Subscribe
  1. Dessa's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 2014
    From
    Seattle, WA
    Messages
    407
    4 Weeks Ago  Jul 18, 2017, 10:56 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #851

    My problem with both Amy and Rose (btw, Rose with Ten, not with Nine), is that their characters were defined too much by their desire to get in the Doctor's pants. Martha wanted it too, but she never let it define her character. And, of course, my introduction to Amy was the Angels duology, where she practically tried to rape the Doctor on the eve of her wedding...

    I'm asexual. I am completely adverse to sex. And I don't want it anywhere in my media, especially one that ran for over 40 years without needing UST and sexy times.
  2. joeranger's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2005
    From
    Chicago, Il
    Messages
    1,230
    4 Weeks Ago  Jul 19, 2017, 10:32 AM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #852

    Over the last few years, the doctor went from quirky but powerful and almost omnipotent, to being emasculated and needing strong females around to save him from himself and tell him what to do. Amy, River... with Clara that was the whole reason for her existence, to save the doctor from himself.
    I bet this new female doctor will be strong and independent. She won't allow any men to tell her what to do. I am angry about the social in-your-face engineering but I will give it a shot. I will add, they could have made a spinoff show about River Song which could have brought back Matt Smith and David Tennant for cameos.
  3. Victor3's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2013
    Messages
    340
    4 Weeks Ago  Jul 19, 2017, 10:59 AM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #853

    Dessa said: View Post
    My problem with both Amy and Rose (btw, Rose with Ten, not with Nine), is that their characters were defined too much by their desire to get in the Doctor's pants. Martha wanted it too, but she never let it define her character. And, of course, my introduction to Amy was the Angels duology, where she practically tried to rape the Doctor on the eve of her wedding...

    I'm asexual. I am completely adverse to sex. And I don't want it anywhere in my media, especially one that ran for over 40 years without needing UST and sexy times.
    That really bothered me with Rose. For the previous 40ish years, it felt as though the Doctor never quite thought of his companions as equals, despite how much he may have cared for them. I wouldn't go so far to call them pets (though I'm pretty sure the Master has), but he always seemed disconnected from them. Now, in the past 10 seasons, we've had the Doctor get romantically entangled with Rose, Madame Pompadour, Queen Elizabeth I, River (at least she's also kind of a Time Lord) and the Space Pope lady. While he wasn't in love with Clara, he became so emotionally codependent on her that he broke all of his own rules in order to try to save her. Amy, I'll give a pass to, because her imaginary friend showed up and whisked her across the stars, just as she was getting cold feet about her wedding. Worth a try? Sure, but she dropped it pretty quickly afterward.

    Maybe it's a result of the trauma of the Time War, or knowing that he was the only Time Lord left, that he decided to loosen up?

    In the past, the pretty young companion was always there for the young boys to appreciate. I know I appreciated Leela and Sarah Jane. However, when they felt the need to inject some romance into the stories, it was usually between companions, or companions and people of the setting they found themselves in. The Doctor wasn't involved, and was sometimes frustrated by these developments, or sometimes sympathetic and encouraging.

    I hope that they don't just put in all male companions now, just to keep the sexual tension. I enjoy the show most when there's mix of people traveling with the Doctor.
  4. Solo4114's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2001
    Messages
    10,025
    4 Weeks Ago  Jul 19, 2017, 11:15 AM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #854

    Two things.

    1. I had to look up UST. Translation: "Unresolved Sexual Tension."

    2. I liked Rose. I liked her attraction to 10. I thought it worked in the context of the show at the time. What I thought didn't work so well was Martha's subsequent attraction, and Amy's kinda-sorta attraction. And then Clara's kinda-sorta "I'm your girlfriend" thing. That whole approach has become old hat, in my opinion. The other problem with it is that it almost always plays out the same way with respect to the male characters who aren't the Doctor: they're always "the tin dog." Mickey, Rory, Danny Pink, all tin dogs. There's always this vague, bumbling "You're useless" quality to them. Sure, they rise to a challenge here and there, but the Doctor is always kinda treating them like an idiot who must be suffered, rather than a welcome companion and friend. I miss having male companions who aren't constantly the butt of the joke or who only matter because the female companion says they do. That's not to say I don't appreciate female companions, either. I do very much. But if you're gonna include a male companion, it'd be nice if he wasn't just some useless berk.
  5. SethS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2016
    From
    Los Angeles
    Messages
    1,491
    4 Weeks Ago  Jul 19, 2017, 1:56 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #855

    I think complaints based around the fact that "The Doctor was XYZ for 40 years" are forgetting or missing one very big point with the revival series.

