DivineSingularity
 member, 61 posts
 But I will remain
 I'll be back again.
Mon 17 Jul 2017
at 17:34
Doctor who
I heard the sounds of a thousand fanboys crying out in agony.... than nothing.
gladiusdei
 member, 558 posts
Mon 17 Jul 2017
at 17:38
Doctor who
Not hard to understand the apprehension.  They just made a possibly very big change to a very beloved character.  People are afraid it won't go well.


Then there are those who just get mad at anything and everything, who it is best to ignore anyway.
jamat
 member, 503 posts
 P:5 T:7 W:0 F:0 B:3
Thu 20 Jul 2017
at 07:40
Doctor who
I just saw on Facebook that someone has set up a petition to get the character changed back to a man.... Really? I understand people getting worried especially as the doc has been male for 60 years but for God sake there's nothing to say it can't be a female.... Give the new doctor a chance is what I say...
willvr
 member, 1066 posts
Thu 20 Jul 2017
at 07:52
Doctor who
I'm of two minds about it; but the moment they established a regeneration -could- change genders; they pretty much had to do it at some point.
Hunter
 member, 1370 posts
 Captain Oblivious!
 Lurker
Thu 20 Jul 2017
at 08:08
Doctor who
In reply to willvr (msg # 25):

That happened a long, long time ago.   It's just never been done with the main character.
willvr
 member, 1067 posts
Thu 20 Jul 2017
at 08:10
Doctor who
It was never established, in canon, till the Doctor's Wife. It had been guessed at, insinuated, but never totally established.
phoenix9lives
 member, 922 posts
 GENE POLICE!  YOU!
 GET OUTTA THE POOL!
Thu 20 Jul 2017
at 19:23
Doctor who
Actually, it has been established that The Doctor doesn't even have to appear human.  Imagine Madame Vastra as The Doctor.
gladiusdei
 member, 559 posts
Thu 20 Jul 2017
at 19:29
Doctor who
it's sort of a paradox that people have to work through.  It's argued it shouldn't matter if the doctor is female, but then if it doesn't matter, why did it need to be a female?  I think it WILL inherently change the character for this go around.  The change may be great, or it may not be.  That's why my judgement of if it's a good thing or not hinges a lot more on the writing than the casting.

Peter Capaldi was an awesome choice for the doctor, but his seasons were by far the most disappointing I've seen since it started back up in 2005.  Just personal opinion, it's great if people enjoyed them, but not everything is enjoyable for everyone.  So who knows, the 13th doctor may produce great seasons, or it may not.
phoenix9lives
 member, 923 posts
 GENE POLICE!  YOU!
 GET OUTTA THE POOL!
Thu 20 Jul 2017
at 19:35
Doctor who
Frankly, I was a fan of Eccleston from the moment he introduced his Doctor to Rose Tyler and told her to run for her life.  I thought he did well with the angst of having believed himself the only survivor of The Last Great Time War because he thought he had killed everyone else.  I wish he had been able to portray him longer.
As for The Doctor as a woman, I'm all for it.  But, my opinion is skewed.  I loved the New Ghostbusters almost as much as the originals.
gladiusdei
 member, 560 posts
Thu 20 Jul 2017
at 19:41
Doctor who
I didn't mean I didn't like Eccleston.  I meant that the recent seasons have been the worst I have experience with, and I started watching when the show began with Eccleston.  I've only seen a few of the older specials.

I'll just ignore the whole ghostbusters comment and let sleeping dogs lie.

This message was last edited by the user at 20:50, Thu 20 July.

phoenix9lives
 member, 924 posts
 GENE POLICE!  YOU!
 GET OUTTA THE POOL!
Thu 20 Jul 2017
at 21:14
Doctor who
Eccleston was my first, and is my favorite, Doctor.  I've tried watching the first season/series, but I have a problem with getting through Hartnell.
And what is wrong with the new GBs?  People just need to get over it and give the film a chance.
gladiusdei
 member, 561 posts
Thu 20 Jul 2017
at 21:27
Doctor who
Well, for me, its two things.  From a nostalgia stand point, I grew up loving the Ghostbusters and ate up every rumor of them writing a third installment.  But when Harold Ramis died that hope died too.  To see them use that license to make a remake was pretty disappointing, especially when there was such a good opportunity to make a sequel with the old Ghostbusters passing the mantle off to a new team.

As for the remake, the jokes just fell flat to me.  I didn't think it was very clever or anything.  I just didn't find it funny.
willvr
 member, 1068 posts
Thu 20 Jul 2017
at 22:50
Doctor who
It hinges a -lot- on the writing, and Chibnall's Doctor Who work is not amongst the best. Having said that, Moffatt pre-showrunner was the best new series writer by a country mile; but a lot of his work when he was showrunner fell flat.

Yes, it's been established timelords can change appearance to look more alien; but all Romana's forms were female. That was a poor decision regardless as it was the first hint that you could choose what you looked like. Wasn't fond of it.

Regardless, it's probably not what the common fan thinks that's going to be the deciding value on whether it was successful - it's the general audience. Fans have their very strong opinions, and they differ from other fans; but the actual fandom is a small minority. TV shows are successful or not based on the general audience, not the fans.
phoenix9lives
 member, 925 posts
 GENE POLICE!  YOU!
 GET OUTTA THE POOL!
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 06:54
Doctor who
Yeah.  Look at Firefly.
willvr
 member, 1069 posts
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 07:10
Doctor who
Look at virtually any 'cult hit' show that failed to grab the interest of the general audience.

