Who should become the next Doctor after Whittaker?

[jaime]

“Come on, ladies, why can’t you just be happy with the sidekicks?”

I would give you that in most of those cases, but not Susan. She was more of a focus than the Doctor as originally planned.
I would also say that there are (or at least were...I don’t watch much TV these days) loads of female lead shows that aren’t Doctor Who. Tons and tons. So the argument ‘there’s nothing there’ doesn’t carry, when what it really means is that the only show in the nominal ‘for ladies’ box that’s been going as long as Who is Coronation Street. (Longer than Who, no wilderness years) So I stand behind my ‘why can’t we get behind Killjoys, Dark Matter etc’ statement, as to a very real question. It’s rare for any SF show to go as long as Who anyway, but putting that aside, what makes those other shows so poor in our eyes that they are not considered worthy of holding the torch of representation? There have also been loads of positive female role model characters who do not descend into stereotypes or rely on ‘male’ action hero stereotypes (or at the very least, it’s considered a positive when they do.) so why haven’t we got behind one of those since...well, Buffy was the last one to jump to mainstream.
This is a daft fight over a toy, and anyone arguing over the ‘it belongs to us/our turn’ is onto a loser. I am waiting for an argument I can see, and so far, only Davisons ‘it was something unique and special for young boys that needed it’ is really carrying weight for me, not least because they still need it (Question Time last night had people wishing young boys had better role models to help keep them out of gangs. So it’s very much a thing.) ‘ is literally the only one I can see carrying weight in the ‘against’ column. But the ‘for’ column isn’t packing much weight for me, because it’s based in some odd models that make sense in other arenas, but not in the casting of the Doctor. It’s not like the job is chief exec of something, or running a country. It’s not like thousands of girls were actually at a disadvantage because it was unlikely they would get to play the Doctor. The character isn’t even the outright star of the show, particularly these days. Unsurprisingly, not many boys were ever going to get to ‘be’ the Doctor either. Only two that ever has that dream ever made it. Is the STEM subjects argument? We need to see more female scientists on screen to inspire young women? We see loads, and Doctor Who doesn’t seem to be an outright inspiration for people in the STEM field anyway.
I just don’t get the argument for, beyond a nebulous ‘it’s only fair, it’s only right’ which eventually boils into making it something that belongs to x and can be taken away or given. Which is silly. What function does the show perform that is needed, and not addressed elsewhere?
Failing that, some solid, narrative, reason would be lovely. After all, if it’s truly about ‘need’ then the new Doctor should be a black male, with a white male companion, two best friends bringing good to the galaxy. The third should be the Rory equivalent, maybe an Indian or Middle Eastern girl, with a European accent, all working together. Because if it’s about using the show to deal with real world issues by showing an ideal, that’s the ideal Britain could do with for its kids right now.
Thing is though...I don’t care who plays the Doctor, as long as it’s done well, and I’ll be honest, that’s always, always, mostly down to the writing. Maybe they should get Kate Orman and Lloyd Rose out of retirement. Not least as I would love to hear their viewpoint on modern Who.

 

[jaime]

Man, I just realised the thread I got sucked into.
Sigh.
I don’t care who is cast after Jodie, haven’t seen Jodie yet. The only time I cared about who was next was when there was a few hints that led to the possibility they were gonna get Smith back after a year of Capaldi. I thought that could be interesting and new, but probably more than a bit was just cos I really like Smith in the role.
Let the girl have her shot, it’s her job now. *shrug*
I have more concerns about chibnalls writing than Jodie’s acting, on the grounds I haven’t seen Jodie act much, but assume she can, whereas I have seen Chibnalls writing before and....well....yeah. Oh..and Bradley Walsh...is he the new Donna? Or stunt casting?
Meh.
I hope whatever it is is ok, and more family friendly than we have had. It’s done a real Colin run lately, and Jodie has to be the new Sylvester...but get us more than three years. Otherwise, we’ll end up with Cumberbatch or something being the new McGann in 2026, followed by....I dunno, the kid from Granpa in My Pocket being the new Ecclestone in 2035.

 

[starsuperion]

but I side with Davison and hope to see it go well, now the decision has been made.

I too side with Davison..Cheers!
Psssst! BTW He's still on Twitter, but incognito as another account.. Shhhh! LOL Love Davison!

