• Announcements

    • Spaff

      New Forum software & theme display issues   07/20/2017

      The latest forum update has caused some readability issues with our themes!  This was unexpected, so might take a little bit of time to fix, sorry about that. I think we've fixed the main ones though. We could have a bunch of new features too, I just need to look at those and see what we have enabled etc. More on that soon! If you spot any issues or things we need to tweak, please post them here:   a
Sign in to follow this  
Darth Marsden

The Newly Regenerated Doctor Who Thread

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Jenni said:

It would also be like Family of Blood, which showed the struggles of the time period with Martha being both a woman and of African descent, so she couldn't interact with people the way she could in the 21st century. I really liked that episode and wish that Doctor Who would do more like it.

It reminds me of a comment he said to Martha when she was worried about being in a time period where she didn't have the rights she did in her own time. The Doctor told her that what works for him is to "walk about like you own the place". If The Doctor regenerated into a woman, he would certainly learn very quickly that doesn't work so well for people like Martha.

That was kinda exactly what I was thinking about. The Doctor, in a way, is kinda hopelessly clueless about stuff like that and it would be a major upset to have to think about that sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bookdust said:

I'm surprised that anyone is willing to gamble on the possibility of any woman being the next Doctor actually. Everything I've heard has made it sound like we'd be getting more of the same.

My feeling is that Doctor Who, as much as I hate to say it, has kinda been on a bit of a downturn recently in terms of popular appeal (I think the last two seasons had some of the best episodes of the show, but people got turned off it for some reason). This is kinda the best time to take a big risk to revitalize the show and if it doesn't pan out, they just go into hibernation for ten years and come back with more the same, but shinier and with better special effects. If it does work out, they get a few more years out of the show.

Edited by Alcoremortis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swinton would be pretty boss. I dunno if she's too big of a star to show up for a little show like Doctor Who, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill already has a lot more personal character stuff going on than Clara ever did. Which is good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bookdust said:

Yes, but also she's just a normal woman this time around. Bill isn't a mystery or an artifact in the Doctor's mythology. She's just someone he took a liking to that's gotten wrapped up in his crazy life, and I love that.

Well... we don't know that yet. We've only seen one episode.

She could always turn out to be secretly Susan or a mind-wiped Doctor from the future or a human Dalek or something.

But probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's not Tilda Swinton, but we got a female Doctor in the house!

Jodie Whittaker. 

Alright, BBC. First you had my curiosity, now you have my attention.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's fantastic in Broadchurch, and Chibnall wrote the women on that show really well and with a lot of sensitivity, so I'm also glad it'll be him in charge rather than Moffat. She was also in Black Mirror 1x03.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know what her costume is gonna be so bad! How can I dress up as her for Halloween if I don't know???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only ever bothered watching one season and a few episodes of Dr Who, but this has rekindled my interests. Looking forward to it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's already said he wants to shake up the series. Jodie's casting was probably one way, but he also wants to write seasons via writer's room instead of handing off every writer an episode. So, we might be in for tighter storytelling and arcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I keep compulsively reading articles about Jodie because I still can't believe the Doctor is going to be a woman. It's just so exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read gaf, where nearly everyone is thrilled. Even facebook comments are depressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/07/2017 at 11:26 AM, Alcoremortis said:

Please everyone try not to take this as antagonistic (because I know people can be touchy about this), but I don't get this. Walk me through it. It's ok to offer male alternative heroes for female heroines like Wonder Woman, Lara Croft, etc with the likes of Superman, Indiana Jones, etc instead of gender-bending them so they DON'T change, but Doctor Who's male character was something that NEEDED to be changed to a female? With that line of thinking, why didn't they just create an alternative to him? Maybe a spin-off show with a female Doctor? Also, does this guy feel the same way about the new black female Iron Man? Should we have just gotten a new Iron Man-themed female heroine instead of bending him by the same logic? I've also seen people (Chris Hemsworth) petitioning for a female James Bond when we've got Atomic Blonde and such.

This whole thing doesn't really bother me (mostly because I don't really care about Doctor Who), but that tweet seems rather contradictory to the whole spirit of feminizing Doctor Who in the first place.

Edited by MusicallyInspired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is more that male versions of those characters aren't needed because they already exist. And in many cases, existed first.

Doctor Who is such a unique concept, however, that anything close to it would probably violate copyright. And it's also a concept that has in-universe justification for genderswapping and the blessing of the original creator of the show (Sydney Newman suggested back in 1986 that the Doctor should regenerate into a woman). So it's also a completely different issue than the examples provided in that tweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would a spin-off show be a copyright violation? Spin-off shows are made by the same studios that create the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another valid question is "why would this bother someone so much?"

