• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Thoughts on Jodie Whittaker

There are a few lines from Flux and Spyfall where she's awesome, but all in all she's just acting out whatever blop is on paper and not making it her own, which is something most Doctors get to do - but Chibnall did not want her seeing old material either....

If anything, her stance with the sonic magic wand couldn't be any more forced if they tried.

Back to where the only real problem with his era is, the scripting, it didn't help that Chibnall used the thing as a tricorder - something even Tennant (whom she chatted with for advice) disagreed with.

It also didn't help that her early stories are so inconsistent and poorly developed, especially when Chibnall was in interviews telling of a new first for the series - a writers' ensemble. But the pseudohistoricals and ":It Takes You Away" were fairly good. Great in some cases.

Series 12 was an overall improvement, but in comes the classic "Fugitive of the Judoon" and Jo Martin manages to sell in 20 seconds what Jodie barely managed in more than a baker's dozen's worth of stories. That confidence, tone, and Jo Martin, is what the show needed most. And that episode got hype solely because the Captain Jack's memberberries. Which is odd as the whole episode has a verve to it, making impressive use of not just the fob watch magical fairyland watch where fairytale characters store their katras when needed, but making the Judoon more respectable than big Sontaran ripoffs spouting baby babble. A shame Chibnall dropped the ball after the series 12 finale that tries way too hard to augment the lore but ends up pureeing it into mush instead. Complete with character whose name is pronounced like the first three notes of the Doctor Who theme - "Tec-te-un". Yes, the audience needs as much spoonfed exposition pie-thrown into their face as possible, of course... A bigger shame that, despite allegedly more sophisticated storytelling over the last couple of decades or so we're told, he managed to commit the same temporal paradox goof of "older incarnation saves the current one" - okay, nobody knew where in the chain Jo's incarnation was, but most were theorizing "season 6B" if not a future incarnation; only after the season ended did it become confirmed Chibs made an unequivocal goof.

His era is a mixed bag but it easily could have been far worse. I didn't expect the retconned fugitive Doctor to have so much continuity applied right. Not knowing a sonic screwdriver, and this and that... That alone makes this new Doctor surprisingly refreshing (I'm not bringing up the police box visage), but Jo Martin runs with the material and makes the Doctor her own as quickly as Tom Baker had for his... all while Jodie's given crap lines like "The real Doctor doesn't use weapons" - a line so incredibly ignorant (if not outright stupid) that either she's on amnesia drugs, self-delusional (and this time there's no spectrox toxemia fettering the gray matter so what gives?), or Doctors 1-7 never existed (something that the timeless child arc flatly contradicts as well as guess whose images appear right on cue, with music, ooo-aaah-ooh? Again, Chibs' stories are an inconsistent hodgepodge that tell their ideas so badly and inconsistently...)

Heck, I'd love to see how RTD would handle Jo Martin's Doctor, without the background baggage Chibs crammed in. Or any producer. The other benefit to all this is that Chibnall, who's brought in some creative and fresh ideas, had worse followthrough than even JNT's worst times. So little of Jo's Doctor is on screen that there's a lot that can be crafted far better and more consistently than "I have dyspraxia but can be a perfect sniper sharpshooter just because I play a video game and can climb ladders and other things too." Given other feats of agility said video game could allow-- ugh, Chibnall's era is just a mixed bag and let down in more cases than it should have been. It's as simple as that and there was so much more potential...)
 
Last edited:
She's a good actor, and with a halfway decent showrunner/writers I think she would have been an excellent Doctor, but no one could save the material she got. The 13th Doctor is just a bad character, sometimes spineless and unhelpful and sometimes just extremely obnoxious, and overall is the only Doctor I really just can't stand.

None of that is Whittaker's fault, though. I'd never blame her for the 13th Doctor's era being terrible, she just got the bad luck of being stuck with chibnall as showrunner. Honestly, as much as I don't have great feelings toward Big Finish, I think the 13th Doctor might have a chance of some rehabilitation if Whittaker ever decides to go that route.
 
