Jodie Whittaker announced as the new, 13th Doctor
18 July 2017 at 17:55 #61027RorySmith @rorysmith
To be honest, I’m ready for the Master to be gone for a long time. I’ve said this repeatedly but I want to see new twists and villains or even old ones we have yet to entertain in the new series.18 July 2017 at 18:05 #61029nerys @nerys
I posted this on Doctor Who‘s Facebook page, so thought I would repeat it here:
I am am intrigued by this casting. You’ve been signaling it all year, with Missy, so it comes as no great surprise. With Moffat & Co. leaving, we could see it was time for a clean start, much as Moffat did with Matt Smith’s Doc. So I’m looking forward to this.
I will miss Peter Capaldi; I thought he did a fabulous (but underappreciated) job performing this role. I liked Jodie in Broadchurch, so I know she brings a good acting range to this role.
BTW, folks should not claim to know who “the real fans” are. The opinions of real fans that I’m seeing are across the board. Many like this casting, others dislike it, while still others have adopted a “wait and see” attitude. While the casting may be controversial, there is no universal pro or con opinion on it. I am happy to give Jodie a chance. After all, I was so sad at David Tennant leaving the role that it took me a while to start watching Doctor Who again. And then I found myself surprised and delighted by Matt Smith. I learned my lesson. Let the work tell the story.18 July 2017 at 18:17 #61030
The TARDIS chameleon circuit will get stuck & the 13th Dr will fly through time & space in a giant bra…18 July 2017 at 18:28 #61031
I don’t think William Russell will be pleased with Noel Clarke being described as the 1st male companion…
Chat starts @ 3:27
‘This character has been Mel for 50 odd years…’
This bloke doesn’t watch any more & lives in a PC World…18 July 2017 at 18:33 #61032
@holly110 Have any of your posts been deleted? No. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. It sounded like you were not interested in Doctor Who, so I was just saying goodbye and pointing out the time you have been a member. There was no judgement except that which you project on to yourself.18 July 2017 at 18:48 #61034
@wolfweed Yay, “Adult Life Skills” is on Amazon Prime (in the UK at least) so that’s my viewing sorted for this evening.
I have to say, searching for “Adult” threw up a lot of, eh, interesting titles! 🙂18 July 2017 at 18:48 #61035holly110 @holly110
if I have offended anyone I sincerely appologise it was neither my desire or intention to do so, but honestly craig that was more like sarcasm than making a point and after all I have watched it for over 40yrs so how can you say I have no interest in it?… it shouldn’t matter how long I have been a member, but If the show needed a boost I think they should of looked at format.In the original show a story comprised of 4 25min episodes, minus 5 mins on parts 2 through 4 giving a story length of (if my maths is right) 85mins… 40 mins more than new who. this makes the stories feel a little rushed, and tbh I thought mr moffat’s stories a bit contrived. Still I do feel for it to survive they should do away with the series and produce 5 movies to be shown during the year, this would keep it fresh, save the beeb some cash and allow the stories more depth. . One day I will come back, yes I will come back when he becomes himself again until then I wish you all the best and hope you all keep enjoying it18 July 2017 at 18:54 #61037
@holly110 I say you have no interest in it? You said yourself you no longer have an interest in it. I didn’t say that, make you say that, or put those words in your posts. But you are putting words in mine.
I do look forward to you coming back when you are happy with whatever format it takes in the future that suits you. Thanks for your input so far.18 July 2017 at 19:04 #61039Miapatrick @miapatrick
@holly110 – which country?
The problem is, I think, that what you’re saying just isn’t constructive. ‘I don’t like the decision, I’m done with the show, I’m selling my toys’ certainly isn’t worth as many posts as you’ve devoted to it.
Just as people have the Doctor that they love, ‘their doctor’, people often have the Doctor that they hate. It’s usually Collin Baker, though he’s actually great in the audio’s, and seems a lovely man and was fantastic in ‘The five-ish doctors’. Whittaker might be the Doctor you hate, but A: maybe give her a chance and B: don’t take it out on your toys.