    Classic Who was great, and it indeed was around for a very long time-- but it got cancelled. There were money reasons and behind the scenes reasons, but one big narrative one was that outside of Doctor regenerations very few risks came to the show in the form of change. While (and I love this) it shifted between a science show, a horror show, a scif show, an adventure show, it did so very slowly, and the tone, and the Doctor himself were always very... well.. stodgy and British.

    There's a reason Classic Who never penetrated into the mainstream. It was always nerd/fan fodder not meant for the masses.

    When the show was brought back, the BBC had zero interest in making a show that catered to a small audience. They wanted a big cross-over mainstream hit. That's why the basic set-up of The Doctor was changed-- he was a loner. The idea was that it was all different and all new. (In fact, if I had a complaint about the show now, its that they've pushed back on everything they could to make it as much like Classic Who in set-up.)

    It wasn't going to be stodgy and subtle. It was going to be young and exiting-- hence the first three Doctors all being on the young side.

    Also, if you want a wider audience you need to have a point of view that is accessible. This is why the entire revival series has almost always used companions as the entry point. Even though the Doctor is the star and the center-- we as the audience need to have things explained to us, we need to feel the despair before the elation, we need to be scared before we can be saved-- just like a companion. The companions are always are window into the Doctor's world, and their human emotions come along with it. Amy's run gave us an actual intro that framed the show as being from her point of view making this explicitly clear.

    I have no problem with companions falling for the Doctor, or even the Doctor occasionally falling for them-- you remove the emotional angle from the show and you're seriously impairing it to make an impact. Classic Who had some amazing stories, but there's no way that a modern post-new golden age of television would ever become invested in something without some emotional content.

    The Doctor losing Rose, River's death, Amy's departure, 11's departure-- if you don't think these tear-jerking scenes belong, or that they would have had their impact without the moments that led to them, you're expecting a different show.

    All that said, I've already stated I think that sexualizing the first female Doctor would be a huge mistake-- but that doesn't mean she can't fall in love. I'd agree that falling for companions has worn itself out a little, but if WE are the companions, there's always the chance we could fall in love-- which is exactly what they are banking on.

    If you want the show's POV and tone to be like Classic Who I don't think you'll ever be really happy with it. You want something they have no interesting in making.
    Last edited by SethS; 4 Weeks Ago at 9:11 PM.
  6. Solo4114's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2001
    Messages
    10,025
    4 Weeks Ago  Jul 19, 2017, 3:55 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #856

    I don't disagree with any of that, really, but I do think that it's more interesting having the companions fall in love with, say, each other.

    Actually, this brings up a point that I haven't talked about much. A lot of people HATED Capaldi's first season. They point to some of the really stupid episode stories (e.g. "That one with the trees" or "The moon is a freaking egg?!") as a reason for why. Personally, I LOVED Capaldi's first season. I thought that was the best iteration of Clara we got. Moreover, I really, really enjoyed how Clara had become torn between having a normal, settled life with Danny Pink, and going on fantastic adventures with the Doctor...and how those adventures ultimately cost her the life of the man she loved (Danny). I watched throughout the season and I enjoyed her internal struggle about normalcy vs. adventure, which I think is a very, very real struggle for a lot of people who are in their mid-to-late 20s or so. Clara wanted it all, and learned that you can't have it all at once. Finally, I thought her finale that season was perfect. Danny was gone, turned into a cyberman (the Brig with him), but he was a good soldier to the end. And Clara was left to pick up the remains of her life. Suddenly, traveling with the Doctor just wasn't a grand adventure anymore. Suddenly, it had a real cost. Clara was a little broken at the end of her journey there, and as she walked off to go find the boy that Danny had mentioned, I thought it was the perfect exit for her character.

