Who should become the next Doctor after Whittaker?

[starsuperion]

Let's see if I have this right.

If a character isn't white, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because a white viewer can't relate to a nonwhite character but everyone can relate to a white character.

If a character isn't male, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because a man can't relate to a female character but women can relate to a male character.

If a character isn't straight and cis, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because a straight cis viewer can't relate to an LGBT2Q+ character but everyone can relate to a straight cis character.

If a character on an American or British TV series isn't American or British respectively, that's SJW pandering to the PC identity police, because an American or British viewer can't relate to someone from another country but everyone can relate to an American or British character.

So, basically, everyone except straight white men is cool with characters unlike themselves in some respect -- in fact, they have to be, otherwise they're going to be mad about being cynically pandered to by the PC SJW police -- but straight white men need to see straight white men, because they can't relate to other types of people.

Two thoughts here.

First, straight is an identity. White is an identity. Male is an identity. Those aren't default traits. A man is a human with certain traits, a woman is a human with certain traits. A black man isn't a white man with added colour, and a white man isn't a black man with colour removed (well, except maybe in a longterm evolutionary sense). There's no default type.

Second, straight white men are a delicate little bunch of snowflakes, aren't we? We need to be catered to by seeing only ourselves on TV or our penises will fall off.

(ETA: removed some strong language because some people use complaining about strong language as a way to avoid the actual point.)

See, now that is an over simplification and stereotypical view on the subject. If this were true, then my favourite character on Red Dwarf would be Rimmer, and it's not. It's always been Lister.. Is my only reason for liking Lister because he's a tad shade lighter then cat?? I mean, get real.. Sure there are some who think like that in absolutes, but it's not that simple and identity driven. This is the argument the left always uses.. it's over simplistic and not realistic.

 

[starsuperion]

Never called it bigotry, it’s a lovely straw man. I’m looking at your posts and your ever shifting reasoning... which always comes back to gender and “why do the girls need MY toys?”

In the end, in regards to your posts, if you were comfortable with your position you wouldn’t need to so often defend them. In the end, I think the lady doth protest to much.

Umm.. no. I just always have to have the last word..

 

[starsuperion]

Well, I dunno who said any of that, but it wasn’t me. Not least as it implies that everyone not straight, white and Male is t bothered with being represented on screen in any way whatsoever, and we might as well go back to the globe, stick two coconuts down Martin freeman’s top and call the job done. Cumberbatch probably wants yams, and they are expensive.
But if you want to boil the discussion down to things no one said, sure, why not. Have a coconut.

This is of course flippant. I think there’s a big discussion to be had about representation, and getting more of everyone up there on screen is a good thing, and a thing to be aimed for. But this isn’t about getting more women on screen...that battle has been won. There’s loads of them. The discussion is about one specific role.

But what ever happened to the concept of exceptionality and talent over some check the box agenda? I would think the best candidate for the job should be chosen. the fact that Chernobal initially said the audition came down to the best person chosen, lying his arse off.. and later admitting he only ever always wanted a female pretty much is why some are calling Bollox on the whole affair.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Umm.. no. I just always have to have the last word..

Ok. Sure.

 

[Professor Zoom]

But what ever happened to the concept of exceptionality and talent over some check the box agenda? I would think the best candidate for the job should be chosen. the fact that Chernobal initially said the audition came down to the best person chosen, lying his arse off.. and later admitting he only ever always wanted a female pretty much is why some are calling Bollox on the whole affair.

If all things were equal, you would have a point.

 

[starsuperion]

If all things were equal, you would have a point.

Sure

 

[Captain Nebula]

Who should become the next Doctor after Whittaker?

Idris Alba

 

[Professor Zoom]

Sure

I doubt that.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

But what ever happened to the concept of exceptionality and talent over some check the box agenda? I would think the best candidate for the job should be chosen. the fact that Chernobal initially said the audition came down to the best person chosen, lying his arse off.. and later admitting he only ever always wanted a female pretty much is why some are calling Bollox on the whole affair.

