• 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!

Who should become the next Doctor after Whittaker?

I just have to respond to someone above, Kor I think. Talking about a kid being the Doctor at some stage. I so hope not! That is ageist of me. I get it. I remember Doogie Howser and shows can be written for and around kids schooling adults etc. But I put my hand up to not ever wanting to see a precocious brat lording it around the universe. :whistle:

For some, Matt Smith was a kid.
 
For some, Matt Smith was a kid.
There comes a time for a Doctor Who viewer when the Doctor is younger than oneself - sigh. Well the actor/actress playing them. This I can live with, like the policeman who sat at the table when our house was broken into. He looked like he was fresh from University. I respect that but #nobratsforDoctor.
 
No Thomas Brodie-Sangster?

3lcyUUR.jpg
 
No Thomas Brodie-Sangster?

3lcyUUR.jpg

Lol. Actually, sure.
Though, of course, he'd spend an episode going "Why this face? Why did I take this face... I remember seeing this face before..."
Actually, from a story telling perspective... I kind of like it, the challenge of this Doctor being taken seriously as an authority figure...
 
I don't know if anyone here watches "Once Upon A Time" but Robbie Kay playing Pan and Rumple's... Dad actually worked! I loved the acting.
 
My sister also loves David Tenant, lol she tried to get me to watch (but I didn't like her episode choice, probably a bad pick on her part).

All that doesn't really make a difference though, you're not talking about everyone's favorite Doctor, and no one says my or your or her favorite has to be any special Doctor, but what there's issue with is objection to a woman being cast as the Doctor because she's a woman, and saying only men should ever be in her role.

That's not a position I support. I don't think that a woman shouldn't be cast as the Doctor. Of course that should happen. The distinction I need to make is how it came about, and the subsequent development after, is why I think it should have waited and got past the whole identity politics because it feels like pandering and virtue signalling to draw a mellenial focus. If this is altruistic behavior of the BBC and the show writers, then that's not being realistic to the corporate mindset. Partially private funding and government funding is it's primary motivator.

Should a Doctor be cast as Female? Yes.
Was the lead up handled correctly? No.
Did the detractors get a chance to be heard? Not really. The idiotic sexists got all the buzz with their women can't drive shite and pink TARDIS memes and that was fuel for the abuse and direct charges of sexism to come flying out in mobs, making legitimate criticism instantly called out as such without responsible open minded discussion.

In that context above, should a female Doctor have been cast? No, she should have been the 14th Doctor and allowed Chibnall the opportunity to work the female doctor up from his perspective, then when it came time, maybe the change would be more acceptable as Chibnall has a better grasp with such things as evidenced by Broadchurch.

However, my personal feelings about the actress capabilities are another matter entirely.

Can a woman be the Doctor? YES of course she can. But really, did the right woman get the part? I'm skeptical..


I mean, if you feel fine a woman is cast in the role of the Doctor, wonderful!
Yes

What're we talking about then?
The toxic ideology behind the change, and the visceral reaction to any dissenting opinion. The loss of the concept of choice and preferences.

If you feel upset and you feel only men should play the role, then you're sexist, right?
Yes that's correct.

I mean, I know people can change their minds, but there was definite hostility towards women as I was reading through here, and a lot of "boys club" type posts, which I feel are just so very toxic and unfortunate.
This is true, it's hard to convey your feelings about the casting that can accept legitimacy when there's problems with posts that are blatant sexism. I agree.
I don't understand what your friend has to do with anything here?

I was sharing an anecdotal story within my conversation with a different poster. I wasn't speaking to the entire board, but it's of course there for all to read. So oh well. I thought it was nice to post at least one other female perspective on the subject to equal out the board's opinions, if only in a third party sort of sense.
 
Even if one looks for male role models to be male why not just wait until the next Male Doctor shows up and enjoy this Doctor on a different level? Also it's not like their aren't other Male Role Models in fiction. Captain America,Daredevil,,The Flash, Almost ever male character on "Stranger Days" the nerds from "Silicon Valley",Spiderman,Black Panther, Luke Cage, Seth McFarlande from "Orville"Bortus from "Orville" ,Saru from Discovery,Stamets from Discovery, All the male characters on "Legends of Tommorow,All the male characters except for the bad guys on "Arrow" and so forth.

Jason
 
I have reached out to a colleague who is actually attending that College. She has agreed to help me access the online university archives for published papers. I don't need a name. Please keep your privacy, Based on the people you worked with, just a date range, that will allow me to read any published papers.

