|
Post by kleinreturns on Jul 18, 2017 17:36:24 GMT
I don't understand the dislike myself. She's a good actress, odds are that she's going to do well. As long as the stories are good, that is. I doubt the show can withstand another season like the one we just had. It was by far the weakest season of the revived show. No memorable episodes, no memorable lines, events, ... The finale barely made sense, got spoiled beforehand. (not due to the BBC, if I'm not mistaken, but the damage was done) Utterly forgettable. The issue here should not be the gender of the Doctor, which is irrelevant (and can be explained perfectly, despite canon), but rather the storytelling, wich was quite meager this season. Fresh minds can only do good. Perhaps finally leave Earth alone, how many times can there be an earth threatening emergency only the Doctor can resolve? How many trips to the past can he make? How many first time colonies can he visit? Good god, do something else for a change. Well for me i dislike Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor because: 1) I didn't like the way Missy was handled. The Master coming back from the dead or from things is already problematic enough (Planet of Fire, Mark of the Rani, Utopia, Last of the Time Lords, End of Time Part 2), but when Missy came about in series 8, no good explanation was provided for the Master to be a Woman. It didn't help that Gomez didn't do anything particularly that really felt Master-ish (instead she was a maniac homicidal "Mary Poppins", complete with a stupid umbrella and style of outfit). Plus she had all of the annoying Moffat female character tropes that i can't stand (flirting with and kissing the Doctor for starters). The Handing of Missy already made me leary of how the BBC would handle a Female Doctor, and even though Chibnall is the new showrunner, i have my feeling they aren't going to be able to move forward with the character and instead just make her the "Female Doctor" instead of "The Doctor". 2) In Hindsight now it feels like Capaldi's series (8,9 and 10) were test runs by Moffat and the BBC for a Female Doctor or at least seeing the response of having the show carried on with a woman while sacrificing and sabotaging Capaldi himself as the Doctor and his era to arrive there. During Capaldi's run, we see two male Timelords become Female (the Master becoming Missy, the General in Hell Bent becoming a Woman) both of which felt pointless to the story or had negligible impact on the story in terms of necessity. Combine that with the "Clara Who" intro that also occurred in Death in Heaven (which demonstrated how the Female Companions are now taking more precedence over the Doctor, which had started with RTD and Rose, but got worse with Amy, River and Clara under Moffat) and even the Clara and Ashildr scene at the final part of Hell Bent, now both for all practical purposes are "Time Lords/Ladies" (or at least immortals in their own TARDIS), free to travel Space and Time, and Clara even ripping off the Doctor's mission and line about finding "Gallifrey the long way round" are so clear to me that Capaldi and his Doctor have been sabotaged by the BBC just in order for them to push the agenda of getting a Female Doctor, no matter how forced, deliberately artificial and lack of establishing a good and proper storytelling setup to get there or recognizing how off putting this would be to the main Doctor Who Fandom. 3)Jodie Whittaker has not impressed me as an actress either. Her previous role on Broadchurch was to me nothing special, and had me thinking if a Female Doctor was needed i rather it would have been Olivia Colman , who was fantastic in that show, or even Hayley Atwell who i think would have been much better choices.
