Jodie Whittaker announced as the new, 13th Doctor
17 July 2017 at 16:18 #60917lisa @lisa
I agree with you. It does feel like a gimmick ! The problem with gimmicks is that they
feel contrived. But I’ll still give it a fair shot and see what CC does .
Part of me says yeah ok………but
I’m still mourning what this show has been and how a Doctor Jody is going to be changing things.
Although its not even exactly that I’m bemoaning all these changes. Missy was great.
Yet I do still have this tiny bit of a cringe about under going so much major new who reworking.
“But times have changed and so must I”17 July 2017 at 16:23 #60918Mirime @mirime
This is probably why Capaldi appears the worst Dr Who?
Best for me. I’ve only been watching for around 37 years though.
Perhaps this is because she would fancy the new Dr? This is not appropriate for a predominately children’s programme.
Why not? I don’t hide the fact that two men or two women can fall in love from my four year old. It’s no more inappropriate than showing a man and a woman falling in love.
I hope we can at least keep the Tardis as a police box, or will the Cameleon circuit now be fixed?
Not going to happen. Sixth Doctor tried, it didn’t stick, I think she likes being a police box too much.17 July 2017 at 16:30 #60919GlasgowBoy @glasgowboy
@DrBen Thanks for pointing that out. I’ve been watching the show all these decades and didn’t notice that the Doctor regenerates – the very topic of my post. Anything else of interest that might have passed me unnoticed? The Beatles? Star Trek? The Falklands War? Oh, and wasn’t some chap shot the night of the first episode? Thanks for keeping me posted.17 July 2017 at 16:35 #60920
I’m not sure what it changes ? What do you think ?
My immediate, personal preference would be to continue with Bill and avoid the lesbian crush angle. Not because there is an inherent problem with this, but because it would be unimaginative to say the least. The likely default might well become a younger male companion. I’d like to see something more varied than this over the series (just as I would when we return to a male Doctor some point down the line).17 July 2017 at 16:38 #60921
The problem is that its the first time. I’m sure Hartnell fans would have written something similar in 1966. Once it becomes a routine option (and I include ethnicity in that statement) we’ll all wonder what the fuss was about.17 July 2017 at 16:41 #60922Walter @walter
This is great news. The DOCTOR is not a man. The Doctor is not human. Two hearts! In the episode with the Pope, he said the charge to his brain to bring him “sight” could mess with regeneration and there we have it. I thought this was the best season ever, Pearl Mackie changed everything. I was really hoping he wouldn’t regenerate because it was working. The episodes were tight and fun. I wish them all a great season with the new Doctor.17 July 2017 at 16:51 #60923Charlie Cook @cookgroom
I am disappointed, but only because I was hoping it was going to be Pearl17 July 2017 at 16:53 #6092417 July 2017 at 16:55 #60925
I’m sure very many of us are sympathetic to the argument that a male character should remain male. I know I am. There is a point though, where I think you have to question why its such a big deal for the potential of roles becoming either gender.
I don’t think “Jane Bond” is particularly believable today, but I think it will be in a few years, when front line gender equality is more obvious in the military. Why shouldn’t there be a “Shirley Holmes” ? I would tend to agree that if the TV show is based on the original novels set in Victorian London, then it would be wrong to do that, but if the setting is modern day then why not ? She can be a descendant if that makes things easier to accept. It seems to me that maleness is not what makes Holmes a special character at the end of the day. I’m afraid the same is true for the Doctor in my opinion.
Regarding your internet abuse point, I agree with you entirely. It’s not very edifying, regardless of the gender of the source. However, I think you have to put that into the context of the internet as a whole and the number of male commentators whose arguments are basically racist or misogynist. Unfortunately I don’t find blow back using similar language to be at all surprising.17 July 2017 at 16:56 #6092617 July 2017 at 16:59 #60927Fan of the future @exfan
As an ExFan, I am now convinced to be Fan of the Future. Perhaps this will convince others that a well reasoned arguement or two really makes a difference. Literally “time” to move on.
The only sad thing now is that we have to wait so long for the next episode!17 July 2017 at 17:09 #60928lisa @lisa
Ok. So this is how this space alien evolves? Hm?