    That arc was TERRIFIC. I didn't care about the whole "teased at the end with Missy being the Master" thing and it being typically Moffat ass-pulling. Moffat had more than delivered on Clara's character arc. She'd grown and changed, and it all held together. I didn't even really mind when she came back for one last hurrah in the Christmas special. I was looking forward to Faye Marsay taking over as the companion, too.

    But then Moffat went and Moffated all over the story and just brought Jenna Coleman back with a waive of his hand and a "But who cares about what happened last season? On with the show!! Yay!" Clara was back, with a new personality ("Adventure junkie and wannabe Doctor herself!") but not a lot of insight into the why or whether that was just a facade for a broken person. It didn't matter! She was back! On adventures! With the Doctor!


    Anyway, before I get off on a true Moffat-bashing tangent, I want to point out what I thought Capaldi's first season did so well and why it did it well. It took Clara and it fleshed her out. It gave her a life outside of the Doctor, and showed the pull of that life, and how it conflicted with her life with the Doctor. It also showed the draw of life with the Doctor. And it showed the costs of traveling with the Doctor. Moreover, unlike (for example) Rose, who basically just kicked Mickey to the curb and ran off with the Doctor, Clara really seemed torn about it all. The writing and acting conveyed that internal conflict well, too. What I'm saying here is that I think it's really important that the companion not be JUST in love with the Doctor, and that there is rich material to be mined from a companion having a separate life, and what it means for that companion's "home" life to travel with the Doctor. I would argue that this was one of the great successes of the Rose era, too, and with Donna. However, I found it pretty lacking in the Martha period, and with Amy as well. For that matter, it was also missing from Clara's early season and the final season she was in, which I think weakened those seasons.
  7. Cephus's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2015
    Messages
    652
    4 Weeks Ago  Jul 19, 2017, 6:04 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #857

    I hated Rose with a passion, she was everything I hate in a human being. Low class, uneducated, she walked away from her boyfriend so she could travel with the Doctor, then every time she came back, she expected Mickey to be waiting for her like a trained puppy (and he was, far too often, unfortunately). She was slime on every level. Then Russell T. Davies wanted her to hook up with the Doctor, which granted is what Russell T. Davies does in all of his shows. He apparently doesn't realize that the Doctor isn't human, that to the Doctor, having sex with a human ought to be like having sex with your chihuahua. But then again, he'd probably write that too. And while Moffat wasn't as bad, I think he had the hots for Jenna Coleman so he'd do anything that she wanted, screw the show and common sense. And the one thing both Davies and Moffat did was make almost every companion god-like. They were better than the Doctor. Rose with Bad Wolf. Donna becoming DoctorDonna. Clara being The Impossible Girl. It has largely stopped being about Doctor Who and become "The Companion Show, occasionally guest-starring the Doctor!"

    The Doctor should never, ever, ever, under any circumstances have any romantic interest in a human. River Song? Maybe. Even Missy, although that would be really, really weird, but never a human or an alien or anything non-Timelord. But then again, Davies is known for weird sexualized TV and Moffat wanted to get laid. Neither of these people should have had anything to do with Doctor Who. Hopefully Chibnall is better.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Solo4114 said: View Post
    Anyway, before I get off on a true Moffat-bashing tangent, I want to point out what I thought Capaldi's first season did so well and why it did it well. It took Clara and it fleshed her out. It gave her a life outside of the Doctor, and showed the pull of that life, and how it conflicted with her life with the Doctor. It also showed the draw of life with the Doctor. And it showed the costs of traveling with the Doctor. Moreover, unlike (for example) Rose, who basically just kicked Mickey to the curb and ran off with the Doctor, Clara really seemed torn about it all. The writing and acting conveyed that internal conflict well, too. What I'm saying here is that I think it's really important that the companion not be JUST in love with the Doctor, and that there is rich material to be mined from a companion having a separate life, and what it means for that companion's "home" life to travel with the Doctor. I would argue that this was one of the great successes of the Rose era, too, and with Donna. However, I found it pretty lacking in the Martha period, and with Amy as well. For that matter, it was also missing from Clara's early season and the final season she was in, which I think weakened those seasons.
    Actually, Martha was my favorite companion, simply because, with the exception of the first couple of episodes, she didn't want to get into the Doctor's pants, and she is one of the very few companions in the last 10 years that has come away from her time on the Tardis a better person than when she went in. She chose to walk away and she was a much better person because of it. Everyone else has been screwed over.
  8. RPF Premium Member NormanF's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2011
    From
    North of Orlando FL. If you cross the river you went too far.
    Messages
    3,835
    4 Weeks Ago  Jul 19, 2017, 7:59 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #858

