It's 14 months until her 1st series, 4 until her first scene. When should they have announced it?
Jodie Whittaker is the 13th Doctor
- Thread starter Emperor-Tiberius
- Start date
Most likely, she was typing from a smartphone because she may have been busy doing something, and this was all the time she had to compose it.
To each their own; I was just showing you another perspective of this, is all.
Dude, I'm not going to speculate on the device used by someone to write a wall of badly structured text to justify their own bigotry and mask it in in terms of faux psychology.
If you really want me to take that post seriously then I'll do so as a mental health professional, not a sci fi fan. If she really is attaching herself to a fictional character to the point she feels some imagined family dynamic has been disrupted and thus had a knock on effect on her as a child of that family then the question is not "who should be the next doctor", it should be how best she should seek out help for her issues.
The BBC makes shows to educate and entertain, it's in their charter. Doctor Who does both. They do not take responsibility for the mental health of an entire nation every time they make a casting choice.....
On the other hand it is possible the attachment issues with her "dad" stem more from the fact he seemingly fathered her with his own granddaughter, subsequently expected her to accept 20 plus attractive young women as "mum", developed a tendency to disappear for years at a time (fifteen on one occasion) and never settled in one place, literally calling a different planet "home" each week.
If after all that she still accepts him as a stable father figure I'm sure she can forgive a sex change on top.....
Last edited:
I'd disagree, I liked Matt Smith, though a lot of the time the stories let him down. But that's my own opinion.Matt Smith was horrible.
I'm pretty sure that Cameca wouldn't have assumed she was being proposed to if a female Doctor had offered her a cup of cocoa in "The Aztecs"...
And consider the opening scenes of "The Ribos Operation". The White Guardian has just given the Doctor the task of finding and assembling the pieces of the Key to Time... and tells him that he's taking along a Time Lady to help him. The Doctor isn't at all happy about it and goes into a somewhat sexist rant that assumes he'll have to drop what he's doing and protect her since a lot of his female companions seem to scream and cry and get captured and need rescuing, and couldn't he just go alone, with K-9 to help? (sure enough, Romana does get into that very situation through her own stupidity at the end of the first episode...)
Somehow I can't imagine a female Doctor complaining about how "these girls" are constantly getting into trouble and needing to be saved.
Didn't they already do that back in 1963, with Verity Lambert? And yeah, everything was all black and white then.
I believe same sex relationships were fine in Aztec culture, so she may well have taken it as a proposal. Though 60s attitudes wouldn't have allowed for it.
The Doctor comes out with all sorts of stuff he'll refute within moments of it suits his purpose, if we need an in universe explanation for sexism of 70s writers.
Verity Lambert was a producer not a Showrunner or writer.
I'm not sure this really addresses the point. The Cameca saw a male, they identified the doctor by his visible appearance at that time. They had no way of knowing he could he could die, regenerate and adopt a different body and subsequently present as a she.
To me the phrase "been written as specifically male" as used here seems synonymous with "been written as exclusively male", as being written as tied to that gender across regenerations, but @MadeIndescribable is free to correct me if I got it wrong.
I always liked Colin Baker's Doctor. He was saddled with some of the worst stories in the show's history, but his Doctor was great. IMO, of course.
Probably, but it's always better to make up one's own mind. This post will give you an idea...
...and this is the sort of garbage that led me to describe him as an irrelevance. To each their own and all, but for mine some of his criticisms are off the planet.
Whereas I think he was quite brilliant, and he is by far my favourite new Who Doctor - and right up there with my favourite Doctors ever. To each their own.
Agree entirely. And a lot of people saying don't like and uncomfortable are being called sexist. I also think those saying damaging and wrong are serious idiots.
Also, I will reiterate again, I'm just bringing the message, from my observation of posts here and elsewhere: a lot (not all) are being conservative rather than sexist. But nearly all of them will be won over with good stories and acting. From what people have said, acting will not be a problem. So stories might be. I watched half of s1 of Broadchurch and tried to like it but just couldn't. But Who is different to that, so, as with Donna Noble, I'll give it a chance.
Don't fly off at people because they disagree with you.
Between myself and Mrs-Dimesdan, we have six nieces, my eldest niece likes Doctor Who, she's also performed in a few school plays (she's 12) and I think The Doctor being a woman is brilliant, it means that girls like her growing up like how Tennent did can actually see themselves being on Doctor Who, but instead of being a Companion, they can be The Doctor and that to use language of the younger types is amaze-balls.
If she still had had the same companions that had done the same things (got into trouble, needed saving, scream a lot, etc....) than yeah I could see her going off like that. Especially if the 13th Doctor has an ego even half the size of the 4th Doctor.