Actually I could be more moved by Hartnell’s regeneration.17 July 2017 at 17:12 #60929thane15 @thane15
If you think I am wrong then go check over the previous pages. How much discussion is on Science Fiction/Dr Who, and how much is on gender issues.? Oh, and if anyone wants to fling the sexist, misogynist, bigoted card my way then I can direct them to some a very interesting thesis that deals with the subjugation of women and their celluloid representation and oppression on screen in a phallocentric society. I know cos I wrote it…..This casting strikes me as nothing more than vainglorious pontification masquerading as progress. “But The Doctor is an alien and can be any shape or form or gender”. The whole gender was shoehorned in on the last series to justify its presentation. The Doctor can be anything. Any gender. Any sexual persuasion. Any race. So what if he was French, or a talking ape (Andy Serkis), or a lump of putty under an armpit?
That’s an interesting take. Mum, recently, spoke about the ideas of the Illusion of Knowledge, regarding male and female gender interpretation working with Dan Sperber. She never mentioned that “she wrote it”. I think that is the perfect type of vain pontification which you rail against. Saying you wrote something adds a touch of glory that you seek. As for discussions about the Doctor and science -fiction (and it aint sci-fi it’s more fantasy), this thread was set up, purely, so people could explain their particular feelings about it. Most people have been tolerant. But not when there’s ad hominin attacks, snide remarks and when the only reason they’ve joined is to say “I’m never watching it again.” If so, great, but why are those people bothering to do that? Are they pontificating too? I reckon so!
One thing you seem to be stuck on is that The Doctor is not only alien but male. He must continue to be.
If he is alien, why can’t he be both male and female? Naturally, as a British programme from BBC Wales the Doctor is presented as British. But when you write “any race” and then follow that with “French” it almost sounds like you’re saying being French is a race -when it’s not.
You demolish the argument further when you add “a talking ape or a lump of putty” as if there’s a hideous slippery slope from being Man (as patriarch) to being Woman (not appropriate) to being, ultimately, a boil under one’s arm. Those who spoke about people, or women in this way, were medieval. So, I’m finding it difficult to reconcile your comment about “oppression on screen” with the later part of your post -it’s why I highlighted it. The contradictions are massive.
Also, looking back on the posts most people here haven’t said people who dislike a female Doctor are moronic, as you claim. Other posters said that they believed in a non-black, male Doctor and yet “no, I’m not racist or sexist” when writing that pretty much connotes both racism and sexism and so a few people pointed that out because to allow that, at all, is racism -and not on any ‘cosmetic’ level.
As for “shoehorning in the last series” I would claim that gender change hasn’t been added in the last series at all! Even before Season 8 there were signs: Madame Vastra; River Song (as far back as Season 5 if not RTD with Donna meeting River during Tennant’s iteration) and then from Season 8 we had Missy and a very in control, independent Clara shedding her Impossible Girl role to be the one holding the sonic. The programme has done this slowly since BEFORE 2013 and most certainly made it clear with Rose as The Moment during the 50th anniversary. So, no shoe horning, just gradually onwards and upwards.
Also please don’t use “viewing figures” as a guide. Me and my 15 year old friends watch things on iplayer, iTunes, ABC and BBC catch up telly usually a few days later than when it airs.
Change is blowing in the wind. Embrace it!
Sorry for the long post mods!!
Thank you for your patience.
Thane17 July 2017 at 17:16 #6093017 July 2017 at 17:24 #60931
@nick of course having a female doctor will change the dynamics with companions. In much the same way that a younger Doctor (Matt Smith) travelled with Rory and Amy (almost like flat mate dynamic) and Peter Capaldi travelled with Bill (taking on a grandfatherly role). I will be interested to see how CC will work this one out. I certainly wouldn’t assume that CC will simply go for a younger, male companion when there are so many other possibilities too. There is also the question of the Doctor’s relationship with the Tardis (or ‘Ol Sexy) – will we see some new issues there? What about the Doctor’s Daughter? River Song? Very curious to see if these characters return in the new series too.17 July 2017 at 17:35 #60932Devilishrobby @devilishrobby
@thane15 to add to your list of possible hints that the Doctor could become female you can even go back to Tennantdoc and the DoctorsDaughter episode and Jenny who was actually supposed to be a clone if a female Doctor wasn’t possible Jenny should have been male17 July 2017 at 17:49 #60934GreyhoundJon @greyhoundjon
First post from a fairly recent lurker (a few weeks). I’m a lifelong fan (mid Tom Baker) though a little behind at the moment, having just watched The Zygon Invasion, but I’ve quickly got used to turning here after each adventure.