Sorry, but the way you argue sounds like, only male actors allowed because they would better in the role by default.

And before you go back to, but Chibnall has dismissed men from the get go...

First, the casting in this show has dismissed women for almost 50 years, so that is hardly unfair.

Second, there is no single best actor who magically shows up every 3-4 years.
That we had 14 amazing Doctors proves that there are loads of them out there, each capable of putting their unique spin on the character.
Going to the other half of the population doesn‘t deprive us of „the best“. It allows us to experience a Doctor flavor, we were err denied so far, not because only males are always best but because of narrow minded casting choices.

C,... no, Third, If you think that the female actor pool is incapable of giving us an exceptional Doctor, that‘s sexist, period.
If you‘re issue actually we’re just the casting of Jodie, you would not keep arguing over this issue like you do.
Why are you not capable to admit this?

 

[starsuperion]

Sorry, but the way you argue sounds like, only male actors allowed because they would better in the role by default.

And before you go back to, but Chibnall has dismissed men from the get go...

First, the casting in this show has dismissed women for almost 50 years, so that is hardly unfair.

Second, there is no single best actor who magically shows up every 3-4 years.
That we had 14 amazing Doctors proves that there are loads of them out there, each capable of putting their unique spin on the character.
Going to the other half of the population doesn‘t deprive us of „the best“. It allows us to experience a Doctor flavor, we were err denied so far, not because only males are always best but because of narrow minded casting choices.

C,... no, Third, If you think that the female actor pool is incapable of giving us an exceptional Doctor, that‘s sexist, period.
If you‘re issue actually we’re just the casting of Jodie, you would not keep arguing over this issue like you do.
Why are you not capable to admit this?

No because you and people on here keep pulling it back to Sexism. And where the heck did only "White male" come in? Idris alba would have been great! You keep missing the point I am trying to make, it was never about if a woman can play the part. It is about the ideology and agenda behind the casting and the constant lauding of the part being given to a female as if this was progress.. or some great victory. Which in a vacuum that argument may hold water, but there are tons of female led shows and movies out today that smash that to shreds. I think a Female Doctor can happen.. Sure.

I've even said there's a great spiritual message there, one that could have been told in Star Wars too but wasn't. Rey could have been the embodiment of the Chosen force protector who comes about when ever the force is threatened, as a reincarnation of Anakin, I would have loved to see that. But they didn't, she is a nobody.. and a Mary sue, because hey Girl power..

This is the sad ideology I keep sighting, but all anyone wants to do is break everything down to a simplified monster of sexism. it's not.. and no matter how much the dialogue keeps trying to steer that way, none of what I say will ever be understood or acknowledged as anything other then what is being assigned to it.

The fact that there had been 13 doctors all male was based on the era, the ideology of the time, and a lack of female talent allowed to be in the BBC. sure the Beeb had it's culture there.. but to make this more about some agenda, then the talented is what is my major issue with the casting. Not the casting itself, except to say I think Jodie is a mediocre actress.. so the agenda, the Chernobyl admission of bias, and the acting chops that are lacking are why I think that Jodie was a horrible choice. Now, had they been transparent, and cast maybe someone else (a better female actress).. I wouldn't be so adverse to the whole thing, and series 11. Also had the last 2 seasons of Capaldi not been so blatant identity politics pandering, and Bill had more depth then a token Black Lesbian female, there would also be less of this feeling of dread I have for the future of Who..

People say, okay if you aren't sexist give me your reasons.. I give them, they ignore them

and twist it into another well maybe that is sexist argument, for some I guess that gives them comfort and then the concerns I sight are easily dismissed. Turn your opponent into a monster and all is right with the world. That is disingenuous. I suppose for some, the ideology must be protected at all times, target the opponent and make it personal to destroy them and then their argument can't hold water..

great tactic.. but not real and not what should be held up as adult and educated intelligent dialogue and discussion.

