To allow the thespians an opportunity, to pause, look at you sideways with a wry smile and say, "Acting!".
But they failed, and the script failed. At no point did I think those two actors who are almost 30, were playing 19 year old characters, and if the script cited them as nearly still children, I missed it. 23 year old Billy Piper, played a 16 year old fine, or at least I still remember the point where the Doctor is speechifying to the Daleks that they are not allowed to kill Rose because she is 16, at the end of season one.
Because folk said Ace was an unconvincing portrayal of a British working class teen, back when Chibnall was emerging from his Amstrad cocoon. And he said ‘hold my beer’. I mean I know they were meant to be young but not that young. I stand by my comments about Chibnall and his writing power.
So what you are saying is, we could have had Kris Marshall after all, have the Doctor be described as a woman on a website, and he could have done the wry smile ‘Acting’ etc? XD
I thought they were mid twenties but knew each other from sixth form or something half a decade ago. It’s...well.
In my fanon, the Doctor treats modern-day Earth kind of like people treat streaming TV series, often spending years away and then picking up where she left off. So, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Yaz and Ryan may well be much older than 19 by the time of Resolution. But probably not. Speaking of that episode, I was gratified by the revelation that the Doctor has a way of keeping track of events on Earth. I had imagined him having a habit of sometimes hanging out in the vicinity while keeping an eye on things such as news developments and time travel activity. But the TARDIS or other technology doing that works for me too.
You just proved that you have nothing of relevance to say by using the phrase "virtue signaling" unironically.
Indeed you did. Ryan is stated to be 19 in the premiere, in the opening scene at that. We infer Yaz is also 19 since they went to school together. Actually, Rose was also nineteen in the first season. She was a year old when her father died in 1987, meaning she was born in 1986. The episode Rose takes place in 2005 (as confirmed on her missing poster seen in Aliens of London) making her nineteen.
Ace was one of the last, truly good things about the original DW series, and one of the best companions overall.
Hmmm...funny. I wonder if they attended Coal Hill during the events of "Class" then?. 3 years back, would be about that time, wouldn't it?
Would have to be a Grange Hill Reboot situation. (It was moved to Liverpool, but in its ‘new’ opening episode, one of the ‘old’ London Grange Hill students is shown heading there for sixth form...I watched it, and it was amusingly like he had woken up in Liverpool and not noticed.) They would have gone to school in Shoreditch, then ended up back home ‘Oop North in Sheffield. It is about the level I would expect from Chibnall XD (actually I wouldn’t, I don’t think he knows Coal Hill exists, let alone where it is.)
Indeed. Chibnall seems to have his own ideas of the show. This new direction was supposed to be almost a reboot. Starting from scratch. Chibnall probably viewed himself a new Warris Hussein, and his DOCTOR akin to a rebooted Hartnell. Hence the history focus, going back to the shows roots, and so on. The problem is, after seeing Chibnall's interview back in the 80s and the JNT era, he certainly was given the opportunity to do better. I Can't say he did. Davison era episodes are still way better then anything I saw in season 11. Tho Kablam! Was a good epsiode, except the inexplicable death at the end there. Stupid writing.
Well, yeah, but that's true of all the modern showrunners. A new direction/nearly a reboot and starting from scratch is how RTD approached it, though in that case it was admittedly by necessity. Moffat also started from scratch and took the show in a new direction that was nearly a reboot. And you can guarantee the next showrunner who takes over from Chibnall will do the exact same thing.