In fact, it was Doctor Who ignoring 'fandom' that has it what it is now. It's why there are many fans of the classic series (yeah; I'd probably include me in this) don't like it that much any more; because they've ignored what the 'fandom' wanted and aimed at what the general public wanted.
Mad Mick
 member, 899 posts
 Ain't sayin nothin
 Got nothin to say
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 08:11
Doctor who
I still miss Eccleston, and Tom Baker was my first Doctor.

Perhaps one day we'll have an Idris Elba Doctor, but I'm not getting my hopes up.  =)

"Getting my hopes up" looks really weird to me.  I had to check an idiom dictionary to see if it was correct.
Cygnia
 member, 275 posts
 Amoral Paladin
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 12:03
Doctor who
(Hopefully) If "Dark Tower" does well, the BBC wouldn't be able to afford Elba...
Skald
 moderator, 787 posts
 Whatever it is,
 I'm against it
Fri 21 Jul 2017
at 15:17
Doctor who
I'm in the other camp - liked Eccleston as the Doctor, but found the writing childish - I think Moffat had more of a handle on things, but occasionally the intricacies detracted from the delivery.

But I get that with a few series nowday - it seems the convolutions of early episodes are there for the payoff of the run to the finish.  Very few manage to get the balance right.  So for one, I'll miss Moffat.

Pertwee was my first Doctor, but Baker was the one I identified most with until Matt Smith's run cemented him as my new favourite ... Capaldi was brilliant as always, but it didn't quite click (though the last two episodes of the last series nailed it for me).

And I miss Firefly too.  And Blake's 7.
willvr
 member, 1070 posts
Sat 22 Jul 2017
at 00:04
Doctor who
Another Blakes' Seven fan - now that's a rarity.

The problem I had with Moffatt is things like the Weeping Angels. Where you couldn't stop looking at them, or you were dead. At the same time, you couldn't look at them, or you were also dead.

Troughton, Pertwee, the first Baker are too close for me to call as to my favourite. None of the new series Doctors, for me, are quite as good. Though Ecclestone probably comes closest.
icosahedron152
 member, 766 posts
Sat 22 Jul 2017
at 06:03
Doctor who
Another member of the Blake's 7 fan club here. Hartnell was my first Doctor, but maybe Tennant is my favourite. And I like Moffatt's gripping stories, but yeah, most of the 'new start' has been too convoluted to be fun. Keep the 'edge of seat', ditch the convolutions, I say.

Female Doctor? Meh. Nothing against women, but I'd rather see a separate female Time Lord introduced and have the Doctor disappear or take a back seat for a while.

The Doctor's a bloke, like Sherlock, Batman, Robin Hood, Flash Gordon, etc, etc. Flipping the gender of an established hero just doesn't work for me.

Can't TV companies give a heroine a central role without her standing on the shoulders of an established male personality? Create an independent heroine and let her establish her own following. Or don't they think a woman is capable?
phoenix9lives
 member, 926 posts
 GENE POLICE!  YOU!
 GET OUTTA THE POOL!
Sat 22 Jul 2017
at 06:33
Doctor who
They have done that, numerous times.  Sarah Jane Smith.  Rose Tyler.  Amy Pond.  Clara Oswin Oswald.  Martha Jones.  Donna Noble.  All of them strong and independent heroines.
icosahedron152
 member, 767 posts
Sat 22 Jul 2017
at 10:34
Doctor who
They were strong and sort of independent, but not central. They were all the Doctor's sidekicks, subordinate to a man by association, no matter how much 'independence' they were permitted to have in their second-class roles. I'm talking about a central, female Time Lord, like the Doctor, but not the Doctor - with her own sidekicks.

You could still call the series Dr Who, even if he's not central or even present - witness the long-running British cop show Taggart, whose title character died (along with the actor) at the end of the first season.

But all this is academic. The BBC have made their decision, for better or worse. Time will tell whether it was the right decision. Unfortunately for them, they don't have a Tardis... :)
willvr
 member, 1071 posts
Sat 22 Jul 2017
at 14:23
Doctor who
The original concept of Romana was to be fair; the major reason Mary Tamm quit is because she had turned into a typical companion, which is not as it was presented to her.
Hunter
 member, 1371 posts
 Captain Oblivious!
 Lurker
Sat 22 Jul 2017
at 17:14
Re: Doctor who
icosahedron152:
They were strong and sort of independent, but not central. They were all the Doctor's sidekicks, subordinate to a man by association, no matter how much 'independence' they were permitted to have in their second-class roles. I'm talking about a central, female Time Lord, like the Doctor, but not the Doctor - with her own sidekicks.


If they wish to establish a character both as main and independent of the Doctor, they're going to have to do it as a spin-off.  Ultimately, any character will be subordinated in one form or another to the Doctor simply because Doctor Who is about the Doctor....
phoenix9lives
 member, 927 posts
 GENE POLICE!  YOU!
 GET OUTTA THE POOL!
Sun 23 Jul 2017
at 07:18
Re: Doctor who
The Sarah Jane Chronicles was a good attempt.  Unfortunately, death ended that show.
Torchwood was a good try.  Until that third season.