|
|
|
Post by sweetpea on Jul 18, 2017 18:14:29 GMT
I don't understand the dislike myself. She's a good actress, odds are that she's going to do well. As long as the stories are good, that is. I doubt the show can withstand another season like the one we just had. It was by far the weakest season of the revived show. No memorable episodes, no memorable lines, events, ... The finale barely made sense, got spoiled beforehand. (not due to the BBC, if I'm not mistaken, but the damage was done) Utterly forgettable. The issue here should not be the gender of the Doctor, which is irrelevant (and can be explained perfectly, despite canon), but rather the storytelling, wich was quite meager this season. Fresh minds can only do good. Perhaps finally leave Earth alone, how many times can there be an earth threatening emergency only the Doctor can resolve? How many trips to the past can he make? How many first time colonies can he visit? Good god, do something else for a change. Well for me i dislike Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor because: 1) I didn't like the way Missy was handled. The Master coming back from the dead or from things is already problematic enough (Planet of Fire, Mark of the Rani, Utopia, Last of the Time Lords, End of Time Part 2), but when Missy came about in series 8, no good explanation was provided for the Master to be a Woman. It didn't help that Gomez didn't do anything particularly that really felt Master-ish (instead she was a maniac homicidal "Mary Poppins", complete with a stupid umbrella and style of outfit). Plus she had all of the annoying Moffat female character tropes that i can stand (flirting with and kissing the Doctor for starters). The Handing of Missy already made me leary of how the BBC would handle a Female Doctor, and even though Chibnall is the new showrunner, i have my feeling they aren't going to be able to move forward with the character and instead just make her the "Female Doctor" instead of "The Doctor". 2) In Hindsight now it feels like Capaldi's series (8,9 and 10) were test runs by Moffat and the BBC for a Female Doctor or at least seeing the response of having the show carried on with a woman while sacrificing and sabotaging Capaldi himself as the Doctor and his era to arrive there. During Capaldi's run, we see two male Timelords become Female (the Master becoming Missy, the General in Hell Bent becoming a Woman) both of which felt pointless to the story or had negligible impact on the story in terms of necessity. Combine that with the "Clara Who" intro that also occurred in Death in Heaven (which demonstrated how the Female Companions are now taking more precedence over the Doctor, which had started with RTD and Rose, but got worse with Amy, River and Clara under Moffat) and even the Clara and Ashildr scene at the final part of Hell Bent, now both for all practical purposes are "Time Lords/Ladies" (or at least immortals in their own TARDIS), free to travel Space and Time, and Clara even ripping off the Doctor's mission and line about finding "Gallifrey the long way round" are so clear to me that Capaldi and his Doctor have been sabotaged by the BBC just in order for them to push the agenda of getting a Female Doctor, no matter how forced, deliberately artificial and lack of establishing a good and proper storytelling setup to get there or recognizing how off putting this would be to the main Doctor Who Fandom. 3)Jodie Whittaker has not impressed me as an actress either. Her previous role on Broadchurch was to me nothing special, and had me thinking if a Female Doctor was needed i rather it would have been Olivia Colman , who was fantastic in that show, or even Hayley Atwell who i think would have been much better choices.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 18:40:04 GMT
I don't understand the dislike myself. She's a good actress, odds are that she's going to do well. As long as the stories are good, that is. I doubt the show can withstand another season like the one we just had. It was by far the weakest season of the revived show. No memorable episodes, no memorable lines, events, ... The finale barely made sense, got spoiled beforehand. (not due to the BBC, if I'm not mistaken, but the damage was done) Utterly forgettable. The issue here should not be the gender of the Doctor, which is irrelevant (and can be explained perfectly, despite canon), but rather the storytelling, wich was quite meager this season. Fresh minds can only do good. Perhaps finally leave Earth alone, how many times can there be an earth threatening emergency only the Doctor can resolve? How many trips to the past can he make? How many first time colonies can he visit? Good god, do something else for a change. Well for me i dislike Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor because: 1) I didn't like the way Missy was handled. The Master coming back from the dead or from things is already problematic enough (Planet of Fire, Mark of the Rani, Utopia, Last of the Time Lords, End of Time Part 2), but when Missy came about in series 8, no good explanation was provided for the Master to be a Woman. It didn't help that Gomez didn't do anything particularly that really felt Master-ish (instead she was a maniac homicidal "Mary Poppins", complete with a stupid umbrella and style of outfit). Plus she had all of the annoying Moffat female character tropes that i can't stand (flirting with and kissing the Doctor for starters). The Handing of Missy already made me leary of how the BBC would handle a Female Doctor, and even though Chibnall is the new showrunner, i have my feeling they aren't going to be able to move forward with the character and instead just make her the "Female Doctor" instead of "The Doctor". 