Doctor Who as a heroine?

[Dogfish]

As far as general improvements to the show are concerned, the key here is much less the new Doctor and more the new showrunner, because Moffat was Absolute Piss. Some good episodes but far too much showing off and bullshit. So we'll see what comes of it.

[Femina]

What made Who was always the strength of the stories in the old Nation days. That was the point , it didnt matter Who played Who (cue Angus Young strumming in the background) - the sets were crap, the monsters were guys in bad suits, the greatest of all his foes could whisk an egg and unblock a sink but couldnt go up stairs, but none of thst mattered because the stories were good. And we didnt have any crap about latent sexual chemistry with his assistants BECAUSE he was a wise old grand dad sort of character who then morphed into wild eccentric nutter over the years but no one gave a shit about there not being any gays in the show because it wasnt about that- it was about the wonders of the universe and the evil thats in there too and how it can all be countered with a great scarf and a jelly baby, amongst other things. But it was one detailed story told over 6 episodes. Today we get 40 mins of sometimes interesting plot all solved at the push of a button right at the end. It aint Who anymore, and hasnt been for years. I wont watch it because its all so quickly resolved it becomes meaningless as a story, but i hope she gets a fair crack at it, she's a good actress. Bring back the 6 parter detailed stories exploring both sides of the coin where good isnt always good and evil isnt always evil and I'm there, but until then, Who cares? They just wheel out the daleks and the cybermen every series and throw in the Master too. Familiarity breeds contempt. They took the viewer for granted a long time ago. Regardless of how good or bad she is I wont be watching because it aint Who anyway, just in name only.

I actually won't argue against this at all. I'd LOVE fore the stories to stop being one offs and more serialized because that's when the show works best... I think Matt Smith's first season was one of the best of 'modern who' just because it did a better job of keeping an overarching seasonal arc in play than any of the rest did, which made the two parter finale feel less shoehorned and unlikely...

That said, you may still want to give the next season a shot. It isn't JUST the doctor changing this time, it's the entire production staff. The up til now 'Modern Who' showrunners are retiring and the guys who did Broadchurch are stepping in. There's a very real chance the next season will feel VERY different from what we've been seeing up to this point.

[tallyho]

I stopped watching halfway thru season 3. Seen the odd episode since (the weeping angels one was excellent) but not been impressed by most of what Ive seen. I thought Capaldi reprised the essence of the Dr but not enough to draw me back in as a regular.

[Visitor]

Capaldi did well acting, but the scripts weren't always there. Great scenes, but the overall plot failed.

[Dogfish]

Capaldi did well acting, but the scripts weren't always there. Great scenes, but the overall plot failed.

This is a relatively common theme with the 45 minute format, very hard to do good stories that quick. The only person carrying the show for me in the last season was Missy, because even in a bad story with very little to do she could make it work. Which to be honest is a recurring theme with The Master before and since the reboot.

[Mr. X]

Ah, yes. The Doctor's renowned Libertarianism.

How well I recall the episode in which the Libertarian Doctor gave an inspirational speech to the Thals.

"Stop fucking whining about being oppressed by the Daleks. If it bothers you so much, go off and establish an evil empire for yourselves. I'm not getting involved. I have a fucking massive TARDIS, so I don't give a shit about you poor cunts."

And then the Political Correctness Brigade came along and changed the show so that the Doctor was constantly getting justice for the little people. It's PC gone mad, I tell you!

That's not a libertarian statement given it directly violates NAP. If the Doctor was libertarian there'd be no show because he'd just leave everyone alone.

I'm amazed how very few people know libertarian, anarcho voluntarism, agorism or anything else outside their little world or to think some faux good intentions somehow excuses the initiation of force.

[Femina]

Ah, yes. The Doctor's renowned Libertarianism.

How well I recall the episode in which the Libertarian Doctor gave an inspirational speech to the Thals.

"Stop fucking whining about being oppressed by the Daleks. If it bothers you so much, go off and establish an evil empire for yourselves. I'm not getting involved. I have a fucking massive TARDIS, so I don't give a shit about you poor cunts."

And then the Political Correctness Brigade came along and changed the show so that the Doctor was constantly getting justice for the little people. It's PC gone mad, I tell you!

That's not a libertarian statement given it directly violates NAP. If the Doctor was libertarian there'd be no show because he'd just leave everyone alone.

I'm amazed how very few people know libertarian, anarcho voluntarism, agorism or anything else outside their little world or to think some faux good intentions somehow excuses the initiation of force.

