Jodie Whittaker announced as the new, 13th Doctor
Home › Forums › Episodes › The Thirteenth Doctor › Jodie Whittaker announced as the new, 13th Doctor
This topic contains 546 replies, has 81 voices, and was last updated by 
Craig 7 years, 8 months ago.
-
AuthorPosts
-
19 July 2017 at 03:47 #61083
I just found this and it says everything I wanted to say but hadn’t the words
Although I don’t quite agree that NO ONE could replace him, I am wholeheartedly behind the rest of the article.
Hope this computes.
Missy
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/peter-capaldi-doctor-who/
p.s. Off to the Dentist! *shudder*
19 July 2017 at 04:15 #61084Anonymous @
I understand that when the Queen visits Lancashire she does so, not as the Queen but as the Duke of Lancaster. Duke, not Duchess. If its good enough for Her Majesty . . .
19 July 2017 at 04:22 #61085@lisa @genek1953 “Time Lady” has been used by Missy in AG Who:
DALEK: You are a Time Lord?
MISSY: Time Lady, thank you. Some of us can afford the upgrade.However, I actually think it may be a good time to ditch the Time Lord/Lady terminology altogether, as it’s not just the gender of the term that’s the issue. The modern connotations of “Lord” don’t sit well with the Doctor’s character. I don’t think that “Lady” is much better in that respect- it makes me think of “tea lady”, which doesn’t carry the right vibe either 🙂 . The Doctor could call herself “Gallifreyan”.
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.
If instead of scrapping the program, there had been a female 8th Doctor, then I suspect that the major reaction may have been that the show was “jumping the shark”, and then blame for the demise. The possibility of a gender change from regeneration wasn’t established in lore then.
19 July 2017 at 04:50 #61086I’m basically saying more gender ambiguous.
Not too distinctly feminine. Jodie is a pretty girl and I don’t want to see
her made into a Doctor Barbie doll.
They didn’t ‘fem’ up Missy and I think that was very smart but they still made a
point to refer to her as a Time lady. Romana too and maybe that was a mistake?
They’re not Humans they’re Galifreyans so shouldn’t we be using the same
title for both. I prefer if they call her Time *Lord*.
19 July 2017 at 05:17 #61088JW’s clothing in the intro trailer is not how the 13th Doctor will be dressed.
https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/07/16/interview-doctor-whos-13th-doctor/
19 July 2017 at 05:52 #6108919 July 2017 at 08:18 #61090So far wedged in, I can still feel the welt. lol I don’t really want it to happen, I can see too many negative drawbacks that would be counterproductive to the message it would send, but it’s fun thinking up ways to mess with people. Of course, that being said, I don’t lump all dissenters into the same category. I’ve already said I completely understand, and even empathise, with some of the concerns. Let’s hope at least a few of them are assuaged given time.
19 July 2017 at 09:23 #61091Got a few pages of comments to catch up on later, but I did enjoy this:
19 July 2017 at 09:55 #61092Thank you -I did my best with the discussion with the gentleman above
@holly110 and other readers today.
I know how you feel -or rather, how easy it is to get angry quickly and then think “hmm, maybe, I should’ve waited to press “submit”? 🙂 (It’s happened to us, the Puro and the Hybrid!)
But I think that because I’m 15 and maybe live in a house where people are who they are -mum cooks and cleans (when not doing other things) and taught music and worked at Defence. Dad is in administration in a school. Both were encouraged to follow their dreams. I think that, when you get down to it, this debate is a bit like the 1950s: “what would you like to do, when you finish school Holly?”
“I’d like to be a surgeon”
“oh, no, that’s for men, not ladies!”
This is one of the last areas of that to change. I can imagine little kids -girls and boys -playing Doctor Who and not caring if the girl is the Doctor.
I think when people get on a site like this and type frantically because they’re furious they tend to skip punctuation, slip up in their arguments, or fail to say why. In the end, when I read these posts I see one thing:
The Doctor is a male. He always has been.
Because no-one actually has said why this is essential I think that’s where the fury comes from? If there really is a credible argument for why the Doctor has to ‘stay’ male then that would mean cool heads could argue properly. But as there’s nothing to say beyond that, that could be why people are just stamping their feet with fury. If you’ve loved a show for 50 years and you have all the marketing this tells me you’ve loved it. Right? So why sell something from the period of the time when you loved the show? You’re shooting yourself in the foot.
