Angelus Lupus
Sr Member
A female Bond would be great, but I'm hoping you're being sarcastic about a male Wonder Woman. There's already been several male superheroes like her, such as Superman or Captain America, who have had quite a few movies.
Doctor Who opinions
- Thread starter Kaitou
- Start date
doctorDWwho
Sr Member
I honestly hope Black Widow becomes Captain America. I doubt they'd do it, what with wonder woman coming out and all.
Cephus
Master Member
I'm sure it is a gimmick, just like all the SJW crap that Marvel has tried. It all failed because the majority of people whining about race and gender aren't people who are going to read their comics regardless. The same is likely true of people who are demanding a female Doctor or a black Doctor. It doesn't matter what the BBC does, these people aren't going to watch the show and make them money. I have personally seen these people flock from cause to cause, making demands and then, once they get their way, they're off to the next cause. Very few people who are actually Doctor Who fans really care. It's all identity politics gone insane.
How do you know if it is a gimmick or not? Cause I see this thrown out by a lot of people (usually white dudes who hate change) any time any casting decision strays from the norm. I think it's a weak excuse to hide behind. What defines a gimmick versus a legit choice and who gets to be the judge of that?
i challenge anyone to give a canonical legit reason the Doctor couldn't be a woman when they've seeded the idea timelords could swap genders over a long period of time and have done everything to normalize the possibility. If the best one can do is "I just don't like it" then it's time to look inward and understand how subtle and sinister patriarchy can be
i challenge anyone to give a canonical legit reason the Doctor couldn't be a woman when they've seeded the idea timelords could swap genders over a long period of time and have done everything to normalize the possibility. If the best one can do is "I just don't like it" then it's time to look inward and understand how subtle and sinister patriarchy can be
Cephus
Master Member
Because most of the time when it happens, that's all they're advertising. It's like when Marvel went out of their way to cater to the SJWs, which caused their sales to tank because the SJWs weren't buying comics regardless. All of their gender and race swapping superheroes were specifically advertised as "new FEMALE Thor!" and "new BLACK Captain America!" It was done for political reasons, not story reasons.
And there is no such thing as the patriarchy. Enough liberal stupidity.
timelordjedi777
Sr Member
The only way I will watch a female Doctor is if it's Helen Mirren
TOTALLY AGREE on the Marvel front-- they went about completely the wrong way-- which is ridiculous given that they had a great model in how Ms. Marvel came to be. The problem was they were impatient and didn't want to play the long game to cater to everyone.
That said-- if you don't think patriarchy is a thing and even have to use the words "liberal stupidity," I don't think we're going to agree on anything else.
Every time there's a new Doctor it's a PR event. They do a TV special just to announce it. Changing Doctors in and of itself is a gimmick. Don't confuse reaction with advertising. The first of anything is going to be news no matter what. Even if the BBC played no extra detail into the fact the next Doctor was female, the press and fans would make it a thing.
By your logic we should change nothing ever because any reaction other than one that calls zero attention to something being different from what you're comfortable with is somehow attention grabbing and a gimmick.
That makes no sense.
It's already heading in that direction and before the conversation gets nipped in the bud, I just would like to throw in my two cents.
I don't think the issue here is that it's because it's going off trend with there being a lady Doctor, but considering the political climate that much of media is dictated by, the issue is that it looks to be pandering to the "progressive" ideas rather than just be another character choice. It's not that the Doctor can'tbe a woman, it's just irritating that the draw is supposed to be that the Doctor is a woman. It's not a new idea that the Doctor can regenerate into anything, and it's implied that he could've regenerated into a woman early on, but for a good portion of the show's history it was implied that Timelords regenerated in keeping with their original sex. It's only in the recent years that there suddenly came heavy push for it to be otherwise.
For me, I just don't care at this point because ever since Dr. Who came back, it has tossed whatever semblance of structure it may have once had out with the bath water for the sake of doing it. And despite the new potential that opened up as a result, the show never got any better because of it. Forget all that petty nonsense of the Doctor being the opposite sex or another color, why can't the Doctor regenerate into a different alien species, is what I want to know? Let's take the arguments for why the Doctor ought to be a woman or whatever and apply it elsewhere, why can't the Doctor be a blue, six-armed, sexless jellyfish creature? Surely, that's an equally valid option of a fictional character. Anything else would be xenophobic. (SARCASM)
I don't think the issue here is that it's because it's going off trend with there being a lady Doctor, but considering the political climate that much of media is dictated by, the issue is that it looks to be pandering to the "progressive" ideas rather than just be another character choice. It's not that the Doctor can'tbe a woman, it's just irritating that the draw is supposed to be that the Doctor is a woman. It's not a new idea that the Doctor can regenerate into anything, and it's implied that he could've regenerated into a woman early on, but for a good portion of the show's history it was implied that Timelords regenerated in keeping with their original sex. It's only in the recent years that there suddenly came heavy push for it to be otherwise.