She's a good actor, and with a halfway decent showrunner/writers I think she would have been an excellent Doctor, but no one could save the material she got. The 13th Doctor is just a bad character, sometimes spineless and unhelpful and sometimes just extremely obnoxious, and overall is the only Doctor I really just can't stand.

None of that is Whittaker's fault, though. I'd never blame her for the 13th Doctor's era being terrible, she just got the bad luck of being stuck with chibnall as showrunner. Honestly, as much as I don't have great feelings toward Big Finish, I think the 13th Doctor might have a chance of some rehabilitation if Whittaker ever decides to go that route.

Don't forget her murdering a tardis.... One of the low points of the series
 
I think she is a good actress, I think she's embraced the role and her work as an ambassador for the show has been exemplary. In particular the little videos she did at the start of lockdown.

But.

As the Doctor I've found her variable. A lot of this is down to Chibnall. It was, presumably, his choice to so often rob the character of agency (the nadir of this was possibly The Timeless Children when the Doctor was chained up and the Master mastersplained the plot to her, and then a while later some old dude died in her place to save the day). Surrounding her with companions and guest stars only exacerbated this (though having said that she's swamped in co-stars in The Haunting of Villa Diodati yet I find that one of her best performances, so go figure, I suspect that was because Alderton gave her decent material to work with).

I think even beyond the choices of Chibnall, I've found that Whittaker can sometimes fade into the background. I think there is a difference between acting ability and screen presence. I think she has the former but not necessarily the latter. For example I don't think Colin Baker is a great actor, and he's one of my least favourite Doctors, but the man has presence, he dominates the screen and is clearly The Doctor.

The appearance of Jo Martin's Doctor didn't help. As others have said, Martin nailed the role more in a few minutes of screen time than Whittaker had in fifteen or so episodes up to that point.

On another topic I love this notion that the manic energy of Who and all the running about was somehow a product of Moffat/Smith onwards. Much like the people bizarrely arguing that Who will be less 'woke' when RTD returns I think people are in for a disappointment if they think the show's somehow going to slow down when Russell returns!
 
I think she is a good actress, I think she's embraced the role and her work as an ambassador for the show has been exemplary. In particular the little videos she did at the start of lockdown.

But.

As the Doctor I've found her variable. A lot of this is down to Chibnall. It was, presumably, his choice to so often rob the character of agency (the nadir of this was possibly The Timeless Children when the Doctor was chained up and the Master mastersplained the plot to her, and then a while later some old dude died in her place to save the day). Surrounding her with companions and guest stars only exacerbated this (though having said that she's swamped in co-stars in The Haunting of Villa Diodati yet I find that one of her best performances, so go figure, I suspect that was because Alderton gave her decent material to work with).

I think even beyond the choices of Chibnall, I've found that Whittaker can sometimes fade into the background. I think there is a difference between acting ability and screen presence. I think she has the former but not necessarily the latter. For example I don't think Colin Baker is a great actor, and he's one of my least favourite Doctors, but the man has presence, he dominates the screen and is clearly The Doctor.

The appearance of Jo Martin's Doctor didn't help. As others have said, Martin nailed the role more in a few minutes of screen time than Whittaker had in fifteen or so episodes up to that point.

On another topic I love this notion that the manic energy of Who and all the running about was somehow a product of Moffat/Smith onwards. Much like the people bizarrely arguing that Who will be less 'woke' when RTD returns I think people are in for a disappointment if they think the show's somehow going to slow down when Russell returns!

I think people will be in for a rude shock.

I actually preferred RTD's run of the show.

The 11th Doctor wasn't one of my favourites. 10th Doctor and 12th Doctor were my favourites and Jodie in 3rd place. I think for me what kills some of the show is the extended cast. There really was no need for the whole "fam" god I hate that word. One maybe 2 companions but they just drowned her in companions, so how the bloody hell could she shine with all those other actors there too, plus Chibnall's writing being so uneven.

