So what do you think people?
The new Doctor is Jodie Whittaker.
I am all for change but hmmm will have to wait and see on this one.
Printable View
So what do you think people?
The new Doctor is Jodie Whittaker.
I am all for change but hmmm will have to wait and see on this one.
Too early to say - need to see the next series first!
I am seriously not impressed. I knew the BBC were going to do it..so much pressure over gender equality etc and they have shown a lack of respect for the show previously when they cast Catherine Tate as a companion, but this is a whole new level.
First they took Top Gear away, and now Dr Who (for the second time).
It's not about sexism, or not wanting women to get lead roles..it just doesn't fit with the tone of Dr Who, the history, the continuity..common sense. They just about hung on to credibility with Missy by keeping the character so far removed from the master that she was essentially just a new enemy - and course wasn't key to the show. You can't do that with the Doctor. If they wanted more female leads in that universe then do another spin off or bring back torchwood..worked fine there but why on earth mess with the core show to this degree?
I do not intend to watch it and I almost hope the shows dies after the next season. It's time to let it rest and move on to something new.
Exactly as above (jonj and Peter) .... not sure.
I have no principled objection to Dr Who being female, provided they aren't just doing it for the sake of political correctness.
But Jodie now has a lot of pressure on her. First, ANY actor taking on such an iconic and, by many, beloved role has an uphill struggle to prove himself. Jodie has a double-whammy ... is she any good as the Doctor, AND can she carry off the gender switch?
Big shoes to fill, there, Jodie. Good luck, girl.
I agree, as mentioned will have to wait and see.
I think they are going through Doctors like no tomorrow lately. Poor old Bill Potts only got one series in before being bumped off.
I know what you mean, and felt the same with Top Gear. I had no interest at all in that, and neither have nor ever will watch the new one, even after Chris Evans (as I suspected, proved a disaster) sensibly walked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spud1
For me, though, Doctor Who is different, probably because we've been here so many times .... and I remember William Hartnell in the role, and the modern series is so very, VERY different in tone.
A large part of the longevity of the show, IMHO, is the ability to regularly change up the role, refresh things, and this change does that, with bells on.
So personally, unlike Top Gear, I will be watching the new Doctor, at least long enough for me to get used to the change and give her a fair crack at it, and I hope she carries it off.
Of course, my view may be coloured by the fact that I was never really that impressed with the Capaldi incarnation, in the first place.
Very true and I agree on Capalidi - I feel like he was a Doctor who would have done very well with the classic Dr Who stories, but didn't quite carry off the stories he was given aside from a few really good exceptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
I may well give her a shot - I will watch the Christmas special and see how I react at the time, I'm just venting today I think :) Feels too much like she has been cast as a Political correctness/PR move, knowing it will appease critics over male domination in leading roles and create enough of a buzz elsewhere. A little bit like with the new Star Trek TV series tbh.
I'm kinda holding on to the fact that David Tennant and Matt Smith both considerably surprised me .... for the better. I wouldn't have cast either of them ... which just proves it's lucky I'm not doing the casting, as I evidently know naff-all, or less, about how to do it.
So .... fingers crossed. ;) :D
While I agree with your thoughts on Doctor Who having adapted through the years, hasn't top gear done the same? The current incarnation (or the Clarkson-May-Hammond one,) are VERY different to the show Angela Rippon introduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Well, true, the Angela Rippon version was a serious motoring show where cars were the focus.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
The latter shows were about the presenters where the cars were just props.
Dr Who though has always been more about the stories with the central characters playing a part (rather than the stories being a vehicle to show off the actors playing the roles)
Agreed, the show regenerates with the doctor and hopefully this will get us some fresh ideas and themes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
I think Capaldi after a slow start was just getting into his stride so the timing seems poor, but I will definitely be watching. The only dodgy part of this is we now have someone who did Broadchurch in charge of Doctor Who and the first thing they do is bring in a Broadchurch lead to play the main part. It seems lazy, but that doesn't mean she can't do a blinding job of it.
