Thoughts on Jodie Whittaker

[Steve Roby]

I never heard anything about "she's not like any of them at all", though.

Time to bring up Gianluca di Rocco's book again, I see: Identity Lost: A Critical Analysis of the Transformation of the Beloved Television Hero Dr. Who. "The 2018 series of BBC Television’s Doctor Who introduced viewers to a female incarnation of the character for the first time since the programme began in 1963. Fans and dedicated viewers of the series were reassured that there would be no changes to how the character would be written following the change in gender. Long-time Doctor Who enthusiast Gian-Luca Di Rocco examines the veracity of this claim. He takes a methodical approach, examining in detail the character of the Doctor as he existed from 1963 through to 2017 (using all adventures broadcast on BBC television and radio as his sources) and then analyzes to what extent the most significant and prevalent character traits were retained in the first female Doctor.In doing so, this book provides an identification of the Doctor’s 20 “core” character traits which made the character a unique male action hero. It recounts some of the Doctor’s most endearing and cherished qualities, including his cleverest moments, his funniest witticisms, endearing instances of arrogance and rudeness, the finest examples of his eccentricity, and his most heroic and moral actions. Di Rocco also attempts to analyze what changes have been made to the character starting with the 2018 series and the underlying factors which have caused the change. He also suggests a route that can be taken for the series going forward based upon the analysis of what made the character so beloved, unique and successful for over 50 years."

The book's 500 pages long. I haven't read it, but looking at the table of contents and comments by people who have read it, he does things like saying that Matt Smith's Doctor may have been eccentric and odd but he wasn't wacky, only Jodie Whittaker's Doctor was ever wacky. Some of the core traits come close to contradicting each other. It looks like the kind of thing that people who hate the idea of the Whittaker Doctor will find convincing, mainly because they were already convinced.

Sure, that's just one fan's opinion, but I've read comments by other fans who didn't immediately burst out laughing when they heard about it, but actually read the book instead. The core idea has spread around a bit.

 

[Qonundrum]

Time to bring up Gianluca di Rocco's book again, I see: Identity Lost: A Critical Analysis of the Transformation of the Beloved Television Hero Dr. Who. "The 2018 series of BBC Television’s Doctor Who introduced viewers to a female incarnation of the character for the first time since the programme began in 1963. Fans and dedicated viewers of the series were reassured that there would be no changes to how the character would be written following the change in gender. Long-time Doctor Who enthusiast Gian-Luca Di Rocco examines the veracity of this claim. He takes a methodical approach, examining in detail the character of the Doctor as he existed from 1963 through to 2017 (using all adventures broadcast on BBC television and radio as his sources) and then analyzes to what extent the most significant and prevalent character traits were retained in the first female Doctor.In doing so, this book provides an identification of the Doctor’s 20 “core” character traits which made the character a unique male action hero. It recounts some of the Doctor’s most endearing and cherished qualities, including his cleverest moments, his funniest witticisms, endearing instances of arrogance and rudeness, the finest examples of his eccentricity, and his most heroic and moral actions. Di Rocco also attempts to analyze what changes have been made to the character starting with the 2018 series and the underlying factors which have caused the change. He also suggests a route that can be taken for the series going forward based upon the analysis of what made the character so beloved, unique and successful for over 50 years."

The book's 500 pages long. I haven't read it, but looking at the table of contents and comments by people who have read it, he does things like saying that Matt Smith's Doctor may have been eccentric and odd but he wasn't wacky, only Jodie Whittaker's Doctor was ever wacky. Some of the core traits come close to contradicting each other. It looks like the kind of thing that people who hate the idea of the Whittaker Doctor will find convincing, mainly because they were already convinced.

Sure, that's just one fan's opinion, but I've read comments by other fans who didn't immediately burst out laughing when they heard about it, but actually read the book instead. The core idea has spread around a bit.

Thanks! I'll check it out... her era has been so uneven, but what "the idea of the Whittaker Doctor" is (because the Doctor is now female?) isn't one I object to. Especially when Jo Martin being quick to shine whereas Jodie needed multiple seasons....