Well I mean... SOMETIMES it does right? That's sort of my biggest issue with Libertarian and similar philosophies. You can't really say that a guy who shoots a dude trying to murder his neighbor didn't act on good intentions, with good reason, and with relatively favorable results (Well I mean you can SAY that easy enough... I'm just not of the basic mindset to agree)... it's really just that the larger or more complicated the situation, no matter the intention, the more likely there is to be an unintended and undesirable consequence and if you're going to initiate force you'd better damn well believe in what you're about to do AND be willing to suffer said consequences.

Dr. Who thrives on his/her fictional ability to take a whole lot more of the possible consequences into account at the outset than the ordinary human being anyway... just to keep things on track.

[Heroine Addict]

The Doctor not leaving everyone alone is kind of the point I was making. It seems bizarre for anyone to describe the most interventionist character in fiction as Libertarian. It's basically a show about the Doctor visiting a place, witnessing tyranny and then instigating regime change or destroying/banishing an occupying force.

A Doctor who just leaves everyone alone would sit back and allow Daleks and other nasties to enslave or exterminate most of the galaxy. Just as long as they don't encroach on his patch.

[tallyho]

Little known fact. The Daleks first conquest was the Planet of the Bungalows.

[Heroine Addict]

Little known fact. The Daleks first conquest was the Planet of the Bungalows.

The bungalows with ramps were conquered first. The Daleks had to use equality legislation to force local authorities to convert the bungalows which had a lot of steps leading to the doors. Many of the doorways also needed to be widened to make them Dalek-accessible.

"YOUR DISCRIMINATORY ARCHITECTURE INFRINGES MY RIGHT TO CONQUER AND DESTROY! YOU WILL BE EXTERMINATED AS SOON AS THE LIFTS TO THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT OFFICES HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO SUPPORT THE WEIGHT OF A DALEK CASING!"

[Abductorenmadrid]

Little known fact. The Daleks first conquest was the Planet of the Bungalows.

Like Zap Brannigan, conqueror of the Retiree Nation from The Assisted Living Nebula ...

[darkknightmelbourne]

Christopher Ecclestone was a terrific Doctor, shame he only lasted one season, didn't want to be typecasted apparently, Along came David Tennant who was brilliant, good scripts I might add, the inventive Matt Smith, good back up as well, but then along came Peter Capaldi, who I might add is a very good actor but in my opinion didn't quite grab me, but poor scripts didn't assist. As to the future, who knows!

[Mr. X]

Well I mean... SOMETIMES it does right? That's sort of my biggest issue with Libertarian and similar philosophies. You can't really say that a guy who shoots a dude trying to murder his neighbor didn't act on good intentions, with good reason, and with relatively favorable results (Well I mean you can SAY that easy enough... I'm just not of the basic mindset to agree)...

That is a clear example of self defense. Self defense and defense of others is not initiation of force. Also there are direct pieces of evidence to show what went on. Witnesses. How the actions occurred etc. A burglar and a home owner resisting a burglar maybe both fighting but that does not mean the home owner initiated force.

The Dr. Might be practicing self defense for others which is fine.

[Disciple]

It's a very old line of thought... superheroes, heck, ANY action heroes qualify as at least some stripe of "libertarian" because they ignore the authorities (appointed or otherwise) whenever convenient and do whatever the hell they want.

I'm not sure if I fully agree with that line, though I will note even Batman has a habit of doing his whole stealth-hi-bye gig when Commissioner Gordon tells him something he doesn't want to hear.

[Femina]

It's a very old line of thought... superheroes, heck, ANY action heroes qualify as at least some stripe of "libertarian" because they ignore the authorities (appointed or otherwise) whenever convenient and do whatever the hell they want.

I'm not sure if I fully agree with that line, though I will note even Batman has a habit of doing his whole stealth-hi-bye gig when Commissioner Gordon tells him something he doesn't want to hear.

I don 't know if that's Libertarian? Just 'doing whatever the hell you want' is more of an Objectivist standpoint? I could be wrong but I thought Libertarians were entirely non-interventionist which is sort of the opposite of being a superhero (OR a Time Lord, see we are still on topic!) and 'intervening' all of the time sort of conflicts with that. Objectivists are all about doing whatever you want to ensure your own happiness... whether that be saving the world... or screwing everyone over to rise to the top of a business... or fucking a donkey... Tony Stark oft behaves objectionist... just you know, the faux ideal of objectivism not the harsh truth that it's basically the philosophy of sociopath's and selfish pricks.

[Heroine Addict]

Within the show, the Time Lords could possibly be described as Libertarian. With the Doctor being a renegade by defying their policy of non-intervention.

