Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 1:49:40 GMT
I'm neutral, I wouldn't mind a female Doctor but I don't like the idea of it being done just for the sake of it. I really don't even understand what this means. Everything that is ever done by anybody is done "for the sake of it". I mean, when they hired Tom Baker, you could have said "Well I don't mind the hiring of Tom Baker as such, but I don't see why they had to hire Tom Baker just for the sake of it." It's an empty, meaningless statement.
|
|
pk9
Sophomore
@pk9
Posts: 976
Likes: 152
|
Post by pk9 on Jul 20, 2017 6:16:42 GMT
I'm neutral, I wouldn't mind a female Doctor but I don't like the idea of it being done just for the sake of it. I really don't even understand what this means. Everything that is ever done by anybody is done "for the sake of it". I mean, when they hired Tom Baker, you could have said "Well I don't mind the hiring of Tom Baker as such, but I don't see why they had to hire Tom Baker just for the sake of it." It's an empty, meaningless statement. It means, we hope Chibnall hired Jodie because he thought she was the right person for the job, because he felt like her portrayal fits the direction that the character is going in, that changing up the gender at this time was the right move story-wise. It means, we hope Chibnall didn't hire Jodie simply because a certain segment of the population was loudly saying "It's time for a female Doctor, because GENDER EQUALITY!" or because the BBC felt like it was the only way to reverse falling ratings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 10:24:57 GMT
It means, we hope Chibnall hired Jodie because he thought she was the right person for the job, because he felt like her portrayal fits the direction that the character is going in, that changing up the gender at this time was the right move story-wise. It means, we hope Chibnall didn't hire Jodie simply because a certain segment of the population was loudly saying "It's time for a female Doctor, because GENDER EQUALITY!" or because the BBC felt like it was the only way to reverse falling ratings. Those things really aren't at odds with one another.
|
|
pk9
Sophomore
@pk9
Posts: 976
Likes: 152
|
Post by pk9 on Jul 20, 2017 20:43:45 GMT
It means, we hope Chibnall hired Jodie because he thought she was the right person for the job, because he felt like her portrayal fits the direction that the character is going in, that changing up the gender at this time was the right move story-wise. It means, we hope Chibnall didn't hire Jodie simply because a certain segment of the population was loudly saying "It's time for a female Doctor, because GENDER EQUALITY!" or because the BBC felt like it was the only way to reverse falling ratings. Those things really aren't at odds with one another. Of course you can have the factors mentioned in both sentences all considered. But then, it wouldn't be done "just for the sake of it." "Just for the sake of it" means the factors mentioned in the first paragraph weren't considered. Which is why the second sentence said "simply because". The second sentence was meant to say those were the only factors considered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 20:52:42 GMT
Big no
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Jul 20, 2017 22:17:23 GMT
Like another poster said, I'm all for strong female leads, but why not create a strong female character from scratch rather than appropriating the gender of a male character and then claiming it's progress?
Why is it that the only Time Lord the Doctor can meet in his travels is The Master? Was Missy really more effective as The Master than she would have been as a whole new female character? Will this female Doctor really be more effective than a new female character?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 23:10:26 GMT
Like another poster said, I'm all for strong female leads, but why not create a strong female character from scratch rather than appropriating the gender of a male character and then claiming it's progress? Because an inherent part of the show is that the Doctor is periodically reinvented. It's always been that way. If we were talking about any other character in fiction, I could understand the objection. If it were James Bond or Captain Kirk or Han Solo, I would get why people wouldn't like it. That's not to say I'd agree with the objection, but I'd at least understand it. But I'm genuinely baffled as to the objection with the Doctor. He is perhaps unique in all of fiction in that he regularly swaps out his body. It's literally described as every single cell in his body dying and reforming into something else. It regularly changes his height, build, age, hair colour... even his bloody accent changes! So why is it that with all of that, his gender is off limits for changing? Literally NOTHING else remains constant about the character, aside from the basic personality and memories. So why should this? And that's before we consider that there have been literally years of statements that gender changes happen sometimes. And that we've seen it happen. I just don't get it. It makes perfect sense for this character to change into a woman. I'd really like to not believe that "I don't like women characters" is the reason, but nobody seems to be able to give any other one that makes sense. He's met several others.
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Jul 22, 2017 0:18:52 GMT
In nu who there's the Master and that's it.
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Jul 22, 2017 0:29:05 GMT
It's nothing to do with female characters. I liked Missy, but thought the character was weaker because she was supposedly The Master. Would have worked much better as an evil Time Lady from the Doctor's past we'd never seen before.
I liked Wonder Woman. She is single handedly keeping life in the DC movie universe. My favourite tv show in the 90s and 00s was Buffy. I like strong female characters, characters that are empowered by, rather than in spite of, their feminity. You don't achieve that by appropriating the gender of a male character. That"s called shoe horning, not progress.