Actually that would be funny. The 13th Doctor having the huge Tom Baker sized ego. Followed by the 2000 years plus of skills to back up that ego. I suspect the Doctor will still be off the wall in personality and not measure up to any gender specific expectations.
I agree with Countrycide, that was one of the few S1 TW episodes I liked (could have done without the cringe worthy "seduction" at the end but I admired the notion that not every story has to feature and alien or sci-fi element).
I'd argue that Moffat has tried to do different things to shake up the formula, and clearly they haven't all worked and clearly some of them were down to other issues (split seasons, S9 containing more 2parters etc.) compare that to RTD. I enjoyed series 4 a lot (though a lot of that is down to Donna) but I recall watching and thinking "This is the same as series 3 which was the same as series 2, which was the same..." The same structure, the same kind of stories, even the same kind of placement of stories within the series.
I sort of want Chibnall to find a niche between the RTD and Moffat. RTD's Who was a consistent and fine tooled machine of a show, but it never seemed to want to challenge itself or do anything radically different and I maintain if RTD had stayed the rating would have begun to drop off anyway unless it did something new. By contrast Moffat's Who seems to have existed in a constant state of flux, and when it works it's exciting, but when it doesn't it looks like what it is, a show being made by a man who throws every idea at the board and hopes enough of them stick and people enjoy them, and hopes people just forget the ideas that fell off the wall!
I'm not sure how much more they could have announced their intention earlier. Mention of the Corsair, Missy, the General regenerating back to being a woman, the Doctor going on about how Timelord gender is fluid...
Should they have issued a trigger warning? "Hi this is the BBC, we're going to announce the new Doctor on Sunday but before we do we thought we'd give you fair warning that it isn't going to be a bloke."
However they did it people wouldn't have been happy.
It's strange isn't it. I mean I'm a Bond fan, a freaking huge Bond fan. I adore 007 but I rarely empathise with him, he's a fantasy larger than life figure. Know who I do empathise with despite being a middle aged stright white man?
Bridget Jones.
She's clumsy and she constantly says and does the wrong thing and you know what, I do that all the time. So yeah the real me has more in common with Miss Jones than Mr Bond, so I think my ability to relate to 13 will have more to do with what kind of Doctor she is rather than her gender. I might hate her, or at least tolerate her, but if I do that'll be down to her portrayal. I mean Six is pretty much my least favourite Doctor, but that isn't because he's a man, and it isn't because Colin's a horrible person (clearly quite the reverse) I just didn't gel with how he played the role.
Yeah Matt's pretty much my favourite Doctor full stop.
I have 3 nieces, 1 nephew. Now my elder nieces both watched the first 4 series and 2 of Torchwood, they're both adults now and lost interest. My younger niece, as far as I'm aware, doesn't watch and my nephew prefers Spider-man, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and the like, but I think it's great that this is now the reality that she will be a hero they and their friends can look up to.
^Oh we have two nephews between us.
I think they should have done known of the foreshadowing (although it was fun) and then just announce it cold, that Whittaker would be taking over the role.
Same here.
I think they should have done known of the foreshadowing (although it was fun) and then just announce it cold, that Whittaker would be taking over the role.
Same here.
I think they should still have tried to not announce it and surprise the audience with the regeneration. Or do sort of what they did with Jenna Coleman, and announcer her, than have her show up in a different role early to confuse the audience. Having Jodie Whittaker as the companion who is actually the Doctor would have thrown everyone off the case. You'd have a two Doctor season, and not know it for sure until after the fact.
Just a reminder that Matt Smith is not universally liked. He's my least-favorite of all of them, including the War Doctor - an unnecessary "8.5" character that should have been Paul McGann reprising the Eighth Doctor for the 50th anniversary show.
Tom Baker's Doctor only had to deal with a few instances of screaming/crying/whining female companions - the one that comes to mind for me was when Sarah Jane Smith lost her composure and panicked on the Ark. It was in the story about the giant space grasshoppers (or whatever the hell they were) that were happily munching on the spaceship's frozen humans. Sarah was supposed to crawl through a narrow ventilation shaft and got stuck. She started panicking and crying, and the Doctor started insulting her, calling her weak and other nasty things... the intention was to make her angry enough to show him she could so finish the job so they could defeat the aliens.
I don't recall Leela doing much screaming and crying (other than when she encountered the sewer rat in "Talons of Weng-Chiang"; I'd have screamed and panicked as well), so he must have been referring to some of the female companions he'd had when he used to be the First and Second Doctors.
Hopefully they're not going to plaster her face with makeup. Just enough to make sure she's not totally washed out under the studio lights, but not to the point where it's obvious that the Doctor can't go fight the Daleks until she's got all her mascara, rouge, and eyeshadow on.