I actually liked the idea of the Timeless Child and what they were trying to get at.
 
I love everything about Jodie's turn as the Doctor, and feel like it merged the Classic and Modern eras of the series in a way that the Eccleston, Tennant, Smith, and Capaldi years didn't, especially as I experience more and more of Classic Who.
 
Jodie and her Doctor had potential but the insistence nowadays that the Doctor has to be some hyperactive child mixed in with some truly atrocious writing means her Doctor will be considered a failure by most.
 
From what I saw of her I thought she was pretty good. I stopped watching early on but it was nothing to do with the actors/actresses and more I felt I was forcing myself to watch it and wasn't engaging the stories. I go in and out of Who and like checking out the new incarnations and keep up to date with developments. The show looked nice and I remember being really taken with the music in her first episode. I don't like where they went with the Timeless Child and I think it was a mistake to make the first black Doctor a bit character, although perhaps from Chibnall's perspective it doesn't look that way. I hope they go with another female Doctor next. I hope they have some crossover with Jodie and other Doctors in the 60th. I would love to see her and Eyebrows together.
 
Jodie and her Doctor had potential but the insistence nowadays that the Doctor has to be some hyperactive child mixed in with some truly atrocious writing means her Doctor will be considered a failure by most.

Yes but that particular thing began with Matt Smith's Doctor .. Was not impressed then either. I liked 12 and 13.

Best Doctors of the new era were 9, 10, 12 and 13
 
It's still the same old story, a tale of people putting down the new version for what the old version used to do. I remember Whittaker being criticized early on for being too much like some of her predecessors, especially David Tennant and Matt Smith, until the hater orthodoxy became the idea that actually she's not really the Doctor because she's not like any of them at all.
 
I think she is a good actress, I think she's embraced the role and her work as an ambassador for the show has been exemplary. In particular the little videos she did at the start of lockdown.

^^this

But.

As the Doctor I've found her variable. A lot of this is down to Chibnall. It was, presumably, his choice to so often rob the character of agency (the nadir of this was possibly The Timeless Children when the Doctor was chained up and the Master mastersplained the plot to her, and then a while later some old dude died in her place to save the day). Surrounding her with companions and guest stars only exacerbated this (though having said that she's swamped in co-stars in The Haunting of Villa Diodati yet I find that one of her best performances, so go figure, I suspect that was because Alderton gave her decent material to work with).

The expositiondumps he likes to put out were never effective.

It didn't help he was also trying to eliminate the regeneration limitation issue Robert Holmes put in during the 70s. The exposition ruined that too, as well as using the same backdrop (fugitive on the run from her own people) but changing planet and universe of origin... Not an easy task and he did a better job at trying to undo it than most of us could have ever begun to. And at some point, no matter how casual the audience is, they'd want to know so the issues peeking out from under the narrative yarn would have to be addressed. And will so again in the future at some point.

I think even beyond the choices of Chibnall, I've found that Whittaker can sometimes fade into the background. I think there is a difference between acting ability and screen presence. I think she has the former but not necessarily the latter. For example I don't think Colin Baker is a great actor, and he's one of my least favourite Doctors, but the man has presence, he dominates the screen and is clearly The Doctor.

DW is great in allowing any number of people to gravitate toward the incarnation(s) they prefer. It's timeless.

The appearance of Jo Martin's Doctor didn't help. As others have said, Martin nailed the role more in a few minutes of screen time than Whittaker had in fifteen or so episodes up to that point.

How much of his ideas he wanted to put out will probably remain a mystery, but had he started with Jo and this huge mystery he'd have had more to anchor on and I always got the feeling Jodie wasn't always comfortable with the role. The sonic screwdriver scenes feel terribly forced. Other scenes she's solid if not brilliant. But in comes Jo, with that dialogue, and she's stolen the show in that handful of minutes - removing any doubt that, yes, a woman can be the lead, and the doubt that Chibnall can't ever write anything decent. At least for set pieces, though most of "Spyfall" was pretty great. (Heck, Chibnall knows he could have written solid stories without the magic wand. A few minor rewrites would have turned his mostly-decent historicals into true classics and that would be by removing the monster environment and just exploring the historical figures. Or used more in the same vein as "Spyfall", which I thought was a nifty innovation. (This is not to say he's the best script writer ever, but he's not as dreadful that some claim. Just disappointing as it's clear he has done better for DW and won awards for other shows he was responsible for.)