Although, being behind, I’ve not been able to contribute to any discussion (or had any insights/theories half as sharp or bonkers), the atmosphere here has made me wish I had. Without exception you have shown yourselves to be welcoming, thought-provoking, humane, liberal and erudite, in fact just like the values we admire in a certain programme.
The thought of being able to discuss episodes and bonkersness here helps me to press play and reluctantly move one episode closer to the end of the Capaldi / Coleman era, which I sincerely believe to be the best Dr Who there has ever been or ever will be and whose end I dread.
Of course, my point is that I have held equally sincere beliefs before.
Is this not close to the heart of the magic of our favourite programme, that it can continue to grab us, involve us, wrench from us our emotions and imaginations and new devotions and in ways we never expected and had never foreseen? Even when we ‘know’ that things can never be this good again, somehow they always are. And all the while it stays true to its generous, positive and liberal nature which has – as others have noted (@nick, @jimthefish) – been part of its DNA from the start.
Sure, the lead has gone to men until now, but the show began in a different era and I agree with @thane15 that traditions can evolve into different traditions. Yesterday’s announcement has made me double-motivated to catch right up with the transmitted stories, because I think it shows that Chris Chibnall will not be afraid to shake things up and keep things evolving. Like @frostfair I’m looking forward to seeing how all the interactions we’ve got used to having half a handle on are shaken up. Just the shot in the arm that gives me hope I can move on post-PC/JC. Much kudos also to Steven Moffat for making it possible.
I wanted to counterbalance some other new-joiners who have already treated us to their spleen. By which I don’t mean those with considered misgivings (whether or not I agree), but those whose knee-jerk objection to Jodie Whittaker is solely that (eek!) their role-model will soon be a woman.
I don’t accept that women can’t be role-models for boys/men. The only reservation I have ever had about a female doctor was that enough people might object to it to threaten the show’s future. I haven’t thought that for a long time as I’m sure that nowadays the people who will be excited by a female doctor in general and what Jodie can bring to it in particular far outweigh those that might object. This isn’t 1963.
As @jimthefish already wrote, the spleen-venters don’t get what makes our programme unique anyway. That’s fine, we don’t all need to like the same thing. There are other shows they may like more. This one doesn’t need to change its soul to keep them comfortable.
(Looks aghast at amount he has written, presses ‘Submit’ nervously …)17 July 2017 at 17:50 #60935GlasgowBoy @glasgowboy
You obviously missed the reference to the lump of putty under the arm (armpit). Ask your mother. You mention the contradictions in my post but neither highlight, explain them, or show any contradiction. Feel free to expand. I have not, at any point said what an alien can or cannot be, simply that I think this regeneration has been miscast. You mention some people as being moronic and racist. Kindly turn your ire on them, not me. I do not agree on the shoehorning on gender change but then we are all allowed an opinion. I was referring to The Doctor, notthe supporting characters – perhaps you missed that. As for ‘onwards and upwards’, I would say that Dr Who has been circling the plughole for some time and is now headed downwards. Only time will tell. I am sure the same viewing trends will be seen on IPlayer, ITunes etc.
And I have no idea why you need to mention your age. Is it relevant – or are you suggesting mine is?17 July 2017 at 18:10 #60936
@thane15 — great post. Well said.
@exfan — love the name change. Hope your faith in the future is justified. (Actually, I’m sure it will be.) And yes, the wait is going to be excruciating. Not sure I agree about Capaldi being the ‘worst Doctor’. Like @mirime I’d count him as one of the best.
@frostfair — I think I’d love to see Bill back and don’t think her sexuality should necessarily be an issue. Rose and Martha having the hots for the Doctor was never an issue so don’t think Bill’s should be either. I think what Bill and Nardole have shown this year that the best dynamic for modern Who is two companions, one of either gender and I’d lay odds that this is what CC goes for. For that reason, I suspect that Bill may not be back (or at least not immediately and probably not permanently) which is a shame because Pearl absolutely knocked it out of the park.
This concerns the changing of a character that has been formed over 50 years
Yes, and there’s nothing about a gender-switch that contradicts any part of the fundamentals of that character as it has been portrayed on-screen.