 

[starsuperion]

Man, I just realised the thread I got sucked into.
Sigh.

I know right!? Before all this mess the fandom was generally together. Up to series 7 it wasn't as political in the divided discussions. But since series 7, the push for Identity politics to pander to the young indoctrinated soy generation, there has been a growing ground swell of fighting along ideological lines, and name calling that is appallingly ignorant and stupid. This is not isolated to trekbbs. MY god, you would be in horror of the type of lynching and totalitarian regime and Thug brigades that run thru Gallifrey Base and are sanctioned by it's mods over there. They don't accept or TOLERATE any POV that doesn't immediately laud praise on the new doctor as some great achievement akin to the Women's suffrage marches. You would think that America elected their first woman president.. LMAO

Welcome to Modern Whovanism.. You're either with us, or an enemy. "We just want you to be honest about your bigotry'', even if we don't know you, It's political, it's identity driven, and has left the station on a track destined for the cliff's of insanity! (get the reference? LOL)

the kid from Granpa in My Pocket being the new Ecclestone in 2035.

bloody Frickin Hilarious!!!

 

[jaime]

I know right!? Before all this mess the fandom was generally together. Up to series 7 it wasn't as political in the divided discussions. But since series 7, the push for Identity politics to pander to the young indoctrinated soy generation, there has been a growing ground swell of fighting along ideological lines, and name calling that is appallingly ignorant and stupid. This is not isolated to trekbbs. MY god, you would be in horror of the type of lynching and totalitarian regime and Thug brigades that run thru Gallifrey Base and are sanctioned by it's mods over there. They don't accept or TOLERATE any POV that doesn't immediately laud praise on the new doctor as some great achievement akin to the Women's suffrage marches. You would think that America elected their first woman president.. LMAO

Welcome to Modern Whovanism.. You're either with us, or an enemy. "We just want you to be honest about your bigotry'', even if we don't know you, It's political, it's identity driven, and has left the station on a track destined for the cliff's of insanity! (get the reference? LOL)


bloody Frickin Hilarious!!!

Sounds hellish, and I doubt I would be good at picking sides. I have never had contact with any fandom...TrekBBS is my first foray. Maybe we could have dodged all this if Missy had taken up the Doctor Mantle and stuck the actual doctor in suspended animation. Now that would have been a story with having, especially after her sacrifice at the end.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Sigh. If the doctor has to be female so that female viewers can identify with the character, then logic demands that means male viewers now can’t. (Neither of which I find true, but if thats th argument for ‘why’ then that’s inescapable.)

In terms non-violent characters, with the positive traits the Doctor embodies as a character? Yes. There’s only one on mainstream TV. Funnily enough, most other ‘hero’ characters are often crafted around a stereotyped ‘maleness’ that is consider old hat at the least now. Until 96, the Doctor was also something of an androgynous character, asexual the least. So some fans already lost ‘their’ doctor, chipped away at.
And if the show is good enough and successful enough to go another fifty years as a female character, great, I don’t mind. (You are using arguments I have seen a thousand times, but from a flawed premise in this case...I don’t mind the Doctor being female. I just think it was a bad decision. If I really was motivated by some silly prejudice, I am sure I would no doubt be terribly incensed by flippant Nyah arguments.) Thing is, I thought we were already ‘sharing’ in the first place. I have never argued SF or Who is ‘for boys’ that’s someone else’s argument, including some of the arguments for the change tbh.
But I don’t think it will. I don’t think the casting will be the sole factor in this, I think we’ve been heading towards a second wilderness years patch a while now. Which may be a good thing, it was last time.
What I really want to hear, is an argument for why it’s a good thing that isn’t dependent on tit for tat politicicisation. Might help reassure me we have more than three years on the clock.
Again, I can place a bet with myself that you came to the show as an adult, that it’s not one with a sort of historical place in the family that might come with that.
It’s a different point of view, I respect that, but I side with Davison and hope to see it go well, now the decision has been made.

Do you think it’s impossible for men to look up to women?

