Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

General Ongoing Doctor Discussion

1568101123

Comments

  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Kris Marshall would have been awful and I could never understand the love Richard Ayoade seems to get. :confused: He's the one dimensional man. Maybe that's his superpower.
    I think Ayoade simply lives off his IT Crowd character popularity. I don't even get how he can be labelled a comedian, he's terribly unfunny even in non acting roles that tech show he was in comes to mind

    I think Ayoade is like a few of the names that were thrown around in that people see them as a ready made Doctor. They would have him play the Doctor as himself basically. I feel the same was true for when Phoebe Waller-Bridge was everyone's favourite if they went with a woman. They know her from a specific role and want the Doctor played as that person. Although to be fair to PWB she is capable of more than one thing when it comes to characters.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,254 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I think Ayoade simply lives off his IT Crowd character popularity. I don't even get how he can be labelled a comedian, he's terribly unfunny even in non acting roles that tech show he was in comes to mind

    It's the other way round, I think his IT Crowd character was more of an exaggerated version of his own personality and comedic style. I think he can be genuinely hilarious, and is very deadpan and witty. But yeah his name seemed to be thrown into the mix more as "He'd be really wacky" as opposed to an actor who could actually play wacky (as the Doctor often is) but also have the acting chops for the more dramatic moments.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    Penn wrote: »
    Then again, by making the Doctor female, perhaps we may see a shift in the side characters too, with more interesting male side characters to balance the scales. That in itself may be a positive outcome for all concerned. Ultimately, it comes down to the same thing as casting a female Doctor; we won't know how good or bad it is, or if it IS Doctor Who (or can still be MY Doctor Who for those saying that) until it airs, and the show, with a new Doctor, new companion, new head writer... I think it deserves the chance to try and prove its worth (allowing for the fairly typical rocky start most new Doctors have to endure).

    Again some of the issues you mention may come down to the writing teams. I know it seems to be tradition to get different people in to write each episode with the show runner keeping the season long arc on track but for me that leads to problems with tone, poorly developed characters, main characters flipflopping a bit and other such things. I would suggest they need to tighten the reigns in that regard. I wouldn't necessarily say let Chibnall write the whole series but having 4 or 5 really good writers work together across the whole series could see some of the issues with character development sorted.

    Alternatively they could do away with the overly complicated season long arcs and just have a series of individual adventures. This would remove the need for stories to be altered to fit into the longer arc which may also have been an issue for previous episodes. For example, There's a logical conclusion to this episode but we have to change it to allow for something that's going to happen 2 episodes down the line in the bigger arc.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Wibbs wrote: »
    *though Doctor Who doesn't seem to know what audience it's aiming for. It's wandered from family to more adult all over the place since the reboot. In the first season we went from animated corpses, to farting aliens to a young women repeatedly watching her father die. It's calmed down a little since then, but still isn't quite sure of what it is as an entity. Even its timeslot has shifted all over the place on the Beeb.

    That's not a problem specific to the returned series though, that has been a conundrum that has existed since 1963, and one that's unlikely to ever by fully 'answered' really. Dr. Who's greatest strength -its narrative flexibility and broad audience potential - is also its greatest weakness, and like you say this manifests in a constantly wavering tone. The series just finished was the first in a while that didn't quite have any variable tone; I certainly don't remember any openly 'silly' episode bar the Vicorians-on-Mars one and even then its grisly deaths offset any potential daftness.

    When the universe has tried to settle on a specific tone, audience or approach the results have often been a bit mixed: Torchwood being the prime example here, that took 3 attempts before it found its groove. Then almost immediately lost it again.

    Dr. Who was always something of a blank template show, an empty vessel into which the various production teams, script writers & the actors playing the doctor poured their personalities - or failing that, just ripped off existing stories or narratives from other authors / media :D

    It's funny to talk about agenda or gender politics because in many respects that has been part and parcel of the show since its heyday in the 60s-70s. Its accommodating structure organically encouraged people to fill the gaps with their respective belief systems or theories - and given the nature of the performing arts, that tended to be fairly left-leaning - with the big exception of my oft-mentioned anti-favourite, Eric Seward who I suspect wanted to see Dr. Who burn. People who found "Oxygen" too on the nose should probably go out and find "The Sunmakers" from the 1970s, the most overly and unsubtle lampooning of capitalism you're likely to find in Sci-Fi. The Pertwee era positively REVELLED in skewering the British government at every opportunity, often introducing politicians as monstrous 1D caricatures, with the Doctor nearly always taking them down a peg or three. But that was all pre-internet & millennials I guess, when people didn't dissect every morsel of pop-culture for acrimonious (social) politics.