I sell lots of stuff myself and I can’t imagine that upon hearing the news you’re immediately boxing up things, posting ads and going to the post office! You must have stayed up all night 🙂
Coz there’s another angle and that’s that some women like the show because they think the Doctor is cute and they can’t do that anymore. Men might like it because it shows them how masculine they could be-not with guns and macho but with kindness and humour. But when you think about it, those same qualities are adopted by women: passion, speeches, humour, action and kindness.
But I have one question for anyone here. Some people often say: We shouldn’t focus or even think about a woman’s sexual platform or attraction. If they are lesbian or a gay man then we should just focus on what they are doing, who they are etc. Like a female Doctor, it’s that they’re a doctor which counts and their gender isn’t relevant.
One of Mum’s friends is a lesbian and takes the view that you can’t ignore that person’s sexuality because it makes them who they are? Except she would also say that her sexuality is only a small % of what makes her the person she is. Just as a hetero person has ideas, favourite movies, dislikes, fav foods and books and films; their sexuality is not tied to all those things, So, I guess the question is: Can you ignore that person’s gender preference? Because if you do you’re ignoring one of the things that makes them very special. If we don’t acknowledge that then we’re not acknowledging them and we’re not learning how to ‘be’ around this person which then lets them down?
Does anyone have an answer to that? If there even is one? I’m genuinely interested because these ideas are relevant in today’s world (they probably always have been) but I think that there’s a feeling people are more ‘individual than ever’ before
Thank you for your patience,
Thane.
19 July 2017 at 10:50 #61093I do not ignore someone’s gender or preference. They are simply irrelevant to how we interact with each other…unless we both agree it would be more fun if we made them relevant.
19 July 2017 at 11:27 #61094@craig– yeah, it’s a lovely little film and it’s what really sold me on JW when I watched it. Broadchurch proves she can do dramatic, Black Mirror proves that she can do SF and this proves that she can do quirky and humorous.
19 July 2017 at 12:11 #61095@everyone
i’ve only now caught up with all the discussion here, and would like to thank everyone for a very lively one, at the least! but especially @thane15 , you have a way with words that i wish i’d had when i was 15… or even 35. 🙂
i can only add one thing, to try to help those very passionate fans who are upset with the direction the show is taking. we don’t know what the doctor’s last story is to be, nor do we know how he will choose to go when his time is up. but maybe the transition (in universe/story and in reality) will be easier to accept if he CHOOSES to regenerate into a woman (perhaps in an attempt to honor missy’s and bill’s sacrifices)?
even if moff and chibnall haven’t written it this way, or it’s not explicitly stated in the show’s dialogue (though i hope it is addressed, somehow), choosing to “headcanon” it in this way might make it just palatable enough to get you into the next series, to see if you can enjoy where it’s going. but simply refusing to give jodie a chance before she’s even spoken a line of dialogue isn’t something the doctor would choose to do, either in our beloved fantasy realm, or in our harsh reality…
so, what would it hurt to emulate our hero/heroine in this small way?
just a thought…
19 July 2017 at 12:18 #61097I’d prefer to see Jodie play a Doctor who is female (rather than a female Doctor). Whilst I don’t think the gender element should be down played, I do think the essentials of the doctor’s character and behaviour should remain essentially the same. I think the point of having a gender change character should be to show that gender is not the primary thing going on. In that respect Lisa, I’d suggest that we’re quite similar in what we’d like to see.
Of course, if McCoy had been a female cast, it is possible that that casting would have been blamed for the demise of the show, especially in hind sight. Of course it wouldnt have been the case. From what I’ve read, JNT had wanted to go and do something new for a while, but had been told that it would mean the end of Who as the BBC had no replacement producer. WE probably got 4 or 5 series more than we would have because he stayed on.
It hard to go back to that time. I was in my early 20’s, but I think it wouldnt have caused anything likethe same impact as today. Whilst it was a highly visible show it wasnt held in any particular critical regard by the BBC or the bulk of the TV audience. Fandom, any on large scale didnt really exist. IF they had chosen a good female actor with some good stories, it would have been accepted quite quickly.