Dr Who was (and still can be ) an excellent science fiction programme
And changing the gender of the character isn’t going to affect that in the slightest. But as @thane15 points out, it’s not really science fiction — you could count the times the show has been pure SF on one hand — it’s far more of a fantasy series that borrows the trappings of science fiction from time to time.
At the moment it is nothing less than a column in the Guardian. Dr Who has been replaced by Doctor Right On
My initial reaction to that is ‘so what’? But it shows a misunderstanding of the long-term nature of the show anyway. Who has always had a distinct, liberal-humanist heart. And that’s been the case since the very first episode.
Oh, and if anyone wants to fling the sexist, misogynist, bigoted card my way then I can direct them to some a very interesting thesis that deals with the subjugation of women and their celluloid representation and oppression on screen in a phallocentric society. I know cos I wrote it.
Well, it rather depends on the conclusions you reached, doesn’t it? Why not post a link and people can decide for themselves? Besides which, article notwithstanding, it doesn’t mean that you’re not operating under sexist assumptions now. Frankly, this statement of yours sounds like it falls suspiciously into the ‘but some of my best friends are black’ camp of argument.
The whole gender was shoehorned in on the last series to justify its presentation
No, it wasn’t. In the wider world, it’s a concept that’s been mooted since 1980. But in-universe, it’s a concept that was first explicitly established in The Doctor’s Wife, and that was way back in 2011. So, as a concept, it’s been canon for the last six years at least. (And isn’t it odd that the shoe-horn argument is only ever used in this context? I don’t remember anyone bitching about the sudden introduction of the Time Lords in 1969 and complaining about how it directly contradicted what Susan said in An Unearthly Child. I think that’s because, Who is quirkily unique in its make-up in that it didn’t emerge fully formed with a series bible etc but has evolved over the years, with subsequent production teams adding and subtracting their own elements to the mix. That’s essentially what’s happening now and I suspect that that is the core of the show’s longevity.)
Sounds a bit like those experts who said Coca Cola had to change their recipe – and we know how that worked out
Um, nope, not really the same thing at all, is it?
This is NOT a gender issue, it’s a miscasting issue. It’s the BBC thinking they need to make a statement when none is needed. Frankly, it’s a mess
Well, no it isn’t. And it’s sounding very much like a gender issue for you to me. If you think it’s a miscasting issue then perhaps you’d care to explain why (that’s what we do here). It’s hard to see how you can make that statement either way before the actor involved has even uttered a line.
I will not castigate those who continue to watch and accept/pretend this is the same character. Dr Who has changed forever
Yes, just as it did when Patrick Troughton took the lead. Or Jon Pertwee. Or Tom Baker. Or, in fact, any of the actors who have taken the part.
@greyhoundjon — great post and welcome!17 July 2017 at 18:34 #60937Mudlark @mudlark17 July 2017 at 18:48 #6093817 July 2017 at 18:49 #60939
@jimthefish agree that two companions works well – Bill/Nardole and Rory/Amy being good examples. I also really enjoyed Donna as a companion too – akin to very good mates. Sometimes I wonder if a larger pool of companions would work so they can be mixed up depending on dramatic requirements. The Landlord gave a taste of that and it was interesting to see the Doctor react with each individual differently.17 July 2017 at 18:54 #60940Craig @craigEmperor
My heart sinks. I just read that The Sun has posted a topless picture (or maybe more than one) of Jodie in today’s paper, and The Mail Online has pics and videos of her nude or topless from old acting jobs (not sure if film, theatre or TV as I do not want to see them).
What is wrong with these people and their everyday sexism/misogyny? Because she’s a woman she’s fair game? I’m so annoyed. This is such a positive thing, a female Doctor, I have a young niece who will be so excited. Then they do this. It strikes me of “Put that woman back in her place”. Just awful.
Urgh!17 July 2017 at 19:05 #60941
@craig— yes, I saw that. Truly depressing. Makes me quite ashamed of my once-profession. Don’t recall Eccleston or Tennant getting this treatment when they were cast and both had similar roles that could have been cast up. Still, I’m sure (hope) that JW will have been braced for all this crap and it would have been discussed in detail behind the scenes before going public and that they were expecting this kind of thing. I imagine the strategy for unveiling this now is for the various knuckle-heads and broflakes to get this out of their system in the next few weeks so that they can get back down to business as usual as quickly as possible.