Edited to add: if all things were fair your reasoning might have a point. But look at all of tv and media look how people of color, how women are represented. You are fighting over 1 casting. It’s not like suddenly ALL of media has changed over night. 1 part has changed. 1. And it’s like the world has ended for some fans

 

[Professor Zoom]

I know right!? Before all this mess the fandom was generally together. Up to series 7 it wasn't as political in the divided discussions. But since series 7, the push for Identity politics to pander to the young indoctrinated soy generation, there has been a growing ground swell of fighting along ideological lines, and name calling that is appallingly ignorant and stupid. This is not isolated to trekbbs. MY god, you would be in horror of the type of lynching and totalitarian regime and Thug brigades that run thru Gallifrey Base and are sanctioned by it's mods over there. They don't accept or TOLERATE any POV that doesn't immediately laud praise on the new doctor as some great achievement akin to the Women's suffrage marches. You would think that America elected their first woman president.. LMAO

Welcome to Modern Whovanism.. You're either with us, or an enemy. "We just want you to be honest about your bigotry'', even if we don't know you, It's political, it's identity driven, and has left the station on a track destined for the cliff's of insanity! (get the reference? LOL)


bloody Frickin Hilarious!!!

It’s almost like this “mess” revealed something about segments of fandom, huh?

 

[starsuperion]

It’s almost like this “mess” revealed something about segments of fandom, huh?

Oh I am sure you wish that were true too, as a Validation. Always on the hunt are we? Bollox! Maybe some segments of the fandom sure.. But I think the vast majority has reasons other then straight bigotry that you so expertly look to find in people, Keep On the hunt Mr. Sherlock! I'm sure you'll find that perfect mark that you are looking for and can out them in a public square setting, for me tho, I'm not as cynical and pretty much take people on their word. Good luck tho Inquisitor! Cheers!

 

[Starkers]

I know right!? Before all this mess the fandom was generally together.

How quickly the deadly Loom wars of 1997 are forgotten...

Who has been evolving since it began. Compare the first three Doctors to the next three Doctors. Can you imagine Tom being cast after Hartnell? Or Peter after Troughton? Skip forwards and imagine Eccleston following on from Peter.

There's always been disputes, disagreements about Doctors. He's too old, he's too young, he's too nice, he's too grumpy, he's too fat, he's too panto, he's too Scottish, he's too handsome, he's too Northern, he's too gurney, he's too young (again), he's too old (again). Now we have a new one. He's too she!

 

[mos6507]

“Come on, ladies, why can’t you just be happy with the sidekicks?”

Sarah Jane Smith got her own show (twice if you count K-9 and Company).

 

[starsuperion]

Sorry, I have to lighten the mood here.. Does anyone remember that scene in the Classic series episode the Ribos Operation.. Particularly this scene "No one makes a fool of the Graff Vynda-K and lives!" Is it me, or did that scene just Scream Monty Python!! When the Graff looks into the camera with the zoom in! OMG I loose it everytime!!

 

[starsuperion]

How quickly the deadly Loom wars of 1997 are forgotten...

Who has been evolving since it began. Compare the first three Doctors to the next three Doctors. Can you imagine Tom being cast after Hartnell? Or Peter after Troughton? Skip forwards and imagine Eccleston following on from Peter.

There's always been disputes, disagreements about Doctors. He's too old, he's too young, he's too nice, he's too grumpy, he's too fat, he's too panto, he's too Scottish, he's too handsome, he's too Northern, he's too gurney, he's too young (again), he's too old (again). Now we have a new one. He's too she!

OMG, that's right! I forgot about the loom discussion! Wow! memories.. what about the classic vs New who debates.. some of those were epic!

 

[jaime]

Do you think it’s impossible for men to look up to women?

Edited to add: if all things were fair your reasoning might have a point. But look at all of tv and media look how people of color, how women are represented. You are fighting over 1 casting. It’s not like suddenly ALL of media has changed over night. 1 part has changed. 1. And it’s like the world has ended for some fans

I have already said I do t think that’s the case. But then, the argument in favour is that female fans couldn’t look up a male doctor no?
In this case I am talking about something ever so slightly different, which is a role model. Role models of the opposing gender are perfectly possible, but at a young age...well, it helps. A lack of positive male role models is literally being cited in all sorts of places as a causal factor for all sorts of problems for boys. So having one less, even a fictional character, but particularly one like the doctor, strikes me as a bad idea. *shrug* but those that can’t see from that viewpoint likely never will. Easier to mock someone for being so weak as to need a fictional character as a role model right? Because I have seen that happen.

