Peter Capaldi is leaving Doctor Who

[Illiniwek]

The sexism happening on social media, and just overall meaningless hate is horrific... how the f**k is it a bad thing that the Doctor is female?! It's not, ok, just deal with it
/rant

Maleness is at the core of the Doctor, as is generally understood. Females deserve more leading roles, but the best solution for that is new female characters, not messing with old characters that are historically male. It just robs a character of much-needed consistency.
It'd be like if they wanted to make James Bond a female. Such an effort would be terrible and bad.
The higher ups have made a bad decision re: the new Doctor, no doubt about it.  If Jodie was a good actor (I'll willing to believe that being the case) they should have made her a side character, a companion. And made her important, like how Romana was.

This, this, this, and again this.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The sexism happening on social media, and just overall meaningless hate is horrific... how the f**k is it a bad thing that the Doctor is female?! It's not, ok, just deal with it
/rant

Maleness is at the core of the Doctor, as is generally understood. Females deserve more leading roles, but the best solution for that is new female characters, not messing with old characters that are historically male. It just robs a character of much-needed consistency.
It'd be like if they wanted to make James Bond a female. Such an effort would be terrible and bad.
The higher ups have made a bad decision re: the new Doctor, no doubt about it.  If Jodie was a good actor (I'll willing to believe that being the case) they should have made her a side character, a companion. And made her important, like how Romana was.

This, this, this, and again this.

It's hilarous how some folks are trying to pidgeonhole folks like me and Illiniwek as sexist or something. I mean, come on, there are legitimate, non-sexist reasons to oppose a character's gender being flipped.

[politicallefty]

Series 4 is great - Partners In Crime, Fires of Pompeii, Silence in The Library / Forest of The Dead (River the big link to 11), Turn Left were great. Not a big fan of the two parter to end it - messy tying up loose ends and falls back on standby Daleks.

Then the specials sort of do it again but with SIMM and Dalton in the End of Time. The latter great in his turn as Rassillon. Waters of Mars was very good. The Next Doctor was solid for a Christmas Story. Planet of the Dead was sort of mixed.

That said Series 5 while it had a plain Beast Below and a weak Dalek tale in its first had the sterling Flesh & Stone / Time of The Angels an Aliens level spin on the Angels. Then Vincent & the Doctor was a good character piece. I am not a big fan of the Silurian story but adore The Lodger. Pandorica/Big Bang is "timey wimey" and large scale. I don't love it but it is better than Series 3's for sure

As for Capaldi's finale, in a sense they did not try to tie together as many loose ends as with Stolen Earth and End of Time. Which was good. I did not care for the evolved Cybermen. Cannon fodder. Simm's Master though deeper here than under RTD took away from the visible conflict of Gomez's Master.

Bill's transformation scenes were excellent TV. Mackie sold it well. Her acting in this exit episode was well played again but too hokey to have a very similar "cheating death" trope of flying away with the Pilot.

Clara & Me had a remarkably similar coda in Hell Bent the wishful, feelgood conclusion after the deep brilliance of Heaven Sent.

For World Enough and Time the network BBC America should stop spoiling the endings this was the worst so far - they had a reveal of key shot at about 45 minutes in of the cliffhanger - other than that it was the best episode of a so-so season story wise which had very good acting from Pearl and Capaldi. Lucas' Nardole was disappointing very nebulous. A sideshow act?

While it did not trample on all of the backstory of Bill like Hell Bent did, it had a similar feelgood ending that took away from perhaps an even more stunning conclusion. Lots of fanfic awaits.

Rachel Talalay directed stories:
Moff's 12th Doc "Closer"

Dark Water 8 /10
Death in Heaven 6 / 10
Heaven Sent 10 / 10
Hell Bent 7 / 10
World Enough and Time 10 / 10
The Doctor Falls 8 / 10

I suspect The Doctors will combine aspects of setup which Moff is very good at and heartfelt slightly maudlin feelings which is in my book not my favorite aspect of his storytelling. Especially come Christmas time.

I don't watch much scripted TV drama so I am not familiar with Chibnall. Should be interesting. But a long long time of speculation on how it goes.

Whoa, you gave me a lot here.

The thing I hate about Series 4 is how Donna left. As much as I love RTD Who, I hate him for that. I wasn't a big fan of the specials, particularly The End of Time because I really didn't want to see the Tenth Doctor go. I've seen all of the Doctors and he's still my favourite by far.

I didn't enjoy Series 5 the way a lot of others did. The premiere was great, the Beast Below was very good, and I loved the Weeping Angels two-parter with River Song. I didn't care at all for the finale for that series.

I loved seeing the original First Doctor 1966 Tenth Planet Cybermen. For me, it's the voices of the original Cybermen that makes them so great and creepy. I'm glad they stayed true to history with this recent finale.

