So The New Dr Who

[Spreadie]

Unable to accept that what used to be an awesome show because it was different and stood apart from the crowd, is now bowing to public pressure and kow-towing.

So it's no longer awesome because they've cast a woman as the lead? Before you've even seen an episode?

[Ttaskmaster]

Surely it remains to be seen if it still stands apart from the crowd, which in any case is far more reliant on the new showrunner (to use the BBCs parlance,) who decides the tone, commissions storylines and decides the general direction of the series than it does on the actor in the leading role.

It does... and since the days of David Tennant, it has failed to do so.
This has not been Doctor Who for a long time... It has instead been The Tales Of Doctor Who's Companions.

Except there is no evidence that any of this has happened yet, if indeed it ever does.

Jack Harkness - The Gay One
Jack Harkness Torchwood Spinoff - The Gay Two/Metrosexual/Bi-Curious
Rose Tyler - The Love Interest One
Mickey Smith - The Black One
Martha Jones - The Black Woman One (and almost Love Interest)
Donna Noble - The Sassy Strong-Yet-Vulnerable Normal-Womanly One
River Sing - The Strong Female Who Can Also Be A Love Interest One
Amelia Pond - The Strong Female One (again)
Clara Oswald - The Strong Independent Female One
Bill Potts - The Black One Who Is Also A Lesbian One

The Doctor has been playing second fiddle to his companions' story arcs for so long now, he actually does precious little in more than a few episodes.

With your analogy its like your favourite boozers barman being replaced by a barmaid.

Only if she's being brought in because employee gender representative quotas are to be met, rather than her being any good as a barmaid...

Obviously they have been testing the waters with the character of The Master now being Missy and the latest episode is a classic example of the little jokes between the two that work best as just little jokes... but that we suspect (fear?) will become major recurring plot themes instead, whereupon the whole thing does not work.

This is how they ended up wasting Matt Smith and Pete Capaldi - The Doctor is supposed to be insanely brilliant, but they made both of these guys absolute idiots. There was very little in the way of genius and it was done to facilitate the Companions solving the puzzles like good strong independent modern people... which isn't what Doctor Who is about, IME.

So it's no longer awesome because they've cast a woman as the lead? Before you've even seen an episode?

No - It's no longer awesome, because they're pandering to fan service, rather than driving the story from their end.
It's basically FanFic and doing it 'just because'.

Had they done this a long time ago, it'd have been awesome - But now, people have been banging on about it for so long, it's lost all originality. It just feels like giving in and we might as well have a black James Bond, 'just because'.

[Biscuit]

Murky undercurrent? Flawed ideology? It's not the illuminati! I'm really not sure what you mean by this.

I have since edited and expanded my post, but essentially there is an an extreme element to the modern PC culture that attacks anyone who doesn't tow the line or dares to step even slightly outside the accepted narrative. Look at what happened to Joss Whedon on twitter after "The Avengers" was released. This is a man who has been a staunch supporter of woman's rights throughout his career, evident in his work such as Firefly and Buffy.

More often than not? Do you have a few examples?

I actually wrote out a long list of examples with explanations, but have since deleted it. I don't really want to de-rail the thread and start de-constructing the plot and ideology of all modern media, which is inevitably what would happen.
I will just leave two examples here.
Ghostbusters, being the most abhorrent example of an ideology ruining a franchise. The critics were then labelled as bigots and presented to the world as examples, enforcing the purpose for the underlying ideology of the films re-creaters.
Supergirl, being an example of the approach Dr Who should avoid.

[spacein_vader]

It does... and since the days of David Tennant, it has failed to do so.
This has not been Doctor Who for a long time... It has instead been The Tales Of Doctor Who's Companions. .

So surely you'd welcome a new show runner with fresh ideas as it seems you don't like the previous one? The Doctors companions have always been key to the series, hence him always having at least one (save for the odd episode transitioning from one companion to the next.)

Jack Harkness - The Gay One
Jack Harkness Torchwood Spinoff - The Gay Two/Metrosexual/Bi-Curious
Rose Tyler - The Love Interest One
Mickey Smith - The Black One
Martha Jones - The Black Woman One (and almost Love Interest)
Donna Noble - The Sassy Strong-Yet-Vulnerable Normal-Womanly One
River Sing - The Strong Female Who Can Also Be A Love Interest One
Amelia Pond - The Strong Female One (again)
Clara Oswald - The Strong Independent Female One
Bill Potts - The Black One Who Is Also A Lesbian One

The Doctor has been playing second fiddle to his companions' story arcs for so long now, he actually does precious little in more than a few episodes.