I’m currently reading Running through the Corridors 2. On the Android Invasion, Rob and Toby write about their expectations because it was written by Terry Nation. Having watched it live, that amused me quite a lot. There was no expectation, because most of the audience wouldnt even have realised that it was written by him. I expect I knew he was the creator of the Daleks, but that didnt create any expectations for me. Terrence Dicks and Malcolm Hulke were the only well known writers to me , because they wrote the Target novelisations. The only things available which covered the past that I had then was the Making of book, the 10th anniversary glossy magazine and my memory of the really good stories. The wealth of guidebooks and the VND/DVD all came years later. Without all this history, things were much simpler and in some respects easier.
19 July 2017 at 12:45 #61098@thane15
Can you ignore that person’s gender preference? Because if you do you’re ignoring one of the things that makes them very special. If we don’t acknowledge that then we’re not acknowledging them and we’re not learning how to ‘be’ around this person which then lets them down?
Thane
On some levels that’s a hard question, but on the other hand it isnt 🙂 . For all my career, I have worked for female bosses, worked alongside women and had women work for me as well as men. It never made any difference to the job at the end of the day, nor did I feel that gender impacted the working relationship much either. Their sexual orientation was even less important. I think your point only becomes relevant when the nature of the relationship becomes deeper and more personal, but even then does it really matter ? One of my wife’s oldest friend is a gay male. I know him and his partner well. As couples, we have spent a lot of time together (sharing holiday homes together for example). I can’t think of a single instance when their sexual orientation (or ours) has actually impacted on the friendship we have.
19 July 2017 at 13:02 #61099@missy excellent article, captures why I love the twelfth Doctor so much.
@thane15
I can imagine little kids -girls and boys -playing Doctor Who and not caring if the girl is the Doctor.
When I was a small child I wanted to be Luke Skywalker. There weren’t any female Jedi, but I wanted to be the one to rescue the princess and do all the cool stuff, so I wanted to be Luke. That was at home, at school I wasn’t allowed to be Luke or a Jedi because I was a girl. I’m so glad things are changing. Now if we can just get away from girly=pink.
@nick clearly accept your friends totally – but there could be occasions where you may have to consider their sexuality because other people may not be so accepting, in which case you can’t ignore it.
19 July 2017 at 14:53 #6110019 July 2017 at 15:06 #61102Wonder where The Doctor stands in the list of BBC talent salarys?
Also. will there be a “Gender pay gap” between PC and JW?
19 July 2017 at 15:07 #61103Wonder where The Doctor stands in the list of BBC talent salarys?
I just posted a link on the news thread…
19 July 2017 at 15:43 #6110419 July 2017 at 15:56 #61105@mirime I want to get away from the connotation that “girly” equals weak, ie “pink is a weak girly colour”. Pink is not necessarily weak, depends upon shade and Vikings almost certainly wore pink. (an argument long ago on another forum) I want girls to able to favour whatever colour they please, pink, purple, puce green, (not sure that is actually a colour but makes the point.
(Actually not really into pink myself but I am growing tired of the issues around a colour and note that for many women pink is a statement of strength and identity. I liked Romana’s pink Time Lord outfit, it mirrored the Doctor but was also reflected her own identity. I would like her to have continued to wear that one costume as I thought it indicated that she was his equal. As a teenager at the time that series aired I was so excited by the Doctor having a companion who was his equal in all but life experience, and to me, more than any other outfit she wore that pink suit reflected that. So what would I like to see Jodie/Doc wearing.. something a little mysterious, dark, a bit “bohemian”. I think Dark sombre colours would suit Jodie best but that might just be because I like dark colours.Happy if they decide to ditch the title, “Time Lady” as it sounds wrong anyway. I think Time Lord works best and as Gallifreyans are gender fluid it makes sense not to use gender specific terms. So “grandfather” should have been “grandparent”, or should be, if we meet up with Susan again.
Gallifrey is obviously a classist society which is one of the reasons the Doctor keeps running so I think keeping the elitist titles is justifiable.
Anyway I am being reminded that it is well past midnight and I have places to be tomorrow, things to do, that annoying R.L stuff.
Cheers
Janette.19 July 2017 at 16:38 #61106@janetteb had a conversation with my 4 year old son a few weeks ago. He points at Lego Friends (very pink, aimed at girls if you don’t know it) comic and asks ‘Is that for girls?’. I say no, that it’s Lego, they do different kinds and you get whatever type you like. ‘But is it for girls?’ he asks again. I repeat what I’ve already explained. Two days later he has both the Lego Friends and the Lego Elves comics and is playing happily with the toys that came with them.