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Jul 22, 2017 0:45:37 GMT
I have no problems with a female Doctor. After all The Doctor's a humanoid extraterrestrial and thus wouldn't have to be a guy every regeneration.
|
|
reelreviews2
Sophomore
Jon Stewart HIJACKED The Daily Show. We're taking it BACK.
@reelreviews2
Posts: 258
Likes: 105
|
Post by reelreviews2 on Jul 22, 2017 5:30:32 GMT
I see you Moffat shills/BBC apologists LOCKED the poll to prevent new votes when it became apparent you were LOSING the debate and not getting other Moffat shills/BBC apologists to stuff the ballot like you wanted.
I'm sure your next step will be to scream SEXIST!!!!!!!! at ANYONE who questions the "wisdom" of this decision, though many of us have said we're willing to give Chibnall a chance BEFORE we jump to conclusions about whether it will work.
It doesn't matter. The fans know that Moffat and his ilk are desperate at this point. We can smell your fear (as you laughably accuse non Moffat shills/BBC apologists of "being afraid of change" because all the "change" over the last three years has been BAD and NONE of it has been good for the show)
Those of who have proudly BOYCOTTED your crapfest will be monitoring the situation closely to see if anything improves.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jul 22, 2017 17:02:15 GMT
I see you Moffat shills/BBC apologists... [blah, blah, blah]... Those of who have proudly BOYCOTTED your crapfest will be monitoring the situation closely to see if anything improves. You seem to use the same sentences over and over and over and over and over and over and over....and over again. The cut & paste approach to replies have people wondering if you just come here to stir the pot. Plus, you get way too bent out of shape to be sincere. There is no real boycott. I'm sure you'll be monitoring the situation closely by watching every single episode.
|
|
reelreviews2
Sophomore
Jon Stewart HIJACKED The Daily Show. We're taking it BACK.
@reelreviews2
Posts: 258
Likes: 105
|
Post by reelreviews2 on Jul 24, 2017 3:32:00 GMT
You deranged Moffat shills can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALA THERE IS NO BOYCOTT!!" as the ratings keep falling and you keep losing MILLIONS more loyal Doctor Who viewers and longtime fans every season. You are so deranged at this point that even one of your fellow Moffat shills quipped in another thread "actually, there IS a boycott, at least by the definition of the word". When even your fellow Moffat shills know you've lost touch with reality, its time to hand in the towel. Jul 22, 2017 12:02:15 GMT -5 johnblutarsky said:
I'm sure you'll be monitoring the situation closely by watching every single episode.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the last episode of nuWho I've watched was The Return of Doctor Mysterio. I will NEVER watch another episode of Moffat's crapfest. You refusing to admit that FACT won't change it.
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jul 24, 2017 13:52:06 GMT
So many are mentioning Tilda Swinton, and I sure can see it. I'm more worried about the writing than who's playing the Doctor though. Chibnall wrote Dinosaurs on a Spaceship. Should tell you all you need to know about the writing right there.
|
|
reelreviews2
Sophomore
Jon Stewart HIJACKED The Daily Show. We're taking it BACK.
@reelreviews2
Posts: 258
Likes: 105
|
Post by reelreviews2 on Jul 24, 2017 16:36:44 GMT
Chibnall wrote Dinosaurs on a Spaceship. Should tell you all you need to know about the writing right there. Good point. I think that is easily one of the worst episodes of the Matt Smith era. The only good things about it were Rory's dad and some clever one-liners, the rest of the episode was an incoherent mess with a ridiculous premise. The only thing we can hope for is that Chibnall is Moffat in reverse: Moffat was an excellent Doctor Who writer BEFORE he took over as showrunner. In an ideal scenario, Chibnall would be a terrible Doctor Who writer BEFORE he took over the show, but an EXCELLENT producer for Doctor Who. But anyway, we are not out of the woods yet just because Moffat is leaving. If the writing continues to suck, Doctor Who fans should rightfully picket the show AFTER the Moffat era. We will soon find out.
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jul 24, 2017 21:06:19 GMT
Chibnall wrote Dinosaurs on a Spaceship. Should tell you all you need to know about the writing right there. Good point. I think that is easily one of the worst episodes of the Matt Smith era. The only good things about it were Rory's dad and some clever one-liners, the rest of the episode was an incoherent mess with a ridiculous premise. The only thing we can hope for is that Chibnall is Moffat in reverse: Moffat was an excellent Doctor Who writer BEFORE he took over as showrunner. In an ideal scenario, Chibnall would be a terrible Doctor Who writer BEFORE he took over the show, but an EXCELLENT producer for Doctor Who. But anyway, we are not out of the woods yet just because Moffat is leaving. If the writing continues to suck, Doctor Who fans should rightfully picket the show AFTER the Moffat era. We will soon find out. Yeah,but then they'll call the fans sexist because they'll think it's the actress.
|
|