What is it you hate about a female Doctor?

Just interested to hear.

We all are almost in agreement that its a terrible idea. Not all of us have the same reasons however.

I've said mine before so I wont bother, though if you're new and would like to hear them I will oblige. Otherwise let me know.

It's a very simple concept:

The Doctor is a man. Changing that just renders the character a joke, something that even the modern day showrunners know only too well - RTD called the idea silly and uncomfortable when he was in charge, Mofftwat made the notion the crowning punchline of his spoof skit on the classic series - and yet now we're all supposed to pretend it isn't utterly fucking retarded because, uh, "it's the current year". Or something. Whatever the fuck's that supposed to mean.

I don't hate it per se, but now that the reasons for the casting have become clear I can't take the decision very seriously. I'd have hoped Jodie had given the best audition, but this doesn't really seem the case when you hear Moffat's reasoning for the change. I mean, just who else was auditioned? Could we be missing out on someone incredible just because of a political decision? I'll always wonder now.

The idea of a female Doctor just doesn't get on my man tits as much as, say, the Lothario aspect of the New Series character, the overuse of 'magic' solutions, corny humour, pop culture references and jarringly juxtaposed, saccharin emotional scenes in otherwise okay stories.

If all that shit drops out of the show in the next series and Jodie stays put, I'll probably be more enthused than I have been for the last 12 years or so. Put it this way, there are still episodes I haven't seen from Smith and Capaldi's era because I have an aversion to masochism.

From what I've seen of Jodie, I wouldn't say she's in the top 10% of actors according to ability. No doubt she's very able, and worse actors have played the role over the years, but Capaldi set a new standard for acting on the show in spite of the grot he had to work with. There's a real chance she could come across as very lightweight.

One thing I was thinking today on this very subject is how spurious the line is about 'he could be a woman because he's asexual.' This is contradicted by his occasional heterosexual behaviour - notably when played by Tennant, and even if one takes the idea of him generally being aloof from sexuality it still doesn't wash - McCoy was an uncle figure to Ace, not an aunt.

The really shit thing about it is that this is all people will notice about the show, not it's likely continuing awful quality. It's got a free pass...

Mott1 wrote:One thing I was thinking today on this very subject is how spurious the line is about 'he could be a woman because he's asexual.' This is contradicted by his occasional heterosexual behaviour - notably when played by Tennant, and even if one takes the idea of him generally being aloof from sexuality it still doesn't wash - McCoy was an uncle figure to Ace, not an aunt.

The really shit thing about it is that this is all people will notice about the show, not it's likely continuing awful quality. It's got a free pass...

Agreed I HATE that argument too.

I also hate the "The Doctor could be a man because he doesn't embody toxic masculinity".

First of all toxic masculinity is a bigoted phrase. Second I hate that they are making out that the only male qualities a character can have are negative. Imagine if I said something like that in reverse. "Xena could easily be male as she isn't portrayed as a huge nag!"

It's important to begin using lines like "toxic femininity" in everyday conversation.

I'm all about equality, baby.

I hate it because having a female Doctor feels incredibly jarring and extremely out of place after seeing the Doctor regenerate into a male 12 times in a row over the course of 50+ years. Not to mention the giant dump it takes on the show's history and lore, since Time Lord regeneration being able to alter gender was NEVER a thing in Classic Who.

If they wanted to have a female lead in the Doctor Who universe so badly in order to appeal to young girls, then they could have have just done a spin-off show with either Susan or Romana. That would have been absolutely brilliant. Hell, I'd watch the shit out of that too. I suggested this idea on the Doctor Who subreddit and got downvoted to oblivion.

DeadManRising wrote:I hate it because having a female Doctor feels incredibly jarring and extremely out of place after seeing the Doctor regenerate into a male 12 times in a row over the course of 50+ years. Not to mention the giant dump it takes on the show's history and lore, since Time Lord regeneration being able to alter gender was NEVER a thing in Classic Who.

If they wanted to have a female lead in the Doctor Who universe so badly in order to appeal to young girls, then they could have have just done a spin-off show with either Susan or Romana. That would have been absolutely brilliant. Hell, I'd watch the shit out of that too. I suggested this idea on the Doctor Who subreddit and got downvoted to oblivion.

Indeed, I've suggested the same thing many times, but self loathing fanboys and feminists always shot me down as a disgusting.