And if the casting really has ruined the show for you, why hang around a fan site? This isn’t a place that revels in negativity. It’s for critiquing more than complaining. It was founded in part out of a desire for somewhere people can discuss the episodes and arcs of Doctor Who without relentless Comic Book Guy cameos.18 July 2017 at 19:05 #61040
Question: What takes 9 months to gestate before being born?
Answer: Series 11 of Doctor Who.18 July 2017 at 19:25 #61041
So I haven’t seen Broadchurch or anything else Jodie Whittaker has been in. Watching the “Adult Life Skills” trailer just now, however, has brought me to what is THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION:
Is she going to get to keep that wonderful Yorkshire accent?18 July 2017 at 19:30 #6104218 July 2017 at 19:32 #61043
@nick – Broadchurch was supposed to be a particular place, wasn’t it? On DW, after all, lots of planets have a North.18 July 2017 at 19:39 #61044Anonymous @
I’m hoping that this is a “re-boot” of the series, moving toward the more sophisticated plot and character development a female lead (and a writer’s room) can justify and pull off. (Humor, please. How about full-on comedy / satire episodes?) I can’t tell you how few DRW episodes I’ve turned off half way through as “monster chase number 6” began.18 July 2017 at 19:45 #61045
I think the “official” name these days is Wessex coast (The heart is Dorset). So a South 🙂 . I assume the accent was realistic for the area, but to be honest I don’t know.18 July 2017 at 19:45 #61046Anonymous @
@drben I hope she retains “some” accent, but sound quality on DRW has been spotty to the point I’ve had to turn on subtitling. Just because you’re shooting in Cardiff….18 July 2017 at 19:48 #61047
Agreed, @holodeckguy – I used subtitles for most of Capaldi’s first season. The music is too damn loud!
I just love Yorkshire though. Would love for her to refer to the TARDIS as “luv.”18 July 2017 at 19:48 #61048Habemus Doctorem @habemusdoctorem
@drben That is a good question, what about the previous doctors (and companions)?
They all had some accents didn’t they?
I also agree with @holodeckguy.18 July 2017 at 20:05 #61049
@habemusdoctorem – Well, in BG Who, all the Doctors used received pronunciation until #7 (Sylvester McCoy), who got to use a hint of his native Scottish brogue. Tom Baker, for example, is from Liverpool, but I doubt you could find any video of him speaking in his native accent. I can’t recall any companions off the top of my head with regional accents, outside of Tegan being Australian and Peri putting on that ridiculous American accent.
Between 1988 and 2005, I gather that a lot changed in the UK regarding acceptance of regional accents. Nine (Eccleston) had that beautiful Manchester accent. Still not sure why Tennant put on an English accent, but I find him very difficult to understand in the Scottish accent, so maybe that’s why. 🙂
As an American Anglophile, I find all of this fascinating!18 July 2017 at 20:16 #61050Anonymous @
Agree with you about new twists and villains. The current production setup doesn’t seem to foster innovation, and it’s a lot easier to propose spec scripts with old/samey villains and plots than to come up with script ideas that are going to be rejected by a showrunner who feels obliged to please a longtime fan base. (I cringe every time I hear the word “Dalek.”) CC could substantially increase audience share (the network plea?) by taking the approach: OK, so who is this Doctor? What does she want? What kind of trouble could she get into?18 July 2017 at 20:18 #61051RorySmith @rorysmith
<p style=”text-align: center;”>@DrBen</p>
<p style=”text-align: center;”>I never knew the word anglophile until my cousin explained it to me. She is a University English professor. She said our family tends to gravitate to our English roots despite being here since the 1600s. I was surprised because my whole life revolved around British culture.</p>
<p style=”text-align: center;”>I need to call her and get her reaction on Jodie.</p>18 July 2017 at 20:47 #61052
If you want to watch Attack The Block, get the blu-ray – It’s got a couple of great special features…18 July 2017 at 20:49 #61053Anonymous @
“Capaldi’s Doctor found something wonderful about Bill. She was a bright student, with a spark of adventure and a quick way of thinking which interested him. He didn’t give a damn that she was black or that she was a lesbian. But neither did he refuse to see those elements of her being. She was, to him, a human he thought worthy of inviting on adventures in the TARDIS.”