2) In Hindsight now it feels like Capaldi's series (8,9 and 10) were test runs by Moffat and the BBC for a Female Doctor or at least seeing the response of having the show carried on with a woman while sacrificing and sabotaging Capaldi himself as the Doctor and his era to arrive there. During Capaldi's run, we see two male Timelords become Female (the Master becoming Missy, the General in Hell Bent becoming a Woman) both of which felt pointless to the story or had negligible impact on the story in terms of necessity. Combine that with the "Clara Who" intro that also occurred in Death in Heaven (which demonstrated how the Female Companions are now taking more precedence over the Doctor, which had started with RTD and Rose, but got worse with Amy, River and Clara under Moffat) and even the Clara and Ashildr scene at the final part of Hell Bent, now both for all practical purposes are "Time Lords/Ladies" (or at least immortals in their own TARDIS), free to travel Space and Time, and Clara even ripping off the Doctor's mission and line about finding "Gallifrey the long way round" are so clear to me that Capaldi and his Doctor have been sabotaged by the BBC just in order for them to push the agenda of getting a Female Doctor, no matter how forced, deliberately artificial and lack of establishing a good and proper storytelling setup to get there or recognizing how off putting this would be to the main Doctor Who Fandom. 3)Jodie Whittaker has not impressed me as an actress either. Her previous role on Broadchurch was to me nothing special, and had me thinking if a Female Doctor was needed i rather it would have been Olivia Colman , who was fantastic in that show, or even Hayley Atwell who i think would have been much better choices.
1. I see your point. I did like Missy at first, she was mysterious and the reveal was nice. But her return in the vault was rather a failure imo. And yes, the constant fawning over the Doctor is getting tiresome. That's the repetitiveness I was talking about I guess. Doesn't matter if it's new actors, if they constantly do the same thing, why bother getting new actors.
2. Maybe, I don't really see it that way. I felt that Capaldi had his moments as a real Doctor, with several memorable episodes. "Heaven sent" is one of my favourite episodes ever. But that's just me, and I do see that there were a lot of bad moments too. I never liked the Ashildr character, and how things turned out with Clara didn't feel right either.
There is an issue with the companions, that's why I liked Donna, she at least didn't feel so forced or unexplainably enamored with the Doctor.
3. I'ld have loved to see Helen Mirren as the Doctor, tbh I guess we'll have to wait and see, not every Doctor was played by a great actor, but still they managed to leave their mark and be popular.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 20:44:59 GMT
I will be considerate and polite and use the word "naïve" to describe you (instead of a different word that starts with a "g" and ends with "-ullible") if you believe it when directors/producers/studios use the "best person for the role" line when explaining why a character who was previously male is now female, or why a character who was white is now black. I will be considerate and polite and use the word "naïve" to describe you (instead of a different word that starts with a "g" and ends with "-ullible") if you don't believe it when directors/producers/studios use the "best person for the role" line when explaining why a character who was previously male is now female, or why a character who was white is now black. Nine times out of ten (and I am being generous here), such casting decisions are not taken at the highest level, long before any auditions. It is absolutely true that the decision to cast a woman as the new Doctor was made solely (or even primarily) because this particular actress had by far the best audition. If and when a black actor is chosen to play James Bond, it is absolutely because he knocked the audition out of the park - it will not be because the PRODUCERS will have made the decision that the new James Bond should be black. Just to be clear, in the case of Doctor Who I would also have no issue if the producers had decided to cast a midget albino Australian Aboriginal woman. See how easy this is? All you have to do is take a completely unfounded assertion, and then talk as if it's an established fact and anybody who believes differently is just stupid and wrong. You don't have to support your argument, you don't have to present any facts. You just say it is, and so therefore it is. A child could do it!
