Jump to content
Jon's Queen Consort

Doctor who Series 10; He has been away for a while but he is back! Contains spoilers.

Recommended Posts

There is no reason that anyone of any gender or race should not be cast as the doctor. I have no issue with it. 

It would fantastic if the show was completely different every time they cast a new actor, instead of sticking to formula and feeling the same depending on who is the show runner.  Any sort of reboot would be refreshing. 

But at the same time, the casting choice shouldn't be political, nobody should be pointing the finger at who the doctor is and make some comment on society ( as they did when Capaldi was cast). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting choice, I thought Whittaker was good in Broadchurch season one (not seen the other seasons), The Doctor is obviously a very different role but hopefully she has the range for it.

As people have said earlier in the thread a lot will depend on the quality of the writing. I am a bit nervous about Chibnall who has been a bit hit and miss, he has done some good work but has also been responsible for some really bad stuff.

3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Also: she's not British. It's gonna be a long while before we get a non-British Doctor.

I think I'd have been willing to make an exception for Eva Green, and I think she's been convincingly British in her roles in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

There is no reason that anyone of any gender or race should not be cast as the doctor. I have no issue with it. 

 

Okay, cool.

Quote

 

But at the same time, the casting choice shouldn't be political, nobody should be pointing the finger at who the doctor is and make some comment on society ( as they did when Capaldi was cast). 

 

So...you do have an issue with it (and it's a nonsensical point, Doctor Who has been making comments on society since 1963, so there's no reason it should stop now)?

If you don't, stop bringing it up every five seconds and we can have a discussion about a total reboot of the show, which seems to be happening, will be a good thing, and why Broadchurch shows there is hope that Chris "Cyberwoman" Chibnall may be a much better showrunner than he was writer (i.e., the antimoffatt).

Edited by Werthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Werthead said:

Okay, cool.

So...you do have an issue with it (and it's a nonsensical point, Doctor Who has been making comments on society since 1963, so there's no reason it should stop now)?

If you don't, stop bringing it up every five seconds and we can have a discussion about a total reboot of the show, which seems to be happening, will be a good thing, and why Broadchurch shows there is hope that Chris "Cyberwoman" Chibnall may be a much better showrunner than he was writer (i.e., the antimoffatt).

What I have an issue with isn't the show being political but the constant need to shove political agendas into every single casting decision. Honestly the BBC have been cornered into making Doctor Who a woman, they really had little choice because the blowback would have been too extreme. Thats a sad state of affairs. Ideally you'd like these changes to be organic, because they work best within the story, because the new actor/actress is the best for the role. Not because of the enormous social pressure to make a statement. 

I'm quite sad at how Moffat will be remembered now really, he is responsible for almost all of the episodes that transcended the show and he wrote some classic Sci fi. But his time as a showrunner will not be thought of fondly. I've got no idea if Chibnail will be any good, I've never seen Broadchurch, and the episodes he wrote for DW were hardly my favourites or ones I have really noticed. Clearly being a writer and a showrunner require very different skilsets however so only time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16.7.2017 at 7:11 PM, dog-days said:

Would be nice, but realistically I think it's more likely to put boys off watching unless a male companion is cast with whom they can identify. :(

 

Well, maybe it is time to stop perpetuating the poisoneous narrative that boys need to be outrageously catered to in entertainment because it is beneath them to identify with a non-male protagonist, while everybody else has to be "broad-minded" and will be content with crumbs from their table. Not that I am against  (white) male protagonists, but there is a massive oversaturation there already and it is quite difficult to come up with something about them that is not stale.  

 

21 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

 Thats a sad state of affairs. Ideally you'd like these changes to be organic, because they work best within the story, because the new actor/actress is the best for the role. Not because of the enormous social pressure to make a statement.

Let's not pretend that such has ever been the case, shall we? Or that "enormous social pressure" to maintain the (oppressive) status quo hasn't been very much responsible for previous stories/casting in entertainment industry as a whole.

You can't even fall back on the much touted "artistic integrity" argument here, which somehow always rears it's head when a question of (the lack of)  protagonist variety comes up - but not in cases of white-washing/lack of confidence in female-led projects - then it is just good business sense, naturally :angry2:.  The franchise creator wanted a female doctor 30 years ago, after all.

Edited by Maia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

What I have an issue with isn't the show being political but the constant need to shove political agendas into every single casting decision. Honestly the BBC have been cornered into making Doctor Who a woman, they really had little choice because the blowback would have been too extreme. Thats a sad state of affairs.

Blethers. Everyone and their uncle expected Kris Whatsisname to be announced. He was joint favourite and had been extensively linked for weeks. Had he, or one of the many other male candidates, been announced, some people would have been disappointed, as they were last time, and the time before, and the time before, and so on. But the idea that the BBC had no choice simply does not remotely fit the facts.