By that logic this ISN'T a major change, it's been like this for at nearly 10 years.

Only if she's being brought in because employee gender representative quotas are to be met, rather than her being any good as a barmaid...

She's a proven actress who has received acclaim in several roles, most notably Broadchurch. She's patently good at her job.

This is how they ended up wasting Matt Smith and Pete Capaldi - The Doctor is supposed to be insanely brilliant, but they made both of these guys absolute idiots. There was very little in the way of genius and it was done to facilitate the Companions solving the puzzles like good strong independent modern people... which isn't what Doctor Who is about, IME.

To your mind, what is Doctor Who about? I seem to recall previous companions from the series original run (Ace, Romana and Leela spring to mind,) who were also strong and independent.

No - It's no longer awesome, because they're pandering to fan service, rather than driving the story from their end.
It's basically FanFic and doing it 'just because'.

They're doing it because it's popular and it works. The audience now is not the audience of 30 years ago. They're recognised this and adapted accordingly. If it hadn't evolved it would have stayed buried after McCoy/McGann.

I actually wrote out a long list of examples with explanations, but have since deleted it. I don't really want to de-rail the thread and start de-constructing the plot and ideology of all modern media, which is inevitably what would happen.
I will just leave two examples here.
Ghostbusters, being the most abhorrent example of an ideology ruining a franchise. The critics were then labelled as bigots and presented to the world as examples, enforcing the purpose for the underlying ideology of the films re-creaters.
Supergirl, being an example of the approach Dr Who should avoid.

Ghostbusters was terrible, not sure male actors would have saved it either though. That said, Ghostbusters 2 ruined that particular franchise for me.

I've not seen Supergirl (doesn't interest me,) but a quick Google shows it has been renewed so it can't have been that unsuccessful.

[peterb]

A show isn't just about the actors - the scriptwriting and direction play a large part - so it remains to be seen how that fits into a female Dr - personally I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic about it - just mildly curious!

[Biscuit]

Ghostbusters was terrible, not sure male actors would have saved it either though. That said, Ghostbusters 2 ruined that particular franchise for me.

I've not seen Supergirl (doesn't interest me,) but a quick Google shows it has been renewed so it can't have been that unsuccessful.

Success of the show is irrelevant to the point at hand. You asked for examples based on my assertion, I didn't mention anything to do with commercial or populist success.

[spacein_vader]

Success of the show is irrelevant to the point at hand. You asked for examples based on my assertion, I didn't mention anything to do with commercial or populist success.

The assertion that it doesn't achieve the face​ value goals. The face value goal of a TV show or film is to have the maximum number of viewers surely?

If that's not what you meant then I apologise that I've misunderstood.

[Biscuit]

The assertion that it doesn't achieve the face​ value goals. The face value goal of a TV show or film is to have the maximum number of viewers surely?

If that's not what you meant then I apologise that I've misunderstood.

The assertion, verbatim, "the "good intentions" by which these ideologies are presented actually achieve the complete opposite to their face-value goals."

The shows creators know, with 100% certainty, that this change would upset and alienate a huge part of the cult-like following Dr Who has enjoyed throughout the years. I really find it hard to believe this was done with the face value of improving the audience. Hedging their bets on the front I would say.
What is face value, is that its a move to present the impression of a show, and public service, that wishes to demonstrate a better dedication to the equality of women as role models in media. Good intentions...

[tiggerai]

I think that this is one case where a (largely unnecessary) shift in gender could actually kind of fit the canon of the show. Its a twist that could work, if its handled well.

Is it unnecessary? Is there a reason that the Dr. couldn't be a woman?

As a public service broadcaster, and with so few females in the STEM industries, I think it's about bloody time. Girls need some positive role models in this kind of area, that "Geeky" can also be cool. I think it's very well played.

If the writers don't make a big deal about the switch of gender and continue on as normal, win-win.

Agreed. It's not equality if we make a big deal about it.

[Biscuit]

Is it unnecessary? Is there a reason that the Dr. couldn't be a woman?

Is there a reason it couldnt be another man?

[azrael-]

First, I must admit that I haven't read the entire thread. It somehow seemed to veer off into Top Gear territory. Also, I still have one more episode of the latest series to watch (well, except the christmas special which won't air until ...christmas, or thereabouts).

I do think the writing has been very much on the wall. The female Doctor has been brought up several times in discussions, and the BBC seem to have been testing the waters with the Master/Missy. Especially this season.

I'm not opposed to a female Doctor, if it's done correctly and with respect to the premise of Doctor Who as such. Being male I will however most probably miss the Doctor's predominantly female companions. Especially those easy on the eyes (none mentioned, none forgotten )... Ahh, but it's been a good run.

