The 13th Doctor Reveal Thread

[Dave]

I'd prefer it if we only found out about new [stuff] when [it] occurred on-screen.

I totally agree with the sentiment, but unfortunately the days without spoilers are long gone and it is only wishful thinking rather than a preference. If I were to ask for that, then I'd sound like those people still living in the 1950's who want High Streets to still have butchers, bakers and candlestick makers rather than coffee shops, phone shops and charity shops. However, I could do without the kind of "institutional spoiling" where the following week's episode is deliberately spoilered at the end of the current, and where it is endlessly advertised without warning, and where I get "News alerts" about it on my smartphone. At least in the past, if you avoided fan magazines, or even more recently, forum threads, then you could have, a least, some hope!

 

[Ursa major]

where the following week's episode is deliberately spoilered at the end of the current

Decades ago, the episodes of some US TV shows provided spoilers before the episode proper started. These were far harder to avoid that those appended to the end of the previous episode, if for no other reason than one did not want to avoid those spoilers only to miss the real start of the episode. By contrast, I have had no problems avoiding the "Next Week" spoilers at the end of Doctor Who episodes.

 

[MemoryTale]

Decades ago, the episodes of some US TV shows provided spoilers before the episode proper started. These were far harder to avoid that those appended to the end of the previous episode, if for no other reason than one did not want to avoid those spoilers only to miss the real start of the episode. By contrast, I have had no problems avoiding the "Next Week" spoilers at the end of Doctor Who episodes.

Yes, I've noticed some of the Columbo repeats do that - I have no earthly idea why that was in vogue.

Back on topic

 

[TheDustyZebra]

I don't have any trouble with end-of-episode spoilers, because BBCA moved the trailers to the middle of the next show, and I turn it off when DW ends.

 

[Dave]

Back on topic then... which the newspaper letters now seem to think is "women drivers" - totally missing the irony in that the Doctor could never fly the TARDIS right back to the programme's start.

I also think it would be good if we could get that new author Jane Austin to write a few episodes, she being our greatest living author and now on appearing banknotes.

 

[nixie]

Oh yes heard about her today, a bit reclusive though not been seen for 200 years

 

[Ursa major]

I'm surprised they put her on a banknote, given that she designed that awful car, the Austen Allegro....


Really, she should have stuck to writing marvellous novels.

 

[Mister_Oy]

Ahhh... the Austen All Aggro

 

[pambaddeley]

I'm pretty sure -- given it has been discussed in the run up to every recent regeneration -- that the Doctor being a woman has been on the cards for years (and without having to recall the events of a single episode of a different show).

People first started talking about it seriously when Baker was about to regenerate.

 

[Danny McG]

 

[SilentRoamer]

Thought about posting this, then decided not to and now I decided I may as well!

Well i'm not happy they changed the Dr to a woman.hard for me to place exactly why, for me the Dr was always a man, sure he was different each regeneration but I just saw the gender as male and that works for me. I don't see any reason to change the Dr, an iconic male role and turn it into a female role.

It just seems that the trend in TV and Hollywood at the moment is that - white male actors take all the roles and whitewash everything so we are going to change traditional roles outside of the traditional portrayal whilst insisting that certain roles are played by certain peoples. Iron Man can now be a black woman and that's ok but at the same time it's not ok that so many doctors have been men. It just seems like a double standard to me.

That being said I think diversity - in life and on our screens is a great thing and something to be celebrated. I stopped watching the show a few episodes into Capaldi season because the writing seemed awful after the Matt Smith Dr.

I will give the new Dr a chance though because I might end up really liking her (I didn't like Matt Smith at first and he became my favorite Dr. by a lightyear) and from what I hear from people I know Jodie Whittaker is a class actress - I will watch with an open mind as I would if it was a male Dr.

If this has strayed to close to real world politics I shamefully await the Mod Hammer of judgement!

 

[Cathbad]

I don't think any role should be considered "iconically" male or female.

I certainly didn't hear these kind of things when Arnie had a baby!

 

[Danny McG]

But as a male is it ok to feel now?

Uk Northern male says "no chance, man up"

 

[Overread]

It just seems that the trend in TV and Hollywood at the moment is that - white male actors take all the roles and whitewash everything so we are going to change traditional roles outside of the traditional portrayal whilst insisting that certain roles are played by certain peoples. Iron Man can now be a black woman and that's ok but at the same time it's not ok that so many doctors have been men. It just seems like a double standard to me.

For me this is the crux of the issue in that we are seeing characters as roles not characters.
For me a character is a character and their gender is part of that character. To say otherwise is to my mind demeaning to both women and men.

For me the Dr is a character not just a role; Being the Dr isn't just a job that you turn up to and perform, its a character and a role and linked to a person even if that person changes through time (we all change). Marvel though are closer to roles with their characters because both DC and Marvel reboot so many times that now their characters are closer to a role. You can be Batman for a season then change and change again over and over. So in their world its easier, in my view, to change core parts of the character because its the role you're changing not the character. Rather like changing the job description rather than changing the person performing the job as it were.


Like I said in my view I wouldn't have made Dr Who a woman, I'd have made a new Time Lord of her own identity and character. That said perhaps Dr Who has sneaked closer and closer to becoming like a DC/Marvel hero than I've realised and that now the Dr is closer to a role than a person.

 

[Cathbad]

now the Dr is closer to a role than a person.

I don't even know how to begin to understand this?

 

[Overread]

Think of it in terms of a job. If you want a cleaner (for example) there are certain requirements for a candidate to have in order to fit the role as a cleaner. Thus you can have many individuals (characters) who all share the same role of "Cleaner".

I'm equating the Dr toward that kind of situation in that the "Role" of being "The Dr" is a series of requirements independent of the character itself. Of course the nature of the role means that many of those role requirements are aspects of character not just "ability to understand time-travel".

Indeed the more I think of it the more the Dr is actually closer to a comicbook super-hero than I've ever really appreciated. I suspect like long term super-hero fans its easy to miss that aspect when you're current and swept along by the ever changing story. Whilst once you step back and step outside it easier to see it happening (possibly less so with Dr Who as every single change is part of the core story itself; the Dr has never been "rebooted" fully from the beginning).


In that context the Dr becoming female is a very valid choice as the character property of being female isn't a role requirement for the Dr. However many would (and do) argue that the "role" of Dr Who did require one to be male. Just as it requires the Dr to be Britsh (ok ok he's a Time Lord, but he likes Jelly Babies and is distinctly associated with the British and Britishness above all other Earthly cultures).

 

[Cathbad]

I have heard no good argument why The Doctor must be male. That "he's always been male" seems a moot point, re someone who regenerates after each death. And especially since we know hew kept coming back male because of (real) human prejudices in society.

That this is even an issue in 2017 really saddens me.

 

[Overread]

I would say its more that most fans never really considered it prejudice that he was always male as 99.9% of most TV characters remain the same gender even if the actor changes (East Enders has a few like that of their reappearing character - although granted that's not sci-fi/fantasy). It was just part of his character that the Dr was male. I also don't see many saying that a lead role can't be held by a woman - that Dr Who couldn't star a female lead.

 

[Ursa major]

For me the Dr is a character

Of all the many things the Doctor is, a character is not one of them (and that's even when the physical changes are ignored).

In a regeneration, the personality changes at the same time as the physical appearance does.

 

[farntfar]

and the change of sex facilitates a far more interresting change of character.
I anticipate some terrific possibilities here.

Her relationships with her assistants for instance can be very different from those he's had before.
(And using her at the beginning of the sentence and he at the end has been terrific fun. (Some of my French colleagues, however, would probably just say it's business as usual.))