It's a narrative you've come up with after the fact so you can grumble about this even though you know it's a good decision. Nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mormont said:

Blethers. Everyone and their uncle expected Kris Whatsisname to be announced. He was joint favourite and had been extensively linked for weeks. Had he, or one of the many other male candidates, been announced, some people would have been disappointed, as they were last time, and the time before, and the time before, and so on. But the idea that the BBC had no choice simply does not remotely fit the facts.

It's a narrative you've come up with after the fact so you can grumble about this even though you know it's a good decision. Nothing more.

Blethers (wtf?). Just because there are odds on someone getting the role doesn't actually mean they were ever really considered. Kris whatshisface was put down as a favourite due to him quitting another show around the same time. The list of candidates was heavily represented by women, it was obvious that they were going to have to go for a woman or risk the wrath of the press, and more accusations of sexism. Below is just a tiny sample of the level of discussion on the subject, there was literally no way they were casting a man this time. You'd have to be living in a hole to think they would have done.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jan/31/doctor-who-new-time-lord-woman-peter-capaldi
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-05-20/doctor-whos-michelle-gomez-is-sick-and-tired-of-being-asked-about-a-female-doctor
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4178544/The-Doctor-woman-says-Harriet-Harman.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39093558
https://www.themarysue.com/the-ladies-of-sci-fi-5-reasons-why-we-need-a-female-doctor-in-doctor-who/
http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/doctor-who/21139/doctor-who-should-there-be-a-female-doctor
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/11-brilliant-women-should-next-doctor/
http://screenrant.com/doctor-who-should-the-thirteenth-doctor-be-female/



Again, I'm totally fine with the decision, I hope she's good. But the constant whining and hand wringing that a male doctor is some sort of symbol of sexism in society, that somehow a female doctor would make a better show by virtue of the gender is unbearable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

What I have an issue with isn't the show being political but the constant need to shove political agendas into every single casting decision. Honestly the BBC have been cornered into making Doctor Who a woman, they really had little choice because the blowback would have been too extreme. Thats a sad state of affairs. Ideally you'd like these changes to be organic, because they work best within the story, because the new actor/actress is the best for the role. Not because of the enormous social pressure to make a statement. 

Didn't go far enough, apparently. Identity politics is awesome in its hilarity

Edited by Squab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why political bias or social commentary shouldn't be a factor in casting decisions since it is in literally everything.  Better just to own it than to be subtly influenced by it, surely?  What kind of bland, empty Brazil-like world d'you wanna live in anyhow? Honestly it is not that big a deal for a show like DW, that dynamic is clearly included in the premise. Wait til James Bond does it.

I, like mormont, was convinced we were getting another boring by the book example of a Doctor right up until the day of the announcement. So kudos to whoever kept that little rumour mill going, well played.

Couple of thoughts on the actual Doctor, though.

the costume - hoody with baggy greatcoat.  Apparently not her actual costume and presumably just picked to help hide the gender in the reveal. But quite cool looking nonetheless I thought.

bottle blonde hair - that's a bit weird isn't it? Is she just supposed to have regenerated like that?

Other than that, don't know much about Jody Whittaker. She seemed fine on Broadchurch, doesn't have much of the quirky physicality they sometimes have although that doesn't necessarily matter, her comments since the announcement have all been a bit solemn but she seemed keen to address this gender issue everyone is banging on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm assuming the new companion will be a male? I really really hope they don't use this as an invitation to start another doctor-companion romantic subplot. 

But I hope he's hot. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Squab said:

Didn't go far enough, apparently. Identity politics is awesome in its hilarity

What is hilarious or incorrect about:

Quote

“It needs to be said that [Doctor Who] is still an OVERWHELMINGLY white show and that issues of representation do not exist in isolation from each other,”

She's not wrong. Nor does she talk about the show with the same disdain that you direct towards her. Not a good look (but an entirely predictable one) Squab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Week said:

What is hilarious or incorrect about:

She's not wrong. Nor does she talk about the show with the same disdain that you direct towards her. Not a good look (but an entirely predictable one) Squab.

Week,

Forever judging people by their look, tsk. C'mon, its 2017!! Did they even check her privilege? A final quote from Anita sounding like it could be from an infamous historical figure talking about solutions:

Quote

It’s not as if you fix the ‘woman’ problem, THEN fix the ‘race’ problem, THEN the ‘queer/trans’ problem, etc. It all has to happen in tandem

Obviously the casting of the new doctor is racist, cisnormative and bipedalnormative. There are so many other terms I want to include but am triggered by her use of "etc"  and the blatant diversity erasure perpetuated.

Edited by Squab
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Sarkeesian article it pretty misrepresentative of the point she's making. The headline suggests Anita Sarkeesian wants the Doctor to represent all non-white, non-cisgender, non-male demographics. But that's not what she's saying at all. She's just pointing out that the show, by introducing a white female Doctor is hardly a shining example of representing society (or British socitey more specifically) in general, despite all the hate it's been getting for even daring to take that one diversity step. She's not demanding that the Doctor encapsulate all those demographics.