Agreed that the Doctor’s acceptance of Bill based on promise was interesting, but Bill’s dialogue, IMO, betrayed that promise by making her seem less competent than recent companions. My hope for the CC / JW / writer’s room era — is that DRW will move in a more sophisticated direction. (That isn’t what DRW “is” of course, but it certainly could be.)18 July 2017 at 20:53 #61054Mudlark @mudlark
Your description of your reaction to the news made me smile. Being less pessimistic than you I was half expecting it, but before the announcement I would have said that I wasn’t greatly concerned either way as long as the actor cast was up to the job so, although I didn’t actually yell out loud, the rush and glow of satisfaction I felt came as something of a surprise.
For me it isn’t so much a matter of gender politics as that it opens up exciting new possibilities in the development and evolution of the show. It just remains to be seen how well Jodi Whittaker can convey the essential qualities of the Doctor, and on that score I feel pretty optimistic. It just saddens me that so many people seem unable to grasp the concept that there is no hard and fast division between what is masculine and what is feminine; it is a broad spectrum even in human beings, let alone gender fluid aliens from an ancient civilisation.
Is she going to get to keep that wonderful Yorkshire accent?
I hope so, and I’m pretty sure she will. As far as I am concerned, the fact that she is from Huddersfield in West Yorkshire is another point in her favour. That is the area my paternal grandmother’s family hails from and, incidentally, not far from where I was born, and I still feel an affinity with the region.
It has been interesting to observe, during my lifetime, the way in which regional accents, as you say, have become less of an issue in Britain. During the war, at a time when it is said newsreaders donned evening dress to read the six o’ clock news, there was an uproar when Wilfred Pickles, who had a very pleasant Yorkshire accent which was seemingly perfectly acceptable in his usual radio show, was given the job of reading the news. The prissy ‘RP’ accents of actors, radio and TV presenters, often as not the result of elocution lessons, seemed perfectly normal to me in the fifties and early sixties, but now sound absurd.18 July 2017 at 20:54 #61055
@wolfweed — well, if you live in PC world you’re never going to go short of a flashdrive, so I say it has a lot to recommend it.
@rorysmith and @drben — there is a definite point that old monsters can be re-used a bit too much. s10 had five of them this year and that could be considered a bit much — although I’d argue that all of them were used brilliantly. It’s worth bearing in mind though that their use is partly because of fan demands to see them, partly because the showrunners and writers are more often than not fans themselves and want to use them again but also, in the case of the Daleks, because there is a contractual obligation to use them at least once per series.
But I agree that more new monsters would be a good idea. The only trouble is that no one can really predict what works and what doesn’t. Who could have predicted that the Weeping Angels would be so successful. I get the impression that the production team would have liked the Fisher King, and the Monks to have been big hits (in the same way that RTD desperately wanted the Slitheen and the Ood to be popular) but in the end it’s up to the audience to decide which creatures they like and which they don’t really care about.18 July 2017 at 20:56 #6105618 July 2017 at 21:08 #6105718 July 2017 at 21:17 #61058
I am much more interested in what Chibnall’s plans are, because much of Whittaker’s success or failure as the Doctor depends on what stories Chibnall puts her in and the things he has her doing and saying.
I would like DW to be less serial and more episodic. I am especially not fond of two and three parters.
If the Master/Missy stays dead, that will suit me fine.
And I am so done with having the Doctor’s companions becoming romantic with the Doctor. People do not have to fall in love just because they’re flatmates in a blue box.18 July 2017 at 21:29 #6105918 July 2017 at 21:33 #61060
I’m looking forward to seeing what Chibnall’s 5 year plan looks like too. I think they have to feature the Daleks annually, but apart from them, I think we should expect to see fewer recently created Monsters for a while. I expect Chris will want the chance to do his own team’s ideas (at least at first).18 July 2017 at 21:35 #61061
A final word on the ‘ism’ argument (at least from me) and then I’m opting out of it. A few of the posts on this thread have gone something like ‘I take exception to being called a sexist/misogynist because I don’t think a female Doctor is a good idea’. But let’s just clarify a few things.
