ”
— Doctor Who Official (@bbcdoctorwho) November 17, 201717 November 2017 at 20:11 #62433
I wonder what’s written on that videotape?18 November 2017 at 02:06 #62434RorySmith @rorysmith
The first Doctor’s first reaction to meeting himself and it’s spoiled in a tweet.
BBC might as well tweet the regeneration now.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.