There's a lot of value in a Romana spin off show. There are so many actresses out there that would be amazing and could have carried a series. Rachel Shelley and Dawn Steele are two that spring to mind who would be amazing Romanas.

Its hilarious that the SJWs would rather have a female Doctor than an original female character. I've always said that the feminist "fans" wanted the female Doctor just to stick it to male viewers because they absolutely HATE them, and shit like this just proves it to be true.

This has always been obvious though considering that people like Whovian Feminism and Claudia Boleyn NEVER watch, review or comment on female led things.

Its always male led shows that they watch. The likes of Claudia and Whovian Feminism probably couldn't name you 5 leading female heroes. Funny thing is when I put this question to Whovian Feminism her response was literally "okay random white dude thank you for telling me what I can and can't like" before blocking me. I also had to deal with about 30 white knights who later said they were sorry she had to deal with that on her page.

Nothing says I'm a strong woman like getting 30 men to fight your corner. She also did later say that she loved the Wonder Woman movie. LOL that's it? That's the only one she could think of to prove me wrong? The one that's currently out in cinemas? Yeah real extensive knowledge of female heroes there Whovian Feminism. Again I doubt she even knows of characters like the Halliwell sisters, Emma Swan, Nikita, or Callisto.

Of course she also claimed that she didn't hate men, but her tweets and quotes both before and after say otherwise. (They also say she is a class snob.)

Look I'm Not Saying All Men Are Trash

Ban Men

Whovian Feminism on Seth McFarlane

Whovian Feminism All Female Lord of The Flies

Regarding The General's Ego Line

“Supposedly well-meaning observers always like to come in and say that hardcore fans simply won’t accept a woman portraying the Doctor. This attitude does both the show and our fandom a disservice. While there is always a smattering of assholes to prove this type of attitude does exist, they aren’t even close to a majority. And even if it were true, we should not let the direction of the show be dictated by the worst of its fans. If a misogynistic jerk who disparagingly refers to a woman Doctor as “The Nurse” says he’ll quit watching the show, he’s exactly the type of fan we should be proud to piss off. I promise, plenty of new fans (especially ones with disposable income!) are waiting in the wings to take his place.”

Yeah why would I have thought someone who claims to want to see more female heroes on tv, yet NEVER watches anything with female heroes, instead just watches things with male heroes to complain whenever the male hero is portrayed as strong, and wants the male hero to be replaced with a woman, and goes on about all men being trash and not fit to write anything about a woman, really cares more about sticking it to men than in female heroes?

Obviously unlike these people I'm not saying that not liking shows like Xena, Buffy, Charmed etc makes you a sexist.

Obviously its all just taste at the end of the day. However you can't say that you really care about female heroes, that Doctor Who would be made better by having a female lead, that the most important thing, over plot, consistency, and characterisation is representation, yet never actually watch ANYTHING that has a female lead. If a female lead is the most important thing to these people, then surely something with a female lead will hold some interest?

If its not, and they still prefer DW to Xena because actually the need for representation in the modern world is a lot of self indulgent bullshit, then why bother changing the Doctors sex for these people?

Whovian Feminism is an utter bullshitter, but sadly she's not alone. Though she should get more of the blame in sinking DW than most. She's the one who the producers, writers and directors of the show met with, gave interviews to, and promoted.

Whovian Feminism Interviews Rachel Talalay

Whovian Feminism Interviews Sarah Dollard

Its funny though how no one is saying the show shouldn't pander to fans when its people like her? When it was Ian Levine its all "OH MY GOD PANDERING TO THE FANS KILLED THE SHOW" When its this woman who has a sexist agenda however? The likes of Paul Cornell, RTD and others praise her as making the show more progressive. Its a fucking joke.

I wonder what William Hartnell would be thinking right now if he could see the sorry state of what Doctor Who has become over the past 10 years or so. I wonder what he would think of the writers turning his incarnation into a sexist pig for the Christmas special, even though in the original show's run he treated all of his companions equally. Poor bastard is probably turning in his grave right now. How anyone with even a glimmer of self respect and observational skills can still support this atrocity of a show is beyond me.

iank wrote:It's important to begin using lines like "toxic femininity" in everyday conversation.

I'm all about equality, baby.

                   

Its sad the way that SJWs have whipped up such hostile feeling between the sexes.

Feminists spread the most nasty bile about men. All men are privileged, all men are potential rapists, all men hate overweight women, all men benefit from women's oppression, etc.

