Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search
Celebrating 1,000 NCIS-franchise episodes

Doctor Who in the Media

maraleia

By maraleia
in Doctor Who

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Joe

Joe

43 minutes ago, DanaK said:

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/01/30/doctorwho-bbc-china-posters/?utm_content=buffer72f2a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

More info on the show’s upcoming debut in China including some very pretty posters. The article’s writer makes an interesting suggestion to not be surprised to see a future episode set in China

Nice art, but this is a terrible idea. What would a China story be about? Crushing resistance? Obeying authority? These are not Doctor Who themes.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

John Potts
John Potts

I'm outraged. Another human? When are we going to have an actual Gallifreyan playing The Doctor? It's political correctness gone mad!

Anduin
Anduin

Bernard Cribbins, Wilfred Mott, has passed away. :(

Sakura12
Sakura12

Jodie was never the problem for me, I've liked her Doctor. It was the writing that was hit or miss. That's too bad, I would've liked to see Jodie work with a different showrunner. 

Posted Images

SVNBob

SVNBob

44 minutes ago, Joe said:

Nice art, but this is a terrible idea. What would a China story be about? Crushing resistance? Obeying authority? These are not Doctor Who themes.

Also, in the recent past (like within this decade), China has banned time travel movies and tv, citing they "disrespect history" with the inherent potential to change the future by altering the past.  Now, this ban may have only applied to Chinese-based productions, so it may never have applied to Western programs like Doctor Who.  But an article I read about this also said that time travel wasn't really a popular motif in Chinese fiction to begin with.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Llywela

Llywela

(edited)

The Doctor has already been to China - way back in 1964 he spent a mammoth seven-episode epic travelling across China with Marco Polo (who had confiscated the TARDIS). It was a story about a group of unwilling companions learning about the culture in which they found themselves immersed, forging alliances (and enmities) along the way, pooling all their resources and ingenuity to fend off danger and eventually escape, and becoming a family along the way. The serial is completely missing today, but can still be experienced as a reconstruction, and is one of my favourite Classic adventures - slow-paced rather than action-packed, but beautifully written as a study of both character and culture. The Doctor ends up winning half of Asia in a game of backgammon with Kublai Khan and then stakes it all on one last game to win back the TARDIS - and loses!

So yeah, it would be perfectly possible for the present Doctor and her companions to have an adventure in China - which would not have to be set against a backdrop of the present regime! There is plenty of historical context to choose from.

Edited by Llywela
  • Love 1
Link to comment
DanaK

DanaK

15 hours ago, Llywela said:

The Doctor has already been to China - way back in 1964 he spent a mammoth seven-episode epic travelling across China with Marco Polo

I think the article author meant actually filming in China as opposed to it being a story setting

Link to comment
Llywela

Llywela

9 hours ago, DanaK said:

I think the article author meant actually filming in China as opposed to it being a story setting

Yeah, I was more talking to the person who thought it would be impossible to set a story in China because they assumed it would have to be about the current oppressive regime - the show has already proved that is not the case, was my point.

Link to comment
DanaK

DanaK

(edited)

Doctor #10 David Tennant's podcast interview with current incumbent Jodie Whittaker https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/jodie-whittaker/id1450005207?i=1000429677359&mt=2

Jodie comes across really well like I thought from previous interviews. She tends to have some panic about some things though, like trying not to overthink things and working to get into the character of the Doctor in the audition phases. If it were me, I would have probably stressed far too much about it

Edited by DanaK
Link to comment
tv-talk

tv-talk

On 2/12/2019 at 8:34 AM, DanaK said:

She tends to have some panic about some things though, like trying not to overthink things and working to get into the character of the Doctor in the audition phases.

That's funny to hear because I think you could definitely see that in her portrayal of the Doctor.