    Dr. Who just never shied away from politics, it just tended to surround its notions with aliens made of bubble wrap or whatnot.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    pixelburp wrote: »
    ntial daftness.
    It's funny to talk about agenda or gender politics because in many respects that has been part and parcel of the show since its heyday in the 60s-70s. Its accommodating structure organically encouraged people to fill the gaps with their respective belief systems or theories - and given the nature of the performing arts, that tended to be fairly left-leaning - with the big exception of my oft-mentioned anti-favourite, Eric Seward who I suspect wanted to see Dr. Who burn. People who found "Oxygen" too on the nose should probably go out and find "The Sunmakers" from the 1970s, the most overly and unsubtle lampooning of capitalism you're likely to find in Sci-Fi. The Pertwee era positively REVELLED in skewering the British government at every opportunity, often introducing politicians as monstrous 1D caricatures, with the Doctor nearly always taking them down a peg or three. But that was all pre-internet & millennials I guess, when people didn't dissect every morsel of pop-culture for acrimonious (social) politics.

    Dr. Who just never shied away from politics, it just tended to surround its notions with aliens made of bubble wrap or whatnot.

    I wonder if a lot of people who think New Who is too political compared to the original run were too young to notice it back then? They're not overly subtle with it these days but it's entirely possible that anyone under a certain age aren't noticing it now either. To anyone over a certain age it may be clunky and obvious in it's political message but to kids watching it, and they are after all it's target audience, maybe it's not an issue.

    I'd be interested in hearing what young kids think on all these things. There's a section in Empire magazine where they get little kids to review classic films and it's often surprising how aware they are of what they're watching but they seem to process it all in a very simple way.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Clegg wrote: »
    Jodie Whittaker is ag ood choice, I think. Broadchurch is a middling show but she played her role well.

    One day we'll get our ginger doctor.

    Wasnt impressed by her really or that show, but that's just personal taste.

    Looks like I wont be buying any 13th Who outfits otherwise the misses be asking questions!!!

    I would have liked Andrew Scott or Ben Daniel's.
    Or Maggie Smith could have been interesting.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    Looks like I wont be buying any 13th Who outfits otherwise the misses be asking questions!!!

    We don't know what she's wearing yet, could be a pair of overalls or unisex onesie.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Could a moderator fix the thread, whenever I click into it I'm back to page one. :)


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I wonder if a lot of people who think New Who is too political compared to the original run were too young to notice it back then?
    it was noticeable enough in some areas. Environmentalism was one that I clearly remember being a thing in a few stories. Not automatically trusting authority just because of rank was another one. Technology going out of control yet another. Not so much the left/anti capitalism stuff, though that was part of the wider cultural fabric anyway.
    To anyone over a certain age it may be clunky and obvious in it's political message but to kids watching it, and they are after all it's target audience, maybe it's not an issue.
    Think about that for a moment. Political messages aimed at kids that don't know what that is? That's essentially propaganda. That would be very troubling. On the gender front alone the subtle and not nearly so subtle message has increasingly been in Moffat's tenure men daft/silly, women better. Yeah that's a great message to sending young boys and girls for that matter. The new team's previous output ramped that way up for an adult audience. Can't see them changing their spots with Who. As I say the casting of a woman Doc is flag waving their intent.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Think about that for a moment. Political messages aimed at kids that don't know what that is? That's essentially propaganda. That would be very troubling. On the gender front alone the subtle and not nearly so subtle message has increasingly been in Moffat's tenure men daft/silly, women better. Yeah that's a great message to sending young boys and girls for that matter. The new team's previous output ramped that way up for an adult audience. Can't see them changing their spots with Who. As I say the casting of a woman Doc is flag waving their intent.

    It's not really political though, in my opinion. Bad choice of word. It's preaching tolerance, gender equality, kindness, diversity etc. etc. None of these are bad things to be teaching kids. And as I said, unless you're in the mind of a child how do you know what they're picking up? Maybe all they see is a woman helping the man save the day.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    It's preaching tolerance, gender equality, kindness, diversity etc. etc. None of these are bad things to be teaching kids.
    Is it also a good thing to be preaching/teaching kids that male = bad, female = good? It's like I've taken crazy pills here. And yep I can easily quote numerous examples of this in Nu Who under Moffat's tenure. Now one can say "ah sure it's all a joke, witty banter". Cool, but it never goes the other way. Not once. Said "joke" is always in one direction.