Looking back, "wacky" could be subjective term. Tennant was. Tom Baker became that, certainly in season 17. Having two Doctors in a row where a defining characteristic was to be a comedy act/funny/etc didn't help. Smith was excellent, but never before had a contrast been so overtly ignored, which also set the stage for Doctor Who now having to be comedic at all times. Then again, Jo Martin's use of humor had me laughing with her too. (With, not at. )

 

[Steve Roby]

Thanks! I'll check it out... her era has been so uneven, but what "the idea of the Whittaker Doctor" is (because the Doctor is now female?) isn't one I object to. Especially when Jo Martin being quick to shine whereas Jodie needed multiple seasons....

I liked Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor from her first episode. I also really liked her first season's deliberate step away from Moffat's oh so clever and convoluted arc-based stories.

Looking back, "wacky" could be subjective term.

Well, yeah, it pretty much is. That's my criticism of the idea of the book. Everything about it is subjective, but the author presents it as being objective and scientific. Seriously, if fish fingers and custard aren't wacky, nothing is.

 

[matthunter]

Seriously, if fish fingers and custard aren't wacky, nothing is.

It's odd, yes. But in the context of the story, the Doctor IS interacting with a child and trying to calm them.

Besides, quite a few people have tried it and reported it's not disgusting. Parsley sauce or hollandaise are both quite similar in texture to custard, just not sweet. But sweet goes with fish too - I put sweet chilli sauce on my salmon fillets before baking them.

 

[Relayer1]

Jodie made some bad acting choices,which direction should have eliminated. The gurning to the camera was a no brainer.

Pretty much all of the rest of the problems apart from the costume (which I think she had input in) were dialogue (Fam ?) script and plot related.

I think RTD is a crappy scifi writer but a great character writer and a good showrunner. I get the impression he'll be overseeing a larger Whoniverse of spin-offs soon after the relaunch so the less writing he contributes the better.

If he does a good job I think this could be a very good time to be a Who fan.

 

[Qonundrum]

I liked Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor from her first episode. I also really liked her first season's deliberate step away from Moffat's oh so clever and convoluted arc-based stories.

Well, yeah, it pretty much is. That's my criticism of the idea of the book. Everything about it is subjective, but the author presents it as being objective and scientific. Seriously, if fish fingers and custard aren't wacky, nothing is.

Superficially wacky, sure. So is screeching "I'm a madman with a box comer travel with me!" to a complete stranger, who'd more likely call 911 and warn of an imbalanced person loose on the streets trying to kidnap people... Or, in a word, "Flanderizatrion" describes the show over the decades perfectly. But few can match Tom Baker in making wacky in a more natural and less shallow way. Save for season 17, but nobody's perfect...

That aside, Moffat was technically good at complex arcs, but his juggling Doctor Who and Sherlock (and how many others?) showed where he was placing the most effort - which was "Sherlock", at least for the first couple of series.

 

[Qonundrum]

Jodie made some bad acting choices,which direction should have eliminated. The gurning to the camera was a no brainer.

Pretty much all of the rest of the problems apart from the costume (which I think she had input in) were dialogue (Fam ?) script and plot related.

I think RTD is a crappy scifi writer but a great character writer and a good showrunner. I get the impression he'll be overseeing a larger Whoniverse of spin-offs soon after the relaunch so the less writing he contributes the better.

If he does a good job I think this could be a very good time to be a Who fan.

^^this

His first era was also hit or miss for me, but there were from his era -- and he was more cognizant of the wide range of audiences and how not a single one can be consistently happy. He probably got burnt out the first time because of how much he had to put into it, especially with the range of audiences (general vs fan, drama vs hard sci-fi, etc, etc...)

 

[Lonemagpie]

Good actress/performer... I wish we could have seen what she could do with more good scripts that didn't rely on her "ooh, {name], [job description]" greetins to every character, especially the historical ones.

 

[Starkers]

For some reason I was watching some YouTube videos of her first episode the other day. That scene on the train she's great, wonderfully quirky and take charge. Skip to the end and her "Would you help me" scene and suddenly she sounds like a CBeebies presenter (and is kinda dressed like one!)

