Jodie Whittaker as Dr Who

61653 HTAFC · 9 Oct 2018

I dread to think what the reaction will be if/when a non-white or non-male James Bond* is announced!

*=the Bond canon did have a get-out for a 007 to be someone other than a white male (the name "James Bond" being a pseudonym given to whichever agent is the current 007), however Skyfall (the "Bond" family home, apparently...) rather fudged that!

Also, I'll just leave this here:

RailUK Forums

gswindale · 9 Oct 2018

Is early days yet, but no issues so far for me with the cast. Seems to be a very representative cross section of modern day Britain, which can only be a good thing.

I'm also looking forward to seeing new villains and not the same old rehashed Dalek/Cybermen stories again!

michael74 · 10 Oct 2018

Growing up at the end of Tom Baker into the slightly odd world of Colin Baker and then the really bonkers world of Sylvester McCoy. In my opinion anything before or after Russell T Davies/Christopher Eccleston just does not hit the mark, with David Tennant a close second.

I found this weeks episode to be alright, it all got a bit too Northern for me (and I am from the North, its why I could never get into Game of Thrones...) A new Dr is always hard for at least 2 episodes there has to be so much of the old Dr while the new Dr completes regeneration. But I was still left a little cold at the end. As for gender of the new Dr I think one thing this episode did was prove that its not actually important and did not make a difference to the character.

I agree with past comments about overly complex sub plot story-lines (again its not just Dr Who that is guilty of this) for me they really confuse me and if you take your eye off the ball for one moment and miss a subtle reference (Bad Wolf anyone) you can be left wondering where the plot has gone and expected to remember plots and story lines from weeks ago.

As for companions, generally 1 was one enough, 2 is company, 3 is a crowd and unnecessary. Its a good job there is plenty of room in the TARDIS.

Bradly Walsh... I'm really not convinced, although I doubted Bernard Cribbins and in the end he wasn't too bad.... was he?

I will keep watching and I am sure it will improve and the Christmas special (if there is one) should be enjoyable.

Let us never ever speak of Paul McGann....

PeterC · 10 Oct 2018

I will be interested to see how the scriptwriters handle the gender issues in any stories set on Earth before the last quarter of the 20th century.

WelshBluebird · 10 Oct 2018

Personally, I really enjoyed it.
Generally it is hard to judge a doctor on their first episode, so we shall see how it goes but I am liking her so far.

Not totally convinced by the "team" of companions yet, though I do think some of the previous episodes where there was a more of a team (think Amy, Rory and Rory's dad, or Rose and mickey etc) works really well so willing to give it a go.

Butts said:
I didn't particularly feel a Female Doctor was a great innovation

Can I ask why?
The doctor is an alien who has two hearts, can change their body (including getting "younger" - obviously not in age but certainly in what age they look like) when they "die" and has a blue box that can travel in time and space.
Why on earth (or Gallifrey

) is it so outrageous that the doctor is now female?

Butts said:
To be fair to her there was no continuity linking this new series with the previous one in terms of companions or adversaries.

You could probably say that for a lot of episodes though. Hell some of the newer adversaries have turned out to be pretty popular with fans! (e.g. Weeping Angels). I don't think it is fair to judge it on just the first episode.

Geezertronic · 10 Oct 2018

WelshBluebird said:
Not totally convinced by the "team" of companions yet, though I do think some of the previous episodes where there was a more of a team (think Amy, Rory and Rory's dad, or Rose and mickey etc) works really well so willing to give it a go.

What struck me is that through the whole of the first episode, The Doctor was still wearing her previous incarnations clothes and didn't get her costume until the end of the episode. Now the publicity shots (particularly the one at the top of this BBC News article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45763549) had The Doctor wearing her costume but in this photo she appears with the Gran (far right) who died during the first episode before The Doctor changed clothes. So is this an error or does a future story line bring the Gran back to life?

PeterC · 10 Oct 2018

Geezertronic said:
What struck me is that through the whole of the first episode, The Doctor was still wearing her previous incarnations clothes and didn't get her costume until the end of the episode. Now the publicity shots (particularly the one at the top of this BBC News article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45763549) had The Doctor wearing her costume but in this photo she appears with the Gran (far right) who died during the first episode before The Doctor changed clothes. So is this an error or does a future story line bring the Gran back to life?