    That example earlier of a general regenerating into a woman. Imagine that in reverse. Woman character regenerates into a man and says; "back to normal am I? First time I was a woman, good lord how do you cope with all that ego?" Never. Going. To. Happen. Or when River reckons "thinking looks weird on a man, stop it". Or when Clara says something along the lines of "the universe is full of testosterone, it's unbearable". Imagine if a male main character said something like "thinking looks weird on a woman, stop it", or "the future's male. I hope". There would be attacks of the vapours all over the place. Imagine if a woman character around for decades was cast as a man? Eh...

    That's the issue I have. It's all in one direction and obvious with it. And you actually think that's gender equality? Interesting take on that you have.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 9,013 Mod ✭✭✭✭mewso


    While I still watch I think I accepted a while ago that I'm just too old to get too bothered by any changes they make with Who. I'm not the target audience and haven't been in about 30 years. I was genuinely thrilled when Capaldi got the job because I didn't think they would ever give the job to an older actor but fair play they did. My worry now is that they won't dare do it again. I liked his take on it because I prefer the Doctor to be distant and, you know, alien.

    As to the female in the room I'm open minded. I'm more concerned about Chibnall to be honest. I thought the last series of Broadchurch was terrible so I'm not very confident. I get what Wibbs is saying and Doctor Who is full to the brim with various PC stuff but as I've said I don't get too worked up about it that much anymore. Would there have been children of African descent on the streets of Victorian London? Who cares to be honest. Female Doctor? Meh. I do sadly expect the male roles will remain bumbling fools in general but who know they might surprise me. They did by giving Capaldi the job.

    Someone also mentioned Happy Valley as an example of well written drama featuring a female lead and I totally agree but where that show had a realistic and flawed female lead it's extremely rare and more often than not, as Wibbs has said, the female role has little to no obvious flaws. The danger here is that this new Doctor will be amazing in everything she does bamboozling those silly men as she goes. I look forward to be being proved wrong. Unlike Wibbs I'll give it a chance.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 9,013 Mod ✭✭✭✭mewso


    Wibbs wrote: »
    That example earlier of a general regenerating into a woman. Imagine that in reverse. Woman character regenerates into a man and says; "back to normal am I? First time I was a woman, good lord how do you cope with all that ego?" Never. Going. To. Happen. Or when River reckons "thinking looks weird on a man, stop it". Or when Clara says something along the lines of "the universe is full of testosterone, it's unbearable". Imagine if a male main character said something like "thinking looks weird on a woman, stop it", or "the future's male. I hope". There would be attacks of the vapours all over the place. Imagine if a woman character around for decades was cast as a man?.

    Its just the way things are at the moment if you ask me. It will change eventually. Even out. The whole identity polictics stuff is a strange one. Whenever there is something going on be it in the gaming or entertainment world the extremes on both sides come to the fore and both sides write off the other citing the lunatic fringe as the reason why they can safely ignore that side of the argument. Want to genuinely criticise Anita Sarkeesian? Didn't like Ghostbusters? You are a sexist hater. Happy to see someone taking a feminist look at games? Thrilled that a major film franchise gave all the lead roles to women? You are part of an authoritarian movement that wants to force your world view on us all.

    The more measured voices in the middle will win out eventually and proper debates and discussions can be had about the merits of all of this. Not now unfortunately and until it can happen I prefer to stay out of it.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    mewso wrote: »
    Someone also mentioned Happy Valley as an example of well written drama featuring a female lead and I totally agree but where that show had a realistic and flawed female lead it's extremely rare and more often than not, as Wibbs has said, the female role has little to no obvious flaws. The danger here is that this new Doctor will be amazing in everything she does bamboozling those silly men as she goes. I look forward to be being proved wrong. Unlike Wibbs I'll give it a chance.

    Yes, as I've already said the problem with a lot of female characters on TV is they're written by people who can't write for women. Not always but the majority of the time they're written by men. That is a problem caused by a lack of diversity in the writers rooms. If you think of things like Happy Valley, Fleabag and Catastrophe what do they have in common? The female characters are realistic, they also happen to be written (or co written) by women, and they compliment their male counterparts without ever feeling the need to put them down. They have as many flaws as the male characters and they're called out on them. Wynonna Earp is another great example of a show with realistic female characters that hold their own beside the male characters without the male characters suffering. That show has a pretty even split of male/female writers.