But I do have to say I really am quite depressed that there’s still such a significant portion of the fanbase (and the professional media) who are still being so backward and retrograde in this day and age. I would have hoped for better.
Sometimes I wonder if a larger pool of companions would work so they can be mixed up depending on dramatic requirements
Yes, I did wonder if they were going to start going for that approach in Capaldi’s first year but it seems not. Maybe it would make things a bit too fragmented? Bill worked this year, I think, because they really took the time and effort to develop the growing relationship between the Doctor and herself. But I am very interested to learn what CC has in mind companion-wise. I imagine we’ll hear very soon.17 July 2017 at 19:15 #60942Gwladys24 @gwladys24
My only issue is whether this development is consistent with the Doctor’s backstory, as far as we think we know it.17 July 2017 at 19:28 #60943
Love the tweets. Nice to hear the positive words from former Doctors, and the look on that little girl’s face just made my morning. Here’s another:
'Doctor' has no gender in English.
— Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) July 17, 201717 July 2017 at 19:39 #60944AJKMaster @ajkmaster
New Dalek Origin explained! (For comedy purposes only)
With the new ‘Doctor’ being a woman, the Daleks have a new Origin Story. Future iteration of the Doctor crashes on Skaro during regeneration while the new female Doctor still has regeneration amnesia and is investigating strange signal on Skaro. Female Doctor finds handsome stranger, can’t explain why she’s so attracted to him and one thing leads to another…. Resulting ‘child’ is the stuff of nightmares and the Female Doctor places said ‘thing’ in a protective capsule and leaves on Skaro. Davros finds and weaponizes said capsule and behold, a thing full of hatred (especially for Timelords) is ‘born’ and becomes the Daleks that we know and love/hate.
PS, Not a fan of a woman Doctor, Missy was awesome but enough is enough….17 July 2017 at 19:44 #60945
From my own point of view, I have to say that while I’ve not been one of those banging the drum for a female Doctor, I have no inherent problem with it. Whether or not the actor in question is the right choice, only time will tell. Not everyone will be pleased, but we can’t really know until we see some action. Personally, I have loved Capaldi in the role so much that any followup was going to feel like a bit of a let-down to me! I am just as concerned to see the direction in which a new show runner will take things, because that is a huge part of the equation.
To those who are so certain that audience will be lost as a result of the change, I would point out that in the world of my recently-graduated son, gender as such is a non-issue. During his five years in high school, he had two classmates come out as gay, one as lesbian, and one as trans. These were seen as such complete non-events that he never even mentioned them at home at the time, except for the young woman because she happens to be the best friend of his girlfriend. As a result, I have a hard time believing that young people on the whole will have a problem with this. And they are the future.
I view the resistance of a certain segment of society to issues surrounding equality and inclusivity as a last, desperate attempt to beat back the tide. (There’s my required daily note of optimism, thanks for your tolerance! )17 July 2017 at 19:47 #60946
I dont think the dynamic should be that different. How would you write the relationship between the Doctor and Amy/Rory, for example, differently because the Doctor is played by Jodie Whitaker instead of Matt Smith. I dont see anything that would need to be changed from that Moff wrote. Yes of course, Jodie will play a different version of the character, but then so did David Tennant. Would any changes in the relationship dynamic to accommodate Tennant’s Doctor being any larger ?
It’s often written that Hartnell was playing the Doctor (and not the first Doctor), whereas everyone else has been playing the second, third etc Doctor. Jodie will be playing D15. The gender will have changed, but the character shouldn’t, more than the difference between Matt and Peter version. The key description needs to be a Doctor who is female in appearance Not a female Doctor.
If Jodie, Chibnall and his writing team try to write the first female Doctor as anything other than a continuation of the line, as another original (female) Doctor – then @lisa and others will be right to claim this change is nothing other than a gimmick. At least that’s what I think right now.17 July 2017 at 19:53 #60947
@Gwladys24 I’d say it’s more relevant to his future story than his backstory.