I’m not a ‘pink person’ at all and I liked Space Lego and He-Man and other so-called boyish things when I was little, as well as Barbie and Sindy. I want my little boy to be free to like pink if he wants, and I want little girls to be free to like things that aren’t pink. In terms of the colour-coding of childrens clothes and toys we seemed to have gone backwards.
Happy if they decide to ditch the title, “Time Lady” as it sounds wrong anyway. I think Time Lord works best and as Gallifreyans are gender fluid it makes sense not to use gender specific terms. So “grandfather” should have been “grandparent”, or should be, if we meet up with Susan again.
For all we know Gallifreyan has gender neutral terms and the Tardis just translates as appropriate to make sense to us. Bill points out that they still call themselves Time Lords despite the Doctor saying that they’re way beyond us on gender, but perhaps subtleties get lost in translation
19 July 2017 at 16:48 #61107I believe this will effect Jodie Whittaker’s career negatively , because most every actor who has played the Doctor has spent their career being Doctor Who # whatever. She will also have to deal an entire season scripts constantly pointing out that the Doctor is now a woman and explaining any recurring characters why. Hopefully she’ll get a second season to try and overcome that. Still she will now forever be the first Female Doctor Who or The Woman That Killed The Doctor, an actress of her talent deserves better.
This never would have happened under JNT trust me
It’s an empty gesture because it is. What’s the point, what right is he trying to wrong?
What he has done is pit the fans against one another so he can get away with lazy writing and have no direction for The Doctor until at least Christmas 2018.
19 July 2017 at 17:18 #61108Just a quick post; I too just joined this forum to indulge in a little 13th Doctor support-speak, but after reading through this string of posts, I have to say you guys are brilliant, or, in American, awesome.
Lots of thoughtful commentary. Lost of attempting to engage rather than the trolling I’ve been reading lately.
For my part, I’m very pleased, hoping Chibnall does a good job so we can enjoy the new season. “Tardis Full of Bras” is fun, but not a whole season of it, please. Still want it to be an episode title.
(And FWIW, I too, am a woman. Tennant is my Doctor, but I’m all in on Capaldi. Will miss him. )
19 July 2017 at 17:30 #61109Welcome. I hope we see you contribute your thoughts on Jodie’s version of the Doctor next year as well as Capaldi and Tennant’s era.
19 July 2017 at 17:30 #61110@mirime – For all we know Gallifreyan has gender neutral terms and the Tardis just translates as appropriate to make sense to us. Bill points out that they still call themselves Time Lords despite the Doctor saying that they’re way beyond us on gender, but perhaps subtleties get lost in translation
Well, it’s certainly true in-universe that the Time Lords are a lot stuffier than the Doctor says they are, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the Doctor continues to be more progressive than his/her people.
@robynhod – I believe this will effect Jodie Whittaker’s career negatively , because most every actor who has played the Doctor has spent their career being Doctor Who # whatever.
That’s demonstrably untrue, especially in the modern era. David Tennant has had three successful TV shows since leaving Doctor Who (not counting Duck Tales), and Matt Smith was excellent as Prince Philip in The Crown.
More importantly, I think your question of “what right is he trying to wrong” is the wrong question. It’s only those who disagree with the choice who seem to believe that it MUST be some sort of “statement” or political correctness run amok. It’s just a casting choice. Since the very first regeneration, DW writers and showrunners have struggled with how to keep the show innovative and attracting new viewers. No one wants a TV show to remain the same for 50 years. DW is a show in which the traditional elements (time-traveling alien, blue box, monsters, etc.) have been used as a jumping-off point for the ideas of the writers of that era — the Jon Pertwee era created a James Bond-like Doctor who knocked out monsters with Venusian Aikido chops and worked as a government operative; the Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy eras experimented with a less-trustworthy Doctor who was more alien and harder to figure out; the reboot gave us a Doctor crippled with remorse, who needed his companions more than his predecessors did; and the Matt Smith era added a layer of whimsy and fantasy, creating an entirely different tone than RTD’s show. As I said earlier upthread, the constant change is what has enabled the show to survive for as long as it has.
So this is another change. I don’t think it’s a “gesture” or a “statement” at all. It’s a choice. You’re welcome to disagree with the choice (not all choices made by DW writers and showrunners have been successful), but I personally think it’s silly not to at least wait and see what happens.