An ad hominem argument is an argument that attacks a person directly, rather than addressing the point that the person is trying to make. This rhetoric technique appears frequently in discussions, so it’s important to understand it.

Specifically, by attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself, the person using the ad hominem attack fails to address the stance that they are arguing against.

As such, ad hominem arguments are categorized as a subtype of the fallacy of irrelevance, since they contain information that is not directly relevant to the discussion at hand. More specifically, ad hominem arguments are a subtype of the genetic fallacy, since the person using them is arguing against a certain stance indirectly, by attacking its source.

Note that in some cases, arguments against the source of the information can be relevant to the discussion. As long as they are relevant, and as long as the person using them explains why they are relevant, the use of such arguments isn’t logically fallacious. As such, an argument directed at a person becomes a fallacious ad hominem attack only when it is not directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

There are several different types of ad hominem arguments. What they all have in common is that the person using these arguments is attacking their opponent by focusing on something personal that is irrelevant to the discussion, instead of addressing the point that their opponent is trying to make.

As such, the difference between the different types of ad hominem arguments lies in the way in which the personal attack occurs, and each type of ad hominem argument attacks people in a different way.

Poisoning the Well is a rhetoric technique where someone presents unrelated negative information about their opponent, with the goal of discrediting everything that their target says.

For example:

A: I think that we should increase the federal spending on education.

B: You’re a fascist, so clearly we shouldn’t listen to what you have to say about education.

Case in point, anyone who has a disagreement with the casting of the new Doctor, regardless of their reasoning.

For example:

A: I think that a good case can be made that the casting of Jodie Whittaker is a pandering move by the BBC.

B: You’re a sexist, so clearly we shouldn’t listen to what you have to say about Doctor Who.

 

[jaime]

Sorry, but the way you argue sounds like, only male actors allowed because they would better in the role by default.

And before you go back to, but Chibnall has dismissed men from the get go...

First, the casting in this show has dismissed women for almost 50 years, so that is hardly unfair.

Second, there is no single best actor who magically shows up every 3-4 years.
That we had 14 amazing Doctors proves that there are loads of them out there, each capable of putting their unique spin on the character.
Going to the other half of the population doesn‘t deprive us of „the best“. It allows us to experience a Doctor flavor, we were err denied so far, not because only males are always best but because of narrow minded casting choices.

C,... no, Third, If you think that the female actor pool is incapable of giving us an exceptional Doctor, that‘s sexist, period.
If you‘re issue actually we’re just the casting of Jodie, you would not keep arguing over this issue like you do.
Why are you not capable to admit this?

Moffat wrote the comic relief skit, that had Joanna Lumley.
Big Finish has Arabella Weir.
The comics had an eight Doctor Who was female, but she turned out to be a fake.
Moffat allegedly read female actors for the role at some point, one was A big name, but I forget who. Putting all that aside for the moment..

I believe only females were read for the starring companion role practically every time. There was never a male in contention for the companion role in nu-who. Is this sexist? Are the companions not also the ‘star’ of the show, as Susan, Ian and Barbara all were, though things perhaps change a little in their focus. It’s not about pay either, as I believe Billie was on a higher scale than David.

Ultimately it’s about the character. That’s what this part of the discussion is about. British TV, even at the beeb, has plenty of female-led Dramas, has had for a good thirty years (Marple, Mapp and Lucia, Rosemary and Thyme, The Durrells, Prime Suspect, Murder Most Horrid...bit of a grey zone into comedy there, House of Eliot, Ashes to Ashes, that’s just off the top of my head.)
Sometimes it’s not about sexism.
I hope Jodie does well.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Sorry, but the way you argue sounds like, only male actors allowed because they would better in the role by default.

And before you go back to, but Chibnall has dismissed men from the get go...

First, the casting in this show has dismissed women for almost 50 years, so that is hardly unfair.

Second, there is no single best actor who magically shows up every 3-4 years.
That we had 14 amazing Doctors proves that there are loads of them out there, each capable of putting their unique spin on the character.
Going to the other half of the population doesn‘t deprive us of „the best“. It allows us to experience a Doctor flavor, we were err denied so far, not because only males are always best but because of narrow minded casting choices.