    SethS said: View Post
    There's a reason Classic Who never penetrated into the mainstream. It was always nerd/fan fodder for the masses.
    Things were much different back then. We didn't have 1000+ channel cable TV and definitely no foreign channels. In central Florida the only place to see Doctor Who was on PBS and they were always changing the time it came on. That's part of why it did not penetrate into "the mainstream" in the U.S. I can only guess about the U.K., but since the BBC is essentially government funded through TV license fees they aren't going to broadcast a show that is not popular, mean it penetrated the mainstream there.

    Sent from my Hewlett Packard 48G using Tapatalk
  9. firesprite's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2005
    From
    Seattle, WA
    Messages
    3,805
    4 Weeks Ago  Jul 19, 2017, 8:58 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #859

    Solo4114 said: View Post
    Two things.

    1. I had to look up UST. Translation: "Unresolved Sexual Tension."

    2. I liked Rose. I liked her attraction to 10. I thought it worked in the context of the show at the time. What I thought didn't work so well was Martha's subsequent attraction, and Amy's kinda-sorta attraction. And then Clara's kinda-sorta "I'm your girlfriend" thing. That whole approach has become old hat, in my opinion. The other problem with it is that it almost always plays out the same way with respect to the male characters who aren't the Doctor: they're always "the tin dog." Mickey, Rory, Danny Pink, all tin dogs. There's always this vague, bumbling "You're useless" quality to them. Sure, they rise to a challenge here and there, but the Doctor is always kinda treating them like an idiot who must be suffered, rather than a welcome companion and friend. I miss having male companions who aren't constantly the butt of the joke or who only matter because the female companion says they do. That's not to say I don't appreciate female companions, either. I do very much. But if you're gonna include a male companion, it'd be nice if he wasn't just some useless berk.
    I agree. The treatment of Mickey really angered me and Rory is my favorite companion because, in the end, he was the most useful of the bunch, IMO. He was steadfast and did his ****ing job.
  10. SethS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2016
    From
    Los Angeles
    Messages
    1,491
    4 Weeks Ago  Jul 19, 2017, 9:18 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #860

    NormanF said: View Post
    Things were much different back then. We didn't have 1000+ channel cable TV and definitely no foreign channels. In central Florida the only place to see Doctor Who was on PBS and they were always changing the time it came on. That's part of why it did not penetrate into "the mainstream" in the U.S. I can only guess about the U.K., but since the BBC is essentially government funded through TV license fees they aren't going to broadcast a show that is not popular, mean it penetrated the mainstream there.

    Sent from my Hewlett Packard 48G using Tapatalk
    Minor typo from me-- I meant to say it was nerd fodder and not meant for the masses--

    But your point is dead on. It's not just a question of reaching the masses, it's also having to compete in much bigger market. Classic Who was made just for BBC audiences, if it got to America, great-- but they weren't counting on it. The first couple seasons of the revival were meant to be big-- but even then-- they had a simulcast deal with SyFy and that was it. Once BBC America was created you can see the shift. Compare the production value of Smith and Capaldi to Eccelson and Tennant and there's no contest.
  11. Dessa's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 2014
    From
    Seattle, WA
    Messages
    407
    4 Weeks Ago  Jul 19, 2017, 10:17 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #861

    firesprite said: View Post
    I agree. The treatment of Mickey really angered me and Rory is my favorite companion because, in the end, he was the most useful of the bunch, IMO. He was steadfast and did his ****ing job.
    I loved Rory, too. I wish we had've gotten Doctor/Rory solo adventures, because they had potential to be similar to my favorite Doctor/Companion pair, Second and Jamie.
  12. RPF Premium Member Edraven99's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 2011
    Messages
    1,071
    4 Weeks Ago  Jul 20, 2017, 1:32 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #862