 

Re: spinoffs

You could technically do that, but that could also be seen as a way of being dismissive. It's like, you don't get to play real football, you only get to play "powderpuff football" and so on. There is value to letting women have a role in the real, main form of whatever the thing is instead of sequestering them off to the side in their own "girl version" that men can dismiss as powderpuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not dogmatic about this so from this point on please take everything I say as devil's advocacy.

1 hour ago, Anemone said:

Another valid question is "why would this bother someone so much?"

I could see people being bothered just because it's such a major change to the character. All major changes come with a degree of backlash, however small or large. And not all for entirely unreasonable reasons. Of course, then they'd cue the people who'd freak out en masse on them for even having a problem with it (why would THEY have such a problem with the preferences of others?). Just because it's feminism-related doesn't mean you have to be overjoyed about it or cannot be a little disappointed. You can do that without being misogynistic.

Quote

Re: spinoffs

You could technically do that, but that could also be seen as a way of being dismissive. It's like, you don't get to play real football, you only get to play "powderpuff football" and so on. There is value to letting women have a role in the real, main form of whatever the thing is instead of sequestering them off to the side in their own "girl version" that men can dismiss as powderpuff.

That's one way of looking at it. You could also look at it as a female variation getting HER OWN character and HER OWN show instead of inheriting one from something that was initially created for a male role. Which is the greater message? You could also perceive this move as shoving it in people's faces so they CAN'T ignore it which many would call an intentionally provocative move. Isn't this why DC Comics created Supergirl or even Wonder Woman decades ago instead of feminizing Superman? Wonder Woman has a huge following. She wasn't delegated to a Powderpuff Superman that men could ignore.

I'm just thinking about what other people might say that I don't see as entirely irrational arguments. I'm sure many are, but there's merit to these points I think.

Edited by MusicallyInspired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC does do spin-offs, true, but they're underfunded and far fewer people watch them. Sarah Jane Adventures was basically female Doctor Who with child companions and who watched that? Me and a few other diehard fans, because it was operating on an incredibly low budget and showing on CBBC and it wasn't even released in America after the first season.

Same with Class. Female Doctor-type character spin-off with teenage companions, but it just lacked the magic and interest and it's cancelled on a cliff-hanger after one season.

The reason this isn't enough is because there's a finite amount of money to go around. Spin-offs will never be as well funded as the original. Also, I reiterate my first point: unique opportunity to do this with it making complete in-universe sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I still think the spirit of this development even happening contradicts that guy's tweet, though.

Edited by MusicallyInspired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I think you're putting too much burden of meaning on a tweet. That's a bad idea in general (tweets are generally off the cuff, 140 characters, text only,; not a lot of room for nuance and tone), and in this case I think there's at least a bit of flippancy going on in a reply to what's a rather silly tweet.

Secondly, there's a question here about the motivation for the change. The original tweet assumes that the change is being done because it's important to challenge gender stereotypes (a sentiment Philmo apparently disagrees with, for some reason - is it not important to challenge all stereotypes?). Is this why it's being done? Will it accomplish this? (Similarly, you ask whether "Doctor Who's male character was something that NEEDED to be changed to a female" - did anyone actually say that?) This assumption, incidentally, is partly why I infer some flippancy in Joe's tweet.

How would you define "the spirit of this development"? It seems to me that they've got a character who can change appearance, age, and regional accent and they've decided that after 12 male incarnations (not even counting the Peter Cushing and John Hurt ones) it would be interesting for the character to change gender (and as mentioned, they were already discussing it after 6 incarnations). I don't think they'd change the gender of the lead character in, say, season 6 of Sherlock because it 's important to challenge gender stereotypes, I think they've got an opportunity to do something interesting and they're taking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TimeGentleman said:

Firstly, I think you're putting too much burden of meaning on a tweet. That's a bad idea in general (tweets are generally off the cuff, 140 characters, text only,; not a lot of room for nuance and tone), and in this case I think there's at least a bit of flippancy going on in a reply to what's a rather silly tweet.

I do think it's a silly tweet. But it was posted here as if it was a good thing, making a point. (unless it wasn't, in which case I retract my statements)

Quote

Secondly, there's a question here about the motivation for the change. The original tweet assumes that the change is being done because it's important to challenge gender stereotypes (a sentiment Philmo apparently disagrees with, for some reason - is it not important to challenge all stereotypes?).