C,... no, Third, If you think that the female actor pool is incapable of giving us an exceptional Doctor, that‘s sexist, period.
If you‘re issue actually we’re just the casting of Jodie, you would not keep arguing over this issue like you do.
Why are you not capable to admit this?

All great points.

No because you and people on here keep pulling it back to Sexism. And where the heck did only "White male" come in? Idris alba would have been great! You keep missing the point I am trying to make, it was never about if a woman can play the part. It is about the ideology and agenda behind the casting and the constant lauding of the part being given to a female as if this was progress.. or some great victory. Which in a vacuum that argument may hold water, but there are tons of female led shows and movies out today that smash that to shreds. I think a Female Doctor can happen.. Sure.

I've even said there's a great spiritual message there, one that could have been told in Star Wars too but wasn't. Rey could have been the embodiment of the Chosen force protector who comes about when ever the force is threatened, as a reincarnation of Anakin, I would have loved to see that. But they didn't, she is a nobody.. and a Mary sue, because hey Girl power..

This is the sad ideology I keep sighting, but all anyone wants to do is break everything down to a simplified monster of sexism. it's not.. and no matter how much the dialogue keeps trying to steer that way, none of what I say will ever be understood or acknowledged as anything other then what is being assigned to it.

The fact that there had been 13 doctors all male was based on the era, the ideology of the time, and a lack of female talent allowed to be in the BBC. sure the Beeb had it's culture there.. but to make this more about some agenda, then the talented is what is my major issue with the casting. Not the casting itself, except to say I think Jodie is a mediocre actress.. so the agenda, the Chernobyl admission of bias, and the acting chops that are lacking are why I think that Jodie was a horrible choice. Now, had they been transparent, and cast maybe someone else (a better female actress).. I wouldn't be so adverse to the whole thing, and series 11. Also had the last 2 seasons of Capaldi not been so blatant identity politics pandering, and Bill had more depth then a token Black Lesbian female, there would also be less of this feeling of dread I have for the future of Who..

People say, okay if you aren't sexist give me your reasons.. I give them, they ignore them

and twist it into another well maybe that is sexist argument, for some I guess that gives them comfort and then the concerns I sight are easily dismissed. Turn your opponent into a monster and all is right with the world. That is disingenuous. I suppose for some, the ideology must be protected at all times, target the opponent and make it personal to destroy them and then their argument can't hold water..

great tactic.. but not real and not what should be held up as adult and educated intelligent dialogue and discussion.

An ad hominem argument is an argument that attacks a person directly, rather than addressing the point that the person is trying to make. This rhetoric technique appears frequently in discussions, so it’s important to understand it.

Specifically, by attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself, the person using the ad hominem attack fails to address the stance that they are arguing against.

As such, ad hominem arguments are categorized as a subtype of the fallacy of irrelevance, since they contain information that is not directly relevant to the discussion at hand. More specifically, ad hominem arguments are a subtype of the genetic fallacy, since the person using them is arguing against a certain stance indirectly, by attacking its source.

Note that in some cases, arguments against the source of the information can be relevant to the discussion. As long as they are relevant, and as long as the person using them explains why they are relevant, the use of such arguments isn’t logically fallacious. As such, an argument directed at a person becomes a fallacious ad hominem attack only when it is not directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

There are several different types of ad hominem arguments. What they all have in common is that the person using these arguments is attacking their opponent by focusing on something personal that is irrelevant to the discussion, instead of addressing the point that their opponent is trying to make.

As such, the difference between the different types of ad hominem arguments lies in the way in which the personal attack occurs, and each type of ad hominem argument attacks people in a different way.

Poisoning the Well is a rhetoric technique where someone presents unrelated negative information about their opponent, with the goal of discrediting everything that their target says.

For example:

A: I think that we should increase the federal spending on education.