But the big question is whether it's really down to Dr Who specifically to cover all the bases. Pop Culture / Sci Fi more generally does seem to be bringing wider demographic representation to audiences. And to some extent source material such as Marvel comics has been bringing the diversity to its audiences well before screen adaptations. Miles Morales as the new Spidey. Kamala Khan as the new Ms Marvel. Black Panther has been around for a long time. Albus Dumbledore [arguably retconned] is gay. The Doctor is [now] gender flexible. Sulu in the new Star Trek is gay. Rey (they new last hope for the Jedi) is female.

I think in-keeping with the Doctor being gender flexible it kinda would suggest the Doctor ought to be pan-sexual as consistent with the notion that Gallifreyans have moved beyond gender. While all the Doctor's romances have been heterosexual, given the Doctor does not actually identify as a gender then [insert pronouon - its(?)] sexual orientation is kind of beyond categorisation, despite historical representation, which was hitherto imposed by Earthling societal norms and expectations rather than the Doctor's inherent sexuality.

I'm not sure one can say anything is "fixed", especially since there is a loud outcry about pandering to diversity any time an active decision is made to include diversity. But I don't think taken as a whole attitudes in the biz are as bad as Sarkeesian seems to be making out. Perhaps B for effort and C for execution. Maybe some people think it's still Fs all around, but handing out Fs when people are taking steps in the right direction is as discouraging as complaining that any step is SJWs taking over the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Squab said:

Weak,

Weak indeed. :rolleyes::rolleyes: 

I suggest you look for a safe space where such opinions are not welcome -- it does not seem to be good for your health to be seeking out alternate viewpoints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Week said:

Weak indeed. :rolleyes::rolleyes: 

I suggest you look for a safe space where such opinions are not welcome -- it does not seem to be good for your health to be seeking out alternate viewpoints.

Thank you for the concern however misplaced. Your mental health tips may be of use in another thread, or even on a university campus :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm not sure one can say anything is "fixed", especially since there is a loud outcry about pandering to diversity any time an active decision is made to include diversity. But I don't think taken as a whole attitudes in the biz are as bad as Sarkeesian seems to be making out. Perhaps B for effort and C for execution. Maybe some people think it's still Fs all around, but handing out Fs when people are taking steps in the right direction is as discouraging as complaining that any step is SJWs taking over the world.

I'd say the backlash is probably a lot smaller than the media like to make out, as in most of these cases, angry white males make a good headline and help to cement the trumpian narrative in peoples minds of this lunatic alt-right. 

https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/react-doctor-who-13/

The reaction was overwhelmingly positive to the change in fact. 

I'd say that actually in defence of that 20% of 'haters', they are probably not offended by diversity per se, but by the forced diversity and retconning of established characters in the name of diversity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Blethers (wtf?). Just because there are odds on someone getting the role doesn't actually mean they were ever really considered.

That was not my point. My point is that the fact that the odds on that particular candidate were equal with those of the person who was actually cast, shows that the media and the fans considered it just as likely that a bland male actor would be cast as a woman. This completely invalidates the idea that the BBC did this only because they were forced into it by the expectations of those same media and fans. The expectation of a male actor was about equal.

There aren't articles arguing for it, of course: there don't need to be. But any assessment of the likely candidates (as opposed to articles explicitly arguing for a change) included several male candidates as serious contenders. Richard Ayoade, Luke Treadaway, David Harewood, Ben Whishaw, Rory Kinnear, Ben Daniels, all were short odds at one point or another.

Clearly, the BBC did have a choice, and they cast a woman because they chose to. The idea that they were 'forced' into it is rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mormont said:

That was not my point. My point is that the fact that the odds on that particular candidate were equal with those of the person who was actually cast, shows that the media and the fans considered it just as likely that a bland male actor would be cast as a woman. This completely invalidates the idea that the BBC did this only because they were forced into it by the expectations of those same media and fans. The expectation of a male actor was about equal.

There aren't articles arguing for it, of course: there don't need to be. But any assessment of the likely candidates (as opposed to articles explicitly arguing for a change) included several male candidates as serious contenders. Richard Ayoade, Luke Treadaway, David Harewood, Ben Whishaw, Rory Kinnear, Ben Daniels, all were short odds at one point or another.

Clearly, the BBC did have a choice, and they cast a woman because they chose to. The idea that they were 'forced' into it is rubbish.

Not really, the odds for these things are generally worked out from just looking around the media and seeing who people are putting forward as suggestions. They often have very little baring as to who is being considered, unless there is some inside information.

You just have to look at the media and the internet to see the level of pressure the BBC were put under here. They might have technically had a choice, but the backlash would have been huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×