Challenging stereotypes just because "it's time" without any further thought just riding the popularity wave and truly considering whether they're important or not are two different things. Not all stereotypes are "bad". They may have and probably did consider all the implications seriously before making the decision. But that's not how everyone is taking this news. I'm moreso talking about the community at large's reaction than the producers' decision to make the change.

Quote

Is this why it's being done? Will it accomplish this? (Similarly, you ask whether "Doctor Who's male character was something that NEEDED to be changed to a female" - did anyone actually say that?) This assumption, incidentally, is partly why I infer some flippancy in Joe's tweet.

Again, I'm judging from the reaction of various fans and their subsequent reactions to people who didn't like the change, as if there's something wrong with an opinion.

Quote

How would you define "the spirit of this development"? It seems to me that they've got a character who can change appearance, age, and regional accent and they've decided that after 12 male incarnations (not even counting the Peter Cushing and John Hurt ones) it would be interesting for the character to change gender (and as mentioned, they were already discussing it after 6 incarnations). I don't think they'd change the gender of the lead character in, say, season 6 of Sherlock because it 's important to challenge gender stereotypes, I think they've got an opportunity to do something interesting and they're taking it.

There's no way they didn't make this decision for ratings. Don't pretend that the studio allowed it just because it's "progressive". They did it for the moolah. They always do. Their greedy stone hearts don't warm and melt just because this is the current provocative social trend. But whether they did it out of greed or a genuine interest in change, it's not the same motivation as the majority of everyone reacting to it, which again was my main focus.

Anyway, I no intention of hijacking the thread and turning this into a huge conversation about controversy. It's about Doctor Who and I'm not even a fan, go ahead and celebrate. I just took issue with the idea of looking down on anybody who has a different opinion about the change. The guy's tweet was anything but cordial. To be fair, perhaps the original tweet wasn't either I suppose, but why give that attention? It just makes everyone who just doesn't like the change out to be something they're not. And perhaps engaging a little more positively could have gotten to his root issues. Maybe they weren't just anti-progressive for the sake of it. But that door is now closed because of the response he got and it discouraged every other supporter from entering into a conversation as well.

Edited by MusicallyInspired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience, anyone who claims to want a male Wonder Woman isn't debating in good faith. It's an argument designed to "catch" a progressive person being discriminatory so the original poster can hold up the response as proof that progressives are hypocritical, oppressive people. The reply tweet in this instance was playing them at their own game.

Perhaps the original poster could have framed his tweet in a less antagonistic manner if he were interested in a genuine debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MusicallyInspired said:

I do think it's a silly tweet. But it was posted here as if it was a good thing, making a point. (unless it wasn't, in which case I retract my statements)

...

Don't pretend that the studio allowed it just because it's "progressive".

Firstly, I just want to clarify a couple of things:

1) I was referring to the original tweet by Philmo as silly.

2) I didn't say 'the studio' allowed it because it's progressive, I said I thought the decision was likely motivated by creative reasons - to try something new. I don't know exactly how the process goes at the BBC with regards to this stuff, but I'd imagine the new show-runner pitched the idea because he thought it was an interesting thing to do with the show, and the BBC higher-ups okayed it due to a mix of the same and , yes absolutely, thinking it would be good for ratings. They most likely would have okayed the idea of another male Doctor, too.

 

It sounds like your main issue with Joe's tweet is actually that it is "looking down on anybody who has a different opinion about the change". and that it was "anything but cordial". I disagree with both those readings of it, but again this all goes back to my point that it's dangerous to read too much into a tweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Doctor has had thirteen incarnations, the fact that the fourteenth will be female is a complete and total non-issue.  Timelord physiology has long been shown to allow that in the series mythology.

The same fuss was raised with Doctor Who fans with the change to the Master into Missy, and I personally thought Michelle Gomez was brilliant in the role.

On 7/22/2017 at 3:52 PM, Alcoremortis said:

From my experience, anyone who claims to want a male Wonder Woman isn't debating in good faith. It's an argument designed to "catch" a progressive person being discriminatory so the original poster can hold up the response as proof that progressives are hypocritical, oppressive people.

Not to mention nonsensical, since there are already two male Wonder Women: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Man_(DC_Comics)

One was alternate-universe, and the other one was in-universe. In the instance in regular comic continuity, Diana lost the title to Hercules, who became Wonder Man. Then Diana got the Wonder Woman title back when it turned out he was secretly working with Circe. The comic went on, and not one ripe fig was raised about the fact that a man had temporarily taken the "Wonder Woman" title from Diana.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this