    I actually think having the Doctor be played by a woman is a better way to deal with gender issues on this show than to have the companion be female. If they stick to the general premise of the Doctor, that he/she is an alien rather than a male/female human, then there's no need to write the character as a "female character". On the show the character continues as they were but for kids watching they get to see someone who looks like a woman doing all the things the character did when he looked like a man. There should be no need to have it suddenly be a "feminist" show where every episode is about her overcoming evil chauvinistic men and putting them in their place.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    There should be no need to have it suddenly be a "feminist" show.
    Too late. It has been for at least two seasons. And I guarantee worse it will get. As I said observe the new show runner's other projects. Unlike Mewso I'm not sure about any evening out, certainly not at the BBC which has become an almost farcically Right On ripe for parody entity. I suppose it's to make up for the decades when they harboured sex perverts and kiddie fiddlers in plain sight.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,982 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    mewso wrote: »
    While I still watch I think I accepted a while ago that I'm just too old to get too bothered by any changes they make with Who. I'm not the target audience and haven't been in about 30 years. I was genuinely thrilled when Capaldi got the job because I didn't think they would ever give the job to an older actor but fair play they did. My worry now is that they won't dare do it again. I liked his take on it because I prefer the Doctor to be distant and, you know, alien.

    As to the female in the room I'm open minded. I'm more concerned about Bignall to be honest. I thought the last series of Broadchurch was terrible so I'm not very confident. I get what Wibbs is saying and Doctor Who is full to the brim with various PC stuff but as I've said I don't get too worked up about it that much anymore. Would there have been children of African descent on the streets of Victorian London? Who cares to be honest. Female Doctor? Meh. I do sadly expect the male roles will remain bumbling fools in general but who know they might surprise me. They did by giving Capaldi the job.

    Someone also mentioned Happy Valley as an example of well written drama featuring a female lead and I totally agree but where that show had a realistic and flawed female lead it's extremely rare and more often than not, as Wibbs has said, the female role has little to no obvious flaws. The danger here is that this new Doctor will be amazing in everything she does bamboozling those silly men as she goes. I look forward to be being proved wrong. Unlike Wibbs I'll give it a chance.


    D'ont know if I will, but a very good post.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Too late. It has been for at least two seasons. And I guarantee worse it will get. As I said observe the new show runner's other projects. Unlike Mewso I'm not sure about any evening out, certainly not at the BBC which has become an almost farcically Right On ripe for parody entity. I suppose it's to make up for the decades when they harboured sex perverts and kiddie fiddlers in plain sight.

    At this point, to be honest, I feel like telling you to suck it up. Women have had to put up with **** like this in TV and in film for decades. It's too bad if men have to put up with 2 or 3 years of people getting it wrong in an attempt to do something right. I'm not a fan of the ham-fisted ways gender diversity is addressed a lot of the time but the fact it's being addressed at all is a good thing and if you think it's not then I don't have a lot of time for your opinions.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    At this point, to be honest, I feel like telling you to suck it up. Women have had to put up with **** like this in TV and in film for decades.
    So in your head knowing what went before that makes it A-OK to deliberately set out to repeat the mistakes of the past in the other direction, so long as it's being addressed? Brilliant "thinking" going on there. Sounds more like some daft revenge vibe rather than a cogent argument or welcome development and apparently it's all grand to be doing this on kid's telly.

    It is getting them attention and no doubt Guardian readers will be all snug and smug in their fair trade Uggs made from seaweed, but hopefully the middle will continue to march with its feet and let the show continue to fall further in the ratings and returns and they cop on. It is the BBC though, so when pigs fly.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    At this point, to be honest, I feel like telling you to suck it up. Women have had to put up with **** like this in TV and in film for decades. It's too bad if men have to put up with 2 or 3 years of people getting it wrong in an attempt to do something right. I'm not a fan of the ham-fisted ways gender diversity is addressed a lot of the time but the fact it's being addressed at all is a good thing and if you think it's not then I don't have a lot of time for your opinions.


    No time for opinions, then why respond on this thread?
    And just because something wasn't done a particular way in the past doesnt mean we go around trying to agenda drive a show to make up for it. If that were the case the Doctor should be black to make up for British colonial actions in Africa. It's a silly idea.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    Wibbs wrote: »
    So in your head knowing what went before that makes it A-OK to deliberately set out to repeat the mistakes of the past in the other direction, so long as it's being addressed? Brilliant "thinking" going on there. Sounds more like some daft revenge vibe rather than a cogent argument or welcome development and apparently it's all grand to be doing this on kid's telly.

    It is getting them attention and no doubt Guardian readers will be all snug and smug in their fair trade Uggs made from seaweed, but hopefully the middle will continue to march with its feet and let the show continue to fall further in the ratings and returns and they cop on. It is the BBC though, so when pigs fly.
    No time for opinions, then why respond on this thread?
    And just because something wasn't done a particular way in the past doesnt mean we go around trying to agenda drive a show to make up for it. If that were the case the Doctor should be black to make up for British colonial actions in Africa. It's a silly idea.


    Are you both willfully misinterpreting my points here?

