I just looked at that link and all I see are generic interview quotes. Not a mention of definitely doing another series.
And as I recall until a couple of months ago Bradley Walsh was pretending he was in the next series in interviews.
Season 13 starts shooting in a few weeks
- Thread starter StCoop
- Start date
I just looked at that link and all I see are generic interview quotes. Not a mention of definitely doing another series.
And as I recall until a couple of months ago Bradley Walsh was pretending he was in the next series in interviews.
How in the world is "I haven't even looed at any other roles" a 'generic' quote?
I really hope "Ruth" is not Doc 14. Much as fandom seems to love her, all she displayed was River Song style bombast and arrogance. Whilst those aren't unDoctor-y traits, they ARE ones I'd like to see the back of for a bit.
She's shooting Doctor Who until June or July at least. So why would she be looking at any other roles now?
The point of my posting that interview was to demonstrate that Jodie's own words directly contradict The Mirror's claim that she's told producers she's leaving and wants to pursue other roles.
Oh look "No comment" from the BBC, as opposed to "No, that's total tabloid garbage".
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/scifi/2021-01-03/jodie-whittaker-leaving-doctor-who/
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/scifi/2021-01-03/jodie-whittaker-leaving-doctor-who/
There's no reason for the BBC to comment on this because it's tabloid garbage.
Except they did comment by saying "No comment". They're not allowed to lie when they make a reply, you see.
"Declining to comment" means that RadioTimes got no official response from the BBC at all, not that a BBC representative responded to RadioTimes with the words "No comment".
If she left after Series 13, I wouldn't blame her. It's been three series (and, yes, far fewer episodes), but five years.
And, I'm agreed on saying I'd rather she stay and Chibnall leave. I felt the same way when Matt Smith left; I'd rather have kept Matt and seen Moffat leave.
I realized earlier in the year, during one of the Lockdown rewatches, exactly what it is about Chibnall's vision for the series that bugs me.
He's making Doctor Who for the CW Berlantiverse audience. It's got a big cast. It's shiny. There's an ensemble and they talk about their feelings against a backdrop of thin plots. But it's also shallow as heck, and there's a sense that it could be better.
A series around Jo Martin's Doctor would be really interesting, and I can already see ways of getting to that. Regeneration from Jodie to Jo is out -- for "The Timeless Children" to make sense, Martin's well in the past of even Hartnell's Doctor -- so maybe you do a multi-Doctor story that sees Jodie and Jo team up, there's a cliffhanger, and the story continues with Jo's Doctor alone. This leaves the door open for Jodie to return in the future, not unlike the way Sylvester McCoy returned in 1996. Or, if a future producer wanted to pick up beyond Jodie, he could always restart the series the way RTD did in 2005.
They DID respond to Digital Spy though.
https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/a35113643/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-rumour-bbc-response/
"We won't be commenting on any speculation around Jodie's future on the show."
It should be super easy to say, "There's no truth to this story". Doesn't even take as many words...
Loath though I am to believe tabloids, and indeed in another thread I already made a joke about how Whitaker's departure is frequently being reported, BBC's refusal to comment on the matter is a very deafening silence that might as well be a confirmation. If the story were horseshit, their requirement to always tell the truth would compel them to say it's horseshit.
I don't get this logic.
How is dismissing claims from a tabloid as speculation "a deafening silence"?
They didn't dismiss anything. To dismiss the story, they would have to categorically and definitively state it's false. They didn't do that. They just declined to comment. Considering the BBC Charter requires them to tell the truth when asked, their refusal to say the story is false is a deafening silence.
Whatever you say, dude.
They said that The Mirror's claims are nothing more than speculation and that they're not going to address speculation.
That's a dismissal.
But if it weren't true, why then don't they just issue a direct denial?
Because they don't need to.
The Mirror has very little journalistic credibility, and Jodie Whittaker's own words from just 5 weeks ago directly contradict what they (The Mirror) are claiming anyway.
Actually, they do. It's in their charter.
I read through the BBC charter and all it says is that the organization is held to a requirement of openness and transparency.
Dismissing The Mirror's claims as speculation and declining to comment further doesn't violate or veer from that requirement.
Similar threads