I do agree with you that Dark Water is one of the best finale episodes from Moffat. First of all, the whole three words part is something that creeps you out as a human being. As far as the plot goes, I loved the revealing of Missy as the Master.

As for Chibnall, this is some of his work.

I'm o.k. with this.

That's my view as well. I'm not familiar with her and despite how strange it may be to get used to a female Doctor, I'm kind of excited to see her in action. I'm sort of apprehensive to any new Doctor on account of getting used to the old one, but this should be a lot more interesting.

While I'm not a big Dr. Who fan I'm a bit confused about the outrage. This is a character who inhabits a human form right? Why couldn't it be a female human form? :/

According to the Eleventh Doctor, we look Time Lord. They came first. In the Series 9 finale, we see a male Time Lord regenerate into a female (apparently her usual form). And of course, Classic Doctor Who had a prominent antagonist in the Rani. If people are complaining, I wonder how much they actually know about Doctor Who and what it's all about.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Personally, I think the producers of Doctor Who have chickened out here a bit by "testing the waters" through The Master's gender-switch first. The should have foregone Missy and instead they should have gone for a straight introduction of a female Doctor three years ago.

Chicken.

[Wells]

As a fan of Doctor Who, I fully don't support this decision because Peter Capaldi should have stayed on for at least another season. But it's been interesting to see the reaction Whittaker has gotten as the doctor so far.

I am allowed to have strong opinions on fictional TV shows you know. Especially Doctor Who, which I have been interested in since my early childhood. Sorry.

Lots of positive reactions here. Of course, TimTurner does have a point that the Doctor has never been a woman before. We should go back to the good old days where actresses were only considered for the role and not actually cast.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I am allowed to have strong opinions on fictional TV shows you know. Especially Doctor Who, which I have been interested in since my early childhood. Sorry.

Lots of positive reactions here. Of course, TimTurner does have a point that the Doctor has never been a woman before. We should go back to the good old days where actresses were only considered for the role and not actually cast.

Actresses have long been considered, and accepted, for the role of companion. Male companions are rather rare in Doctor Who.
It isn't like women are being shut out or something. Plenty of women have gotten prominent, important roles besides the Doctor (Rose, Romana, etc). Some shows just weren't meant to have female protagonists, that's all. Doctor Who is one of said shows. If the show was about a women going around traveling in a police box beginning in 1963, I'd be saying a women would have to be cast for role. But that isn't how things turned out.
Just because a women takes a role that has always been cast by a man doesn't automatically make it progress Some roles never should be cast by a woman, and vice versa.
Try imagining Wonder Woman gender flipped! Ew, no thank you.

[Donerail]

Tim, you have this bizarre fascination with tradition seemingly for no reason other than tradition's sake. This reminds me a lot of your defense of the House of Lords, or any other antiquated institution. Just because something has been the way it has for a long time is no reason not to change it, and so far in this thread the only argument you've articulated is "it's been that way for a while." That's not convincing, and "consistency" isn't particularly compelling for a character that's been played by a dozen different actors.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Tim, you have this bizarre fascination with tradition seemingly for no reason other than tradition's sake. This reminds me a lot of your defense of the House of Lords, or any other antiquated institution. Just because something has been the way it has for a long time is no reason not to change it, and so far in this thread the only argument you've articulated is "it's been that way for a while." That's not convincing, and "consistency" isn't particularly compelling for a character that's been played by a dozen different actors.

If I always opposed change, I would be opposed to universal voter registration.
I just want sensible, thought out, rational change. And some things, of course, are not meant to or should not be changed, either because they serve their purpose well enough and/or there is no superior alternative.

[Donerail]

If I always opposed change, I would be opposed to universal voter registration.
I just want sensible, thought out, rational change. And some things, of course, are not meant to or should not be changed, either because they serve their purpose well enough and/or there is no superior alternative.

Okay.  Jodie Whittaker is a fine actress, so she "serves her purpose well enough." She may have been the "superior alternative" to the other people that auditioned for the role—it certainly seems that she was, as she was awarded the role. Which issue is it here?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If I always opposed change, I would be opposed to universal voter registration.
I just want sensible, thought out, rational change. And some things, of course, are not meant to or should not be changed, either because they serve their purpose well enough and/or there is no superior alternative.

Okay.  Jodie Whittaker is a fine actress, so she "serves her purpose well enough." She may have been the "superior alternative" to the other people that auditioned for the role—it certainly seems that she was, as she was awarded the role. Which issue is it here?

The issue isn't with Jodie, it's the fact they are drafting a her for the role. She should have been made a companion instead (as I've repeated multiple times). They should have picked a competent male to serve by her side. That's a good pair imo.