    I din't say it's okay to do a complete reversal of roles and have the male characters reduced to little more than bumbling idiots. I said they are getting it wrong in an attempt to get it right and if you have to put up with that for a year or two then too bad. Women have put up with it for years before anyone even tried to address it and now they're putting up with grown men having hissy fits because people are trying to address it.

    You both seem to think there's an evil feminist agenda at work here to replace men entirely when in reality all they're trying to do is more accurately represent the real world, which has changed rapidly even since New Who came back.

    As for why I have responded to this thread, I have been trying to have a conversation with people who aren't happy with the new casting. Most posters, even if they're not happy with it, have engaged in that conversation but the more posts Wibbs and yourself make the more I see that your problem is of a different kind entirely and I'm wasting my time trying to engage you on it because it's a much bigger issue than Jodie Whittaker being the new Doctor.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Are you both willfully misinterpreting my points here?

    I din't say it's okay to do a complete reversal of roles and have the male characters reduced to little more than bumbling idiots. I said they are getting it wrong in an attempt to get it right and if you have to put up with that for a year or two then too bad. Women have put up with it for years before anyone even tried to address it and now they're putting up with grown men having hissy fits because people are trying to address it.

    You both seem to think there's an evil feminist agenda at work here to replace men entirely when in reality all they're trying to do is more accurately represent the real world, which has changed rapidly even since New Who came back.

    As for why I have responded to this thread, I have been trying to have a conversation with people who aren't happy with the new casting. Most posters, even if they're not happy with it, have engaged in that conversation but the more posts Wibbs and yourself make the more I see that your problem is of a different kind entirely and I'm wasting my time trying to engage you on it because it's a much bigger issue than Jodie Whittaker being the new Doctor.

    Ah so our problem is with women. Cheers for that completely wrong, stupid and ridiculous post.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    Ah so our problem is with women. Cheers for that completely wrong, stupid and ridiculous post.

    Show me where I said that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Show me where I said that.

    "Wibbs and yourself make the more I see that your problem is of a different kind entirely and I'm wasting my time trying to engage you on it because it's a much bigger issue than Jodie Whittaker being the new Doctor."


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    Ah so our problem is with women. Cheers for that completely wrong, stupid and ridiculous post.
    Show me where I said that.
    "Wibbs and yourself make the more I see that your problem is of a different kind entirely and I'm wasting my time trying to engage you on it because it's a much bigger issue than Jodie Whittaker being the new Doctor."

    Nope. I don't even use the word "women" there.

    Listen, this is pointless, it's derailing the thread, I'm out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    Nope. I don't even use the word "women" there.

    Listen, this is pointless, it's derailing the thread, I'm out.

    So, explain what my bigger problem is so?

    Nope, cant?


    And you dont need the word 'women' to be inferring certain things.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Ah so our problem is with women.
    Of course it is TV. We're clearly sexist dinosaurs because we call out obvious Right On pandering BS from the BBC*. While apparently others are happy to cheer a direction in a kid's show that they would rightfully be clawing at their breasts if it went the other direction.

    Oh and IIRC Moffat himself used to publicly poo poo the notion of making the Doctor a woman.




    *not just on the Woman Doctor, the show itself has been a pandering mess for one dimensional plastic diversity pretty much since Moffat took the reigns, but especially since Capaldi came along. Compare Captain Jack and Bill. The former is a more subtly developed more complex character(and saying subtle in the same sentence as John Barrowman... :D). Bill is basically "I'm a lesbian. No really. I am. Nope. Defo don't like men in that way. Oh and my mum's dead. And Black". A large proportion of the writing under Moffat's reign is extremely weak and inconsistent in character. Including the Doctor. There is some leeway given because the Doc is an alien so he's "mysterious", but he often just comes across as a dick. For no good plot/character reasons either. Moffat can't do plot twists(or humour) that drive the narrative to save his life. Missy is the Master? No lead up, no foreshadowing, just "oh right, so you are. And a woman. And insane". A cardboard cutout chewing the scenery. Compare that to how it was handled when Tennant and RTD was in play. Lots of clues, Easter eggs laid about, but until the last minute when Jacobi opened that watch it was coming as a shock, but made perfect sense in retrospect. He did similar with Bad Wolf. Clues in plain sight coming together at the climax of the arc. Moffat's the impossible girl rip off of that plot device was far more hamfisted. As usual.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    So, explain what my bigger problem is so?

    Nope, cant?


    And you dont need the word 'women' to be inferring certain things.

    I can't infer anything. You infer, I imply.

    From your posts it seems that your issue is either HOW they're addressing gender diversity OR the fact that they're addressing it at all.