@GreyhoundJon Fabulous first post! I lurked for months before summoning the courage to post. I’m not much for online posting as the level of debate (if it can be called that) in most places is absolutely appalling. People can be so very nasty and dismissive. It’s rare to find such a strong culture of courtesy and reasoned discussion as happens here.17 July 2017 at 19:59 #6094817 July 2017 at 20:04 #60949
@nick I think we shall need to disagree here as I think gender (as does age as we have seen before) will create a different dynamic. I am very keen to see how CC will play with this – not only in the relationship between the Doctor and her companion(s) but also when travelling. How will a female Doctor be treated differently, for example, when travelling in the past with its different attitudes to women? By coincidence, I am watching Happy Valley currently and Sally Wainwright’s treatment of this police drama (with a female protaganist) brings out so many different strands than your usual cop shows – it’s so very refreshing and I hope CC will do the same for Doctor Who.17 July 2017 at 20:06 #60950AJKMaster @ajkmaster
To stop email replies.17 July 2017 at 20:09 #60951
@nick— I may have a few reservations about CC’s grasp of narrative logic and structure on occasion but in terms of character I think he’s probably second to none, superior, in fact, to RTD and SM. Look at how well he tended to write the Ponds. In fact, while most of his stories have some kind of WTF? moment, they were almost always great on character, right down to the most expendable red shirt. So in terms of the handling of the Doctor’s character I’m pretty confident that he’s going to ace it.
But you’re right that we have to stop thinking in terms of the ‘first female Doctor’ and more in terms of ‘the next Doctor who just happens to being played by a female actor’.17 July 2017 at 20:14 #60952yolo2546 @yolo2546
A lot of people have been called sexist for disapproving of the choice. I for one do so as well.
I don’t really know Whittaker so I wouldn’t know how well she acts but that isn’t it. The thing is, after watching doctor who you will find the doctor has a regular pattern of displaying his emotions. They are displayed through a man and in the way of a man- in a literal, and not in a stereotypical sense. People are defending the doctor disagreement with Michelle Gomez but the thing is, she was only the second version of the master we have seen since 2005 but the doctor is the 6th version. If older fans display similar reasons for dissaproval think about how they would feel. It isn’t fear of change, but a dissaproval of what has been changed.
If I am right in saying this then I hope she will come and go as quick as Eccleston17 July 2017 at 20:19 #60953HolodeckGuy @holodeckguy
If Chibnall’s showrunner instincts (Torchwood and Broadchurch) allow a bit of humor to blow through the new (reported) writer’s room, Jodie Whittaker and the audience could be in for a fun ride. If not, acting in a multi-year, monsterful serial Who could have her begging for regeneration.17 July 2017 at 20:24 #6095517 July 2017 at 20:26 #60956
How will a female Doctor be treated differently, for example, when traveling in the past with its different attitudes to women?
To my mind, the why the past or present time reacts to the Doctor is part of the fantasy element of the show. The Doctor gets to do everything he can, because of the nature of the character, not because of gender. Why then should there be any change ?
Chris and his writing team are free to write this how they choose to. If the Doctor is treated differently because the character now has a female appearance, then at what point does Jodie stop portraying the Doctor and start portraying a new different character ? Of course, it will be different – in a new way, with a female slant, but essentially it needs to be no more than between any other regeneration. For example, Missy remained true to the essential nature of the Master, even at the end to be honest. The Master might have said he would never stand with the Doctor, but perhaps he’d forgotten how often he did just that alongside Pertwee.
I’m glad you’re enjoying Happy Valley. There’s a third series coming next year I think. It’s one of the best things shown on British TV for quite a while.17 July 2017 at 20:37 #60959
The one Amy/Rory story that I remember Chibbers wrote was the Hungry Earth (earth reptiles anyway). From what I remember, Amy & Rory both worked well there. In my opinion, the biggest problem with Broadchurch wasn’t the characters, character development (apart from the suicide that didnt happen) and location, but that the detective story was too much in the back ground (and not particularly well thought through in places). For this reason, I would always recommend watching the original Danish Killing, which, although equally flaky in places, managed to get the balance between the two elements better.
Like you, I’d be very surprised if CC, Jodie and the team get this wrong. Even if they do, I dont think it would be the end of the world, or the end of Who for that matter.17 July 2017 at 20:43 #60960IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan @pedant
INT – TARDIS – DAY
Jodie!Doctor closes the Tardis door and sees the new Tardis decor. There is a lot of pink, with many delicate pastel shades as highlights and gingham curtains over the Round Things. The Time Rotor has been replaced by a circular wardrobe.