Sadly as the mainstream media are on their side, then this shit becomes mainstream.

Worse than that feminists and SJWs will try and equate themselves with ALL women. If you say you hate them, that means you hate all women apparently.

Similarly if a woman says she is not part of their movement they will bully her into being part of it.

Katy Perry, Lily Allen, Kaley Cuoco, Taylor Swift, Nicole Kidman, Billie Piper, Lady Gaga, Amy Winehouse, Avril Lavigne ALL either said that they weren't feminists or just said something that went against their narrative, and feminists in all cases bullied them viciously until they had to say they were and apologise.

Amy and Avril were the only two who didn't give into their bullying. Sadly however in Amy's case I think that was just because she had bigger problems. Still other than her and Avril, all the rest were bullied in the most vicious ways into being feminists, or again for simply saying something that they didn't like.

All Nicole Kidman said was that since Trump is the President now we should just accept it, as whining about it won't do any good.

So feminists attacked her appearance, called her a moron and a traitor online, including uber cuck Joss Whedon. Joss Whedon mocks Nicole Kidman's looks and calls her a turd

Similarly all Laci Green, a feminist did was date an anti feminist Chris Ray Gun in her personal life, and the feminists doxxed her and attacked her online.





I can't think of anything that actually stops women from thinking for themselves, and being genuinely independent more than modern feminism. Well apart from Islam that is


Sadly as a result of this, though polls have shown that most women support equality between the sexes, but reject feminism for being the hateful, obnoxious cult that it is. Very few women and men are willing to speak out against it out of fear of being bullied. So the myth that ALL women support feminism becomes received wisdom and men end up hating women as a result too.

This just leads to male counterparts to feminism that are as equally stupid and poisonous like MGTOW growing in popularity too and bullshit theories about women emerging now too.

You can see this in the sci fi and fantasy genres which the SJWs have their talons locked around more than most (as its the easiest to bully.)

In the 90s and 00s whilst it wasn't perfect, things were genuinely fun. You had plenty of female heroes. My generation in particular had grown up on nothing but strong women in shows like Charmed, Xena and Buffy, but contemporary male heroes like Hercules and Angel weren't beta cucks.

Flash forward to now and female heroes have to be rewritten to hating men, going on about toxic masculinity, white male privilege etc, like in that awful Supergirl series, whilst a lot of male heroes like the Doctor have to be ashamed of being men.

These cunts poison everything and have set us back by about 50 years.

DeadManRising wrote:I wonder what William Hartnell would be thinking right now if he could see the sorry state of what Doctor Who has become over the past 10 years or so. I wonder what he would think of the writers turning his incarnation into a sexist pig for the Christmas special, even though in the original show's run he treated all of his companions equally. Poor bastard is probably turning in his grave right now. How anyone with even a glimmer of self respect and observational skills can still support this atrocity of a show is beyond me.      

Yes that's the sad thing. Hartnell's entire legacy has been trashed by this crap. Mofftwat has also actually insulted the strong women who worked on the show back then too.

Look at Barbara. Barbara was the Ellen Ripley of the 60s.

Strong, non sexualised, brave, does everything the men can do around her. Ironically there were very few women like her on tv in the 60s.

In the first story she makes them wait behind to help the caveman, in the initial Dalek story she goes into the cave system alongside the men and helps to overthrow the Daleks. At no point is she shown to not be able to do it because she's the woman.

The only character who has a break down and cries and says "there's no point" is a guy.

In Inside the Spaceship she is the one who figures out what is going wrong, chews the Hartnell Doctor out and he later has to go and apologise to her in particular.

In Keys of Marinus she is the only one who resists the aliens mind control and beats them to death, saving an entire civilisation, she also fights off a rapist, and figures out the identity of the criminal who is holding Susan hostage.

In The Aztecs, we see how she goes against the Doctor in an effort to change history.

In The Dalek Invasion of Earth, she not only survives on her own throughout most of the adventure, (alongside another strong female character, Jenny) but she also plows Daleks down in her truck, tricks them into taking her to their leader, figures out their key weakness, and comes up with the plan that brings down their entire invasion force!

On top of that we also had Vicki who was intelligent, interested in science, and eventually left to forge a life on her own in the past. Then there was Sara Kingdom who was a strong ruthless agent whose actress Jean Marsh even said was unlike most other women on tv during that time.