 

[Orac Zen]

I'm in agreement with just about everyone - a terrific actress who on the sadly rare occasions she had even remotely decent material to work with was a tremendous Doctor. Unfortunately a lot of what she had to work with was pretty bloody dismal, and saddling her Doctor with three companions spread the material even more thinly (Yaz ending up with no character development whatever being merely the most obvious of the myriad problems). It's really unfortunate that the first woman to get the part ended up with so little to work with.

Love the idea that Tennant wasn't a hyperactive child

Right? He was by far the most hyperactive of all of the modern Doctors!

This is one of the main reasons I dislike Tennant's Doctor more than any other. The hyperactivity was off the scale and beyond irritating. Matt Smith and Jodie Whittaker were almost catatonic by comparison.

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

We used to think that Colin Baker was the actor most poorly served by the scripts he was saddled with. But he has nothing to complain about where Whittaker is concerned.

Frankly, I'm hoping to just ignore the entire run. All of Chibnall's stupid mystery boxes and retcons. The Timeless Child, the Fugitive Doctor, the whole lot of it. Bring on Gatwa!

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I sure won't miss the fan hyperbole surrounding the Chibnall era. Ugh.

 

[Steve Roby]

Frankly, I'm hoping to just ignore the entire run. All of Chibnall's stupid mystery boxes and retcons. The Timeless Child, the Fugitive Doctor, the whole lot of it. Bring on Gatwa!

Just wondering if somewhere you posted something like this:

Frankly, I'm hoping to just ignore the entire run. All of Moffat's stupid mystery boxes and retcons. The War Doctor, the Doctor's wife, the whole lot of it. Bring on Whittaker!

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

No, I didn't.

Because the War Doctor was well written. So was the Doctor's wife. What "mystery boxes" do you think were introduced but not paid off in those stories?

Moffat isn't perfect, but he is responsible for some of the best Who scripts ever. And I will stand by my contention that his first season is the best single season the show has ever had, classic years included.

Oh, except for the "bring on Whittaker!" part. I absolutely said that. I was very excited about her casting, and I maintain that she is the actor saddled with the worst writing in the whole of Doctor Who history. She deserved so much more. I wish she was staying on to work with a better showrunner, but she's not. So I embrace the next regeneration.

 

[Steve Roby]

I didn't see any point to Moffat's "is the Doctor going to die?" stuff because of course he wasn't, but boy, did we get some ridiculously convoluted schemes along the way there. I didn't see any point to Moffat's "Am I a good man?" because of course he is, except for being an asshole to Clara's boyfriend. I didn't see any point to "Is the Doctor blind?" because nothing much was done with it and, again, it was never going to go anywhere. Etc.

 

[jaime]

No, I didn't.

Because the War Doctor was well written. So was the Doctor's wife. What "mystery boxes" do you think were introduced but not paid off in those stories?

Moffat isn't perfect, but he is responsible for some of the best Who scripts ever. And I will stand by my contention that his first season is the best single season the show has ever had, classic years included.

Oh, except for the "bring on Whittaker!" part. I absolutely said that. I was very excited about her casting, and I maintain that she is the actor saddled with the worst writing in the whole of Doctor Who history. She deserved so much more. I wish she was staying on to work with a better showrunner, but she's not. So I embrace the next regeneration.

Season 26. The closest it gets to clanger is Battlefield, and even that has some *amazing* bits that Chibnall wishes he could do. (I’ll take Shou Ying and Ace in a chalk circle any day over the modern hammers for example, even if Aaronovitch and Angela Bruce should be banned from ever using the word shame again) Every Story from Greatest Show onwards is borderline perfect, especially considering the budget. Take out Silver Nemesis (which *still* has good bits) and basically Dragonfire to Survival is the greatest run of stories Who has had until the Matt Smith era. So… joint first I guess. Prisoner Zero was unsatisfactory.

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

I didn't see any point to Moffat's "is the Doctor going to die?" stuff because of course he wasn't, but boy, did we get some ridiculously convoluted schemes along the way there. I didn't see any point to Moffat's "Am I a good man?" because of course he is, except for being an asshole to Clara's boyfriend. I didn't see any point to "Is the Doctor blind?" because nothing much was done with it and, again, it was never going to go anywhere. Etc.