All in all I'm looking forward to being (hopefully pleasantly) surprised by the new Doctor.

[tiggerai]

Is there a reason it couldnt be another man?

Nope but if it was another man we wouldn't be discussing it in such detail, one assumes.

[Biscuit]

Nope but if it was another man we wouldn't be discussing it in such detail, one assumes.

Right, but they didnt NEED to change the genders to drum up discussion and media coverage. Definitely helps matter in some sense, but it's far from necessary.

[spacein_vader]

The assertion, verbatim, "the "good intentions" by which these ideologies are presented actually achieve the complete opposite to their face-value goals."

The shows creators know, with 100% certainty, that this change would upset and alienate a huge part of the cult-like following Dr Who has enjoyed throughout the years. I really find it hard to believe this was done with the face value of improving the audience. Hedging their bets on the front I would say.
What is face value, is that its a move to present the impression of a show, and public service, that wishes to demonstrate a better dedication to the equality of women as role models in media. Good intentions...

I'm sure they knew it would upset some but then any change would as the grumbling in some quarters about Capaldi proved. As for a huge amount that's just speculation. The truth is we won't know how many they've upset until the viewing figures for her first few episodes are released.

Is there a reason it couldnt be another man?

Of course not. I'm sure in time (arf!) it will be again.

[Ttaskmaster]

So surely you'd welcome a new show runner with fresh ideas as it seems you don't like the previous one?

Fresh ideas, yes.
Jumping on what appears to be yet another bandwaggon for the sake of appeasing fans isn't what I'd call fresh... and THAT is the concern - Not what they've done, but their reasoning behind it.
If they pull it off, great. But the fact that people are suddenly taking an interest in the show *just because* The Doctor is now a woman is exactly what the show does NOT need...

The Doctors companions have always been key to the series, hence him always having at least one (save for the odd episode transitioning from one companion to the next.)

Key, yes of course. But not the major (and also minor) plot points, as well as miraculous fixed points in the continuum around which the whole season revolves!
They're supposed to be ordinary people through whose eyes we get to experience The Doctor and the universe(s), not secret megaheroes who rapidly rise to the lofty heights of near-Timelords.

By that logic this ISN'T a major change, it's been like this for at nearly 10 years.

Yes, and see that final comment about how it's not been a good thing.
Some have been great stories in their own right... but not great Doctor Who stories.

She's a proven actress who has received acclaim in several roles, most notably Broadchurch. She's patently good at her job.

But why is she HERE?
Is it because she's a great actress, or because she's a woman... or because she's a woman and worked with blokie on Broadchurch?
Incidentally, I've only heard of Broadchurch because the Mrs watches it and it looked dreary as heck... Not selling me on the idea so far.

To your mind, what is Doctor Who about? I seem to recall previous companions from the series original run (Ace, Romana and Leela spring to mind,) who were also strong and independent.

Yes, but they were also always sidekicks, or rather 'assistants', as they used to be known. NOT frontline episode leads and NOT romantic interests. Heck, most didn't even get families, much less bring them all along on their travels.
It's the Doctor Who show, not the Amy And Rory Show!! Like I said, more than once we started to wonder why The Doctor is even around, still...

They're doing it because it's popular and it works.

No, it doesn't.
It is happening a lot these days, but it worked back when Ellen Ripley, Dana Scully and Sarah Connor were on-screen. It kind-of worked with the likes of Buffy and Firefly was FAR better, but now it's just waving it in the audience's face. It's standing up and being counted as showcasing strong, independent women... just like every other show.

They're recognised this and adapted accordingly. If it hadn't evolved it would have stayed buried after McCoy/McGann.

They've swung the other way, perhaps... but the difference is that they've stayed there too long and it's gotten boring. Formulaic, even, especially with Steven Moffatt at the helm.

Ghostbusters was terrible, not sure male actors would have saved it either though. That said, Ghostbusters 2 ruined that particular franchise for me.

GB2 trailed one hand a bit too far into slapstick... It went the way of Blues Brothers 2000. GB-Reboot went all-out silliness.

I've not seen Supergirl (doesn't interest me,) but a quick Google shows it has been renewed so it can't have been that unsuccessful.

A quick Google shows that Firefly was cancelled. I guess that programme was utter dross?
Another quick Google shows that Eastenders, Corronation Street and Neighbours are all still going... they must be STUNNING, right?

[azrael-]

Is there a reason it couldnt be another man?

Of course not. I'm sure in time (arf!) it will be again.

Bit of an untimely comment, innit?