On another topic I love this notion that the manic energy of Who and all the running about was somehow a product of Moffat/Smith onwards.

The manic energy is most notable with Tennant, though depending on how "manic" is defined, there's Colin Baker, Tom Baker, McCoy, or Troughton to consider in the running as well.

It's also a plus that Whittaker's era didn't feel as sitcom 4th wall shtick that Moffat's had. Could have been far worse...

Much like the people bizarrely arguing that Who will be less 'woke' when RTD returns I think people are in for a disappointment if they think the show's somehow going to slow down when Russell returns!

Yeah, those screaming "the show is woke" and loved RTD may be disappointed. For other reasons, I'm worried that RTD-era's biggest fans who aren't screaming the "woke" stuff may also be disappointed, but for other reasons. Time will tell if "RTD2" is identical to "RTD1". Both factions should keep an open mind, but if fans need "reassurance" as the reason RTD is returning, that's not a good sign. The show has generally moved forward and upward with fresh change, not regurgi-- oh wait, that's what Chibnall did. I wonder what J Michael Straczynski would have done if he got the job. It's not like the show hadn't been produced by a non-Brit before or anything...
 
Last edited:
It's still the same old story, a tale of people putting down the new version for what the old version used to do. I remember Whittaker being criticized early on for being too much like some of her predecessors, especially David Tennant and Matt Smith, until the hater orthodoxy became the idea that actually she's not really the Doctor because she's not like any of them at all.

Which started thanks to Smith being too similar to Tennant with the "wacky act" trope. There are differences, but don't forget that Jodie did talk with Tennant for advice so it's hard to discount the notion she wasn't influenced by him. It's not the most unfair assertion fandom has come up with, and certainly nowhere near some of the stuff I'd seen elsewhere - thank goodness.

I never heard anything about "she's not like any of them at all", though.
 
It didn't help he was also trying to eliminate the regeneration limitation issue Robert Holmes put in during the 70s. The exposition ruined that too, as well as using the same backdrop (fugitive on the run from her own people) but changing planet and universe of origin... Not an easy task and he did a better job at trying to undo it than most of us could have ever begun to. And at some point, no matter how casual the audience is, they'd want to know so the issues peeking out from under the narrative yarn would have to be addressed. And will so again in the future at some point.

I don't think that was a driving concern. Moffat certainly did his best to put the regeneration issue to bed, probably a bit unintentionally with the Doctor shell-game which amplified the existing confusion of, "Wait, is the Twelfth or Thirteenth Doctor supposed to be the last one?" by throwing in the War Doctor, and establishing "Journey's End" counted towards the limits, so casual-to-moderate fans would be too confused to even be sure that we'd gone through another twelve by the time we reached the... 23rd... Doctor, but much more explicitly by putting in lines suggesting that the Doctor's new regeneration cycle could be unlimited, and was definitely undefined; in "Kill the Moon," the Doctor says that he may well never stop regenerating no matter how many times someone tries to kill him, and in "Hell Bent," Rassilon (who'd really be the one to actually know) establishes that even he's not sure how many new regenerations the Doctor got, but he wouldn't be surprised if it was a lot.
 
The woke subject seems to run interference and fuck up any conversation, which is why I'm hasten to ever comment on it. I like plenty of stuff that's woke across different media, but it's never because of wokeness alone, but because it tells a compelling story I can engage with.

"You don't like <insert show here>, therefore you're a bigot" is as much BS as those who get their knickers in a twist over inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters, racial / gender recasting etc.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top