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Jul 18, 2017 20:48:54 GMT
See how easy this is? All you have to do is take a completely unfounded assertion, and then talk as if it's an established fact and anybody who believes differently is just stupid and wrong. You don't have to support your argument, you don't have to present any facts. You just say it is, and so therefore it is. A child could do it! It's called "common sense". Look it up. I have it, you obviously don't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 20:58:56 GMT
See how easy this is? All you have to do is take a completely unfounded assertion, and then talk as if it's an established fact and anybody who believes differently is just stupid and wrong. You don't have to support your argument, you don't have to present any facts. You just say it is, and so therefore it is. A child could do it! It's called "common sense". Look it up. I have it, you obviously don't. If only "common sense" were an actual guide to truth. But it turns out that morons think that the things they believe are "common sense" as well. As a wise man once said, once you know what you want to believe, common sense is a brilliant way of convincing you that it really is true.
|
|
|
Post by kleinreturns on Jul 18, 2017 23:19:29 GMT
Er what???
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Jul 19, 2017 12:32:27 GMT
It's called "common sense". Look it up. I have it, you obviously don't. If only "common sense" were an actual guide to truth. But it turns out that morons think that the things they believe are "common sense" as well. As a wise man once said, once you know what you want to believe, common sense is a brilliant way of convincing you that it really is true. It looks like it is time for some concrete examples. In the reboot of Battlestar Galactica, the character of Starbuck was changed from male to female. Which of these two alternatives do you think is the most likely to explain the gender switch:a) The show runners decided right from the onset that Starbuck would now be a woman, and casted accordingly b) The producers had no preference at all for the gender of one of the main characters of the show. They put out a casting call for any actors OR actresses of the appropriate age and body type, and during the auditions Katee Sackhoff was so much better than everyone else that she got the part. In last year's remake of The Magnificent Seven, the seven mercenaries are played by actors of various ethnicities (black, white, Indian, Mexican and even Asian), stretching the believability of the story when one considers the time period in which it takes place. Which of these two alternatives do you think is the most likely explanation:a) The director and/or the producers and/or the screenwriters decided right from the onset that, unlike the original movie from the 60s, this 21st century remake would not feature an all-white-male cast, and held auditions accordingly b) They held open casting calls without specifying race, and it just so happened that Denzel Washington, Byung-hun Lee, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo and Martin Sensmeier all had fantastic auditions and were considered "the best for their respective parts" and got the job. The BBC just announced that for the first time, the character of Doctor Who will be played by a woman. Which of these two alternatives do you think is the most likely to explain the gender switch:
a) After fifty years and twelve male Doctors and intense media and social media pressure to make the Doctor a woman, the show runners decide to give the role to a woman. b) The show runners had no preference at all for the gender of the title character of the show. They put out a casting call for any actors OR actresses of the appropriate age and body type, and during the auditions Jodie Whittaker was so much better than everyone else that she got the part. Those are very simple questions. Please choose a or b for each of the three cases. Don't avoid the question, don't tell me that you don't know since you were not there. I am asking your opinion - which one of the two explanations is more likely in those cases. Would you answer that for me?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 14:45:26 GMT
I'd say b. I presume you'd say a. But both of those are simply guesses with nothing to back them up.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Jul 19, 2017 16:39:03 GMT
I'd say b. I presume you'd say a. But both of those are simply guesses with nothing to back them up. Well, I appreciate the straight-forward answer. I've had similar discussion on message boards in the past on various subjects when I couldn't get a straight answer no matter what. This feels to me like arguing with a flat-earther at this point, so I think I will withdraw from the discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 17:28:55 GMT
This feels to me like arguing with a flat-earther at this point, so I think I will withdraw from the discussion. And this feels to me like arguing with a flat-earther at this point, so I think I will withdraw from the discussion as well. See? Easy.