She can always cross her own timeline.

Butts · 10 Oct 2018

WelshBluebird said:
Personally, I really enjoyed it.
Generally it is hard to judge a doctor on their first episode, so we shall see how it goes but I am liking her so far.

Not totally convinced by the "team" of companions yet, though I do think some of the previous episodes where there was a more of a team (think Amy, Rory and Rory's dad, or Rose and mickey etc) works really well so willing to give it a go.

Can I ask why?
The doctor is an alien who has two hearts, can change their body (including getting "younger" - obviously not in age but certainly in what age they look like) when they "die" and has a blue box that can travel in time and space.
Why on earth (or Gallifrey ) is it so outrageous that the doctor is now female?

Perhaps 50 years of viewing with a male Doctor has conditioned me to expect that as the norm ?

You could probably say that for a lot of episodes though. Hell some of the newer adversaries have turned out to be pretty popular with fans! (e.g. Weeping Angels). I don't think it is fair to judge it on just the first episode.

As I understand it none of the former recurring adversaries are scheduled to appear in this series. Personally I believe this is an error as it would add some sense of continuity to the show. The absence of Davros and the Daleks is unforgiveable. It's almost like a new program.

martin2345uk · 10 Oct 2018

Why on earth do the Daleks have to appear in ever series?! They certainly didn't appear that frequently in the classic series!

gswindale · 10 Oct 2018

Butts said:
As I understand it none of the former recurring adversaries are scheduled to appear in this series. Personally I believe this is an error as it would add some sense of continuity to the show. The absence of Davros and the Daleks is unforgiveable. It's almost like a new program.

Why?

When the Autons first appeared in 1970, they were new. The show needs to develop and a bit of a break for the pepperpots is good for it.

Just because no former recurring adversaries are not appearing doesn't mean that no former adversaries will not appear - maybe the Candyman will pop back?

michael74 · 10 Oct 2018

I am not sure Davros and the Daleks (sounds like a 80s band) have been in every recent series of Dr Who and its no bad thing not particularly missed in my opinion. Plenty of scope for new monsters I really like the Weeping Angels and the Silents. I have a poseable Weepng Angel, every now and again I leave it in cupboards at eye level or on the dashboard of my wife's car.

gswindale · 11 Oct 2018

By my reckoning ( and classing any two partners as a single story), the daleks have been in 11 new who stories.

By comparison, they were main characters in 16 stories in the original run. (Not including stories such as The Five Doctors where they only had a very minor role).

I think they therefore deserve a holiday.

Bedpan · 11 Oct 2018

Going back fifty years or more, I have in mind that the Doctor could only regenerate so many times, (13 or 15 was it?), and the last Doctor but one was the last to be able to generate...... as a man presumably, so along he/she came as a woman instead.

I must say though that one of the things that has put me off Dr Who is the lack of continuity as far as the Doctors are concerned. Each actor only seems to last two or three seasons now, maybe less, I don't know as I don't really follow it any more.

WelshBluebird · 11 Oct 2018

Bedpan said:
Going back fifty years or more, I have in mind that the Doctor could only regenerate so many times, (13 or 15 was it?), and the last Doctor but one was the last to be able to generate...... as a man presumably, so along he/she came as a woman instead.

Nothing at all to do with it.
The whole number of regenerations thing was dealt with in "The Name of the Doctor" and "The Day of the Doctor". Indeed because of the events of those episodes, number 12 is actually number 13 (as the "War Doctor" is introduced as actually being number 9).

Teflon Lettuce · 11 Oct 2018

Bedpan said:
I must say though that one of the things that has put me off Dr Who is the lack of continuity as far as the Doctors are concerned. Each actor only seems to last two or three seasons now, maybe less, I don't know as I don't really follow it any more.

Nothing new in The Doctor only lasting 3 yrs between regenerations... in the pre-reboot version only Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker served more than 3 seasons

Bedpan · 11 Oct 2018

WelshBluebird said:
Nothing at all to do with it.
The whole number of regenerations thing was dealt with in "The Name of the Doctor" and "The Day of the Doctor". Indeed because of the events of those episodes, number 12 is actually number 13 (as the "War Doctor" is introduced as actually being number 9).