1. There is no post that I can see of anyone saying ‘you’re a sexist/misogynist’. Calling yourself one to pre-empt criticism or defend your stance is nothing but strawman-ism and the sort of nonsense that the so-called president of the USA gets up to. Say something bullshit that is easily disprovable but pre-emptively bulletproof it in faux-offence. To which I say, fine, knock yourself out but don’t try to pretend that you haven’t been given a hearing here or that people have gone out of their way to insult you. They haven’t.
2. You’re perfectly entitled to think that JW won’t be a good Doctor (though how you can come to that conclusion without seeing a single line of her in the actual part is kind of beyond me). But if you don’t want an assumption of sexism to surround your views then provide some argument, some proof, to back up your case. Or to put it another way, if you turned round and said ‘women shouldn’t be soldiers’ or ‘women shouldn’t be engineers’ unless you provide some seriously solid empirical evidence to back up your claim you shouldn’t be surprised if people assume that there’s some sexism at play. I don’t really see this is any different. Back up your argument and back it up to the hilt. Or else people will call you on it. If you think there’s a good reason why there shouldn’t be a female Doctor, that’s fine, but back it up with chapter and verse from the show. And don’t be surprised if someone who disagrees with you does the same. That’s pretty much the mission statement of this site.
Oh, and this is pretty funny too…
OK, that’s all I wanted to say on this score. I was now going to go off and write a s10 retrospective blog to give us discussion hub for the Christmas Special and beyond. Is that something that people will think useful? (I’m also happy for someone to take the actual writing duties if they’d prefer btw.)18 July 2017 at 21:47 #6106218 July 2017 at 21:49 #61063
@craig – Oh how wonderful. I am SO looking forward to just listening to her speak for the next 3+ seasons.
@jimthefish – I think it’s such a difficult balance between fan service and innovation. I am certainly one of the first to get excited at a call-back to something I know (“Sontarans perverting the course of human history!”), but you are absolutely right that it can easily get the show into a rut. Generally, however, I’m pretty pleased with the way they have handled it. I had gotten pretty tired of the Cybermen during the whole Danny Pink thing at the end of S9, but then they got a break and were reintroduced in S11 so cleverly. Even the Ice Warriors, who I’ve never found particularly interesting, were pretty compelling in the Victorians on Mars episode.
Even the new monsters can be overused. The Weeping Angels are an excellent example – by having to raise the stakes each episode (an Angel on a TV screen can become a real Angel in your eye? huh?), they creep towards the ridiculous. Angels Take Manhattan held almost no menace because the monsters had been stretched beyond their usefulness. In any event, I’m looking forward to seeing what the new crew comes up with.18 July 2017 at 21:59 #61064
Whilst I agree with the thrust of your argument, I (yes its a horseshit but) think you’re wrong on one thing. I think its perfectly reasonable to say that in my opinion the Doctor is a male character and should remain male. As an opinion, it doesnt need to be justified by an argument more than stating that the poster considers that a role which is traditionally been played by a male actor should remain so.
Yes, those of us that disagree, can present lots of reasons and arguments to show that that this belief isnt reasonable and can’t really be validated any more, but I don’t see that negates those that believe that things shouldn’t change. Yes some of these people are sexist (and racist in due course), but certainly not all of them are.
Looking the web, there are many making that point using misogyny, which is clearly wrong. However, I have seen replies and posts which are essentially using the same sort of cheap point as justification for the change. Neither points of view are appropriate in my opinion.18 July 2017 at 22:22 #61065
I’m not sure I agree. Any opinion, on any subject, should be capable of, and I think probably subject to, some kind of examination, even if it is only a personal one. Otherwise it can become little more than a prejudice, even if it didn’t start out that way. I mean, it’s my opinion that I deserve a pay rise but if I go into my boss and express that opinion the first thing he’s going to ask me is ‘why’ and if I don’t have a good answer prepared then you can be pretty sure no cash will be forthcoming.