This depiction has been far from positive. The Time Lords were often portrayed as indolent, pompous, selfish and callous. Plus they sometimes needed saving by the Doctor because non-intervention allowed tyrannical alien empires to rise up and challenge them.

On the one occasion when they did decide to do something about the spread of the Dalek empire, they sent the Doctor as their disavowable patsy. Allowing them to pretend there was no breach of their dogma.

[Dazzle1]

As I stated I have no problem with Jodie being the next Doctor.

But there is also an agenda here, as Moffat's think skin shows.

http://pagesix.com/2017/07/25/clueless- ... 1498055906

[Heroine Addict]

To be fair, Moffat won't be around for the next series. And based on his elevating Clara to Doctor-like status, I would have dreaded his scripts for a female Doctor.

He did write well for Missy, though. But it's always a lot easier to come up with villain/villainess dialogue anyway.

Hopefully, Chibnall will get the balance right.

[Damselbinder]

There are two SJW aspects to this

1. The media in the U.K is so for a female Doctor, they are attacking long time fans who disagree.

2 The new guy in charge is promoting an SJW agenda just like Moffatt

I will watch it as I have every other new DW with an open mind, but she better be a lot better than Capaldi, Smith and Eccelston

May I ask a question? What is the difference, in your mind, between 'promoting an agenda' and simply writing a story that espouses the values that you have? Doesn't every writer do that? John Wayne movies were often eye-wateringly paternalistic in tone, but I wouldn't say they were 'promoting an agenda'. What's the difference between having values, and behaving according to those values, and 'promoting an agenda'?

[viking]

An agenda is being promoted when anyone disagrees the writer's values.

[Damselbinder]

If I may throw my hat in the ring, I heard one argument in all the debates that made me actually consider the notion that the Doctor being a woman might not be a good thing. That is, the Doctor is a kind of role model for non-macho men. He doesn't solve his problems through being a super-combat badass. He's not a ladykiller. His chief virtues are open-mindedness, compassion and kindness, and those are often seen - particularly the latter two - as 'feminine' virtues. It gives boys an idea that a man doesn't have to be a muscle-bound special forces ex-Marine or whatever to be strong.

In the end I decided that I didn't agree with this argument, because - given that men have been completely culturally dominant for the last 5,000 years - we have so much to choose from.

[Dazzle1]

An Agenda is putting your social/political views in the forefront of the entire theme of a show.

Z non Sci-fi example, Dick Wolf put his political views in the last few years of L & O and it went way downhill. Although moving Sam Waterson into a supporting role did not help

There are two SJW aspects to this

1. The media in the U.K is so for a female Doctor, they are attacking long time fans who disagree.

2 The new guy in charge is promoting an SJW agenda just like Moffatt

I will watch it as I have every other new DW with an open mind, but she better be a lot better than Capaldi, Smith and Eccelston

May I ask a question? What is the difference, in your mind, between 'promoting an agenda' and simply writing a story that espouses the values that you have? Doesn't every writer do that? John Wayne movies were often eye-wateringly paternalistic in tone, but I wouldn't say they were 'promoting an agenda'. What's the difference between having values, and behaving according to those values, and 'promoting an agenda'?

[Heroine Addict]

An Agenda is putting your social/political views in the forefront of the entire theme of a show.

Z non Sci-fi example, Dick Wolf put his political views in the last few years of L & O and it went way downhill. Although moving Sam Waterson into a supporting role did not help

A lot of that stands out more if it doesn't chime with you, though.

In the last series, a few fans (not on this forum) were complaining about PC, SJWs and agendas when the character Bill Potts was black and a lesbian. Yet her race was only mentioned a couple of times and she had less romance time than most of the straight New Who companions.

So the mere presentation of those characteristics was enough to trigger certain people.

[Dazzle1]

An Agenda is putting your social/political views in the forefront of the entire theme of a show.

Z non Sci-fi example, Dick Wolf put his political views in the last few years of L & O and it went way downhill. Although moving Sam Waterson into a supporting role did not help

A lot of that stands out more if it doesn't chime with you, though.

In the last series, a few fans (not on this forum) were complaining about PC, SJWs and agendas when the character Bill Potts was black and a lesbian. Yet her race was only mentioned a couple of times and she had less romance time than most of the straight New Who companions.




So the mere presentation of those characteristics was enough to trigger certain people.

My problem with Bill Potts is the same problem I had with donna Noble, Rose and Amy Pond useless losers made into something they are not. That is why I prefer companions like Sarah Jane, Liz Shaw and Romana

[tallyho]

That is why I prefer companions like Sarah Jane, Liz Shaw and Romana

Dont forget the spectacular bosom of Nicola Bryant's Peri (Perry?)