[Donerail]

So there's no issue apart from your weird personal hangups. Got it.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So there's no issue apart from your weird personal hangups. Got it.

I rather disagree with your definition of 'weird personal hangup'.

[Donerail]

So there's no issue apart from your weird personal hangups. Got it.

I rather disagree with your definition of 'weird personal hangup'.

You've been unable to articulate any reason other than "I don't like it," which is personal and, as it's not based in any sort of rational claim about the actress or about the show, weird.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So there's no issue apart from your weird personal hangups. Got it.

I rather disagree with your definition of 'weird personal hangup'.

You've been unable to articulate any reason other than "I don't like it," which is personal and, as it's not based in any sort of rational claim about the actress or about the show, weird.

I'm beginning to think debating you on this matter is a waste of time.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Colin Baker (The Sixth Doctor) approves of the casting choice in this opinion piece in the Guardian ("I was the Doctor and I’m over the moon that at last we have a female lead"):

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/17/colin-baker-doctor-who-female-lead-doctor-jodie-whittaker-inspire-fans


(As I side note, I'm probably going to see Colin Baker on September 30 when he attends the German Comic-Con in Berlin. )

[vanguard96]

As I mentioned to my FB friend today and as Colin mentions if the announcement makes you drop your fandom of DW then you are probably not a fan. I think she will do quite well - though I've not watched Broadchurch. Great timing for that show's ratings - I imagine.

And for DW itself in the UK each season's ratings in the UK fell vs the one before it and the last season was the lowest rated in the new series. Will it be a shot in the arm for the series?

After the initial glow of the new Doctor, and the Doctor being played by a woman will the stories be any good? Will they continue to rely on tropes, cop out endings, wish fulfillment and backtracking on their own story to give happy endings?

Will they introduce red herrings like a big potential mystery for Bill's mom but then do little with it?

Will they introduce characters but then just have them there for a laugh (Nardole) even though character arcs have been the key way they tell the stories?

Will they use the show as a thinly veiled attack on the left's cause celebre of the week - capitalism, sexism, racism, Islamophobia, transphobia, etc with even more diatribes like Capaldi's monologue at the end of Oxygen?

Will they continue to have lots of character heavy stories that have plots and settings are ultimately replaceable with throwaway villains and monsters for a pivotal point in the description of character's sexuality and on-screen romances?

Will another historical classic monster get 'the much needed' modern gender balancing - next could be female Sontarans or Draconians - but then not really tell us much more about them? If it is well done that is what counts - not simply making up numbers or quotas to appear in GLAAD or some gender diversity tracker or get a quote from some random non-fan columnist in Huff Po.

[MasterJedi]

Really wanted the doctor to stay a man as I said before for the reasons I don't feel like re-typing. But I still love the show, Jodie Whittaker is a great actress, the show is still the same, I will keep watching and I'm sure she'll be great as The Doctor.

[IceAgeComing]

The sexism happening on social media, and just overall meaningless hate is horrific... how the f**k is it a bad thing that the Doctor is female?! It's not, ok, just deal with it
/rant

Maleness is at the core of the Doctor, as is generally understood. Females deserve more leading roles, but the best solution for that is new female characters, not messing with old characters that are historically male. It just robs a character of much-needed consistency.
It'd be like if they wanted to make James Bond a female. Such an effort would be terrible and bad.
The higher ups have made a bad decision re: the new Doctor, no doubt about it.  If Jodie was a good actor (I'll willing to believe that being the case) they should have made her a side character, a companion. And made her important, like how Romana was.

I'm sorry, but this is just a load of crap.  "Maleness" is not a feature that was integral to the Doctor - and many of the other big things have been dropped over time - remember for years the Doctor was always meant to be an old grandfather type person; until they went younger with Tom Baker and didn't ever really go for an actor that appeared older again until Capaldi.  There's also the fact that timelords can regenerate into the opposite sex, it can be done well (Michelle Gomez was the best master ever, imo) and so why not?  In a television programme that's all about gradual evolution; its something worth giving a go.  Attitudes like the one you have, namely vigorously against any kind of change and locking the series in a set hole, led to the series being cancelled in 1989 and not returning for 16 years (in a very different format).  It freshens the series up, which is always a good thing (and last time they did it they got a really good series out of it, so...).   Also, for what its worth, the original producer (who was behind the first few series back in the 60s) said more than a couple of times before she died that she would support there being a female doctor were there an appropriate person to do it; which I think works in this case.