What happened then?

Teflon Lettuce said:
Nothing new in The Doctor only lasting 3 yrs between regenerations... in the pre-reboot version only Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker served more than 3 seasons

Ah, so it is a case of time passing slower when you are younger then.

WelshBluebird · 11 Oct 2018

Bedpan said:
What happened then?

It was basically a cop out.
The Doctor gets awarded another "cycle" of 13 regenerations.

Butts · 11 Oct 2018

WelshBluebird said:
It was basically a cop out.
The Doctor gets awarded another "cycle" of 13 regenerations.

You seem to be quite knowledgeable about Dr Who - why didn't the Doctor (Tom Baker) join those two wires together and destroy Davros's embryonic Daleks thus eliminating them for all time ?

gswindale · 11 Oct 2018

Butts said:
You seem to be quite knowledgeable about Dr Who - why didn't the Doctor (Tom Baker) join those two wires together and destroy Davros's embryonic Daleks thus eliminating them for all time ?

That would have destroyed the universe wouldn't it?

If they were destroyed then, then numerous previous encounters wouldn't have happened etc.

I believe it was a "fixed point" that cannot be changed (see the episode where Rose tries to save her father).

DynamicSpirit · 12 Oct 2018

Butts said:
You seem to be quite knowledgeable about Dr Who - why didn't the Doctor (Tom Baker) join those two wires together and destroy Davros's embryonic Daleks thus eliminating them for all time ?

gswindale said:
That would have destroyed the universe wouldn't it?

If they were destroyed then, then numerous previous encounters wouldn't have happened etc.

I believe it was a "fixed point" that cannot be changed (see the episode where Rose tries to save her father).

Interesting point. I imagine something as important as the birth of the Daleks would be a fixed point in the Who-Universe. However, there's no mention of that in Genesis of the Daleks, because fixed points were only invented with the rebooted Dr Who. As I recall, in Genesis of the Daleks, the Doctor had a sudden pang of conscience about whether he could really commit genocide, even for a race as evil as the Daleks.

I guess the most obvious consistent resolution is to say that the Doctor (and the Timelords, since they are the ones that sent him to destroy the Daleks) didn't know about fixed points at the time of Genesis of the Daleks, and they only learned about them later on (presumably as their science developed further).

martian boy · 12 Oct 2018

gswindale said:
By my reckoning ( and classing any two partners as a single story), the daleks have been in 11 new who stories.

By comparison, they were main characters in 16 stories in the original run. (Not including stories such as The Five Doctors where they only had a very minor role).

I think they therefore deserve a holiday.

During the Tom Baker years, wasn't there a break of around five years without the Daleks appearing in any story? I may be wrong about this being the Baker years, but I think I read it somewhere.

DynamicSpirit · 12 Oct 2018

martian boy said:
During the Tom Baker years, wasn't there a break of around five years without the Daleks appearing in any story? I may be wrong about this being the Baker years, but I think I read it somewhere.

Almost. A quick look at the episode list says that, after Genesis of the Daleks (March 1975), the Daleks didn't appear until Destiny of the Daleks (September 1979). It must have been a terrible time for Butts

Looks like the cybermen had an even longer gap: Revenge of the Cybermen (April 1975) was the story that immediately followed Genesis of the Daleks, and Tom Baker never met the cybermen again: Their next appearance was in Earthshock (March 1982) with Peter Davison - the story that killed Adric off.

Butts · 13 Oct 2018

DynamicSpirit said:
Almost. A quick look at the episode list says that, after Genesis of the Daleks (March 1975), the Daleks didn't appear until Destiny of the Daleks (September 1979). It must have been a terrible time for Butts

Looks like the cybermen had an even longer gap: Revenge of the Cybermen (April 1975) was the story that immediately followed Genesis of the Daleks, and Tom Baker never met the cybermen again: Their next appearance was in Earthshock (March 1982) with Peter Davison - the story that killed Adric off.

Indeed, in those days there were fewer media sources and future appearances were indeed a genuine and welcome suprise.

There have been "Davros Droughts" that probably extended into decades from memory.