[Heroine Addict]

My problem with Bill Potts is the same problem I had with donna Noble, Rose and Amy Pond useless losers made into something they are not. That is why I prefer companions like Sarah Jane, Liz Shaw and Romana

Those 1970s companions have a very theatrical manner with their precise delivery in Received Pronunciation (AKA the Queen's English). Even Leela the knife-wielding savage sounded like she could perform a Noel Coward farce in the exact same style.

It's all about gritty working class girls in New Who. While the "ordinary girl made extraordinary by knowing the Doctor" is a bit of a trite fairytale, I generally do prefer it to the mannered poshos. Besides, English people with cut glass accents are all villains, these days. Even James Bond tones it down and tries to sound a bit regional.

[Dazzle1]

My problem with Bill Potts is the same problem I had with donna Noble, Rose and Amy Pond useless losers made into something they are not. That is why I prefer companions like Sarah Jane, Liz Shaw and Romana

Those 1970s companions have a very theatrical manner with their precise delivery in Received Pronunciation (AKA the Queen's English). Even Leela the knife-wielding savage sounded like she could perform a Noel Coward farce in the exact same style.

It's all about gritty working class girls in New Who. While the "ordinary girl made extraordinary by knowing the Doctor" is a bit of a trite fairytale, I generally do prefer it to the mannered poshos. Besides, English people with cut glass accents are all villains, these days. Even James Bond tones it down and tries to sound a bit regional.

Those 70 companions are people the doctor would want to travel with. New Who girls Shop Girl living with mom, kissing telegram girl and did Donna noble even have a job? Sarah and Liz had careers. Romana is a Triple first

[Heroine Addict]

Those 70 companions are people the doctor would want to travel with. New Who girls Shop Girl living with mom, kissing telegram girl and did Donna noble even have a job? Sarah and Liz had careers. Romana is a Triple first

I think the idea is to give the companion a story of self-improvement. The modern companions are generally presented as "street smart", "sassy", "savvy" and "feisty", but not particularly remarkable academically. (Except med student Martha and Clara, who was annoyingly smug.) So it's a story about the Doctor being the good teacher they never had in the state education system. He opens their eyes and makes them better people. This was perhaps most obvious with Donna Noble who was astonishingly ignorant, but still intelligent.

It may be a British thing, with class divisions being very much part of the culture. And it is the case that background has a huge impact on outcomes in life. Someone from Rose's "chav" estate would be much less likely to go to university and/or have a well-paid career. The only way of denying the proven statistical reality of that is to go down the very dodgy eugenics path and declare the under-performing classes to be genetically inferior. Which is almost certainly incorrect.

[4havokk]

[Heroine Addict]

Her analysis of Bill is great. "I didn't watch the episodes, but..."

There's nothing like an informed opinion. And that was nothing like an informed opinion.

[4havokk]

I would agree when it comes to the Bill character. (Dont like the he said she said opinion) But she is spot on about good story vs agenda writeing.

[Femina]

Hmmmmmm... that video doesn't really compare the same way as previous gender swap things. Fem Thor (while a stupid thing) is a different person from Thor who has no established history with being capable of body and gender swapping. Riri Williams isn't even 'Iron Man' she's no different from War Machine or Rescue. She's just another of Tony Stark's Iron legion... and Ghost Busters...... well they aren't the same characters as the old ghost busters. The Doctor can change gender, as an established principle.

As for 'the doctor prefers to be a man as an established thing' well... its NOT really an established, but even if it were EVERYONE prefers to be something until they don't. Paradigm shifts happen, it's harder and happens less the older we get, but the Doctor isn't even human, and tends to have psychological paradigm shifts whenever he regenerates. In any case, it's not the same thing as Thor being replaced, or the ghost busters or Iron Heart or even any more blatant and irrational gender swapping stories. It's ESTABLISHED as possible, and one has to think that someone who lived forever and had a chance to see how the other half lives could and likely WOULD go ahead and give the other gender a shot at least once.

[Dazzle1]

What has to be done to make Jodie Whittaker a successful era.

1. Eliminate the SJW influence which bashes patricacy, the U.S etc. it is not the new head picked a female but that he did it to pander.

2. Have a couple of quirks but don't go overboard. The successful ones: Troughton, pewtree, Tom Baker and Tennat had this. But can't go overboard aka Colin Baker, Peter Calpadi. But can't be uninteresting and boring Eccelston and Davidson.

3. Make the Doctor not the companion the focus. This season was more about Bill ( a bad companion) than the Doctor that was true with Donna the Cow as well.

Finally Whittaker has to make the audience believe she is the Doctor not another female time lord like Romana.