Agree with this, think it was only the latest series that he seemed to have relaxed into the role, then leaves!Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
So what is your concern?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonj1611
My concern? Oh you mean the hmmm will have to wait and see? Pretty much as it said. Will have to see how a woman fits a role thats been dominated by a man since its first release.
I'm optimistic and looking forward to how the change will pan out, but I do have to admit that I did wonder whether everyone was considered properly due to the Broadchurch connections.
Well, it'll add a new .. er.. dimension to the show!
Indeed it has. The Clarkson variant rejuvenated it from a rather staid show about cars, to a personality-based messing-about televisual lad's mag, and something of a marmite experience, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
My decision to not watch the new Top Gear was that, for me, the new line-up absolutely sucked, and Evans in particular sets my teeth on edge. And for me, without the Clarkson, Hammond and May interaction, it wasn't going to work. Nor am I taking out an Amazon subscription I otherwise fon't want just for their new show.
It'll be fine - I'm looking forward to it.
I saw a comment on the beeb that nailed it:
Quote:
People who accept a shape-shifting, time-traveling immortal character unable to accept a female lead in a TV show :laugh:
Well maybe they might find a few billion missing people in their universe whilst they are at it?
Agree that it was getting flat before the early '00s reimagining, but even that evolved. Try watching some of the first season of the Clarkson/May/Hammond edition and it's very clunky in places. Initially there's another presenter and May only appears a fair way into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
The current incarnation (I'm with you on the aborted Evans led project,) strikes me as similar. I lasted less than an episode of Evans, but watched the whole series of the Le Blanc led series. It has clunky moments, but it improved and is different enough from the Clarkson era to be new, but not so different as to be unrecognisable IMO.
Saw episode 1 of the Grand Tour at a mates house and it really is just the old Top Gear on a bigger budget. Whether you'd like it or not depends exactly on how you feel about that statement. I'd stopped watching 'old' Top Gear as it had got tired IMO.
If they were going to pick someone from Broadchurch maybe they should have considered that Scottish bloke instead? I've got a feeling he'd have done a decent job of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Output
How I felt about the Clarkson variant? Hmmm. Tricky to explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
I guess I could say "Fan .... but barely".
In my top 100, but not my top 20.
When they were showing, I'd record them and "timeshift" .... sometimes by months. One year, I recorded the whole series without watching any, then about 6 months later, when I as in the mood, I watched three episodes on the trot, and the whole series in about a week.
So I suppose how I feel is that they're good but not great, well-watchable but certainly not unmissable.
I'm sad they've stopped on the Beeb, but certainly not sad enough to pay a subscription to another service to watch GT.
If, in an alternate universe, they came back to the BBC it'd please me but I wouldn't be wetting myself with joy.
So, does that qualify me as a fan? If it does, it's barely.
People, including probably me, have referred to TG (and Clarkson) s a marmite show .... love it or hate it. I'm the exception that proves the rule, in that I'm in the middle, but just a bit in favour. Then again, that's how I feel about marmite too .... I like it if I'm in the mood.
Matt Le Blanc has actually done a good job IMHO OFC,and its worth giving the series another go!!
Horses for courses, I guess. I've not seen a whole episode but I have seen clips and there's just something about him, on this show, that ... grates. Not on the scale that Chris Evans did, but still, enough to put me off.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Another part of it is probably that I'm losing interest in cars. I think it's because, well, several things. I don't really get a kick from driving, any more. Maybe it's that cars are getting boring. Maybe it's that roads are too congested. Maybe I'm getting old, but cars are now really a method of getting from A to B, and while I used to enjoy the process itself, now it's a chore to endure, the price of getting from A to B. Roll on the invention of a Trekian point-to-point teleporter, 'cos I'll be at the head of the queue.
So, I don't really watch car shows for the cars. I watched for the .... ummm ..... "horsing" about between rhe three of them.