B: You’re a fascist, so clearly we shouldn’t listen to what you have to say about education.

Case in point, anyone who has a disagreement with the casting of the new Doctor, regardless of their reasoning.

For example:

A: I think that a good case can be made that the casting of Jodie Whittaker is a pandering move by the BBC.

B: You’re a sexist, so clearly we shouldn’t listen to what you have to say about Doctor Who.

Luke was as much of a Mary Sue as Rey. He suddenly had force powers when he needed them: look at the Wampa cave. He used force pull without training...

But anyway.

I’m just fascinated by this “ideology” behind the casting theory. As if there wouldn’t be ideology behind casting only men.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I’m just fascinated by this “ideology” behind the casting theory. As if there wouldn’t be ideology behind casting only men.

Once more with emphasis.

 

[starsuperion]

Moffat wrote the comic relief skit, that had Joanna Lumley.
Big Finish has Arabella Weir.
The comics had an eight Doctor Who was female, but she turned out to be a fake.
Moffat allegedly read female actors for the role at some point, one was A big name, but I forget who. Putting all that aside for the moment..

I believe only females were read for the starring companion role practically every time. There was never a male in contention for the companion role in nu-who. Is this sexist? Are the companions not also the ‘star’ of the show, as Susan, Ian and Barbara all were, though things perhaps change a little in their focus. It’s not about pay either, as I believe Billie was on a higher scale than David.

Ultimately it’s about the character. That’s what this part of the discussion is about. British TV, even at the beeb, has plenty of female-led Dramas, has had for a good thirty years (Marple, Mapp and Lucia, Rosemary and Thyme, The Durrells, Prime Suspect, Murder Most Horrid...bit of a grey zone into comedy there, House of Eliot, Ashes to Ashes, that’s just off the top of my head.)
Sometimes it’s not about sexism.
I hope Jodie does well.

Fantastic...

I suppose it may also come down to the way it was presented.. as far as representation. Bill's presentation and writing was simplistic and overtly trying to say something. That was shallow.. didn't give me a feeling for her one way or the other, except to roll my eyes on occasion. IT would surprise many on here to know that I absolutely love DC's Legends of Tomorrow.. I am comfortable with the representation on that show. CW's Flash, Supergirl, Krypton, and Arrow. In Legends, I find nothing wrong it is presented organically and doesn't feel like pandering or condescending, except one episode the one about Obama.. Good god.. SMH..

 

[Starkers]

Totally need more characters like that. Instead we got one less, as it were.

Mostly the moments of violence from the character you mention are the exception not the norm. That’s what makes them so easy to remember. Even the old Venusian aikido is fairly rare, and never to my knowledge fatal. Fundamentally though, he’s opposed to violence. Hence the whole attempting to dodge the Time war and why they can’t look the War Doctor in the eye in Day of the Doctor.

Totally need more characters like that. Instead we got one less, as it were.

Mostly the moments of violence from the character you mention are the exception not the norm. That’s what makes them so easy to remember. Even the old Venusian aikido is fairly rare, and never to my knowledge fatal. Fundamentally though, he’s opposed to violence. Hence the whole attempting to dodge the Time war and why they can’t look the War Doctor in the eye in Day of the Doctor.

One of my few issues with the War Doctor, is that really he isn't that different. There's all that guff from Eight about "make me a warrior" but it isn't like we see the WD taking down dozens of Daleks bare handed, and even when it comes to using the Moment he agonizes over it terribly so he's hardly turned into Gowron. The Doctor does terrible things (Ten's imprisonment of the Family of Blood is pretty darn terrifying) and at the end of the day is he more of a pacifist than, say, Picard?

This is of course flippant. I think there’s a big discussion to be had about representation, and getting more of everyone up there on screen is a good thing, and a thing to be aimed for. But this isn’t about getting more women on screen...that battle has been won. There’s loads of them. The discussion is about one specific role.