And in the context of this site, take you and I for instance, we’ve had lots of great and highly enjoyable discussions. We’ve not always agreed completely but we often have. You’ve definitely changed my mind about some stuff and maybe I’ve done the same to you. But if I’d said ‘this is my opinion. End of.’ without giving any reasons for believing that then no discussion is possible. You’d probably be a bit disinclined to carry on conversing with me but even if you did I’ve given you no raw material to work with. I’d argue that this site is at its best when people offer some context or support for their POV and I’d be hard-pressed to think of a long-term contributor who didn’t use this approach.
But I take your basic point and I think you’re right. The Argument To Tradition is fair enough to an extent but I can’t help but feel in nine times out of ten that it merits a little more prodding, a little more examination.18 July 2017 at 23:00 #61067
@jimthefish No need to do a blog post. I’ll get something up tomorrow evening re a Capaldi retrospective – just season 10 might be a bit restrictive so let’s take in his whole time on the show.
But certainly get your first post ready.18 July 2017 at 23:02 #61069
@craig– good stuff. Saves my typing fingers….18 July 2017 at 23:08 #61070
Of course. I’ve enjoyed some spars here with you and others; I’ve had my mind changed often enough (although sometimes not for months later).
By arguing against the traditionalist standpoint, you’ve managed to change @exfan ‘s point of view to a degree and I hope we collectively have at least planted the idea that it might be alright and perhaps even persuaded some of the negative “I’m not watching it ever again” to give Jodie a go next year (even if they havent admitted it openly). Maybe not yet, but people do dwell on things subconsciously and there’s plenty of time.
But I understand where they are coming from at the end of the day. I seriously hated the D10/Rose love in from series 2, bad wolf bay candle in the wind and substitute Doctor hand-over from series 4, which certainly turned me against the thrust of what RTD did as show runner [ as a yet another aside: I admire his writing enormously; anyone who hasnt watched cucumber/banana really should].
My sole justification is that I don’t believe that a 1,000 + year old alien could let alone would behave that way. It’s not a good argument and I’d have to give a huge amount of thought to think up some supporting or better justification. In something fictional, perhaps, there are some points of view which just cant be justified by a sophisticated argument.
When we firmly believe in the merits of a change such as the casting of Jodie, then its easy to come across as a bit too evangelical and with not enough sympathy to the other persons opinion in the way that we write, especially if we think its a poor one or we’re in a hurry. I have certainly done this.
We (collectively) seem to have pissed off Puro ( @Thane15 ) (if what I think my understanding of her final posts is right) by in her view, not justifying our point of view clearly enough – stating opinions and not arguments – and by being somewhat repetitive in our arguments. But this is what we are now accusing the Traditionalist point of view of doing exactly the same. [as another aside I am certainly missing her point of view on the debate with the traditionalists as well as female Doctor].
So here I am, agreeing with your basic argument that all arguments should be justified and debated and yet recognising that it isnt always that simple.18 July 2017 at 23:35 #61071
@nick: WRT how a 1000+ year old alien “should” be…
One rather large difference I’ve noted between classic and modern Who is that in the classics, the newly regenerated Doctors usually made an “I am still me” sort of assertion and attempted to just push on, only to develop different attitudes and behaviors as the new Doctor’s persona developed. In modern Who, the exiting Doctor experiences angst and expresses the feeling that the impending regeneration is “death,” and the new Doctor bursts forth with a radically different persona that over time drifts back toward “I’m incredibly old and nearing the end of my days.”
So it comes as no great surprise to me if a newly regenerated Doctor does something that I couldn’t imagine an old Doctor ever doing. Nor will it come as a surprise if the next Doctor takes on an increasingly older persona as she approaches her own eventual ending.18 July 2017 at 23:48 #6107219 July 2017 at 00:14 #61073
I read an interview that Peter Capaldi did (which I can no longer find or I’d post it) where he said he was playing the Doctor exactly as he thought a 2,000 year old alien would be. I can understand and accept his vision and that he has delivered exactly that. RTD and Chris Eccleston, followed by David Tennant had there own conception, based on the combination of age, but heavily influenced by effect of genocide and survivor guilt. Matt, being the youngest ever casting, wanted to play with young looking, but old inside.