For me, I just don't care at this point because ever since Dr. Who came back, it has tossed whatever semblance of structure it may have once had out with the bath water for the sake of doing it. And despite the new potential that opened up as a result, the show never got any better because of it. Forget all that petty nonsense of the Doctor being the opposite sex or another color, why can't the Doctor regenerate into a different alien species, is what I want to know? Let's take the arguments for why the Doctor ought to be a woman or whatever and apply it elsewhere, why can't the Doctor be a blue, six-armed, sexless jellyfish creature? Surely, that's an equally valid option of a fictional character. Anything else would be xenophobic. (SARCASM)
Solo4114
Master Member
Yeah, I think most of the time the objection comes from one of two angles:
1. Embittered dudes who view changes like this as a direct affront to their presumed position of "default." Like, if the "default" is that the Doctor is a white male, a change to that is on its face objectionable because it eliminates the "default" and they don't like that.
2. People who eyeroll at transparent tokenism in marketing. It's not so much the fact of the change itself. There's nothing wrong with a female Doctor in the slightest. But if the marketing department only hammers the fact of "And he's a GIRL now!!!" then it suggests a decisionmaking process that is putting the Doctor's sex ahead of good storytelling. We're just coming out of an era of not-great storytelling, because Moffat's primary concern is always the emotional impact of the immediate moment, rather than the long-term structural considerations that make for a better tale. We don't need another era where story is sidelined in favor of "We'll be able to do a lot of jokes about how people were expecting a dude and lady showed up instead. Think how great the episode teasers will look! Plus, this focus-grouped really well with our target demographics." On the other hand, if the theory is that they're really going to explore what it means for the Doctor to be a woman -- or whether it means anything at all and should otherwise be as much of a non-event as having an Irish actor play him (because ZOMG THE DOCTOR HAS NEVER BEEN IRISH!!!) -- then I'd have more faith in it.
All that said, I think we should be guarded in both our optimism and our pessimism. When Matt Smith was cast, the reaction was simply "Ugh. Emo Doctor to appeal to the 11-year-old girls. Whatever." But he turned out to be a solid choice in the role, and I thought they did a good job of playing his "old man in a young man's body" angle. So, it's not as if a female Doctor couldn't be handled well.
I would say my major concern in having a female Doctor at this moment is...we don't have a female showrunner. And I'd much rather have the two combined, because I think the storytelling would be WAY less likely to just be "chick jokes" and would stand a much better chance of showing real subtlety and insight into the character.
1. Embittered dudes who view changes like this as a direct affront to their presumed position of "default." Like, if the "default" is that the Doctor is a white male, a change to that is on its face objectionable because it eliminates the "default" and they don't like that.
2. People who eyeroll at transparent tokenism in marketing. It's not so much the fact of the change itself. There's nothing wrong with a female Doctor in the slightest. But if the marketing department only hammers the fact of "And he's a GIRL now!!!" then it suggests a decisionmaking process that is putting the Doctor's sex ahead of good storytelling. We're just coming out of an era of not-great storytelling, because Moffat's primary concern is always the emotional impact of the immediate moment, rather than the long-term structural considerations that make for a better tale. We don't need another era where story is sidelined in favor of "We'll be able to do a lot of jokes about how people were expecting a dude and lady showed up instead. Think how great the episode teasers will look! Plus, this focus-grouped really well with our target demographics." On the other hand, if the theory is that they're really going to explore what it means for the Doctor to be a woman -- or whether it means anything at all and should otherwise be as much of a non-event as having an Irish actor play him (because ZOMG THE DOCTOR HAS NEVER BEEN IRISH!!!) -- then I'd have more faith in it.
All that said, I think we should be guarded in both our optimism and our pessimism. When Matt Smith was cast, the reaction was simply "Ugh. Emo Doctor to appeal to the 11-year-old girls. Whatever." But he turned out to be a solid choice in the role, and I thought they did a good job of playing his "old man in a young man's body" angle. So, it's not as if a female Doctor couldn't be handled well.
I would say my major concern in having a female Doctor at this moment is...we don't have a female showrunner. And I'd much rather have the two combined, because I think the storytelling would be WAY less likely to just be "chick jokes" and would stand a much better chance of showing real subtlety and insight into the character.
Cephus
Master Member
It's not so much a gimmick because it's the actors themselves who usually choose to leave. As much of a career boost as being the Doctor is, remaining the Doctor for too long is also a career killer. You get type-cast and find it hard to get work after you're done. The BBC does these things to try to drum up interest in the new changes. But my point stands, I don't care what the race or gender of the Doctor, or any other part in any other show, is. I just want the best actor or actress in the role that they can get. If they do it for any other reason, they're doing it wrong.