Also, its not like Romana was really used properly on the TV shows - on the audio plays yeah sure, but on television they just stuck her in the same old generic assistant role.  To suggest that actresses should only be considered for that role even though the Doctor isn't, well, a gendered role is a perfect example of sexism; and that doesn't change no matter how much you try to coach it in feminist language.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The sexism happening on social media, and just overall meaningless hate is horrific... how the f**k is it a bad thing that the Doctor is female?! It's not, ok, just deal with it
/rant

Maleness is at the core of the Doctor, as is generally understood. Females deserve more leading roles, but the best solution for that is new female characters, not messing with old characters that are historically male. It just robs a character of much-needed consistency.
It'd be like if they wanted to make James Bond a female. Such an effort would be terrible and bad.
The higher ups have made a bad decision re: the new Doctor, no doubt about it.  If Jodie was a good actor (I'll willing to believe that being the case) they should have made her a side character, a companion. And made her important, like how Romana was.

I'm sorry, but this is just a load of cr*p.

Thanks for summing up your post!
Calling gendered roles 'sexist' by default is a great way to devalue the term. Overused words lose their punch.

[IceAgeComing]

But its not a gendered role though!  Never has been (well, since the whole regeneration concept was invented... in 1966!), and now quite clearly never will be.  Your ludicrous comparison with James Bond (which is a gendered role - although I'm actually interested about how a James Bond film with a women lead would go) falls down purely because of that point.

I mean this is a level of closed mindedness about an always evolving TV series that's both very silly - but also expected considering who I'm talking to.

[Illiniwek]

But its not a gendered role though!  Never has been (well, since the whole regeneration concept was invented... in 1966!), and now quite clearly never will be.  Your ludicrous comparison with James Bond (which is a gendered role - although I'm actually interested about how a James Bond film with a women lead would go) falls down purely because of that point.

I mean this is a level of closed mindedness about an always evolving TV series that's both very silly - but also expected considering who I'm talking to.

How can you say the doctor has never been a gendered role while James Bond has??? What about when he asked Clara if he was a good man? What about "The Husbands of River Song?" What about being the "mad man in a silly blue box?" Before Missy and that one Time Lord general there was nothing to suggest that Time Lord's weren't a specific gender, and over all those years the doctor was always a man. And no, comparisons to James Bond is not "ludicrous"... how were those two character's gender ever portrayed differently over all these years?

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

The Sun has just published nude photos of Whittaker with an anti-female Doctor editorial. This is getting [inks]ing ridiculous.

[vanguard96]

But its not a gendered role though!  Never has been (well, since the whole regeneration concept was invented... in 1966!), and now quite clearly never will be.  Your ludicrous comparison with James Bond (which is a gendered role - although I'm actually interested about how a James Bond film with a women lead would go) falls down purely because of that point.

I mean this is a level of closed mindedness about an always evolving TV series that's both very silly - but also expected considering who I'm talking to.

How can you say the doctor has never been a gendered role while James Bond has??? What about when he asked Clara if he was a good man? What about "The Husbands of River Song?" What about being the "mad man in a silly blue box?" Before Missy and that one Time Lord general there was nothing to suggest that Time Lord's weren't a specific gender, and over all those years the doctor was always a man. And no, comparisons to James Bond is not "ludicrous"... how were those two character's gender ever portrayed differently over all these years?

Yet, some left-minded 'multiculturalism' folks are complaining that they did not go far enough by casting a white woman instead of a 'woman of colour' - NPR's commentator mentioned it last night.

[Donerail]

@Tim do you think casting Idris Elba as Bond, for instance, would mess with the "historical consistency" or whatever of a character that has been historically white? Nothing in-universe about Bond defines him as such, but all the actors have been, so...

[IceAgeComing]

But its not a gendered role though!  Never has been (well, since the whole regeneration concept was invented... in 1966!), and now quite clearly never will be.  Your ludicrous comparison with James Bond (which is a gendered role - although I'm actually interested about how a James Bond film with a women lead would go) falls down purely because of that point.

I mean this is a level of closed mindedness about an always evolving TV series that's both very silly - but also expected considering who I'm talking to.

How can you say the doctor has never been a gendered role while James Bond has??? What about when he asked Clara if he was a good man? What about "The Husbands of River Song?" What about being the "mad man in a silly blue box?" Before Missy and that one Time Lord general there was nothing to suggest that Time Lord's weren't a specific gender, and over all those years the doctor was always a man. And no, comparisons to James Bond is not "ludicrous"... how were those two character's gender ever portrayed differently over all these years?

What you've gone and done is picked a few lines from the new series (notably; the way that other characters who only saw the Doctor as a man describe him) that aren't actually inherent character traits.  Plus its not like the idea that Time Lords could regenerate into the opposite sex wasn't explored before - it was mentioned (albeit not entirely seriously, sadly) in other bits of the new series, plus in bits of non-television canonical stuff.