Then finally to top it all off the show was produced throughout most of the Hartnell era by a woman, Verity Lambert who Hartnell not only looked up to, and thought did a better job than any of the men who succeeded her, but who went on to become a hugely influential figure in the industry to women for decades to come.

Yes Susan was a bit of a wimp and Hartnell was over protective of her, but that was because she was a child. Also Susan was brave when it matted like in the first Dalek story. Also the whole point of the Dalek Invasion of Earth is that he finally realises that he needs to stop seeing Susan as a child, and let her go and find her own path in life.

Hartnell's Doctor always viewed women as his equals. At no point did he EVER talk down to Barbara or Sara Kingdom.

Yet now that little self loathing fanboy cuck Steven Moffat is saying that apparently the Hartnell era was sexist, and the female characters were nothing but screaming damsels and the Doctor always told them to make the tea and that the modern version is sooooooo much more progressive.

I'd take Barbara as a strong female character over fucking River Song, and Clara any day of the week Mofftwat.

As much as I hate the JN-T/Davison era, Peter Davison summed up my objection to La Whitaker nicely. There are all sorts of strong male, playing to type role models in media.

But there is currently only one.

And after the end of Twice Upon A Time, young boys won't have a current role model of a male playing against type and solving problems through intellect and discussion instead of immediately resorting to violence. I love John Wayne movies as much as the next guy and John Ford may well be the best movie maker that ever lived, but children need a broad number of media role models. While there ARE problems that the only honorable response to IS violence, there are problems tat should be solved by other means too.

The male Doctor playing against type is one of the most well-established and deeply ingrained components of DW, dating back to the middle of the Ian and Barbara era and was established as part of the formula by The Chase (see my review thereof). That's early to mid-1965 for the uninitiated.

I'm sure we've seen all the SJW screeds about "all the times Doctor Who was ruined forever" and it might do to dissect them, if the Forum has interest in that.

Hope this works for an answer; I really like how we can have This Discussion here without a bunch of SJW belligerence.

I'm sure we've seen all the SJW screeds about "all the times Doctor Who was ruined forever" and it might do to dissect them, if the Forum has interest in that.

Words can not express how much I HATE that argument of "Oh you guys complaining about it now is just like when people complained about Patrick Troughton." Or "Doctor Who is all about change, so every change is good".

Doctor Who is NOT all about change. It has a formula that can allow it to change if need be, but it has a lot of traditions too, and the traditions are the most important thing about it, as they are what enables it to still be the same show in SPITE of the changes.

Why is the TARDIS still a blue box? If all change is good, and unlike Time Lord gender bending this HAS been canon since the start. Why not have it change every week? (PS the Time Lords gender bending is canon argument is extremely hypocritical when the SJWs also say that all change is good.)

Why do the Daleks still have the same design, same characterisation of wanting to destroy all other life forms, and even still appear? If the show is all about change, ditch those monsters who were created in the 60s!

Ditto the Cybermen? Why do they still have the same personality, same ambitions, always have the handle bar ears, and why do they keep popping up?

Why does UNIT keep popping up? The Sontarans, the Silurians, the GI, the Sonic Screwdriver, the Master, etc.

Simple because these things all tell people that this is still Doctor Who, and they also make it one ongoing story too as we can see how the Doctors relationships and interactions with them develop over time.

So no DW is NOT all about change. It can change if need be, but there has to be a reason for it.

Changing William Hartnell into Patrick Troughton had a justification in that it was the only way the show could go on.

Setting the show on earth for a while had a justification in that it saved money, and after a ratings slump they wanted it to reconnect with people by setting it in more familiar surroundings "there's nothing more alarming that coming home and finding a Yeti sitting on your loo in Tootingbec."

Also I might add that a lot of these big changes the SJWs go on about happened in the time of the first 4 Doctors.

Back then they weren't actually changes. They were simply filling the blanks in. For instance during William Hartnell's era we knew NOTHING about the Time Lords. We literally didn't even know the name of the Doctors people. We also knew very little about why the Doctor ran away too.

So when we found out that the Doctor could regenerate, that his people were called Timelords, that he ran away because he was bored, that he only had 13 lives, that was just filling it in. Notice that after those things are filled in NOBODY dares to contradict them?

Even the 1996 movie for instance made damn sure that the 13 lives rule was still followed.

Other changes like the Dalek history and the Time Lords becoming corrupt were not as big either. Terry Nation again justified his changes in Genesis by saying that Genesis was a first hand account, where as in the Daleks all we had were a few historical records.