The thing about regeneration is that there’s no reason why the change need just be physical. I dont see why a mental/attitude rejuvenation should also be possible. I hope to see Chris Chibnall and Jodie Whitaker do something along those lines, where we get to see a less world weary, fun Doctor without the baggage, while also reflecting the age and alien outlook.19 July 2017 at 01:13 #61074tardigrade @tardigrade
To be honest, I’m ready for the Master to be gone for a long time. I’ve said this repeatedly but I want to see new twists and villains or even old ones we have yet to entertain in the new series.
Agreed- I think that as things stand, the Master/Missy, cybermen and Time Lords can all disappear for a season or more. The daleks are doubtless going to make an appearance in S11, but I think its time to expand into new places, new races, new villains and new storylines. While returning to some old themes can be seen as paying fan service, in the end the series needs to evolve and returning to the well too often can make the Whoniverse seem smaller in scope than it should. There’s deliberately a very clean slate at the moment, so I think this is a really good time for that.
Is she [Jodie] going to get to keep that wonderful Yorkshire accent?
I assume so. I think it’s preferable for actors to use their natural accent whenever they can, even if they are very capable in affecting other accents- it’s one less thing for them to think about for one thing and helps them concentrate on their performance. I’ve always assumed that David Tenant didn’t use his native accent in deference to American viewers- a Scottish accent can be tricky to an ear trained on American English, at least to some.
I have decided that what I’m actually hoping for, after all this outcry, is that The Doctor asserts the identity he’s always had and demands to be considered male, despite appearances. Admittedly, this is because I feel like people who are protesting from a viewpoint of extreme misogyny would be utterly furious to discover this isn’t a feminist agenda, but that damn liberal media and their ramblings about gender identity! Still, we know The Doctor is quite comfortable being referred to as “him”. Why should that change? I don’t think they’d go down this path, and it could be for the best since it might get tedious having to correct every second person that turns up on screen, but in the privacy of my own malicious fantasies, this is a thing.
I can’t see that happening- those crying “feminist agenda” would just seamlessly switch over to “liberal agenda” and you introduce a new group of haters- unfortunately trans people face a significant degree of negativity. And it potentially undermines the positivity of having a female casting if the Doctor herself can’t accept it. I think a better outcome would be if the Doctor, who has struggled with the reality of changing again and again achieves an epiphany and fully embraces her latest, and perhaps greatest, physical change. And yes – I know you had your tongue planted in your cheek in making this suggestion 🙂19 July 2017 at 01:49 #61075lisa @lisa
So been reading thru posts and it occurred to me if the powers that be could still refer to the Doctor
as a Time *Lord* not a Time *Lady* ?? And – possibly could this indicate something about the way
they might intend to portray her version of the Doctor ? I’m referring to CC and his crew.
My preference is Time Lord ! I believe this even may alleviate some of what all of folks might
be having some issues about? My thinking is if a push is made to make *Lord* a more gender
neutral concept that could be more interesting – at least it would for me. All this bickering over
her sex is a bit annoying. So I’d very much like to see her as a sort of “Orlando”. Throw in some
episodes where the Doctor meets some historic figures. I like those particular episodes very much!
Oh- and give her a very Bloombury outfit and a visit to meet Virginia and Vita 🙂19 July 2017 at 02:11 #61076
No one has stated one good reason for this decision or even a reason.