I would think the Doctor was including all his human female companions which given how many he had as the First Doctor and how much screaming Victoria did while he was the Second Doctor probably overwhelms the calmer companions in the Doctor's list. The few good ones were special to the Doctor, given both the 10th and 11th's reaction to seeing Sarah Jane again. Though he was more upbeat about seeing K-9 again really. He was a good dog.
It's one of those things, while I completely understand the need for visible representation for women and minorities, be that race, sexual orientation, disability, gender and even class (as a disabled, chronically ill, working class northerner there's not too many representations like me around) I can't say I've had too much trouble relating to or empathising with women, black, Asian, or even Alien characters.
As for Matt Smith his portrayal of the Doctor was very good, sometimes let down by the writing, but I freely admit to disliking a quite a bit of Moffat's run.
I don't need a reminder. I'm very well aware that not everyone likes the same things. I absolutely detest Tennant's portrayal - and I don't much care for the later years of Tom Baker's Doctor, either. Two of the more popular Doctors, and I find one unwatchable and the other incredibly irritating (toward the end of his run, anyway).
As I said...to each their own.
I agree that the notion of needing a character to be a hero seems kind of pointless but then in theory wouldn't that negate the need for the Doctor to be a woman just so she an be seen as a hero?
What if the new season has 2 male companions who are great characters and outshine the first woman doctor? Would the show still be seen as empowering just because the doctor character is a woman? I think everyone agrees that people should be able to be seen on tv and movies that they can identify with but in the end does it matter which character provides that empowerment?
I mean if the male companion ends up being a awesome character then why couldn't men be happy with that sort of representation.? You don't need a character to be the boss to be awesome or beloved. Just look at Spock,Rodney McKay etc for that. The reverse argument of course could be made that a awesome woman companion could have as just much impact as a awesome woman doctor. Like I said above I felt Rose outshined the Doctor so to me it wasn't important that she was just a companion.
When I think of empowerment I tend to think more in terms of things like whether or not the actors are getting equal pay or how many people of color work on the show from the cast to the writing staff to the custodian staff. When it comes to the characters I only care if they are interesting and i'm not sure why more people don't think like that but also I like to think I have enough empathy to realize that for some people it is important for their to be a doctor to be female and others it's important for the character to be male so I shouldn't knock their opinions because they have a different opinion and different priorities.
At least we could stop with the name calling and give people the benefit of the doubt that just because they hold one view doesn't mean they represent some hidden agenda. If someone wants a female companion it doesn't mean they are men hating feminist just like if someone wants a male doctor it doesn't mean they are some alt right style racist.
Jason
What if the new season has 2 male companions who are great characters and outshine the first woman doctor? Would the show still be seen as empowering just because the doctor character is a woman? I think everyone agrees that people should be able to be seen on tv and movies that they can identify with but in the end does it matter which character provides that empowerment?
I mean if the male companion ends up being a awesome character then why couldn't men be happy with that sort of representation.? You don't need a character to be the boss to be awesome or beloved. Just look at Spock,Rodney McKay etc for that. The reverse argument of course could be made that a awesome woman companion could have as just much impact as a awesome woman doctor. Like I said above I felt Rose outshined the Doctor so to me it wasn't important that she was just a companion.
When I think of empowerment I tend to think more in terms of things like whether or not the actors are getting equal pay or how many people of color work on the show from the cast to the writing staff to the custodian staff. When it comes to the characters I only care if they are interesting and i'm not sure why more people don't think like that but also I like to think I have enough empathy to realize that for some people it is important for their to be a doctor to be female and others it's important for the character to be male so I shouldn't knock their opinions because they have a different opinion and different priorities.
At least we could stop with the name calling and give people the benefit of the doubt that just because they hold one view doesn't mean they represent some hidden agenda. If someone wants a female companion it doesn't mean they are men hating feminist just like if someone wants a male doctor it doesn't mean they are some alt right style racist.
Jason
It's okay to feel a sense of loss for a role model.. being male and white is not a bad thing.
Doctor Who fans can be very sensitive and delicate, but you know what? Give her a chance and roll with it. She'll either sink or swim in the role and then who knows who will take over next.
Didn't this paper also reference Jenna Coleman's topless sex scene from a drama she did too? And Tilda Swinton's prior nude scenes when she did The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe?
Being white and male is not a bad thing but recognising it comes with privileges that many don't share is no bad thing either. And recognising that white and male isn't default or universal and allowing for other perspectives isn't demonising them either. I say this as a white, heterosexual, cisgendered male.
Last edited:
Similar threads