Ok, having slightly raised an eyebrow at this, I'd like you to explain to me how revealing any more potentially revealing information to a total stranger with whom my interactions thus far have been antagonistic would in any way help this thread. This question becomes even more cogent when placed in the context of the actual thrust of my argument that exactly such presenting of real world credentials is by and large a meaningless exercise on a discussion board where one is based on the quality of their local input.

There are, in fact, several people in these forums who are verifiably aware of my real world identity (and vica versa) but that level of disclosure is in each case based on trust established over time and repeated interactions. I have several reasons not to wish that information publicly shared. If you can make a convincing case that this would be constructive beyond some anatomical measuring contest I will consider sharing more information about the nature of my work in private but please note I will not humour any attempts to personally identify me, I simply don't know you anywhere near well enough.
 
I don't think that a woman shouldn't be cast as the Doctor. Of course that should happen. The distinction I need to make is how it came about, and the subsequent development after, is why I think it should have waited and got past the whole identity politics because it feels like pandering and virtue signalling to draw a mellenial focus.

What do you mean "got past the whole identity politics"? When will that happen and what criteria will we use to judge the time is right? Are we expecting a time at some point in the near future when the complex of related and pervasive issues we often disingenuously coalesce under the banner "identity politics" will stop being of importance to major parts of the population, rendering casting decisions free of controversy?
 
Ok, having slightly raised an eyebrow at this, I'd like you to explain to me how revealing any more potentially revealing information to a total stranger with whom my interactions thus far have been antagonistic would in any way help this thread. .
I would like to know how it helps this thread that you are just focusing on a pissing contest with one of the other posters and not even trying to address the thread topic...
 
What do you mean "got past the whole identity politics"? When will that happen and what criteria will we use to judge the time is right? Are we expecting a time at some point in the near future when the complex of related and pervasive issues we often disingenuously coalesce under the banner "identity politics" will stop being of importance to major parts of the population, rendering casting decisions free of controversy?

I think he is going with the concept that "identity politics" is when gender based choices are done for political reasons instead of merritt. I think that is the more conservative view on that description. I think the liberal one is that choices are made to help level the playing field so people who have often been overlooked because of sexism can now get a fair chance they weren't being given. The whole "identity politics" issue is basically the old "affirmative action" issue in an new form but all the same arguments are more or less the same.

If people are being honest with their opinions and not being guided by sexism or racism which i'm pretty sure isn't the case in many of the arguments, but maybe not all of them(can't know everyone's core beliefs) then that argument is kind of also based in the idea that people are mostly good and will look at hiring people without any biased views at all and will simply judge each individual on their merrits which seems like a kind of hard to impossible thing to judge if someone is doing this. I mean whether a actor is good or not is so subjective so how can you reallly judge who does and doesn't deserve some roles? It's all opinion.

Jason
 
I would like to know how it helps this thread that you are just focusing on a pissing contest with one of the other posters and not even trying to address the thread topic...

Because he asked me for that information.....?
 
Because he asked me for that information.....?
After you ridiculed him about revealing his IQ.

Maybe just stick to the topic?? Things have become unnecessarily personal. SO Spot who would you like to be the next Doctor after the one we haven't even seen yet!
 
Well, yes.

Actually I think Eddie Redmayne would make an excellent doctor, or alternatively revisit the idea of Joanna Lumley....
Well I LOVE Joanna I truly do! Her intelligence, her depth and ageless beauty. She is a fantastic woman.

Damn, I'm happy with that answer :)
 
Therein lies the common ground ;)

I've probably forgotten or lost the plot but who do you think should be the next Doctor after Jodi, Jason? Given you started this thread.

Well I listed a few but it's been awhile. Some of my favorite choices would be

1 Hayley Atwell: She would have been my choice this time. Don't see me not being open to seeing her getting it in 3 to 4 years even though I would prefer they simply gender switch each time from now on and thus in theory it would be time to go back to a male but hey they can do that after Atwell if you can get her.

2 Martin Freeman

3 Peter Dinklage: Thought about his inability to run and have decided I don't care. So this time the doctor wouldn't run as much. The American thing doesn't bother me either because we will get a American Doctor someday. It will happen.:)

4 Stephen Merchant

5 Maggie Smith

6 Michael Pena

7 Bruce Campbell: We all know he is goofy and funny enough for it. We would all love it even if you don't want a American in the role. I even kind of like the idea of what for one turn you kepth the personality but not the intelligence because of plot reasons. Don't want to say Bruce is dumb but he plays Dumb great and it would be a unique aproach for the character and then in 3 years he/she goes back to being super smart about everything.

Jason
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top