And yes, some fans are a bit...daft over this. Yes it’s one casting. But as I said, go find me an intelligent male role model for kids who eschews violence to solve his problems, and I will worry a little less. It’s easy to find similar characters for girls. That’s the little kink you see, in many ways the Doctor is already a ‘female’ character. It’s rare for him to pick up a weapon, rare enough you can probably count the occurrences on one hand. You can fill the media to bursting with whatever groups you like, I don’t mind...oh and, don’t bring ethnicity to my comment, not once have I said a BAME actor as the Doctor would be a bad thing...but the point is a Male Hero figure, for young boys, is no longer that thing. We talk about Toxic Masculinity, we have this one figure who is not that, and we do away with him. That’s the thing I think is very probably a bad idea. There’s very little to refute that as such.
Though as I say, hopefully Jodie will be amazing. I find it amusing she’s wearing a little dragon earring off Amazon already.
But something that to my knowledge was unique and good in the world, is no longer around.
But hey? What do I know.

 

[Starkers]

To be honest @jaime that's the only rational argument that's been used and I can see the point, but turning it on its head doesn't that suggest we need more characters like that? Is the existence of a male Doctor being used as a sop to prevent the creation of other such characters?

And I'm not sure exactly how non-violent the Doctor is really. This is a character who was going to stave someone's head in with a rock in episode 2, who went kung-fu crazy on every monster he met when he was Pertwee and who literally murdered someone when he was Colin. Remember when Ten dropped the Sykorax leader to his death or Eleven nuked, er himself, in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship? Not forgetting of course that whether he actually did or didn't do it, a character who believed he'd consciously massacred his entire species.

 

[jaime]

To be honest @jaime that's the only rational argument that's been used and I can see the point, but turning it on its head doesn't that suggest we need more characters like that? Is the existence of a male Doctor being used as a sop to prevent the creation of other such characters?

And I'm not sure exactly how non-violent the Doctor is really. This is a character who was going to stave someone's head in with a rock in episode 2, who went kung-fu crazy on every monster he met when he was Pertwee and who literally murdered someone when he was Colin. Remember when Ten dropped the Sykorax leader to his death or Eleven nuked, er himself, in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship? Not forgetting of course that whether he actually did or didn't do it, a character who believed he'd consciously massacred his entire species.

Totally need more characters like that. Instead we got one less, as it were.

Mostly the moments of violence from the character you mention are the exception not the norm. That’s what makes them so easy to remember. Even the old Venusian aikido is fairly rare, and never to my knowledge fatal. Fundamentally though, he’s opposed to violence. Hence the whole attempting to dodge the Time war and why they can’t look the War Doctor in the eye in Day of the Doctor.

 

[Steve Roby]

Let's see if I have this right.

If a character isn't white, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because a white viewer can't relate to a nonwhite character but everyone can relate to a white character.

If a character isn't male, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because a man can't relate to a female character but women can relate to a male character.

If a character isn't straight and cis, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because a straight cis viewer can't relate to an LGBT2Q+ character but everyone can relate to a straight cis character.

If a character on an American or British TV series isn't American or British respectively, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because an American or British viewer can't relate to someone from another country but everyone can relate to an American or British character.

So, basically, everyone except straight white men is cool with characters unlike themselves in some respect -- in fact, they have to be, otherwise they're going to be mad about being cynically pandered to by the PC SJW police -- but straight white men need to see straight white men, because they can't relate to other types of people.

Two thoughts here.

First, straight is an identity. White is an identity. Male is an identity. Those aren't default traits. A man is a human with certain traits, a woman is a human with certain traits. A black man isn't a white man with added colour, and a white man isn't a black man with colour removed (well, except maybe in a longterm evolutionary sense). There's no default type.

Second, straight white men are a delicate little bunch of snowflakes, aren't we? We need to be catered to by seeing only ourselves on TV or our penises will fall off.

(ETA: removed some strong language because some people use complaining about strong language as a way to avoid the actual point.)

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Let's see if I have this right.

If a character isn't white, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because a white viewer can't relate to a nonwhite character but everyone can relate to a white character.