It's a bit like watching an Abba (*) tribute band ... they might be very good musicians, and perfectly listenable, but Abba, they ain't.
(*) For Abba, substitute a band you like. I could have used the Beatles, Queen, whatever. The point is that a remake rarely lives up to the original.
TBH,I mostly watch it for the silliness,and Clarkson and co sometimes could push things a bit too far!! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
1: it's not 'mr who', it's 'dr', which is a pronoun not defined by gender.
2: it's dr who, who actually cares? do people really have so little going on in their lives that this sort of thing upsets them?
1. Always thought Dr was a noun. Happy to be corrected
2. I don't see anybody upset, just people having their opinions. Is that ok? Being a forum and all that.
I refuse to watch out of the sole principle that Evans (who I despise anyway) kept swearing blind that he was NOT doing new TG... then surprise announcement, he IS doing it now... Lying attention-seeking [censored]!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
Some people have a LOT going on in their lives and this is what they watch to unwind. So when this too crawls up its own backside, that catharsis is lost. That's why people get upset over this... It's like your favourite boozer deciding it has to become a lesbian-only fruit juice bar, for politically correct reasons...Quote:
Originally Posted by wazzickle
Quote:
Originally Posted by wazzickle
It's a tricky one - if the name is "Dr Who" then it is a proper noun - and not gender specific. On the other hand the term Dr could be an adjective as it is could be describing what some one does (the assumption being a medical practitioner - which the Doctor (proper noun!) isn't. It can be descriptive of academic rank - where it falls back into the adjective role.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonj1611
But as Wazzickle says - it is gender neutral.
(doctor can also be a verb - as in the food was doctored to make it more palatable - but clearly not the case here)
Any other Grammar Police Force members have a view? :)
I'm going to do what I usually do with a new Doctor, give them a chance. I don't care what gender the lead actor is. It's not like it's a sacred text that's being meddled with in the interests of political correctness, it's a Saturday evening show, for kids. If you don't like there being a female in the lead role, don't watch it. I'm sure there'll be episodes of The Keystone Cops or Love Thy Neighbour on another channel.
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.
The issue is that there is a very real chance that the people involved in the making of this show don't have the best interest of the fans at heart. I'm sure we're all aware of this modern PC attitude sweeping through social media and pop culture, so we don't necessarily need to delve into the depths of its murky undercurrent, but from time to time they get their way and smear their flawed ideology all over the plot of a TV show or film.
Sometimes, the cake isn't ruined and everyone wins, but more often than not, the "good intentions" by which these ideologies are presented actually achieve the complete opposite to their face-value goals.
Let me put it this way. If every single episode becomes the story of a woman overcoming the challenges of a multidimensional universe built for a man, rather than "the doctor" overcoming the challenges of the multidimensional universe, then the story becomes more about the ideology behind the original plot. Many people aren't interested in having this kind political message thrust at them, whether its because they don't agree or simply aren't interested is irrelevant; its inclusion will ruin the entertainment for them. What will inevitably compound this issue is if the critics dare to point out such an issue, they're branded as bigots and blacklisted from their industry... therefore there is a real chance this show will get very high scores in review sites, regardless of its actual entertainment value...
If the writers don't make a big deal about the switch of gender and continue on as normal, win-win.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Unless you're saying that Doctor Who stood out from the crowd for having white, male leads? Which doesn't seem particularly unusual or different to me.
Except there is no evidence that any of this has happened yet, if indeed it ever does. With your analogy its like your favourite boozers barman being replaced by a barmaid. It may potentially make a huge difference, it may potentially continue largely as it did with a different face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
I'm sure the people involved have the same remit as every other light entertainment TV show: Maximise viewers. Usually this means appealing to the current viewers as much as possible and potentially widening that audience to those who wouldn't have previously watched it. Casting a female lead may well be able to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Murky undercurrent? Flawed ideology? It's not the illuminati! I'm really not sure what you mean by this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
More often than not? Do you have a few examples?Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Once again, we agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
So it's no longer awesome because they've cast a woman as the lead? Before you've even seen an episode?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
It does... and since the days of David Tennant, it has failed to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
This has not been Doctor Who for a long time... It has instead been The Tales Of Doctor Who's Companions.