19 July 2017 at 17:39 #61111@Thane15 – Nicely said.
19 July 2017 at 17:41 #61112I personally don’t think playing Doctor Who will ruin Jodie’s career. She have already done lots
of stuff before Doctor Who and I am certain she will have a long career after her stint at DW.
Any actor/actress who already have a good career in progress will do just fine after
playing the Doctor or one of the Doctor’s companions.I also think that her stint SW will open the door for bigger roles since she will have a bigger
and more global audience which will make her more globally recognized.It is a big difference compared to those who play the same role for 10-15-20 season,
like Alan Alda in M*A*S*H, Mark Harmon in NCIS and etc. 10-15 years from now I think
Jodie will be more known for one of her future roles then for playing the Doctor.19 July 2017 at 17:43 #61113She will also have to deal an entire season scripts constantly pointing out that the Doctor is now a woman and explaining any recurring characters why.
Doctor: Hello, I’m the Doctor!
Recurring character does double take.
Doctor: I regenerated.
Hardly takes up a whole episode and anyone familiar with Time Lords presumably won’t need it explained – I’m guessing the Daleks, for example, won’t feel the need to comment on it. What recurring characters are you thinking of anyway? I’d assume there won’t be many.
19 July 2017 at 17:46 #61114I agree with you, that playing the Doctor is a role that leaves a lasting mark on an actor’s career. That could be a bad thing – perhaps it was true to a degree for Tom Baker (although he was also noted as being quite difficult as well). However, Jon Pertwee and Peter Davidson both had/have very significant post Doctor UK TV careers. This isn’t quite as true for either Colin Baker or Sylvester McCoy, but both were different sort of actors. Paul McGann remains a successful UK actor.
Looking at more recent Doctor’s all three of them pre-Capaldi have continued to have successful and wide ranging careers in both UK and US TV. In fact the opening of US TV and film prospects, following appearing as the Doctor, is probably the largest difference compared to the past.
We’ll have to wait and see how Jodie portrays the Doctor and Chibnall’s ideas appear on the screen. Until then, its impossible to have an opinion.
19 July 2017 at 18:23 #61115@jimthefish I found the original short film the “Adult Life Skills” is based on. It’s obviously very similar but the story part of it doesn’t appear in the film. I thought it was a nice little addition having watched the film.
People should probably watch the film first, but if you can’t or you want to check out the short first you can:
19 July 2017 at 18:52 #61116@mirime I like your attitude with toys! 🙂 Yes, the concept of the pink and blue aisles is a relatively recent creation, dating back to the 1980s. Like you I also played with boy toys as a kid, though I had to borrow them from my brother.
Also, as far as the Doctor having to explain her new form, she can just say “A thing happened” too. Worked for Twelve! 😉
19 July 2017 at 19:21 #61117I believe I have been misunderstood, it’s not about talent or work. Most all actors that have played the Doctor will be Doctor Who #whatever. Let’s take the ones mentioned any one seeing Broadchurch Fright Night or even Goblet of Fire, the reaction will be, didn’t he play Doctor Who? Ask anyone who is Matt Smith, what do you think the answer will be?
On the day Chris Chibnall was announced as new show runner; I told my friends that’s it, the next Doctorwill be a woman, and they said it was silly to say that without waiting to see what happens. Chris sees himself as a crusader, it’s in all his writings, he feels he is making a social statement. It’s all there.
I will watch, and I wil see. If I’m wrong I’ll be first to admit it, but it will take some time.
19 July 2017 at 19:49 #61122Another question if you asked any body who Jodie Whittaker a week ago, you would have most likely would have had to list some things she was in to help them remember. Ask today every one will say She’s the first Female Doctor Who or depending who you ask She’s the women that we’ll kill The Doctor. Jodie today can’t answer her phone, has no more private life, and has had to apoligize publicly for being a woman. Meanwhile Chris is content to let her be his shield.
19 July 2017 at 19:54 #61125@jimthefish and anyone else who is interested – I have now added a topic about Peter Capaldi’s time in the TARDIS. Link’s on the home page (and harmony has returned to the layout!).
Let us know what you thought of the Capaldi years.