If a character isn't male, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because a man can't relate to a female character but women can relate to a male character.

If a character isn't straight and cis, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because a straight cis viewer can't relate to an LGBT2Q+ character but everyone can relate to a straight cis character.

If a character on an American or British TV series isn't American or British respectively, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because an American or British viewer can't relate to someone from another country but everyone can relate to an American or British character.

So, basically, everyone except straight white men is cool with characters unlike themselves in some respect -- in fact, they have to be, otherwise they're going to be mad about being cynically pandered to by the PC SJW police -- but straight white men need to see straight white men, because they can't relate to other types of people.

Two thoughts here.

First, straight is an identity. White is an identity. Male is an identity. Those aren't default traits. A man is a human with certain traits, a woman is a human with certain traits. A black man isn't a white man with added colour, and a white man isn't a black man with colour removed (well, except maybe in a longterm evolutionary sense). There's no default type.

Nailed it in one.

Second, straight white men are a delicate little bunch of snowflakes, aren't we? We need to be catered to by seeing only ourselves on TV or our penises will fall off.

Indeed, which has become so blatantly clear in the last few years. It's so pathetic.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Oh I am sure you wish that were true too, as a Validation. Always on the hunt are we? Bollox! Maybe some segments of the fandom sure.. But I think the vast majority has reasons other then straight bigotry that you so expertly look to find in people, Keep On the hunt Mr. Sherlock! I'm sure you'll find that perfect mark that you are looking for and can out them in a public square setting, for me tho, I'm not as cynical and pretty much take people on their word. Good luck tho Inquisitor! Cheers!

Never called it bigotry, it’s a lovely straw man. I’m looking at your posts and your ever shifting reasoning... which always comes back to gender and “why do the girls need MY toys?”

In the end, in regards to your posts, if you were comfortable with your position you wouldn’t need to so often defend them. In the end, I think the lady doth protest to much.

 

[jaime]

Let's see if I have this right.

If a character isn't white, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because a white viewer can't relate to a nonwhite character but everyone can relate to a white character.

If a character isn't male, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because a man can't relate to a female character but women can relate to a male character.

If a character isn't straight and cis, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because a straight cis viewer can't relate to an LGBT2Q+ character but everyone can relate to a straight cis character.

If a character on an American or British TV series isn't American or British respectively, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because an American or British viewer can't relate to someone from another country but everyone can relate to an American or British character.

So, basically, everyone except straight white men is cool with characters unlike themselves in some respect -- in fact, they have to be, otherwise they're going to be mad about being cynically pandered to by the PC SJW police -- but straight white men need to see straight white men, because they can't relate to other types of people.

Two thoughts here.

First, straight is an identity. White is an identity. Male is an identity. Those aren't default traits. A man is a human with certain traits, a woman is a human with certain traits. A black man isn't a white man with added colour, and a white man isn't a black man with colour removed (well, except maybe in a longterm evolutionary sense). There's no default type.

Second, straight white men are a delicate little bunch of snowflakes, aren't we? We need to be catered to by seeing only ourselves on TV or our penises will fall off.

(ETA: removed some strong language because some people use complaining about strong language as a way to avoid the actual point.)

Well, I dunno who said any of that, but it wasn’t me. Not least as it implies that everyone not straight, white and Male is t bothered with being represented on screen in any way whatsoever, and we might as well go back to the globe, stick two coconuts down Martin freeman’s top and call the job done. Cumberbatch probably wants yams, and they are expensive.
But if you want to boil the discussion down to things no one said, sure, why not. Have a coconut.

This is of course flippant. I think there’s a big discussion to be had about representation, and getting more of everyone up there on screen is a good thing, and a thing to be aimed for. But this isn’t about getting more women on screen...that battle has been won. There’s loads of them. The discussion is about one specific role.

 

[jaime]

Never called it bigotry, it’s a lovely straw man. I’m looking at your posts and your ever shifting reasoning... which always comes back to gender and “why do the girls need MY toys?”

In the end, in regards to your posts, if you were comfortable with your position you wouldn’t need to so often defend them. In the end, I think the lady doth protest to much.

Wasn’t Much a merry man and a miller’s son? poor sod if we all go complaining to him.