Jack Harkness - The Gay OneQuote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
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.
No - It's no longer awesome, because they're pandering to fan service, rather than driving the story from their end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
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'.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
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.
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
By that logic this ISN'T a major change, it's been like this for at nearly 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
She's a proven actress who has received acclaim in several roles, most notably Broadchurch. She's patently good at her job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Ghostbusters was terrible, not sure male actors would have saved it either though. That said, Ghostbusters 2 ruined that particular franchise for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
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 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! :)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
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...
Is it unnecessary? Is there a reason that the Dr. couldn't be a woman?Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
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.
Agreed. It's not equality if we make a big deal about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Is there a reason it couldnt be another man?Quote:
Originally Posted by tiggerai
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.
Nope but if it was another man we wouldn't be discussing it in such detail, one assumes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiggerai
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Of course not. I'm sure in time (arf!) it will be again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Fresh ideas, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
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...
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
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.
Yes, and see that final comment about how it's not been a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
Some have been great stories in their own right... but not great Doctor Who stories.
But why is she HERE?Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
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...
No, it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
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'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
GB2 trailed one hand a bit too far into slapstick... It went the way of Blues Brothers 2000. GB-Reboot went all-out silliness.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
A quick Google shows that Firefly was cancelled. I guess that programme was utter dross?Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
Another quick Google shows that Eastenders, Corronation Street and Neighbours are all still going... they must be STUNNING, right? :lol:
Bit of an untimely comment, innit? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vaderOf course not. I'm sure in time (arf!) it will be again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Apologies I haven't been around for a while, but is there another thread discussing the Pros/Cons of a female doctor elsewhere on Hexus? That wasn't fuelled by media speculation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
If there is, then my mistake.
If there isn't then yes, its obviously necessary as the discussion wouldn't be had if there wasn't a catalyst. And these discussions, in this day and age, NEED to be had as the assumption is then that because there were 12 male doctors, that the 13th would also be male.
Sorry for going OT here, but I've recently watched the first two episodes of a show called Scorpion. It seemed to have pretty good credentials. For one it's executive-produced by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who've been involved with a lot of good shows (and movies, for that matter). NEVER have I seen a load of crap like this. Yet somehow it has managed to stay on the air for 4 (four!) seasons so far. If you want to know how bad this show is, then just read a couple of the reviews of the pilot episode. They really hit the nail on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Just needed to get that off my chest. Back on topic now. :)
Whats wrong with that assumption?Quote:
Originally Posted by tiggerai
Still not seeing why its necessary.
I think I've done you the disservice of making assumptions on your motives I previous posts, I agree with a lot of this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Like you I hope the new runner improves the series, and that it had been in a rut for a while and gotten boring. That may even have been the motive for having a female doctor, Moffat has already covered off young/old/cool male doctors.
I will clarify my point about popularity though. I'm not saying it makes the show/film good or bad. I am saying that it is the single overriding factor about if a franchise continues. So if the trend for female leads had become overbearing they'd not be watched which would lead to them not being renewed and similar new projects not being commissioned.
Well, if a Time Lord can regenerate into either gender, then on the basis of probability, its probably long overdue - 1 in 13 is a pretty long run of male-to-male regenerations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Genuine question, was it ever previously mentioned that the time lord can regenerate into either gender?Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Only way this point really has any relevance, is if it was.
In which case, I completely agree, what have they been playing at?