That battle hasn't been won, the battle has only just started. It's been proven men have more dialogue, even in films predominantly about women or with female stars saying the battle has been won is, well it's just wrong. Hell I bet there's more male dialogue than female in Wonder Woman. And it's not just about what's on screen, it's about representation behind the screen as well.

I've even said there's a great spiritual message there, one that could have been told in Star Wars too but wasn't. Rey could have been the embodiment of the Chosen force protector who comes about when ever the force is threatened, as a reincarnation of Anakin, I would have loved to see that. But they didn't, she is a nobody.. and a Mary sue, because hey Girl power..

God I love that she's a nobody, why the fuck should Force single anyone out as special, why the hell should Force abilities be hereditary anyway? And given the Jedi were celibate how the hell did that work anyway?

All great points.




Luke was as much of a Mary Sue as Rey. He suddenly had force powers when he needed them: look at the Wampa cave. He used force pull without training...

But anyway.

I’m just fascinated by this “ideology” behind the casting theory. As if there wouldn’t be ideology behind casting only men.

Yeah Luke is clearly as much of a Mary Sue as Rey, with both of them it's about trying to do stuff once they know they have Force abilities, Rey just has the edge because she's heard stories about Jedis and what they can do, whereas Luke had no idea about the Force and Jedis till Obi Wan told him.

 

[Starkers]

Oh and this thread kinda reminds me of one of the funniest things about inclusion of the last few years.

The Force Awakens: Stormtroopers can't be black!
Rogue One: Why is the Empire all white guys?

 

[jaime]

One of my few issues with the War Doctor, is that really he isn't that different. There's all that guff from Eight about "make me a warrior" but it isn't like we see the WD taking down dozens of Daleks bare handed, and even when it comes to using the Moment he agonizes over it terribly so he's hardly turned into Gowron. The Doctor does terrible things (Ten's imprisonment of the Family of Blood is pretty darn terrifying) and at the end of the day is he more of a pacifist than, say, Picard?



That battle hasn't been won, the battle has only just started. It's been proven men have more dialogue, even in films predominantly about women or with female stars saying the battle has been won is, well it's just wrong. Hell I bet there's more male dialogue than female in Wonder Woman. And it's not just about what's on screen, it's about representation behind the screen as well.



God I love that she's a nobody, why the fuck should Force single anyone out as special, why the hell should Force abilities be hereditary anyway? And given the Jedi were celibate how the hell did that work anyway?



Yeah Luke is clearly as much of a Mary Sue as Rey, with both of them it's about trying to do stuff once they know they have Force abilities, Rey just has the edge because she's heard stories about Jedis and what they can do, whereas Luke had no idea about the Force and Jedis till Obi Wan told him.

I should quantify my ‘battle is won’ statement really. Mainly I am talking about British TV, especially Prime time stuff. I can’t find a decent set of figures on it, but especially once you factor in soaps (of which there seems to be at least half a dozen) which even though they don’t have a definitive ‘star’ are primarily aimed at a female audience, and have good representation in the cast across the board. Then when you look at Dramas, it seems on a surface level at least (again, no decent figures...I.e they include imported Dramas, or cover more than what we think of as the ‘main’ channels here, and goodness knows if they count repeats...basically there’s no breakdown for BRITISH produced...why the hell does my iPad capitalise that every damn time...T.V Dramas, so I have to go on my limited experience. I am not counting reality shows for that reason xD) that representation is pretty equal. If we go to costume Dramas, we can argue whether or not Mr.Darcy or whomever is the ‘star’ but there’s no denying they are usually female targeted or led...period drama too may be ensemble, but again follows that pattern.
All of this is a good thing. One of the other things about Doctor Who, is when you are a little boy who doesn’t like sport, it sometimes seems one of the few programs that caters for you just a little bit. I don’t think that’s much cause for anything mind you, just a sort of aside. We are lucky over here, in that so much TV drama is fairly representative (though has gone backwards in some areas....) and consistently só for the last twenty or thirty years.