    Other posters have engaged with the issues surrounding how they're doing it, to be fair even Wibbs had a go at engaging on that issue but both your posts keep coming back to the idea that there's some sort of left wing bra burning agenda at play here and it is pointless to keep going around in circles on it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    I can't infer anything. You infer, I imply.

    From your posts it seems that your issue is either HOW they're addressing gender diversity OR the fact that they're addressing it at all.

    Other posters have engaged with the issues surrounding how they're doing it, to be fair even Wibbs had a go at engaging on that issue but both your posts keep coming back to the idea that there's some sort of left wing bra burning agenda at play here and it is pointless to keep going around in circles on it.

    It just appears the reason for it is agenda driven not canon driven. I have said in the past id like to see Maggie Smith or Eva Green as The Doctor, but currently it feels like this is a move by BBC to satisfy the Guardian readership or something.

    And to fit the canon it will need to explain why the previous 13 regens were all male, just to make it fit correctly. Like the way in Previous Season The Doctor spent time trying to figure out why he chose that face, his reason behind it. So when the changeover happens, it needs to make sense, and not simply be 'oh look im a woman now' approach and take away from The Doctor as The Doctor.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,004 ✭✭✭conorhal


    mewso wrote: »
    While I still watch I think I accepted a while ago that I'm just too old to get too bothered by any changes they make with Who. I'm not the target audience and haven't been in about 30 years. I was genuinely thrilled when Capaldi got the job because I didn't think they would ever give the job to an older actor but fair play they did. My worry now is that they won't dare do it again. I liked his take on it because I prefer the Doctor to be distant and, you know, alien.

    As to the female in the room I'm open minded. I'm more concerned about Bignall to be honest. I thought the last series of Broadchurch was terrible so I'm not very confident. I get what Wibbs is saying and Doctor Who is full to the brim with various PC stuff but as I've said I don't get too worked up about it that much anymore. Would there have been children of African descent on the streets of Victorian London? Who cares to be honest. Female Doctor? Meh. I do sadly expect the male roles will remain bumbling fools in general but who know they might surprise me. They did by giving Capaldi the job.

    Someone also mentioned Happy Valley as an example of well written drama featuring a female lead and I totally agree but where that show had a realistic and flawed female lead it's extremely rare and more often than not, as Wibbs has said, the female role has little to no obvious flaws. The danger here is that this new Doctor will be amazing in everything she does bamboozling those silly men as she goes. I look forward to be being proved wrong. Unlike Wibbs I'll give it a chance.

    As somebody that hasn't really watched with any consistency since Eccleston was Dr. Who (the best since Baker IMHO) I've noted the 'controversy' with passing interest and a shrug.
    I think what's most exercising people is the reason a woman was cast. It wasn't in service to fans or to the story but rather as an act of pandering.
    Worse, it was pandering to noisy bunch of individuals that probably don't even watch the show. The BBC have gone and done what Marvel did a few years ago, with disastrous consequences for their sales figures, they pandered to advocacy groups that demanded diversity but the same people demanding it didn't bother to support what they demanded by actually buying the comics and the sales figures slumped in half. As far as they were concerned the fact that Iron Man was now a black woman meant ‘job done’, on to the next cause! The evidence for this regards Dr Who is that those who championed this change were still unhappy because of the ‘missed opportunity for casting a woman of colour’ in the role.

    I think it could actually be cool if Dr Who’s writers actually acknowledge the gender swap as weird, go full Blake Edwards ‘Switch’, and have the Doctor’s reaction to suddenly being female be ‘what the actual f$%&?’ After all, there’s got to be some fun to be had an mileage to gain from this turn of events. I suspect, as you say, however they won’t and like Marvel you’ll end up with rather dull ‘empowering’ storylines by writers too afraid to actually give the character any flaws least a female Doctor seems less empowered than a male one. Viewer numbers will fall off as a result and this will be naturally blamed on sexism.
    I also think they missed a trick in the casting, I'd rather they had gone with sombody more quirky and mercurial like a mooted Emma Thompson or Helena Bonham Carter.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    And on a separate note, would they every release the soundtrack from season 9!!!!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    And to fit the canon it will need to explain why the previous 13 regens were all male, just to make it fit correctly. Like the way in Previous Season The Doctor spent time trying to figure out why he chose that face, his reason behind it. So when the changeover happens, it needs to make sense, and not simply be 'oh look im a woman now' approach and take away from The Doctor as The Doctor.

    Maybe they'll do that though. Maybe they'll spend time exploring it and why it never happened before. I don't really see how that explanation could be explored before it happened on the show. Like other than a few hints that it's entirely possible for a gender change upon regeneration how do you fit that into any of the previous Doctor's story lines without it seeming out of place?

