Dr Who

I hope the new Time Lord (or Lady) fits in well to the role. I'm begging them though not to kill this show that I love. Please, please, please get the writing right. I don't want to see the TARDIS lights go out.

I'm in the process of researching as much as I can now about Jodie Whittaker - I mostly know her for Broadchurch, but I saw her in Attack the Block (2011) and Venus (2006) aswell.

She's seemed a very capable actress. It's just I hadn't pictured her as the Doctor. I had other actresses in mind if they made this change. Ruth Wilson, Helena Bonham Carter, Olivia Colman, Polly Walker, Anna Chancellor or Tilda Swinton all seemed more apt to the character's personality. They have all displayed an outworldly, quirky, slightly dangerous side to the characters they've played. Jodie was good in Broadchurch but it was a mostly straight-forward role as a grieving mother. There's obviously a lot of emotional range to play that role which she did very well. So we know that she can bring that depth to the role of the Doctor. It's just for me other actresses seemed to fit the character of a maverick, time travelling adventurer better.

Anyway, it is interesting whatever happens. I'm going to spend some time now researching more of her background and will be checking out other forums / videos to check Who fans' reactions to the change.

Please let this work.

(17-07-2017 14:17 )dominar rygel xvi Wrote:  "At a later stage, Doctor Who should be metamorphosed into a woman" - Sydney Newman, co-creator of Doctor Who, 6 October 1986.

You can find reference to the above quote here.

All I can say is that a female Doctor might have been good enough for Sydney Newman, but it's not good enough for me. I've stated previously that I shall not be watching the show whilst there is a female Doctor.

And just because a creator of show thinks something is good, doesn't always mean that it is, and could be made to change their minds. Witness George Lucas and the whole Revenge of the Jedi/Return of the Jedi conundrum.

The Beeb yesterday morning on Breakfast, interviewing a lass from Game Of Thrones. Seemed like they spent half the interview asking her about Doctor Who, as if trying to make out that the 2 programmes are in the same league.

Sadly, Doctor Who just isn't, certainly not anymore. The anticipation for GoT was massive, and remains undiminished after seeing a new episode. Whereas DW is just like, meh, whatever. Summat to watch on a Saturday and that's it.
GoT constantly builds anticipation of what's to come, with various characters crossing paths, usually with fallout and lasting consequences that are felt long afterwards. DW just seems to recycle characters/baddies at random, with no real feeling of planning. Sure they're different shows with different audiences etc, but still, it's a shame. Hardly the flagship programme it once was.

A female Doctor shouldn't really be a big deal - Star Trek had a lead female captain for Voyager nearly 25 years ago.

"The road to Good Intentions be paved with Hell"

(18-07-2017 12:05 )Jam Da Man Wrote:  A female Doctor shouldn't really be a big deal - Star Trek had a lead female captain for Voyager nearly 25 years ago.

That's completely different though. The captain of Voyager was a brand new character. It wasn't a male role that was changed into a female role.

I'd suggest that it was an existing male role, as Voyager was a continuation of the Star Trek brand. The original series, the films, Next Generation and even DS9. All of those shows had males as the senior figure.

Not changing an actual person, sure, but then the doctor changes when he (/she, lol) regenerates anyway. Maybe it'll only last for the Xmas episode, then if the reaction is still bad they can always get someone else in anyway, just so they can say that they did it (which seems part of the reason in itself, sadly.)

"The road to Good Intentions be paved with Hell"

GoT is a pertinent comparison, since Sunday's announcement was clearly timed to compare with that series making its return. If they're not filming until November, they could have held it back a while longer.

(18-07-2017 13:37 )Jam Da Man Wrote:  I'd suggest that it was an existing male role, as Voyager was a continuation of the Star Trek brand. The original series, the films, Next Generation and even DS9. All of those shows had males as the senior figure.

I'm not sure about that argument, as starships were commanded by women before Voyager, even if no Star Trek series had been headed by a woman. The first female captain seen on screen was in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Since it was established a long time before Voyager that starship captains were sometimes women, I'm not sure that you can describe the captain of Voyager as an existing male role.

Yeah the announcement time was a bit suspicous. it was like oh shit Murray is out whos going to watch the final now shit what can we do.

also get the feeling was also to do with the announcement of BBC stars wage deals (due tommorow i think) get the feeling going to be a lot of men being paid a lot compared to Female talent.

(18-07-2017 14:12 )William H Bonney Wrote:  The first female captain seen on screen was in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Since it was established a long time before Voyager that starship captains were sometimes women, I'm not sure that you can describe the captain of Voyager as an existing male role.

That female captain only had a minor part in the film though, not the lead role.
Janeway in Voyager was The Captain, as Kirk and Picard were before her. Other captains and admirals occasionally appeared, but they're weren't fronting the show (or film.)

I was only really making the point that a female taking a turn at fronting a long-running sci-fi franchise needn't be the end of the line purely on a gender basis.
In DW's case though, I'll happily admit that they'll need a really good explanation to make it acceptable to fans. Otherwise it's a joke - "she's there for the sake of it, typical BBC" kinda thing.
And if acceptance of that does come, they still need to sort the actual show itself, to justify bothering to watch it.

"The road to Good Intentions be paved with Hell"

^ To be blunt I can see that you write from the perspective of a non-fan.

The difference is that the exact character, not a different role created each time, has a 50 year plus established history as being male. It is only in recent seasons, when people began to question it, that it has even been established that Time Lords can change sex. Newman had been steadfastly ignored on the point for years.

A more accurate analogy using your examples would be if a new series of prequels were formulated wherein Kirk underwent a transporter accident and was made female for six movies. Or if it was revealed at the end of GoT that Maisie Williams' character had actually been tucking a penis between her legs the entire time.

But yeah the furore of the new doc is over done by those that are feeling it. It could easily have a snowballing effect on the programme's ratings though if things go badly early on. The media (social or mainstream) can do that to anything if they feel they have a good scapegoat to work to death.