I don’t count It’s about time, it’s brave, breaking the glass ceiling, girls need a positive role model19 July 2017 at 02:47 #61077
Unfortunate that Jodie Whittaker has been chosen to sacrifice her career so Chris Chibnall can make a empty social commentary 20 years late, he’s trying to right a wrong that has never existed here by pulling a stunt that has never worked before. It’s weak and worse he’s using Jodie as a human shield.if this is a success He’s brilliant, if it fails, the fans are sexist. This week is as good as it will ever get for Jodie all she has for the rest of her career is being The First Female Doctor or The Woman That Killed Doctor Who and all so Chibnall can feed his ego with little to no risk.19 July 2017 at 02:56 #61078
I don’t recall hearing “Time Lady” used in the modern Doctor Who. “Lord” and “Lady” do not have the same formal significance internationally as they do in The Commonwealth, so it will not be a surprise if “Time Lord” is now a genderless term.
As for “good reason,” it is what the showrunner wants, and that is really all that matters. Because the last time a Doctor Who showrunner was overruled, this was the result:19 July 2017 at 03:11 #61079Anonymous @
Hi all. I’m back here to my favourite Doctor Who space online for my 2 cents worth after having been demoralised by a lot of what is going on in other sites.
My first reaction to the news was being thrilled and a bit anxious. The anxiety was pre-empting all the angst and vitriole, but also about telling my two young sons who hero worship the Doctor. I was worried about them losing the whole male non-macho, non-violent role model thing because lets face it, there aren’t many of those around (for some reason my sons haven’t taken to Captain Picard). Then I realised that a lot of their reaction would come down to how I frame it and sell it. It took a few hours but now they are fine with their new Doctor. I’ll know they’ve totally come to terms with it when they make a Lego version of her! Although they’ve already re-named their ginger Lego man “the Fourteenth Doctor”. (We have 9-12 as Lego people and also most of the compaions).
I think Whittaker looks absolutely amazing in the reveal – something about her just seems so right. I wish I could send her a bunch of flowers or something because it must be so difficult to know about all those dissapointed and disgusted fans and the job she has ahead of her. Like in so many professions women have to be so much better than men to break the glass ceiling, and with this, so many people will be willing her to fail! Ugggh!
We should call her a Timelord. I hate the sound of “Timelady”. I don’t think we even need to say “actress” or “waitress” etc, so “Timelord” will be just fine thank you.
As for the framing of male/female and romance/sex etc, I really can’t see any issues or problems with the fact that the Doctor is now “female”. Timelords aren’t human and they don’t reproduce like us and we just have to stop looking at it in human terms. I don’t think you could ever call a Timelord “gay” or “straight” for example. It’s just not relevant.19 July 2017 at 03:14 #61080
That is not a reason, that’s the truth. So let’s stop calling Chris things like brave,groundbreaking, innovative, brilliant, social activist . He’s just a new boss who wants to prove he’s now in charge. He doesn’t care if there is a woman Doctor or not, he does t care about the fans that made this opportunity possible, he wants to make sure he the boss like it or not.19 July 2017 at 03:23 #61081
I dont see any reason why which Lord shouldn’t be genderless if that’s what Chibnall wants.
If you want to be very specific (in terms of British peerages etc), then Lord is actually used as short hand form instead of the correct title (Duke, Count and the female equivalent Duchess, Countess etc). Traditionally wives of Lords were called Ladies, but the term in common usage, over the last 150 years or more, covers anyone from the lowest to the highest rank. I suppose you could make up Lordess if you wanted to.19 July 2017 at 03:36 #61082
As you suggest Chibnall in full control. If he hadn’t wanted to have a female Doctor, then he wouldn’t have done that and cast Jodie. keeping things the same as always was the safe and sensible thing to do, especially as he has only just taken over. Brave is subjective I suppose, but given the very negative reaction in some quarters (which was expected by every body) I would say that it has been a bold and/or brave thing to do.
Whether Jodie is a success or not playing the Doctor, she’s a fine actress and I don’t see this harming her career at all. In fact being the first (and taking all the crap) will probably have the opposite effect.
I don’t understand why you think this is an empty social gesture from 20 years ago, but I fully believe that this would have happened in the 1990s in pre-gap Who if the show hadn’t have been scrapped by the BBC.
The topic ‘Jodie Whittaker announced as the new, 13th Doctor’ is closed to new replies.