As to the war doctor...absolutely. You should try Moffats novel version of the story. The Doctor meting out violence and death is absolutely him feeling like he has stopped being himself, but ultimately he still is, and that’s what that story is about. The Doctor May blow Stuff up, but usually it’s just stuff. When he’s got to the point it’s not just stuff, then there’s something either wrong or it’s a Doctor pushed past his breaking point, something that terrifies him and weighs on his conscience. I think his reaction to captain jacks gun sort of typifies it, and the banana factory, and shows just how broken he is when he’s holding the gun in Dalek. (Daleks seem to push him to breaking more often than anything else.)

As I say, it’s about one role, not about all roles...I once wrote a lovely SF gender flipped Hamlet I was very proud of when I was about nineteen. But in essence that’s an adaptation, every production of it is to some extent anyway.

I can guarantee I will watch and support strong female leads in drama or SF, and have done since forever. In the case of the Doctor? I do not think the decision was a good one, and got caught up in one kind of positive thing that overlooks another positive thing that is probably just as important. I don’t think most of the other arguments around this stuff (most of which are very silly indeed, and would find me squarely on the side of...well...for want of a less flippant description, the girls team. I do not have my knickers in a twist about Rey, about Burnham, about any of those little corners that seem to enflame muppets. I like Rey. I find Burnham dull and annoying, but the contents of her knickers are in no way the cause of this.) apply in this one case, because of the specific position Doctor Who and the Doctor have for some people, and what it is.

The answer is more cakes all around, don’t take the cake off the little chap in the corner. I think people simply don’t appreciate what the character can mean to some people (male or female, Who has had female fans for longer than he’s been cast pretty. And sometimes girls need that father figure too.) or downplay it in the service of what they see as the greater argument.

All of which, to go back to the original post, means I am interested in seeing Jodie play the character before I worry about her replacement. If she can stand there and be called an idiot by an old man in a cave, without the Internet exploding in fury, and with it meaning something deeper, like it did when it happened in Kinda to the Fifth Doctor; if she can provide the contrast we see between something gentle and silly, then terrifying and serious, like we saw with Eleven, without it becoming a minefield of polarising fights between tribal factions on Twitter..then they will have got it right. (Ok, there’s gonna be some frothing at the mouth, there always is, but the writers must t give into it.)
Basically, I would like to see her be the Doctor, and hope she’s good at it (and the writers do a good job, most importantly.)
Otherwise, something was lost for nothing, it will lead to bigger backlash from all quarters, and we will probably lose the show again. But we probably would lose it anyway, if the writing goes wrong at the moment, no matter what the lead character urinates from. It’s one hell of a gamble.

 

[jaime]

Oh and this thread kinda reminds me of one of the funniest things about inclusion of the last few years.

The Force Awakens: Stormtroopers can't be black!
Rogue One: Why is the Empire all white guys?

I heard about the first furore, but didn’t hear about the second. Did the same nutty group really go for both?
To be honest they should have let Boyega keep his normal voice. English accents seem to denote Coruscanti, and it’s usually a bad idea to have your villains all be so...monoethnic. Same goes for heroes really.
I don’t like th direction of the new Star Wars, but I like the direction of its fandom even less.
Sigh.
Maybe it really is time for a Police Academy reboot after all.

 

[starsuperion]

Orphan Black was one of my most Fav female led shows. Epic, and I doubt the male 2 Female dialogue there was out of whack.

 

[The Wormhole]

No because you and people on here keep pulling it back to Sexism. And where the heck did only "White male" come in? Idris alba would have been great! You keep missing the point I am trying to make, it was never about if a woman can play the part. It is about the ideology and agenda behind the casting and the constant lauding of the part being given to a female as if this was progress.. or some great victory. Which in a vacuum that argument may hold water, but there are tons of female led shows and movies out today that smash that to shreds. I think a Female Doctor can happen.. Sure.

I've even said there's a great spiritual message there, one that could have been told in Star Wars too but wasn't. Rey could have been the embodiment of the Chosen force protector who comes about when ever the force is threatened, as a reincarnation of Anakin, I would have loved to see that. But they didn't, she is a nobody.. and a Mary sue, because hey Girl power..