I don't know. The Doctor isn't always a "good man." SIx ,Seven, and Ten have all failed that test at times. And hey, at least Moffat didn't make the Doctor some mysterious being responsible for the creation of regeneration and Time Lord society.

We can think Whittaker's tenure was bad without being a retrogressive mouthbreather.

 

[Steve Roby]

I don't know. The Doctor isn't always a "good man." SIx ,Seven, and Ten have all failed that test at times.

They didn't become evil men. They were men who did some wrong things, either with good intent or good results, or both. Hell, Moffat even retconned his own creation, the Doctor No More, the man who had to do so many bad things that he couldn't be called the Doctor, into a relatively warm and fuzzy guy who didn't do the big horrible thing after all.

And hey, at least Moffat didn't make the Doctor some mysterious being responsible for the creation of regeneration and Time Lord society.

Cartmel was starting to go into similar territory. And the show has a decades-long history of changing what we thought we knew about regenerations and Time Lord society.

We can think Whittaker's tenure was bad without being a retrogressive mouthbreather.

Sure, but it doesn't help that some of the people who don't like the last couple of years start out by saying it's the writing and, when you give them a little more attention, the retrogressive mouthbreathing eventually starts. They've learned to appear reasonable and unobjectionable by saying "the writing is bad." It works, as long as no one asks what it is that's bad about the writing. (t#NotAllCriticalFansObviously)

 

[McCoy's Disco Collar]

Fair enough.

Hopefully my follow-up made it clear that I hold Chibnall entirely responsible for the last couple loathsome seasons, and wish Whittaker had been given material worthy of her.

 

[jaime]

They didn't become evil men. They were men who did some wrong things, either with good intent or good results, or both. Hell, Moffat even retconned his own creation, the Doctor No More, the man who had to do so many bad things that he couldn't be called the Doctor, into a relatively warm and fuzzy guy who didn't do the big horrible thing after all.



Cartmel was starting to go into similar territory. And the show has a decades-long history of changing what we thought we knew about regenerations and Time Lord society.



Sure, but it doesn't help that some of the people who don't like the last couple of years start out by saying it's the writing and, when you give them a little more attention, the retrogressive mouthbreathing eventually starts. They've learned to appear reasonable and unobjectionable by saying "the writing is bad." It works, as long as no one asks what it is that's bad about the writing. (t#NotAllCriticalFansObviously)

That’s the thing. There’s little nuance once the disagreement starts. I don’t think they should have gone for a female doctor, not because I am ‘Anti-woman’ but because of what the character meant as a specifically male character. But, thinking it was a mis-step or mistake didn’t mean I would stop watching, or that it was no longer Doctor Who. Or even that if it was was done well, it could really work, as had been proven to some extent with Missy. (Who was awesome.)

Peter Davison was hounded off of Twitter for having similar sentiments. The narrative became that there is only one reason that you could possibly not like the change (not even necessarily be against, simply not like) was if you were a rampant misogynist.

Within a couple of episodes, it was apparent that the other thing I thought was a bad idea — having Chibnall as head writer — was going to be the bigger stumbling block. But any criticism was now ready to go against that ready made Teflon coated ideological defence.
I had no idea how bad it was going to get with Chibnall though, until he threw away all the goodwill I had found watching The Villa episode. (It wasn’t quite enough to erase the bad taste that Spyfall etc had left… that was so blind to what it was putting on screen as to be laughable at the sheer incompetence at thinking things through.) Such cognitive dissonance — I even sort of liked the Dixon of dock Green stuff being used as meta text, even if it was a bit Ashes to Ashes — as he totally screwed up so much, particularly this Doctor.

I genuinely cannot wait to see the back of Chibnall, he’s been lazy as a writer frankly. He lacks sense, nuance, and creativity. He also lacks respect for the work done by his predecessors.
I hope Jodie gets the Big Finish treatment that helped Colin get re-evaluated, because with better words, maybe she will portray a better version of the character.

As to the decades of change, or even the unfinished Cartmel Masterplan… well, one was unfinished and so scarcely matters (and would have been tempered by JNT for sure) and the other worked by building on what came before, rather than re-writing with so bold a hand. Less… contradiction.