Very funny, dear. Now change it back.
INT – PATERNOSTER ROW- NIGHT
Jodie!Doctor enter Madame Vastra’s parlour.
Hello Madame Vastra
Ah, Doctor. I see you’ve had an upgrade.17 July 2017 at 20:48 #60961
@nick, I think we can agree on Happy Valley anyway. Otherwise, I think we will see the writing tailored for the Doctor’s gender (as well as the character selected by JW). I would be very surprised if that was not the case given the sensitive way CC explored gender issues in the 3rd series of Broadchurch. He has a very good eye for the detail of sexual politics, which is to be commended.17 July 2017 at 20:49 #6096217 July 2017 at 21:18 #6096517 July 2017 at 21:24 #60966Juniperfish @juniperfish
@Serahni – ha ha – great list of all the ways Doctor Who has previously been “ruined”.
I hope the writers’ team trolls everyone hard and we find the new Whittaker Doc rummaging through an entire closet of bras in one of the TARDIS’ wardrobe rooms, muttering to some wide-eyed companion, “Oh, these? Belonged to my third incarnation – regular vaudeville act during the Weimar Republic – what a show-off!” before trimphantly pulling out the packet of ginger nut biscuits from the back of the closet which she was looking for all along.17 July 2017 at 21:28 #60967Mudlark @mudlark
triumphantly pulling out the packet of ginger nut biscuits from the back of the closet which she was looking for all along.
Any Doctor who liked ginger nuts would have my unqualified approval from the off!17 July 2017 at 21:32 #60968DrBen @drben
The discussion (here and elsewhere) that “if we let things slip, the Doctor could just as easily be a cow or a dolphin or a small lump of green putty I found in my armpit one midsummer morning” reminded me of something important. No, in fact the Doctor could NOT appear as another species, because it is canonical that Time Lords look human (or vice versa). Viz:
Amy Pond: You look human.
The Doctor: No, you look Time Lord. We came first.
– Series 5, The Beast Below
So there are still rules (and the Doctor must be British, of course!).
@frostfair – I’m sure the Doctor will deal with historical sexism the way she deals with anything, by striding in like she owns the place and not taking any crap from anyone.
MARTHA: Oh, but hold on. Am I all right? I’m not going to get carted off as a slave, am I?
DOCTOR: Why would they do that?
MARTHA: Not exactly white, in case you haven’t noticed.
DOCTOR: I’m not even human. Just walk about like you own the place. Works for me.
— Series 3, The Shakespeare Code17 July 2017 at 21:38 #60969
Yes, that’s a scene I’d like to see….
Oh, and I’ve been constantly reminded of this quote of Jane Espenson’s today. Just saying…
If we can’t write diversity into sci-fi, then what’s the point? You don’t create new worlds to give them all the same limits of the old ones.17 July 2017 at 21:39 #60970Mirime @mirime
If older fans display similar reasons for dissaproval think about how they would feel. It isn’t fear of change, but a dissaproval of what has been changed.
Some older fans.
My mum has been watching since the beginning and is fine with this. I’m 40 and have been watching Doctor Who for as long as I can remember and I think it’s great. I’m sure there are some young people grumbling about it.
A lot of it is dislike of change – not necessarily fear – and to do with a sense of ownership. I get it, I’ve been here before with ‘The Lord of the Rings’ films amongst others, I’ve read the arguments over and over. At the end of the day those who don’t like it don’t have to watch it, the first twelve Doctors are still there to watch again.17 July 2017 at 21:45 #60971Craig @craigEmperor
@Juniperfish That’s great.
I really think I’m starting to like the idea of a story called “A TARDIS Full of Bras” in which a species called the Bras, like the Tribbles in Star Trek, just fill the whole thing up.
Chibnall’s kinda done it with cubes already!17 July 2017 at 21:56 #60972
@drben I do recall from the more recent Thin Ice (and who does not love a Frost Fair?) Lord Sutcliffe’s racist reaction to Bill Potts leading the Doctor to (in a very humanly manner) punch him. I expect any writer would like to explore gender in a similar vein too, whether there is a reaction from third parties or Timelord trickery to get round potential difficulties will be up to the writer but it will not simply be ignored. Why would any writer pass up that opportunity?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.