102 fan · 13 Oct 2018

I'm against a female Doctor, having been used to the idea of a man in the role for my 48 years. What annoyed me though was the reaction to my statement on other forums. It wasn't long before the sexist tag was thrown at me. Despite my liking for Captain Janeway in Voyager, Ripley in Alien, Rey & Jyn in Star Wars, I was sexist for preferring a male Doctor.

But what really angered me was being told by fans that I wasn't a real fan, despite them not being born when people like me were keeping the Dr Who name alive in the 90's.

Honestly. I think I'll stick to trains.

Trainfan344 · 14 Oct 2018

I quite liked tonights episode, however, really don't enjoy Bradley Walsh's attempt at Acting... Definitely better than some of Capaldi's episodes.

DynamicSpirit · 14 Oct 2018

102 fan said:
I'm against a female Doctor, having been used to the idea of a man in the role for my 48 years. What annoyed me though was the reaction to my statement on other forums. It wasn't long before the sexist tag was thrown at me. Despite my liking for Captain Janeway in Voyager, Ripley in Alien, Rey & Jyn in Star Wars, I was sexist for preferring a male Doctor.

But what really angered me was being told by fans that I wasn't a real fan, despite them not being born when people like me were keeping the Dr Who name alive in the 90's.

Ironically, this evening I was chatting about Dr Who with a couple of women, one of whom said she much preferred Dr Who being a man.

Personally I don't really care either way, other than that I do think it's better in principle if both male and female role models appear in this kind of leadership role, and I am therefore in principle happy to see a woman playing Dr Who. I don't however see anything wrong in principle with someone preferring a man for artistic or continuity reasons. That would seem no more sexist than - for example - preferring a woman to be playing Wonder Woman because that's what the story demands.

DynamicSpirit · 15 Oct 2018

Trainfan344 said:
I quite liked tonights episode, however, really don't enjoy Bradley Walsh's attempt at Acting... Definitely better than some of Capaldi's episodes.

I have to admit I'm unsure whether I like the new style. On the up side, the plots are simpler, and more 'believable' (within the context of the scifi world). I did find it irritating how in recent years it felt like every other story was about an existential threat to the existence of the Universe (maybe a slight exaggeration but you get what I mean) so I really like it that the last two stories have been dealing with more minor threats. And so far, there haven't been more than minor holes in the plots.

On the down side, the way the characters have been written seems really amateurish to me. After two episodes, I'm not seeing any significant depth. All everyone seems to do is be sarcastic to everyone else, with doses of the Doctor trying to act all superhero-y. Having 3 companions would be great if they all had very different personalities, but to my mind they don't. They all talk to each other in basically the same way (usually, sarcastic), and after only two episodes it's already starting to grate on me. Sarcasm and mildly ribbing each other is great, and when done in small doses can add a lot of humour to the story. But characters who are unable to talk in any other way aren't great. I don't so far see any issues with the acting, I think it's more a case of, the actors have been given a script with a pretty monotonous style of dialogue in it, so there's not a lot the actors can do.

As for the Doctor's character. I'm starting to wonder if the writer was so keen to avoid any hint of the old female stereotypes (screaming girl companion a la Jo Grant etc.) that he's gone too far the other way, and now we have a Doctor that has so much of an air of 'look at me I'm a superhero' that we're going to end up with a completely unbalanced character. I hope I'm wrong but based on the first two episodes, I'm not optimistic.

ComUtoR · 15 Oct 2018

I would agree. Second episode in and nobody has been likable. There is certainly something disjointed about the new Doctor she doesn't appear to have any personality and her outfit just feels lacking something personal. I'll give it another episode and decide after that :/

WelshBluebird · 15 Oct 2018

DynamicSpirit said:
That would seem no more sexist than - for example - preferring a woman to be playing Wonder Woman because that's what the story demands.

Well apart from the fact the Doctor is a character who "changes" into a new person upon death, so the character suddenly turning female isn't exactly that difficult to believe!

102 fan said:
I'm against a female Doctor

And yet you haven't been able to actually say why apart from just saying the doctor has always been male, in which case I refer you to the above - the doctor is a character who changes upon death.

martin2345uk · 15 Oct 2018

Another fantastic overnight rating of 7.11 million last night, hoping it maintains some kind of momentum throughout its run...!

Jodie Whittaker as Dr Who

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member