This is the sad ideology I keep sighting, but all anyone wants to do is break everything down to a simplified monster of sexism. it's not.. and no matter how much the dialogue keeps trying to steer that way, none of what I say will ever be understood or acknowledged as anything other then what is being assigned to it.

The fact that there had been 13 doctors all male was based on the era, the ideology of the time, and a lack of female talent allowed to be in the BBC. sure the Beeb had it's culture there.. but to make this more about some agenda, then the talented is what is my major issue with the casting. Not the casting itself, except to say I think Jodie is a mediocre actress.. so the agenda, the Chernobyl admission of bias, and the acting chops that are lacking are why I think that Jodie was a horrible choice. Now, had they been transparent, and cast maybe someone else (a better female actress).. I wouldn't be so adverse to the whole thing, and series 11. Also had the last 2 seasons of Capaldi not been so blatant identity politics pandering, and Bill had more depth then a token Black Lesbian female, there would also be less of this feeling of dread I have for the future of Who..

People say, okay if you aren't sexist give me your reasons.. I give them, they ignore them

and twist it into another well maybe that is sexist argument, for some I guess that gives them comfort and then the concerns I sight are easily dismissed. Turn your opponent into a monster and all is right with the world. That is disingenuous. I suppose for some, the ideology must be protected at all times, target the opponent and make it personal to destroy them and then their argument can't hold water..

great tactic.. but not real and not what should be held up as adult and educated intelligent dialogue and discussion.

An ad hominem argument is an argument that attacks a person directly, rather than addressing the point that the person is trying to make. This rhetoric technique appears frequently in discussions, so it’s important to understand it.

Specifically, by attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself, the person using the ad hominem attack fails to address the stance that they are arguing against.

As such, ad hominem arguments are categorized as a subtype of the fallacy of irrelevance, since they contain information that is not directly relevant to the discussion at hand. More specifically, ad hominem arguments are a subtype of the genetic fallacy, since the person using them is arguing against a certain stance indirectly, by attacking its source.

Note that in some cases, arguments against the source of the information can be relevant to the discussion. As long as they are relevant, and as long as the person using them explains why they are relevant, the use of such arguments isn’t logically fallacious. As such, an argument directed at a person becomes a fallacious ad hominem attack only when it is not directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

There are several different types of ad hominem arguments. What they all have in common is that the person using these arguments is attacking their opponent by focusing on something personal that is irrelevant to the discussion, instead of addressing the point that their opponent is trying to make.

As such, the difference between the different types of ad hominem arguments lies in the way in which the personal attack occurs, and each type of ad hominem argument attacks people in a different way.

Poisoning the Well is a rhetoric technique where someone presents unrelated negative information about their opponent, with the goal of discrediting everything that their target says.

For example:

A: I think that we should increase the federal spending on education.

B: You’re a fascist, so clearly we shouldn’t listen to what you have to say about education.

Case in point, anyone who has a disagreement with the casting of the new Doctor, regardless of their reasoning.

For example:

A: I think that a good case can be made that the casting of Jodie Whittaker is a pandering move by the BBC.

B: You’re a sexist, so clearly we shouldn’t listen to what you have to say about Doctor Who.

We've been over this before. The reason people think you're sexist is because this was your reaction to Whitaker's casting:

Totally not watching. Not even gonna pretend to be optimistic. Worst idea ever. Not a fan. It's all about SJW quotas these days. Oh well. Would have liked to see what could have been done. Looks like the death of Docotor Who. But that's just my prediction. If ratings are low, I expect lots of "sexism" to be the excuse. Sigh...soooooo tired of the SJW crap.

Literally hours after the announcement was made you cried about SJWs and vowed to stop watching the show. That's why people think you're sexist.

And so fucking what if Chibnall specifically sought out a female Doctor? We've had a dozen men for the past fifty years, what's wrong with shaking things up and bring in a woman?