Well, like I mentioned previously, there's the Master/Missy thing, which has been running through the Capaldi seasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Never thought I'd watch a show that had Michael Bay's name all over it... the god of all things bad about Transformers movies... and yet, Black Sails was utterly fantastic!!Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
'Sokay, just wanted to clarify...Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
There are many things that are overbearing, yet people continue to watch them mindlessly - X Factor, Love Island, Britain's Next Top Model/Hairdresser/Baker/Chef/Landscape Artist/Young Plumber (yes, really)... so much already done to death, yet churn it out and someone will watch it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spacein_vader
I believe it was either outright stated, or strongly alluded to that they could, but that The Doctor has not, as yet...Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Again, why should they, just because he could?Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
That's what we're afraid of - That they're doing it to fill some kind of quota and tick some kind of box, rather than there being any reason behind it... including the best reason, which would be no reason at all.... so long as it's not all about The Doctor being a woman now.
It's one thing for River to be all grown up and announce that she's going to wear lots of sweaters. It's another for The Doctor, supposedly above such primitive concepts as gender, to then spend a season making references to her gender. If they go down this road, they write off the show.
This, to a degree; I do object to being told to switch off if you don't like [whatever changes have been made to a programme] - the point is that I don't want to switch off thanks, I want to watch 'this' - this being a favourite programme, with favourite usually being defined by some or other key characteristic/s. There's a lot of 'if you don't like this change you were never a real fan at all' about, including from Colin Baker. Fans of Coronation Street when it had Ena Sharples & the odd drama, and not murders & ott disasters & whatnot, are fans for whom that WAS the programme they loved, & it ceased for them to be that programme anymore, and they are sad about it - fair enough imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
This was what I also wanted to know, having seen reference elsewhere to Time Lords & Time Ladies (eg 'Due to the fact that a Time Lord or Time Lady could unwillingly swap genders with regeneration, the Time Lords were less concerned about gender roles, despite still calling themselves Lords and Ladies') but this is a quote from series 10 and I was too lazy to google if all allusions of this type are latterday & tacked-on. Basically if it's canonical fine by me, if not not; I'm far too much of a strict-adherent-to-canon to think this should be so purely because it's 'about time'. Any more than I want Dr Watson in Afghanistan, so nowt to do with gender.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Having not watched Dr Who quite so religiously in the old days, ie pre-Eccleston, I cannot say where it first arose.Quote:
Originally Posted by sammyc
However, I understand that not all Gallifreians are Timelords and that only the latter can regenerate... suggesting gender may be more of a thing for Gallifreians...
See, that worked very interestingly because the whole setting was modernised and updated... and yet, in the one-off Sherlock episode The Abominable Bride set in 1895, they showed Watson had been in the Second Anglo-Afghan War...Quote:
Originally Posted by sammyc
Whilst this is historically debatable, Doyle actually did have Watson serving in Afghanistan in the original books:
http://www.garenewing.co.uk/angloafg...les/watson.php
So nowt to do with being topical there, either... even if it is a Moffatt special!
For Afghanistan read 'have an iPhone' then or any anomalous other thing. My point is, no modernising & updating of an author's work tyvm, interesting or otherwise. It's their vision & to be left alone, for me that goes across the board.
For anyone who has 10 minutes of their life they don't want back....
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Regeneration
Frankly if the topic was brought up in the show, and there is no canon reason for time lord to be a male exclusively, then its over to the writers and producers to create something balanced.
If they turn every episode into a circus of, "I don't need no man", like so many shows before it, they shouldn't be surprised if people switch off and criticise.
TL : DR?Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
All (more than) you ever wanted to know about Time Lord regeneration :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
(And no, I haven't read it - the 'historical accuracy' of a fictional character (shock horror) in a science fiction story really doesnt warrant that much tome for me - YMMV.)
The days when I used to hide behind the sofa when the Daleks emerged from a shaky set are long gone - Dr Who is no longer a must watch for me, although I enjoy it when I happen to watch it. (I also enjoy the re-runs of the radio series on R4Extra - but not to the extent that I search them out)
Yeah, I'm honestly not a big Dr Who fan either tbh, so I'll keep my 10 minutes :p
Given that several recent male Dr incarnations have been prone to fondling their new faces, teeth, et al, upon reincarnation, my imagination is getting the better of me ...