Bob Holmes meanwhile said that as far as he was concerned the Time Lords had ALWAYS appeared corrupt and he used the shows past to justify this.

He said that the Time Lords had the death penalty in the War Games. Not exactly a sign of a peaceful race. He said they also forced the Doctor to regenerate, and banished him for interference and then hypocritically sent him to interfere on other planets, and that they from the start produced all of these psychopaths and renegades, The Meddling Monk, The War Chief, The Master and Morbius.

He also said that it made no sense that someone like the Doctor would want to leave it, if it was the best place in the universe.

Yes there have been continuity errors in the shows past, but there have been continuity errors in every fucking series and work of fiction. Things like a few dates being wrong because a writer doesn't remember really are not the same as changing an entire characters motivation and history like they did with Missy and the Master.

I might add that there have been changes that have not worked too. Colin Bakers coat? Colin Baker choking Peri? The Doctor being half human? The Dalek Paradigm? The Tenth Doctor reacting to his regeneration like a whiny bitch?

All of these were tremendous failures with the viewers and the fans and the critics. So how do these people explain that? If the show is all about change?

Each change in DW must be judged on its own individual merits. You cannot just say "oh I'll change this massive aspect of the show, like say the TARDIS, I'll make it a Limo now because William Hartnell changed into Patrick Troughton."

THAT type of attitude sinks the show, as fans and long term viewers ditch it, but also new viewers will as well as they will eventually think "why I am watching this? Nothing in it matters. One week a character could die, and then the next they will be back."

This is exactly what happened in the Moffat era and surprise surprise its viewers tanked.

The SJWs can't justify ANY of their changes on their own merits, so they desperately have to say "William Hartnell changed into Patrick Troughton so this will work" and self loathing fanboys who don't want to appear sexist or as anorak fans will lap it up.

There is no argument for a female Doctor on its own, and plenty against doing it, which is why EVERY single producer prior to SJW bottom boy Steven Moffat rejected the idea on practical grounds.

As we have been over, the Doctor does have a definite template to his character. The SJW argument of "oh he can become anyone" is provably false when you look at the fact that, all the Doctors are mysterious, if he can become anyone why hasn't one told us his name? The fact that they all prefer non violent means but will use them if need be? The fact that they all love travelling and finding out things no one else has (which often gets them into trouble, like Bill Hartnell exploring the Dalek city, Davison staying on Androzani, or even Tennant staying in the year 100 Trillion.)

Again even physical characteristics like his long, big flowing hair, his love of frock coats, Edwardian/Victorian era clothing etc.

Added to that people who have worked on the show have always said that they can never change him too much. Terrance Dicks said that the single most important thing to do was to keep his personality basically the same, Tom Baker also said that there were so many things he couldn't do as then he wouldn't be the Doctor anymore.

So no you can't just do anything you want with the character. Now the Doctors gender is obviously a part of the template of his character as he has never been written as genderless, he has always been played by men, and all of his relationships have been from a male perspective.

So if you turn him into a woman, you'll be breaking the template as much as if you had the Doctor tell us his name.

Added to that the inclusion of identity politics into DW has been a proven failure already. The Peter Capaldi era, or the SJW era with its castrated Master, constant anti men jokes, racist anti white people remarks, cucked, mangina, toothless incarnation of the Doctor, actors like Michelle Gomez and Pearl Mackie solely being cast for box ticking, rather than because they were the best people for each role, characters having to remind us every two minutes "HEY I'M GAY AND I'M BLACK, HAVE ALL YOU RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC BREXIT VOTING, DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTING PLEBS GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT! LET ME MOFFAT EDUCATE YOU"

Not to mention its total disregard for the shows history like giving the Daleks a concept of mercy, making the Master in love with the Doctor, Cyber Brig, changing why the Doctor ran away (because again the attitude became lets do what we want all change is good.)

All of this caused the show to shed two million viewers every fucking year to the point where it was down at 2 million, literally the lowest its ever been!

So for these reasons a female Doctor is a terrible concept and any producer who was looking at it an objective way would think "well that's not going to work".

However again the SJWs like Whovian Feminism who don't give a shit about what's good for the show, only in sticking it to evil cis white men, just shouts over these rational arguments with "you're a racist" or "all change is good" and the self loathing fanboy cucks lap it up which is ultimately what has destroyed the show in the eyes of the public and its true fans.

Can I repost this? You just knocked the ball out of the park.

Plain Old Dave wrote:Can I repost this? You just knocked the ball out of the park.

Sure thing. I've said this many times before, and I always either get ignored or get told "All change is good" or I am a misogynist who is upset at woman having starring roles, even though I probably like more female led and created forms of entertainment than most.

Hell look at my profile pic! She's my favourite singer of all time!

PS I don't know why we never use their logic against them? I mean all of this if we don't like a female Doctor that means we can't stand ALL female heroes? Why not if you don't like a male Doctor you don't like seeing strong men on tv?

Funny thing is you could actually argue that that is the case more with them than people who don't want a female Doctor.

Not wanting a female Doctor doesn't suggest you have a problem with female leads at all. You just don't think this one character should morph into a woman after 50 years because its jarring and feels out of place and ruins the consistency of the character, and is in danger of turning it into a parody.

After all its not like the female Doctor is even a female character. She's a man turned into a woman against his will! She's not a trans character either who has chosen to change and feels more comfortable in the gender they want to be. Its literally like if someone knocked James Bond out and then performed a sex change operation on him when he was asleep.

However the pro female Doctor advocates like Whovian Feminism to start with constantly complained any time this male hero was portrayed as strong, or saved the day instead of his female sidekick, or any time that a supporting female character's live revolved around him.

See here.

Problematic Posters For Doctor Who

University Study on Doctor Who

How Doctor Who Delivered A Righteously Feminist Finale

The Depressing Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who

And they demanded that the character not only be changed into a woman, but that it also be rewritten that this character was NEVER a male. He was apparently always genderless and never identified as a man, in fact he didn't even notice that he was a man, yet paradoxically when he was a man he was such a disgusting sexist that he now wants to become a woman to make up for it!

We've not done the same thing to female heroes. We've not shown such unbelievable discomfort over the fact that Buffy saved Spike's ass all the time, or that Xena saved the day. No one's upset that Cole in Charmed, Ares in Xena, and Spike in Buffy's lives revolved around the main female characters (as well they shouldn't)

And we haven't demanded that Xena, a strong icon for little girls be rewritten so that she was never technically female, yet also be ashamed of having been a woman, because when she was a woman she was a nagging bitch (even though that was never the case, like the first Doctor being a sexist, lets just write in this offensive stereotype anyway.)

Are we then going to abuse Xena fans who don't like this change online and in mainstream newspapers and comedy shows as sad ugly fat virgins who hate men because no man wants to fuck them, or gloat about "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA You little girls have lost a role model and I couldn't be happier!"

Its such a double standard.

Not really saw anything from her performance to hate. I just think it's an idea that could and looks like if this is anything to go by but could really backfire.
We live in a post Doctor Who world these days.
I'll be back in here at Christmas of course!
Until then the other day I saw the new video from MGMT, "When You Die".
I think the visual effects at 3.34 should be used for her title sequence and is another rod of disappointment for myself by having the last few minutes of this video as the new credits.
Some good points in this thread though.
Can't embed on this device but https://youtu.be/tmozGmGoJuw
It gets NSFW lyrically in the second verse. I also like how the man at the end could be clapping for Jodie! You'd have to see that video to understand my last sentence.
What I really feel is that more shouldn't be put into Jodie than computer effect technology developments.
That direction over social trends.

I took the time to watch Jodie's performance in Black Mirror. Quite liked it actually, and she was pretty coherant with her yorkshire accent

Boofer wrote:I don't hate it per se, but now that the reasons for the casting have become clear I can't take the decision very seriously. I'd have hoped Jodie had given the best audition, but this doesn't really seem the case when you hear Moffat's reasoning for the change. I mean, just who else was auditioned? Could we be missing out on someone incredible just because of a political decision? I'll always wonder now.

The idea of a female Doctor just doesn't get on my man tits as much as, say, the Lothario aspect of the New Series character, the overuse of 'magic' solutions, corny humour, pop culture references and jarringly juxtaposed, saccharin emotional scenes in otherwise okay stories.

If all that shit drops out of the show in the next series and Jodie stays put, I'll probably be more enthused than I have been for the last 12 years or so. Put it this way, there are still episodes I haven't seen from Smith and Capaldi's era because I have an aversion to masochism.

From what I've seen of Jodie, I wouldn't say she's in the top 10% of actors according to ability. No doubt she's very able, and worse actors have played the role over the years, but Capaldi set a new standard for acting on the show in spite of the grot he had to work with. There's a real chance she could come across as very lightweight.

I agree almost entirely.
We all know they're messing with the mythology of the program for political reasons, but I wouldn't have a problem with it if I thought it was going to be any good.
The political climate has evolved in a direction which makes it possible to do what would've been previously be considered a "gimmick". And I do think there's still that element to it, although it's now in second position to politics.
But I'm afraid that if they can't get it right with Capaldi in the role, then it doesn't matter a damn who they cast.

I still think Pam Dawber would have been the perfect choice to succeed king Sylvester back in the early Nineties. She had that presence, that charisma and eccentricity and that all important gusto. She played a quirky but zestful photographer in the mid Eighties and I just thought of the Doctor while I watched her.  I actually cast her in my fan fiction series which I plan to write at some point in the coming months.

The idea has been bandied about for a long while, probably since Bidmead was involved in the show in 1980. But I've never liked the idea. My feeling was always that whenever suggested, it was a pure novelty idea that would probably push the series too much into the realms of a novelty show, and diminish what gave the show a genuine reverence for me.

I also thought in the age of Eastenders, it was a shame that few positive male role models were out there, and it would be a tragic decision to turn the Doctor, as one of the few on the market, into a woman.

I think I really started to hate the idea though when Moffat's era made it clear that he was just retconning it as the kind of thing that always happened in Time Lord regenerations, and that the Doctor's every male regeneration so far was suddenly being made out to have been a fluke each time.

At least when fan films explored the idea of it happening, they tended to portray it as a regeneration gone wrong for a particular reason to explain why this was a one-off.

With all that out the way, I think with the lead-up to Jodie, I was still kind of surprised they were going there, but I'd lost investment in the show anyway. So I'm not sure I was even capable of caring how wrong or otherwise it was anymore.

But what bothered me I think was the mealy mouthed justifications for the change that made no sense. Chibnall making out that the show could've ended up "left behind" if it didn't make that change, as if the appeal of Doctor Who as a male hero which had made the show a success in recent years, was now non-existent.

On top of that there was the sense in fandom that we were all being obliged to insipidly cheer the decision and unconditionally like her because she's a female Doctor. And I didn't like the idea of that at all. Because it meant I had to feel nothing but dispassionately neutral and vanilla about her. Having the capacity to hate or dislike something is important because it's essential to having the capacity to feel love for something too. You can't just feel love or nothing. And that seemed confirmed to me by the first episode with all the companions being a bit too quick to trust and admire Jodie on first impressions rather than doubt her as some crazy woman who thinks she's an alien, which I felt would've been the more believable option.

As for the final result, in terms of what I make of Jodie's Doctor in action, I think the problem is, quite often in desperation to prove she's still the Doctor we know, Chibnall would often have her take some of the Doctor's previous stances to a ridiculous degree. Her anti-gun stance in The Ghost Monument and Arachnids in the UK for instance is clearly meant to sell her as the same Doctor, but just makes her look like an unbelievable idiot determined to endanger her companions' lives needlessly.

But also, the feeling and dynamic of Jodie's Doctor is unfortunately one that takes some of the excitement and adventure out of the show, because it feels like the danger and risk is neutered by essentially having someone's overprotective mother tagging along in the Doctor's place, and taking a lot of the risk out by mollycoddling everyone.

I'm not so much against the idea of a female Doctor in principle, as the reasons it was done.
If it had been established in the 70s or 80s that inter-gender regeneration was possible for Time Lords, then fine. But we all know its just pandering to the current politically motivated zeitgeist
I actually find other things that have been done to the show far more offensive than having a female doctor. Changing the whole personality and character of not only the Doctor, but the show itself, is far more offensive to me than casting a woman.
Having said that, from what little I've seen of 'Missy', there was absolutely no good reason to change the Master's gender, when could've simply brought back the Rani.

Ronnie wrote:I'm not so much against the idea of a female Doctor in principle,  as the reasons it was done.
If it had been established in the 70s or 80s that inter-gender regeneration was possible for Time Lords, then fine. But we all know its just pandering to the current politically motivated zeitgeist
I actually find other things that have been done to the show far more offensive than having a female doctor. Changing the whole personality and character of not only the Doctor, but the show itself, is far more offensive to me than casting a woman.
Having said that,  from what little I've seen of 'Missy', there was absolutely no good reason to change the Master's gender, when could've simply brought back the Rani.

Missy is far worse than Jodie. Its not even close. I'd rather watch all of series 11 over and over than Dark Water/Death in Heaven. As I have been over a gazillion times a female Master could have worked. He's a body snatcher after all, unlike the Doctor where you'd have to rewrite every time lord into being gender neutral to change him, the Master could have just taken over someone like he did Tremas.

If she had then been written in character, hating the Doctor, wanting to take over, then fine, who would have even noticed?

Moffat was such a hack however he bungled that to an extent I didn't even think was possible. If Missy was a male she would still be shit.

Then again Jon Blum said she was the best since Delgado and apparently identical to a version he created so he should get the praise. I can't imagine anyone wanting to take credit for Missy of all characters.

Well if you ask me The Master has been totally shit since John Simm, so changing gender is not the absolute worst thing that can be done. From what bit I saw of the character in The Magicians Apprentice, she was basically the Rani, but with the added hyberbole and OTT inane stupidity that we should expect from NuWho since RTD got his hands on it.

Ronnie wrote:Well if you ask me The Master has been totally shit since John Simm, so changing gender is not the absolute worst thing that can be done. From what bit I saw of the character in The Magicians Apprentice, she was basically the Rani, but with the added hyberbole and OTT inane stupidity that we should expect from NuWho since RTD got his hands on it.

John Simm's Master was absolutely appalling in Last of the Time Lords, which is still one of the worst episodes of all time.

With the Simm Master, RTD rewrote the character to being a third rate Joker/Callisto knock off, and completely botched his relationship with the Doctor to the point where it undermined both characters.

Still he was nowhere near as bad as Gomez. Simm's Master at least still wanted to take over the galaxy, still hated the Doctor, was still manipulative, and was still a genuine threat to the Doctor.

Missy was NONE of those things. Having a Master that doesn't want to rule is like having a Magneto that doesn't control metal, or a Joker that isn't a clown. Its in his name! At least Simm got that right.

Also I don't think Missy was like the Rani at all. The Rani was a good villain. Okay Time and the Rani is absolute pants, but that's not her fault. The Rani has a proper motivation, was treated seriously and refreshingly wasn't in love with the male hero. In fact she held him in contempt.

Missy meanwhile is almost like a parody of a female villain. She literally has no other motivations, no other aspects to her character, but to want to be with the male hero.

Even femme fatales from the 40s would at least have some other kind of motivation like Catwoman, who is a thief. Missy however, what aspect of her character isn't linked to "I want to be with my boyfriend?"

She's an appalling character all around.

burrunjor wrote:

Ronnie wrote:Well if you ask me The Master has been totally shit since John Simm, so changing gender is not the absolute worst thing that can be done. From what bit I saw of the character in The Magicians Apprentice, she was basically the Rani, but with the added hyberbole and OTT inane stupidity that we should expect from NuWho since RTD got his hands on it.

John Simm's Master was absolutely appalling in Last of the Time Lords, which is still one of the worst episodes of all time.

With the Simm Master, RTD rewrote the character to being a third rate Joker/Callisto knock off, and completely botched his relationship with the Doctor to the point where it undermined both characters.

Still he was nowhere near as bad as Gomez. Simm's Master at least still wanted to take over the galaxy, still hated the Doctor, was still manipulative, and was still a genuine threat to the Doctor.

Missy was NONE of those things. Having a Master that doesn't want to rule is like having a Magneto that doesn't control metal, or a Joker that isn't a clown. Its in his name! At least Simm got that right.

Also I don't think Missy was like the Rani at all. The Rani was a good villain. Okay Time and the Rani is absolute pants, but that's not her fault. The Rani has a proper motivation, was treated seriously and refreshingly wasn't in love with the male hero. In fact she held him in contempt.

Missy meanwhile is almost like a parody of a female villain. She literally has no other motivations, no other aspects to her character, but to want to be with the male hero.

Even femme fatales from the 40s would at least have some other kind of motivation like Catwoman, who is a thief. Missy however, what aspect of her character isn't linked to "I want to be with my boyfriend?"

She's an appalling character all around.

Agreed, though I thought Simm was even worse in The End Of Time, which I’d say prior to Missy was the single worst Master performance. He’s the most unbelievably hammy and exaggerated Master to that point in that story, and the “Dinner Time!” scenes just exacerbate this.