True.. But it's all down to who and how they do their reboot or new direction. In the case of Moffat and RTD they had a hit. With Chibnall, the novelty of tuning in to check it out wore off about mid way, and the viewing figures dropped off tremendously.. ON A SIDE NOTE: Holy Cow!! The Big Finish Doctor Who actions figures sold out already!!! IT was only announced a short time ago! I was waiting for payday to try to order one, now it looks like I have nothing to order now!! This sucks! All the B&M store exclusives are always sold out. All the BF figures sold out. It's difficult to be a classic and BF who toy collector when none are available, except at extra ordinary pricing from Scalpers!! B&M and BF need to offer sets like they did for the Doctor Who 13th doctors collection set in TARDIS box. I was fortunate to get that set.. Dang. I am so upset. I wanted to at least buy one set, since that was probably going to cost a mint, now they are sold out. and I refuse to pay scalper prices. Bastards!! https://www.bigfinish.com/news/v/available-now-big-finish-doctor-who-action-figures
I've never been a big fan of describing any show as a "mess". It's simply about whether a person enjoys it or not. I seem to be one of the few that thoroughly enjoyed the last series. Many others weren't happy. That doesn't make the show a mess. It just means it's moved in a direction they didn't enjoy. Possibly a direction that the majority didn't enjoy, although that's hard to quantify as people more people tend to make an effort to complain about things they didn't like than those who are prepared to post about how much they liked it. Looking at forums over the last 15 years it seems that, judging by comments Doctor Who has been in decline almost since the day it restarted. And complaints about showrunners, Doctor's, and companions seem to be endless, until they're replaced, at which point they're suddenly so much better than the last one.
Doctor Who has evolved pretty robust criticism in its fandom, for many may years. There’s a whole cottage industry around it. In its most basic form, people like Chibnall himself were having a whinge in the eighties. For many years we had no new Who, so we became adept at reading and writing criticism (the full on analysis kind, not simply having a moan.) It’s basically part of the game...people involved with the show know this. (It’s one of the reasons things like the production notes column exists. You have to feed the Pixley types of the world.) As for myself, I rate Moffat very highly indeed, but felt the wobbles in early Capaldi. I also try to be fairly objective in my criticism...at the very least, I consider others viewpoints. (Hence one of my biggest grumbles being Who neglecting it’s younger audience and family audiences of late. If I was selfish I wouldn’t mind...after all, I enjoyed mid-to-late Capaldi much more in the end, even if they were not well suited to family and young audiences, and drifted over the TV schedule at one point. But my enjoyment is not the only enjoyment I care about, especially in relation to Who.) It’s a part of Who, and has been for some time. And it’s a *positive*. It’s hsows people care, it creates a fandom that is literate and engaged. It helps people producing Who do a better job (this is absolutely true...the recent writers would all, at some point, have been involved in precisely this kind of conversation or one analysing past Who. I believe Gatiss in particular responded to the popular fan opinion of the Pertwee era in particular in his early books.) It might seem a little strange to people relatively new to the fandom ‘if you hate it why do you watch it?’ As it were. But that’s not how Who or its fandom works. You don’t get through 16 wilderness years with that approach, and one Fox co-production. You get..this. Who probably is the most analysed and discussed TV program of all time (yes even more than Trek. Look at the reams of books published doing it before other shows had theirs...Who fandom practically invented the ‘unofficial guide’ book format. Their authors are akin to household names to fandom.) and I doubt it will change even as politics creeps in at the edges. It always did. (Pertwee is/was seen as the Tory Doctor for instance.) The thing is, the production teams have always had half an ear to that too, since at least JNT. It’s part of the process.
In fairness though I struggle to think if a show which more readily lends itself to the idea of a reboot and new visions. Even rewriting timelines is by and large completely forgivable given the pervasiveness of time travel and alternate dimensions. Personally I tend to like the fact that in some senses DW is a "mess" precisely because it lends itself to defying linear narratives over the long term. As for the characterisation issues raised in the video I'm not sure we've really had long enough to really get to know Whittakers' doctor, the youtuber talks about shows such as Fleabag which use the protagonist to explore femininity from specific angles but they are dedicated to that as a theme. This Doctor merely happens to be female and exploring that is a secondary concern for her so failing to focus on a specific element of that is akin to questioning why other doctors have failed to really approach the question of masculinity. They have all been largely characterised primarily by quirks, catchphrases and idiosyncrasies with broader themes about them as quasi individuals developing over the run of the character and the building relationships between actors and writers. If we are to follow that trend I'd rather that merely being female wasn't considered a quirk or novelty in and of itself akin to Davisons' celery or Capaldis' guitar.
Gender has always been somewhat tertiary to the Doctors character...less so in the modern era (mainly once people go goo goo eyes fro Tennant.) yup. I am not looking for them to explore Jodie’s character, I am just looking for a character.