19 July 2017 at 20:04 #61128Thanks you for clarifying your thoughts. If you look around, you’ll find many people who doubt or question Chibnall’s suitability as show runner, although all/most of us are keeping an open mind. I havent come across the argument that he is a moral crusader (I never particularly noticed anything on his Torchwood or Who work that I would have considered to be of that nature), although there is clearly part of his intention with Broadchurch to make certain moral points. I watched all three Broadchurch series, moralising isnt the largest negative criticism I would have made.
Going back to series 11, I agree with you, there are things that Chibnall could choose to put on screen that I would consider inappropriate either for Who or in respect of the character of the Doctor. But until he does any of those things, if he does, then we cant discuss them. If you look back at some of @jimthefish ‘s posts on this topic (and elsewhere) he articulates some potential issues with Chibnall’s story telling style, which I certainly agree with. However, all; we can do is wait and see what he does.
I look forward to reading your critique on these pages next year.
19 July 2017 at 20:37 #61130Chibnall has said that the BBC hired him to be “risky” and “bold,” so there’s no need for his motivation to be anything other than to do something that would stir the pot. And it has certainly been well-stirred.
19 July 2017 at 21:00 #61132Here’s that BBC complaints response (see post 61100) as an image…
19 July 2017 at 21:06 #61133Nick
Thanks, I’ve only had this account for 1 day still learning the site. I’m going into hospital for a few days I’ll check in on other side. Sorry I wasn’t clear eariler.
19 July 2017 at 21:23 #61135I have learned a trick as to how to avoid trolls that keep talking about this decision.
Any time I see the three words “female Doctor Who” put in that order, I disregard the poster.
She the Doctor not Doctor Who
19 July 2017 at 21:26 #61136Being a crusader is not a bad thing either, but their are times when it takes as much courage to not do something. When you draw your sword, you have to concider who you are killing as well as who you are allowing to live.
19 July 2017 at 21:32 #61137I thought it might be time to resurrect this clip, which we’ve probably had before, of a young Chris Chibnall discussing Doctor Who on TV. He’s been a fan forever and I think he’ll do a good job with our new Doctor. But we’ll have more time to discuss that when we do start our Chibnall retrospective.
In case you don’t recognise him, he’s the third “die-hard fan” they speak to, in the back row with the big eighties glasses.
19 July 2017 at 21:33 #61138Somehow, I have the idea this was written well in advance of July 16th
19 July 2017 at 21:43 #61139@craig Chibbers must know that karma will catch up with him one day!!!
He tries to find a nice word to substitute for ‘boring’ but fails.
I always thought that this bunch were rather rude really. Poor Pip & Jane.
I wonder how many times this clip will be dragged out to play to Chibbers during his tenure?
‘Boring’
19 July 2017 at 21:48 #61140@wolfweed I know! So he probably needs to keep being reminded of it.
“Silly monsters and corridors” – out!
I’ve generally liked what he’s done – apart from the odd episode.
That was basically the 1986 version of YouTube or Forum comments. It’s all there gestating.
19 July 2017 at 21:57 #61141That was basically the 1986 version of YouTube or Forum comments. It’s all there gestating.
People wanting to see a crispy version of the vid can see it on The Ultimate Foe disc of The Trial of a Time Lord dvds…
19 July 2017 at 22:18 #61142The Sun is saying that Kris Marshall is lined up to play the companion.
So there’s a very very good chance that he’s not.
19 July 2017 at 22:38 #61144Gosh I hope you’re right there. Kris as companion would be a terribly boring idea – cute Tardis couple.
19 July 2017 at 22:57 #6114519 July 2017 at 22:57 #6114619 July 2017 at 23:10 #61147I don’t mean to beat a dead horse or be annoying, but I’ve heard -a bit -mainly from teachers that the “JNT” series wasn’t that good? Is that the discussion from 1986 with Chris above? The lady -Pip Baker? (not sure) was she not a big fan before writing the Mark of the Rani?
When asked if she’d watched it -it sounded like she hadn’t seen much of Classic Who.
I had the impression from somewhere else that JNT was a kind of hippy dude but he seemed posh when interviewed (posh is probably not the word I mean -his pronunciation is so different from what you hear today).
Sorry if I’m confusing. I’ve been up half the night writing children’s stories for a class in which I’m the only boy (early Childhood Studies!).
Thane
-
AuthorPosts
The topic ‘Jodie Whittaker announced as the new, 13th Doctor’ is closed to new replies.