    I still take issue with the "it's not canon" argument when we've already seem Moffat change things that were previously canon and with flimsy reasoning.

    And although it seems like an entirely unsubtle move to cast a woman I still think that with good writing it could actually be a much better way to address gender issues. As someone pointed out before a scene in the past where the psychic papers won't work because we're now seeing a female face could say more about gender issues than 10 badly written episodes where the male character is sidelined or ridiculed by a female one.

    Good writing could go a long way to addressing some of the issues people have so I will be interested to see who they get on board.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,675 ✭✭✭exaisle


    Could a moderator fix the thread, whenever I click into it I'm back to page one. :)

    No problem with the thread here....it's probably just a time loop.... ;-)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,254 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    exaisle wrote: »
    No problem with the thread here....it's probably just a time loop.... ;-)

    On the touch site, because the thread was originally posted in another forum and moved here, it always brings me back to page one.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I feel like there's close to a no win situation here, or a very fine needle to thread at best. It comes across like some people are searching for, or at least wanting to find some agenda or discrepancy in the writing of the introductions, yet it's bound to come up anyway, even if it's the first time the docs previous incarnations get referenced. So where's the medium between addressing the regeneration cycle switching genders, and not over egging the pudding? Seems like whatever Chibnall comes up with it won't please some people :)


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Maliyah Grumpy Rodent


    Someone posted a pic of an article from tom baker's time saying the next regen could be female. Interesting


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    Looking forward to next year when a few of the posters on this thread hold true to their promise and stop watching or contributing here.


    One female in 50+ years of a character who's most defining characteristic is a total change of person every now and then? That's unacceptable?

    Don't let the door hit you on your way out.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Someone posted a pic of an article from tom baker's time saying the next regen could be female. Interesting

    I saw this too, I assume it's what you're talking about.

    It's from 1986 when the BBC put the show on hiatus. The original co-creator, Sydney Newman, was asked for his thoughts and he sent a letter to the BBC.
    He wrote to BBC Chairman Michael Grade, asking the BBC to”engage the concerns, fears and curiosity” of young viewers, challenging them “don’t you agree that this is considerably more worthy of the BBC than Doctor Who‘s presently largely socially valueless, escapist schlock!”

    He first stated that they should rehire Patrick Troughton in the lead and then “at a later stage Doctor Who should be metamorphosed into a woman” but that he wanted to “avoid a flashy, Hollywood Wonder Women because this kind of heroine with no flaws is a bore. Given more time than I have now, I can create such a character.”


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Someone posted a pic of an article from tom baker's time saying the next regen could be female. Interesting

    http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/doctor-who/246974/doctor-who-female-lead-was-considered-in-1986
    Doctor Who creator Sydney Newman considered the idea in October 1986.

    He mentioned the possibility of a gender change in a letter to BBC One's controller of the time, Michael Grade. Newman wrote that "at a later stage, Dr. Who would be metamorphosed into a woman."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,961 ✭✭✭LionelNashe


    One of my earliest memories is getting a routine vaccination of some sort, probably before my fourth birthday, and I said that the woman with the needle couldn't be a doctor because she was a woman. Then, she gave me the injection and it hurt more than I expected, and I thought she might have made it hurt as revenge for my comment. I learned my lesson. I have no objection.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    To lighten the mood a bit...... Any thoughts on who we'd like to see as a companion?

    We have pretty much no information about the new series so thoughts on what kind of companion or even just actors you'd like to see on the show?

    I'm happy to keep the male/female dynamic as long as there's no romantic stuff going on.

    She had good rapport with her Adult Life Skills co star so perhaps a small boy who dresses as a cowboy?
    4631621853_700x300.png


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Goodshape wrote: »
    Looking forward to next year when a few of the posters on this thread hold true to their promise and stop watching or contributing here.


    One female in 50+ years of a character who's most defining characteristic is a total change of person every now and then? That's unacceptable?

    Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

    I don't think there's anything wrong with healthy discussion and wouldn't advocate for an already quiet forum to lose members or feel like they're unwelcome just because they hold contrary opinions. I don't agree whatsoever with their logic thus far and find it ... misguided, hut I'd much rather have the discussion than not


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I don't think there's anything wrong with healthy discussion and wouldn't advocate for an already quiet forum to lose members or feel like they're unwelcome just because they hold contrary opinions. I don't agree whatsoever with their logic thus far and find it ... misguided, hut I'd much rather have the discussion than not

    I'm not sure how "healthy" this discussion is but fair enough – I'm not suggesting you ban anyone. Personally I could just do without the gender wars. I know the show's slanted towards a younger audience but this isn't bloody kindergarten.