|
|
pk9
Sophomore
@pk9
Posts: 976
Likes: 152
|
Post by pk9 on Jul 20, 2017 6:04:34 GMT
Well for me i dislike Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor because: 1) I didn't like the way Missy was handled. The Master coming back from the dead or from things is already problematic enough (Planet of Fire, Mark of the Rani, Utopia, Last of the Time Lords, End of Time Part 2), but when Missy came about in series 8, no good explanation was provided for the Master to be a Woman. That was the point. They already set it up with the Matt's Smith's opening scene and the Corsair and the General. Time Lords can change gender upon regeneration. They didn't want or need to make a big deal about why. I only really have John Simm to go on (I haven't seen the classic Master and can barely remember the 1996 movie), but she totally felt like the Master to me. I think her Masterish traits were recognizable to the point where many, many people guessed her identity before it was revealed.
|
|
|
Post by kleinreturns on Jul 20, 2017 23:18:31 GMT
Except for the fact in Classic Who they was no gender changing regeneration in any TV episode. Plus your post still doesn't address how poorly Moffat and the BBC have handled this gender change of the Doctor, especially while undermining Capaldi's Doctor and era to arrive there. There was nothing substantially Master-ish about Missy at all, even when compared to just John Simm's version. In fact Moffat got nothing right about Missy being the Master: I don't recall Simm's Master trying to become good or rekindle a friendship with the Doctor or kissing the Doctor on the nose and face, combined with Missy having no TCE or any of the usual Master weapons like gas bombs or disguises, no hypnotism/taking over people's minds, or the desire to rule over and to dominate of the Planet Earth/Universe or seeking unlimited power, etc. Missy was poorly done and executed in terms of character, motivations and essence of the Master from Classic Who and John Simm's previous version.
|
|
pk9
Sophomore
@pk9
Posts: 976
Likes: 152
|
Post by pk9 on Jul 21, 2017 0:10:17 GMT
Except for the fact in Classic Who they was no gender changing regeneration in any TV episode. Plus your post still doesn't address how poorly Moffat and the BBC have handled this gender change of the Doctor, especially while undermining Capaldi's Doctor and era to arrive there. It's true that gender changing regeneration wasn't depicted in Classic Who. And prior to the announcement I personally would have been more comfortable if they didn't change the gender, but I'm willing to accept it. But apparently Sydney Newman himself said "At a later stage Doctor Who should be metamorphosed into a woman" in 1986. And they never explicitly ruled it out. Moffat took a question mark in the regeneration canon and filled it in, which he had the right to do by virtue of being showrunner, just like the previous showrunners did with other gaps by introducing the term "Time Lord" or the home planet of Gallifrey or the Sonic Screwdriver or the Time War. And to his credit, he did it from Day One, scattering the references throughout his tenure to build up to a potential female lead. Your argument that it never happened in Classic Who basically boils down to "Because something wasn't done before, it should never be done." Using this logic, the Doctor would still be William Hartnell, and the show would have ended when he could no longer play the part. You've only highlighted the parts where she differed. I remember her teaming up with the Cybermen as part of a plan to conquer earth, her making people say something nice before she killed them, her uploading the souls of people into "heaven" but keeping them connected to their bodies so they feel everything that is done to their bodies and suffer, her teasing the Doctor with knowing the coordinates of Gallifrey and executing Osgood, executing those Unit soldiers in Magician's Apprentice without any remorse just for fun... All of those seemed Masterish to me.
|
|
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 5:53:34 GMT
Moffat shills/BBC apologists will NEVER even acknowledge that, let alone address it. Their tactic now seems to be scream "SEXIST!!" at anyone who questions ANY aspect of the next season ("you thought the script for episode 3 had an anti-climaxic resolution? Clearly you're only saying that because you don't like a woman being the lead role and can't handle the idea woman are equal to men!"), so they will take a page from the emotional backmail that the makers of the Ghostbusters "reboot" tried to silence any negative reviews of the movie.
I think their long term goal is to blame "sexism" and point the finger at Chibnall next season if the show tanks, so they can get Moffat back as "showrunner" and bring back "Bill" so they can permanently destroy Doctor Who.
|
|