I have to ask, what change? What great paradigm shift will there be if there is another heroine out there? Is the argument that is makes it easier for girls to aspire to be something? The last I checked, people can admire others regardless because it's not a hard thing to do when there are admirable qualities about said person. This is always a fringe topic here because of the nature in which this site exists but any time there's a discussion that gets close to it, it is always shut down.
Without getting too into it and risking getting banned or lose all these posts, my attitude on the matter is because most ideas in the progressive left aren't progressive at all. I give that it is well meaning and comes from a good place but it goes off the rails immediately with any thought, and worse, any kind of action. Being dressed with flowery language can only hide so much of the message that "We're all the same but acknowledge that we're not all the same" is asinine. It inadvertently brews the very same bigotry that it equally condemns. I can't believe this needs to be said now but there is no merit or nobility in treating anyone differently based solely on what they look like, no matter what side and who does it.
Who cares what someone looks like? Isn't the contents of their character more important? Sure, an argument can be made that it influences one to an extent but that shouldn't be the sole defining characteristic that anyone should be judged/built/based on.
Unfortunately, however, that is the driving force behind "progressivism". Its platform is built on and promotes nothing more than identity politics, victimization, and misguidance. And that is no place for any kind of discussion, policy or no, to be on. Period.
Last edited:
Exactly. There's a great difference between "We need a Black Doctor. Let's get Idris Elba." and "Let's go for Idris Elba. He'd make a great Doctor."
Solo4114
Master Member
BINGO.
This is the central issue. What's your starting point? Is your starting point the demographics, or is your starting point the individual actors? This issue (for me, at least) has come up recently with other films/shows, where it seems as if the starting point is the demographics. "Let's cast a [demographic group] in the role. Now, who do we know who is a [demographic group] to play the role?" That's very, very different from "Let's cast [actor] in the role. They'd be perfect for what I'm imagining." That or "Let's audition a bunch of different actors that we think can bring the right spin and spirit to the role" and then the one they pick happens to be a [demographic group].
I don't see any of it as pandering to progressive ideals anymore than casting a white dude is pandering to conservative ideals. I see it more as pandering to demographic/marketing considerations without regard for the story. It may not necessarily come at the expense of the story, but I think there's a much greater likelihood of that happening when your primary focus is marketing to given demographics. And that's any given demographic, by the way. You shouldn't be casting white dudes in a role because your main goal is to get white dudes to watch.
cboath
Master Member
See, i think that's two things. You have pandering and you have progressive ideas. One isn't the other. Pandering is basically appeasement. Give the complainers something and they'll shut up. That tends to not work too well. A progressive idea is basically doing something before others do it or before it's brought to mainstream attention.
If they do a female doctor, we'll never know if was pandering or not. They'll proclaim ad naseum that that was the best person for the job, who the new showrunner wanted etc. I'd be all on board for Helen Mirren as noted above. That said, it creates (or should) interesting to possibly annoying issues. The original premise of Dr Who was visiting earths past...welll, even present day, part of the world treats women like property or worse. Go back 100 years and it's more wide spread. 200 years and it's pretty prevalent that women are treated far from equal. Any past story would likely run into that issue.
As far as canon goes...frankly, canon shmanon
And i don't mean throw out continuity either. I'm saying all the 'runners over the years have tended to make it up as they go along. Regeneration wasn't a 'thing' until they simply couldn't continue with Hartnell. Even then, i don't know if it was called a Regeneration. He wasn't a Timelord until the end of Troughton. Don't know when the 12 regenerations was thrown out there. I thought at one point the 12 limit couldn't be extended..etc. Sure, hints have been dropped over the years. You also have Romana (when replaced) swapping appearances multiple times to find one she likes. The Doctor has never remotely shown that ability. He gets what he gets and seemingly is stuck with it. So, just for the sake of argument, they could make it canon that while you can switch gender, you have to master your regeneration which the doctor has yet to do. Not that they will or should do that, but it's easy to establish it without actually breaking any aformentioned rules.Honestly, in the end - as someone who flat loves Broadchurch - i cannot wait to see what chibnall does with the show. On the flip side he did the american version which wasn't remotely as good, so i'm just hoping it has Fox's fingerprints all over it.
My thesis isn't THERE SHOULD BE A WOMAN DOCTOR NOW BECAUSE REASONS. I personally think it would be a fun angle on an old character that might make for new stories-- but I'm not demanding it.
My thesis is a response to the knee-jerk reactions that people have the second a female Doctor is mentioned, and automatically assuming it's a gimmick or agenda and not a decision made to try something different creatively.
My thesis is a response to the knee-jerk reactions that people have the second a female Doctor is mentioned, and automatically assuming it's a gimmick or agenda and not a decision made to try something different creatively.
Exactly.
I'd love for somebody who automatically calls it pandering to tell me what the scenario would be where it is not pandering.
doctorDWwho
Sr Member
I don't really agree that they need more diversity in the role (Sacha Dawhan has my vote), but diversity shouldn't matter. And that's exactly why it shouldn't be a woman.