    "Giving up" on a show because they put an ickky smelly girl in it. Eeeewwww.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I don't think there's anything wrong with healthy discussion and wouldn't advocate for an already quiet forum to lose members or feel like they're unwelcome just because they hold contrary opinions. I don't agree whatsoever with their logic thus far and find it ... misguided, hut I'd much rather have the discussion than not

    I think Goodshape means once the show starts airing again?

    Again though if people are actually watching and feel the need to complains still then fair enough.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,982 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I don't think there's anything wrong with healthy discussion and wouldn't advocate for an already quiet forum to lose members or feel like they're unwelcome just because they hold contrary opinions. I don't agree whatsoever with their logic thus far and find it ... misguided, hut I'd much rather have the discussion than not

    True. Do I want a female Doctor ? Certainly not.

    But I w'ont go attacking those who do.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 17,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    Given we have gotten a female Doctor, what are people's feelings on the choice or what actress would they have preferred that was at least a plausible choice (e.g. I don't think they could have afforded Tilda Swinton which some people suggested).

    I honestly don't recall Jodie Whittaker in 'Broadchurch' but I only watched the first season. If Chibnail wanted to go with one of his cast, I'd have been very happy with Olivia Coleman. She has the acting chops for me and could pull of a slightly eccentric Doctor.

    Haylely Atwell would have been the very obvious other choice too. She'd probably pull off a more confident, Romana-esque Doctor. It seems like she was asked but obviously didn't happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,035 ✭✭✭✭Basq


    I'd have preferred the heavily rumoured Phoebe Waller-Bridge to Whitaker to be honest..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    ixoy wrote: »
    Given we have gotten a female Doctor, what are people's feelings on the choice or what actress would they have preferred that was at least a plausible choice (e.g. I don't think they could have afforded Tilda Swinton which some people suggested).

    Olivia Coleman would have been great. I'm probably just drawing a blank but can't think of anyone I'd prefer more at the moment. We know she can do comedy, drama, emotion, and crazy, really well. Although I never really thought that she was going to do it. In interviews she never struck me as the type who'd signup to that sort of media hell.

    I haven't seen Jodie Whittaker in anything. She looks very bland – young, fresh faced, white, blond – but I'll try not to judge a book by it's cover :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,254 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ixoy wrote: »
    Haylely Atwell would have been the very obvious other choice too. She'd probably pull off a more confident, Romana-esque Doctor. It seems like she was asked but obviously didn't happen.

    Would have loved Hayley Atwell but I think she's living in and focusing on America and also probably too big a name to take it on (it's a bit of a poisoned chalice not just taking on the role of the Doctor but also being the first female one). Tilda Swinton, having seen her in Doctor Strange, yeah she could have been brilliant at it too. Could definitely have played up the more alien aspects of the character.

    Never heard of Phoebe Waller-Bridge before her name was mentioned as a possibility, so can't give an opinion on her.

    I'm kinda glad it's gone to someone most people don't really know. Same with companions, I'm hoping for people I haven't really seen before.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Basq wrote: »
    I'd have preferred the heavily rumoured Phoebe Waller-Bridge to Whitaker to be honest..

    Same. It was the first name I'd heard that made me think of the right balance between drama and comedy, with some obvious on screen charisma to boot. Tilda Swinton was a ludicrous suggestion and stank of "who's the most eccentric and famous actor we can think of"


    Without being that familiar with whittakers work I don't know what to expect of her as a person. The Doctor requires actors with bags of their own personality to bring to the role and make it their own, I hope that's something Whittaker brings.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    I don't think Phoebe Waller-Bridge was ever really an option. She's producing a show in the US at the moment and supposedly doing another series of Fleabag, as well as being in the Hans Solo spin off. Perhaps that would be a bit of an issue, having someone actively connected to another Sci-Fi franchise as the Doctor? Although I might have read she has a voice role in that one, so maybe not.

    Not to keep banging on about Adult Life Skills but it's a pretty good example of what Whittaker can do, it blends comedy with drama really well and doesn't go too far in either direction. It's almost the perfect audition piece for Doctor Who, she lives in a shed which is bigger inside than it looks outside and she befriends a lonely little kid.

    I saw Susan Wokoma mentioned a few times over the last few months. She's been in Crazyhead, Chewing Gum and Crashing recently and I would have enjoyed seeing her in the role.

    A lot of the names mentioned were never really possibilities. Could you really see Gillian Anderson or Tilda Swinton committing to 9 months of the year in Cardiff. No offense, Cardiff.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement