The New "It Begins" thread- Without the BS of cabbageboy and Mike

Mr. Happy wrote:Only the second? Forgive me for missing the obvious, but for the sake of clarity, what was the first?

Chris Chibnall. As Ian Levine said "he's put the final nail into Doctor Who". Although to be fair it was Moffat who made this gender bending bullshit actually part of the show.

Yes it had been mentioned in the mainstream media before, but it wasn't ever an actual part of the show. Again everything suggested it wasn't a part of the show.

It was said that time lords could control their appearance when they regenerate and we actually saw that with Romana and the Master. So again with this in mind why the hell did every single time lord male and female stick to being the same gender?

Furthermore if they don't choose their appearance, then what are the chances that the Doctor, THe Master, Rassilon, Azmahel, Morbius would all keep the same gender by chance?

Steven Moffat however completely discarded all of that because he wanted to win brownie points with the feminists who unfairly smeared him as a sexist and changed it that time lords not only change gender when they regenerate but that they don't even notice the differences between men and women either. So what Time Lords are like Sontarans now? Is the female Doctor going to call her male companion girl?

If Moffat hadn't done that then this female Doctor shit would never have even been even an option. Hence why no producer before Moff, even RTD he could be a bit of an SJW at times never even considered a female Doctor. Moff however saw a female Doctor and Master as a way to win round the SJW's who had slandered him as a misogynist. Chibnall just carried on where he left off, but still Chibnalls move is worse than any of Moff's so yeah its hard to say as one led to this shit, but the other dealt the death blow.

Perhaps someone just needs to gently point out to these NuWho retconning morons that when Time Lords die and are reborn it is called "regeneration" rather than "regenderation"?

They can't seem to tell the fucking difference.

Then again, these NuWho dribbling imbecilic morons seem to think The Doctor is a "shape-shifter" these days, (they seem to be getting him confused with the TARDIS exterior), so I'm rather hoping that the next Doctor will come back as either a Grand Piano, some sentient gas or as a flock of nightingales...

Let's face it, Moffats legacy is to make the likes of JNT look like fucking Hinchcliffe or Letts.

I wouldn't have thought it previously possible, but he actually out-did RTD with the retconning fucking bullshit.

Rob Filth wrote: These NuWho dribbling imbecilic morons seem to think The Doctor is a "shape-shifter" these days, (they seem to be getting him confused with the TARDIS exterior), so I'm rather hoping that the next Doctor will come back as either a Grand Piano, some sentient gas or as a flock of nightingales...

Indeed I ALWAYS see that argument from the pro female Doctor camp "well the Doctor is a shapeshifter so why not regenerate into a woman"?

THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT! Technically you could bring in anything you wanted with that thinking as none of its real. I could write it in that in this regeneration the Doctor has gained new super powers which include being able to fly, shoot ray beams from his eyes, breath fire, and has super strength greater than the Hulk.

And again they never said they COULDN'T get those types of powers when they regenerate did they? Also its something new isn't it? So there you could make all the same lame ass, flimsy arguments for that as you could for the Doctor changing gender.

Also since when does being a shapeshifter mean you have no gender? Look at Mystique from the X-Men. Does she have no gender? She's a greater shapeshifter than the Doctor and she is an unbelievably feminine character.

burrunjor wrote:

Mr. Happy wrote:Only the second? Forgive me for missing the obvious, but for the sake of clarity, what was the first?

Chris Chibnall. As Ian Levine said "he's put the final nail into Doctor Who". Although to be fair it was Moffat who made this gender bending bullshit actually part of the show.

Everybody keeps saying final nail and straw and similar. That's fair enough if that's their opinion but it acknowledges a point that seems to be widely ignored. People are acting like Chibnall put a brick through the windscreen of a highly polished tuned-up sports car. He didn't. It was a clapped out old wreck by the time he got his hands on it.

Would a female Doctor have made a Cyber-Brig, a crying Davros or the moon being an egg any worse as stories or any stupider as concepts? Not in my opinion. They would have been total write offs as stories no matter who was playing the Doctor. And that's one of the reasons that JW's casting doesn't bother me. (Not the only one, mind).

http://www.doctorwho.tv/whats-new/article/doctor-who-and-the-toilet-agenda-of-series-10

burrunjor wrote:

Rob Filth wrote: These NuWho dribbling imbecilic morons seem to think The Doctor is a "shape-shifter" these days, (they seem to be getting him confused with the TARDIS exterior), so I'm rather hoping that the next Doctor will come back as either a Grand Piano, some sentient gas or as a flock of nightingales...

Indeed I ALWAYS see that argument from the pro female Doctor camp "well the Doctor is a shapeshifter so why not regenerate into a woman"?

THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT! Technically you could bring in anything you wanted with that thinking as none of its real. I could write it in that in this regeneration the Doctor has gained new super powers which include being able to fly, shoot ray beams from his eyes, breath fire, and has super strength greater than the Hulk.

Indeed.

However my reply to the morons is: Well who'd have thought it? All these years and Frobisher the Penguin has been passing himself off as the lead character, whilst the 6th Doctor is still locked up in a TARDIS cupboard somewhere!

She only started watching DW with Eccelston

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/doctor-who/news/a835443/doctor-who-jodie-whittaker-christoper-eccleston-sparked-interest/

What a shocker.

I really couldn't give a shit about the The Doctor being a woman. To be honest, I haven't really seen much of the stuff that Jodie Whittaker has been in (never watched Broadchurch), but I'm at least willing to throw her a bone just to see how she gets on with the role.

To me, the most important thing about this whole argument is that she is written for correctly. Like when it was revealed that Bill was gay, lets be honest here, they didn't really make a huge song and about it like they did with Barrowman and his character. They referenced it here and there, but never over-emphasised it like with Captain Jack. It was part of her character, but it wasn't her entire personality. As long as the writing is appropriate to the characters, I'll personally have no problem.

Also, I hope she keeps her Yorkshire accent. I would love to hear someone from where I live say "Ey up Davros, 'ars tha' goin' on?"

EDIT:

Mr. Happy wrote:

Would a female Doctor have made a Cyber-Brig, a crying Davros or the moon being an egg any worse as stories or any stupider as concepts? Not in my opinion. They would have been total write offs as stories no matter who was playing the Doctor. And that's one of the reasons that JW's casting doesn't bother me. (Not the only one, mind).

This guy gets what I mean.

I really couldn't give a shit about the The Doctor being a woman. To be honest, I haven't really seen much of the stuff that Jodie Whittaker has been in (never watched Broadchurch), but I'm at least willing to throw her a bone just to see how she gets on with the role.

Please don't take this the wrong way I'm not having a go or anything, but I honestly don't understand how anyone who is a Doctor Who fan could say "it makes no difference one way or the other". I understand that less than the people who really want a female Doctor TBH.

How could you think the characters gender doesn't matter? Gender is a big part of everyone's personality, including trans people. If there were no differences between genders why the hell would trans people change? Look at the absolute agony Blaire White a trans woman has gone through in the last few weeks just to go through part of her transition.

Men and women are equal but different, and so to act as though a change of gender is like a new hair cut is wrong IMO. Now obviously yes you can have a character change gender, but there needs to be a reason for it. Either write them as being like a real trans person, IE wanting to do it, or write them as a genderless being who doesn't care.

Now ask yourself do either of those options not only fit the Doctor, but every time lord character (which is what you're bringing in if you do that) Could Susan be Brian Blessed? Romana be Vinnie Jones? Or Borusa be Shania Twain?

o me, the most important thing about this whole argument is that she is written for correctly. Like when it was revealed that Bill was gay, lets be honest here, they didn't really make a huge song and about it like they did with Barrowman and his character. They referenced it here and there, but never over-emphasised it like with Captain Jack. It was part of her character, but it wasn't her entire personality. As long as the writing is appropriate to the characters, I'll personally have no problem

Actually I feel the opposite. I loved Captain Jack because he had a proper character. He had an interesting backstory, we saw him go from a cowardly self serving conman, to a dashing hero, to a tormented character.

Also I liked the way he was kind of a merging of the old style heroes like Dan Dare and the modern, angsty anti heroes like Angel and Xena.

Like Dan he was very much a gentleman, and John Barrowman was also quite light and breezy in some ways which is more like heroes of the 60's who used to take things in their stride, whilst at the same time he obviously had the "I've done bad things" backstory of heroes like Angel. Even his look was almost a weird mash up of Dan Dare and Angel.

Yes his sexuality was mentioned a lot, but I didn't mind as to be fair straight characters sexuality is often mentioned a lot too. Look at Amy.

With Bill however to start with I honestly couldn't tell you much about her personality other than lesbian. Didn't she have a mother? I can't remember if her mothers dead or alive. Also with Bill it wasn't that she mentioned it a lot that bothered me. I wouldn't give a shit if she was a promiscuous character oggling every attractive woman she saw. Its just that they didn't give her a character at all.

Also it was tedious off the way she'd go on about how she has to deal with racism all the time. UGH its the 21st century and she lives in London and works at a university. Bill was better than Clara of course, but that wouldn't be hard.

burrunjor wrote:Please don't take this the wrong way I'm not having a go or anything, but I honestly don't understand how anyone who is a Doctor Who fan could say "it makes no difference one way or the other".

It kind of helps if you stop considering the show as Doctor Who. It's been Doctor Who in name and some imagery only since the first episode in 2005 and nothing from classic Who matters unless a writer wants to throw in some fanservice, where again, it's most likely in name and imagery only and will be written differently.

The show is it's own thing and should be treated that way, any connection to classic Who is best being ignored since that's how the writers seem to treat it. Even within NuWho the connection between eras is weak with Moffat choosing to retcon almost everything from the RTD era so he could do his thing. It's elevated fanfiction with no strong ties to the classic show.

This is NuWho and NuWho has shown that timelords can swap genders when regenerating so it's not that big of an issue when you judge the show for what it is. At this point if they can deliver even one run of episodes with good competent writing it'll be an improvement.

Well it would be easier to do that if Moffat didn't keep throwing 10,000 continuity references per episode down our throats in a desperate bid to pretend it's the same thing.

burrunjor wrote: Could Susan be Brian Blessed?

You mean King Yrcanos was Susan all along?

iank wrote:Well it would be easier to do that if Moffat didn't keep throwing 10,000 continuity references per episode down our throats in a desperate bid to pretend it's the same thing.

Like I said though, when he does it they're never the same as they were in classic Who. They may have the same names and similar designs but they always get stuck with the same generic characterless writing. Again, it's shameless fanservice, like a bad fanfiction writer was so desperate to show off how much they know the show by throwing in as many references as they could despite every level of their writing demonstrating that they have little to know understanding of what the show really is.

J.J. Abrams did the same thing with both Star Trek and Star Wars.

NuWho is NuWho, it does its own thing, has its own tone and mythology. It doesn't try to emulate classic Who and only follows it in the loosest sense possible. It's Doctor Who in name only and could easily have been an original show but they wanted that brand recognition and built-in audience to make bank. Moffat trying to show off how much of a fan he is by throwing a bunch of member berries into the pot does nothing to change that.

Burrunjor can't understand how people can be Doctor Who fans and be indifferent to a female Doctor in NuWho. I don't speak for anyone else but I can't understand how people can follow this show and still think it matters. "Rose" had a burping bin, a plastic Mickey replica talking about p-p-pizza, and the Doctor saving the day with a single vial of anti-plastic. It's been 12 years and the show has been so far removed from anything resembling classic Who since day 1. If we were in an alternate universe where NuWho followed classic Who more closely I'd understand the points being made but this is not only the NuWho that has never been like the classic show, but also the same show where Moffat couldn't even follow the RTD era without wiping most of it away with his cracks arc. If you take both of those into account then complaining that a female Doctor is a retcon or against canon or taints the classic show in some way is pointless and silly.

It's been 12 years, there has to be a point where we judge NuWho for what it is and not the older show we wish it was. NuWho has shown that timelords can change gender and race. Classic Who may never have done that but this isn't classic Who. Even ignoring the classic show, there are so many fundamental flaws that make NuWho a pile of shit, why add to that by judging it for not being a show it doesn't even try to be? Don't attack the show because it cast a female (especially before we've had a chance to see how her character is written and portrayed), attack it because so far it hasn't even been able to manage the very basics of storytelling like:
1. Be entertaining
2. Make sense
3. Have a satisfying conclusion.

To get an idea of what we'll be in for I've been watching Broadchurch and Trust Me and there are a few reasons to have doubts about Jodie Whittaker's casting as the Doctor, her being a woman isn't really one of them.

But again, it's all very well saying that, but as Genkimonk kind of indirectly indicated when he said he was finding the original show spoiled by the current BS, that's not the attitude of the program makers or the BBC. They're consistently and continually trying to pretend it IS the same thing. It's all very well saying it clearly isn't, but when those in charge are adamant that it is, then there's no way they should be allowed to be exempt from such criticism. They have tried to have their cake and eat it too, and I fail to see why they should get away with it.
You say yourself that it was trading on the coat-tails of the original show from day one, so I see zero reason why it shouldn't be criticized for failing to live up to it.
If this had been a straight "Reboot" from the start? Fine. I'd have probably given up during the Tennant era. But that's not what it's been sold as, so why should they be allowed to still get away with false advertising? FFS they're shoving a Hartnell cosplayer in the Xmas special!

And, of course, an even bigger issue is that this is, for better or worse, what Doctor Who is now, essentially wrecking any hope of anything remotely resembling the real program ever being made again, let alone a real continuation. Which is utterly and completely unforgivable.

To be honest I don't really give a shit if the next Doctor is female because Dr Who has been (mostly) shit anyway since it came back in 2005. In fact that's not true - it has been shit since that crap TV Movie way back in 1996.

It's time to move on folks and forget this NuWho crap and instead watch, enjoy (through nostalgia) the proper classic show from 1963 to 1989 and there are tons of brilliant big finish audio adventures out there.

iank wrote:But again, it's all very well saying that, but as Genkimonk kind of indirectly indicated when he said he was finding the original show spoiled by the current BS, that's not the attitude of the program makers or the BBC. They're consistently and continually trying to pretend it IS the same thing. It's all very well saying it clearly isn't, but when those in charge are adamant that it is, then there's no way they should be allowed to be exempt from such criticism. They have tried to have their cake and eat it too, and I fail to see why they should get away with it.
You say yourself that it was trading on the coat-tails of the original show from day one, so I see zero reason why it shouldn't be criticized for failing to live up to it.
If this had been a straight "Reboot" from the start? Fine. I'd have probably given up during the Tennant era. But that's not what it's been sold as, so why should they be allowed to still get away with false advertising? FFS they're shoving a Hartnell cosplayer in the Xmas special!

And, of course, an even bigger issue is that this is, for better or worse, what Doctor Who is now, essentially wrecking any hope of anything remotely resembling the real program ever being made again, let alone a real continuation. Which is utterly and completely unforgivable.

I don't think anybody is saying it shouldn't be criticised or should get an easy ride. It's more about prioritising writing quality over casting and achieving happiness on a personal level unless for some reason you enjoy being angry about a female Doctor or the new series failing to meet your expectations.

They also had a Hartnell cosplayer in The Five Doctors.

There has never been any hope of a real continuation of the classic series because the BBC are always going to have a preference for modern populism. They don't want a niche audience.

Arthur Stengos wrote:To be honest I don't really give a shit if the next Doctor is female because Dr Who has been (mostly) shit anyway since it came back in 2005. In fact that's not true - it has been shit since that crap TV Movie way back in 1996.

It's time to move on folks and forget this NuWho crap and instead watch, enjoy (through nostalgia) the proper classic show from 1963 to 1989 and there are tons of brilliant big finish audio adventures out there.

Quite right.

The fixation we Brits have with Who seems to be indicative of the paucity of good British sci-fi over the last 2 decades or so.

Primeval was decent enough, but other than the occasional gem (Children of Earth/Black Mirror), sci-fi fans haven't been served well by domestic television in recent years.

Reckon you'd all give much less of a fuck if we were spoiled for choice. As it stands we're addicted to (and proprietorial about) DW because it's pretty much the only thing out there (other than the US crap).

Karen Gillan wants to play a female Joker

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-08-14/karen-gillan-wants-to-play-a-female-joker

There has never been any hope of a real continuation of the classic series because the BBC are always going to have a preference for modern populism. They don't want a niche audience.

To be honest I think this is a bit of a defeatest attitude of.

I'd argue that if RTD had actually tried to make it similar to Classic Who then it would be in a better place than it is now.

Yes RTD's era was successful initially, but to be honest it did not work as a long lasting formula.

The reason Classic Who's formula worked was because it was more basic. Just the Doctor goes on fun adventures fighting monsters. Everyone loves that, and if it had some money behind it, the stories were shorter and more digestible, then really I think it would have been okay. They could have cast a big hunk as the companion, and a babe as the sidekick and if they must have a romance between them and got the young audiences in that way, but kept the Doctor as the Doctor.

That way they could have had more variation among the companions, more variation among the Doctors.

However by deciding to make the companion the most important person in the show they dug themselves down a pit.

burrunjor wrote:

There has never been any hope of a real continuation of the classic series because the BBC are always going to have a preference for modern populism. They don't want a niche audience.

To be honest I think this is a bit of a defeatest attitude of.

I'd argue that if RTD had actually tried to make it similar to Classic Who then it would be in a better place than it is now.

Yes RTD's era was successful initially, but to be honest it did not work as a long lasting formula.

The reason Classic Who's formula worked was because it was more basic. Just the Doctor goes on fun adventures fighting monsters. Everyone loves that, and if it had some money behind it, the stories were shorter and more digestible, then really I think it would have been okay. They could have cast a big hunk as the companion, and a babe as the sidekick and if they must have a romance between them and got the young audiences in that way, but kept the Doctor as the Doctor.

That way they could have had more variation among the companions, more variation among the Doctors.

However by deciding to make the companion the most important person in the show they dug themselves down a pit.

There is still plenty of call for adventure orientated SF. Just look at Star Wars, Guardians of the Galaxy, War of the Planet of the Apes and the recent Valerian movie. I wish they had gone down this route as it suits my tastes so I don't entirely disagree with you.

But for whatever reason, the BBC just doesn't seem to work like that. DW did become niche in the eighties, however, and the BBC wanted to distance itself because of what I can only assume is snobbery. The BBC famously didn't even want McCoy in the TVM. It was only Philip Seagal's insistence that made that happen as he wanted to produce real who and not a knock-off. I just can't see the BBC wanting to recommission the show in 2005 without modernising.

I think the RTD model did very well and would have continued to do. I don't see Moffat's era as a continuation of that, more of a corruption. I take it you disagree?

I think the adventure orientated route also requires a certain amount of spectacle and the BBC don't feel they have the budget to be able to do this adequately.