    SethS said: View Post
    Minor typo from me-- I meant to say it was nerd fodder and not meant for the masses--

    But your point is dead on. It's not just a question of reaching the masses, it's also having to compete in much bigger market. Classic Who was made just for BBC audiences, if it got to America, great-- but they weren't counting on it. The first couple seasons of the revival were meant to be big-- but even then-- they had a simulcast deal with SyFy and that was it. Once BBC America was created you can see the shift. Compare the production value of Smith and Capaldi to Eccelson and Tennant and there's no contest.

    Actually the first couple of seasons of NuWho were a co-pro with the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp)... that's how they got the $$ to get it off the ground those first couple of years before it really started to take off...
  13. SethS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2016
    From
    Los Angeles
    Messages
    1,491
    4 Weeks Ago  Jul 20, 2017, 1:49 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #863

    Didn't know that!
  14. timelordjedi777's Avatar
    Member Since
    Sep 2010
    From
    Gallifrey (Southern Ohio)
    Messages
    775
    3 Weeks Ago  Jul 20, 2017, 8:21 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #864

    I am disappointed with the choice to make the Doctor a woman. If the Doctor had been a woman from the start and they changed her into a man I would feel the same way about that as I do this. Why does it have to involve some social commentary just because I don't agree with the shows choice.
  15. RPF Premium Member NormanF's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2011
    From
    North of Orlando FL. If you cross the river you went too far.
    Messages
    3,835
    3 Weeks Ago  Jul 20, 2017, 9:02 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #865

    timelordjedi777 said: View Post
    I am disappointed with the choice to make the Doctor a woman. If the Doctor had been a woman from the start and they changed her into a man I would feel the same way about that as I do this. Why does it have to involve some social commentary just because I don't agree with the shows choice.
    It's a part of the times. If the new Doctor was Chinese then some people would automatically be screaming "pandering!". And then other people would automatically point out that those people are anti-Chinese. It is basically, and sadly, the Monty Python argument sketch.

    Sent from my Hewlett Packard 48G using Tapatalk
  16. SethS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2016
    From
    Los Angeles
    Messages
    1,491
    3 Weeks Ago  Jul 20, 2017, 10:42 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #866

    I don't think it's inherently political-- I think anyone's reaction when somebody doesn't like what they like is to be offensively defensive. That's the cornerstone of message boards. But when it aligns with current issues, it gets heavier.

    I wouldn't say somebody "who just doesn't like" a female Doctor is automatically a misogynist, but I would like for them to push deeper to figure out why.
  17. Zombie_61's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    From
    Southern California
    Messages
    5,098
    3 Weeks Ago  Jul 20, 2017, 11:58 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #867

    NormanF said: View Post
    ... It is basically, and sadly, the Monty Python argument sketch.
    No it isn't.
  18. Angelus Lupus's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2010
    From
    Kent, UK
    Messages
    2,299
    3 Weeks Ago  Jul 21, 2017, 9:11 AM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #868

    It seems just being (or becoming) a woman is considered a political act by some people these days.

    Just because straight, cis, white men have been the majority in TV and Film for generations, doesn't mean we can't have change.
    Just because it was the 'default' for so long, doesn't mean it was 'normal' and that anything else is other/different.

    And for goodness' sake! The Doctor has worried about regenerating into a different species, or having different numbers of arms/legs/heads! Romana considered becoming blue, or a dwarf! The only thing that's going to upset The Doctor about this incarnation? Still not ginger!
  19. Valar Morghulis RPF Premium Member kristen jones's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2013
    From
    Flint, MI.
    Messages
    1,640
    3 Weeks Ago  Jul 21, 2017, 11:40 AM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #869

    Cephus said: View Post
    everything I hate in a human being. Low class, uneducated, .
    Hmmm.......
  20. Cephus's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2015
    Messages
    652
    3 Weeks Ago  Jul 21, 2017, 2:33 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #870

    kristen jones said: View Post
    Hmmm.......
    Rose Tyler was designed as a chav, which in British parlance, is "a young lower-class person who displays brash and loutish behaviour and wears real or imitation designer clothes." She is what I said by definition.
  21. JD's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 2000
    From
    Metro Detroit
    Messages
    5,073
    3 Weeks Ago  Jul 21, 2017, 3:04 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #871

    Cephus said: View Post
    Rose Tyler was designed as a chav, which in British parlance, is "a young lower-class person who displays brash and loutish behaviour and wears real or imitation designer clothes." She is what I said by definition.
    I hate to address this - especially with the disgusting comments you originally made. But, here goes...

    "Chav" has many connotations. One of which is that it's a negative epithet and stereotype - it's derogatory word, it's the kind of word that starts fights. It's a term that the upper class often uses to describe typical working class behavior. It's currently used by many to describe the current youth anti-social movement in the UK.

    Yes, Billie Piper described Rose as "a bit of a chav" and the character has been described that way by many. Her clothing and London accent might lead many to that - but, she was a "common" - or working class. But, other than Piper's comment - there is nothing that says otherwise.
  22. Valar Morghulis RPF Premium Member kristen jones's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2013
    From
    Flint, MI.
    Messages
    1,640
    3 Weeks Ago  Jul 21, 2017, 3:26 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #872

    Cephus said: View Post
    Rose Tyler was designed as a chav, which in British parlance, is "a young lower-class person who displays brash and loutish behaviour and wears real or imitation designer clothes." She is what I said by definition.
    I wasn't questioning your definition of Rose's character....I was more highlighting the fact that you seem to have a rather smug attitude toward others who perhaps aren't at the same social level as yourself, given that you'd said that she had "everything you HATE in a human being". So clearly a fictional character--in this case Rose--embodies all that you actively hate about real humans around you, which apparently are uneducated and low class.

    These are your words...I was merely highlighting that it reveals (at least the appearance of) an elitist slant to your personality.

    If this is not the case, then clarification might be in order... but it is the vibe which came across with a plain reading of your post.
  23. cboath's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2001
    Messages
    4,841
    3 Weeks Ago  Jul 21, 2017, 5:59 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #873

    Angelus Lupus said: View Post
    It seems just being (or becoming) a woman is considered a political act by some people these days.

    Just because straight, cis, white men have been the majority in TV and Film for generations, doesn't mean we can't have change.
    Just because it was the 'default' for so long, doesn't mean it was 'normal' and that anything else is other/different.

    And for goodness' sake! The Doctor has worried about regenerating into a different species, or having different numbers of arms/legs/heads! Romana considered becoming blue, or a dwarf! The only thing that's going to upset The Doctor about this incarnation? Still not ginger!
    Which is further iroinc (to me at least) because she dyed here hair blonde for the part (apparently) - could have made the dr's dream come true and died it red
  24. Zombie_61's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    From
    Southern California
    Messages
    5,098
    3 Weeks Ago  Jul 21, 2017, 6:03 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #874

    cboath said: View Post
    Which is further iroinc (to me at least) because she dyed here hair blonde for the part (apparently) - could have made the dr's dream come true and died it red
    But if they had done that they wouldn't be able to keep that running joke going.
  25. doctorDWwho's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 2015
    Messages
    405
    3 Weeks Ago  Jul 21, 2017, 11:07 PM - Re: Doctor Who opinions #875

    The only thing I'm worried about is the petty human obsession with gender and it's associated stereotypes. No one is above it, whether or not they admit it. And it'll show in the writing and (it already does) in the reception.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Dec 11, 2014, 12:40 AM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last Post: Aug 24, 2014, 1:18 PM
  3. 11th Doctor Cosplay Opinions and Tips.
    Tommyd987, Replica Costumes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Jan 29, 2014, 11:14 AM
  4. Replies: 22
    Last Post: Jan 4, 2014, 5:15 AM