Link to comment
DanaK

DanaK

Anyone who likes Tennant and/or Whittaker should try to listen to the podcast interview. It’s a lot of fun. One thing that surprised me was that they set the show in Sheffield because Chibnall having a connection, not because of Whittaker

Link to comment
DanaK

DanaK

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/8835943/doctor-who-pc-storylines-history/

Frazer Hines, the 2nd Doctor’s Companion Jamie, gets clickbaited by the Sun and their article totally twist his words. He apparently comments to someone that he prefers monsters to historicals and serials to stand alones. The Sun then turns that into him slamming the current bosses and saying the current show is too PC. Frazer comments on Twitter ( @WhoFrazer) refuting the Sun’s interpretation and saying he doesn’t even recall talking to them (he could have talked to a freelancer). The Sun and some others really seem to be against the current show and it seems to love twisting words

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Stats Queen

Stats Queen

On 2/15/2019 at 7:45 PM, DanaK said:

Just a note on famous Dr. Who fans. Stacey Abrams, who ran as the first black female for governor of Alabama (and lost), indicated she was a Who fan in a recent interview https://www.ajc.com/entertainment/brilliant-stacey-abrams-doctor-who-fan-and-twitter-aflutter/BDlv3p9ESDJbbFI8wVvemL/

Producer/showrunner Shonda Rhimes is also a Who fan https://www.shondaland.com/live/a26328702/shonda-rhimes-talks-doctor-who/

Stacy Abrams ran for governor of Georgia, not Alabama.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
DanaK

DanaK

On 4/15/2019 at 9:57 PM, Stats Queen said:

Stacy Abrams ran for governor of Georgia, not Alabama.

It was even said in the article lol. My bad. Thanks for the correction

  • Love 1
Link to comment
tv-talk

tv-talk

Quote

“I’m old fashioned, I don’t want to know about Rosa Parks, I don’t want to know about whether we’d done this we could have changed history and Kennedy might not have been shot. I like bug-eyed monsters. Monster of the week, I want.”

Agree they definitely went clickbait but he does realize the show is about time travel right? Seems pretty natural that stories about changing events or singular moments in time would be at the very core of the show.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

1 hour ago, tv-talk said:

“I’m old fashioned, I don’t want to know about Rosa Parks, I don’t want to know about whether we’d done this we could have changed history and Kennedy might not have been shot. I like bug-eyed monsters. Monster of the week, I want.”

Yet the entire concept on which the Rosa Parks episode was predicated is literally the entire premise for Doctor Who in the first place. It was only one episode. 

And if there were multiple Dalek episodes, or the Master showed up, it would be "why are they doing the same thing over and over again?" 

  • Love 4
Link to comment
Llywela

Llywela

12 hours ago, tv-talk said:

Agree they definitely went clickbait but he does realize the show is about time travel right? Seems pretty natural that stories about changing events or singular moments in time would be at the very core of the show.

Yup - time travel in all its guises absolutely is at the core of the show, and has been since 1963 - the very first Doctor Who adventure featured a visit to the past, and exploration of/education about that past, rather than an encounter with bug-eyed monsters. I don't understand why anyone would complain about a time travel story this season as if it were a new thing for the show, because it really isn't. Educational and political messages aren't new for the show either, it has been including those since the 1960s as well - in fact, education was a core premise on which the show was originally built.

But there are a lot of people out there who can't stand having a female Doctor, yet don't want to admit that that's their problem, so they try to invent other reasons to complain. They need to try harder, because there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made about the season just gone, but 'how dare a show about time travel explore sensitive moments in history' isn't one of them. I can think of quite a number of Classic adventures that would blow these critics's minds!

  • Love 6
Link to comment
tv-talk

tv-talk

6 hours ago, Llywela said:

Yup - time travel in all its guises absolutely is at the core of the show, and has been since 1963 - the very first Doctor Who adventure featured a visit to the past, and exploration of/education about that past, rather than an encounter with bug-eyed monsters.

Thanks for that, I'm not too familiar with Hartnell/Troughton and have watched Pertwee spend large amounts of time on "present day" Earth so on 2nd thought wasnt sure if it was more from Baker forward that they show went full timey-wimey.

Link to comment
Llywela

Llywela

(edited)
35 minutes ago, tv-talk said:

Thanks for that, I'm not too familiar with Hartnell/Troughton and have watched Pertwee spend large amounts of time on "present day" Earth so on 2nd thought wasnt sure if it was more from Baker forward that they show went full timey-wimey.

Oh heck, no - the very first Doctor Who adventure was historical. In his first season alone, the First Doctor (and companions) reintroduced fire to a group of cavemen who had lost their firestarter, and helped them resolve a political crisis to boot; spent several months travelling across the Gobi desert with Marco Polo, thwarting attacks on his life and saving a young girl from an arranged marriage in the process; caused political upheaval in an Aztec community when one of their number was mistaken for a goddess, and learned a valuable lesson in the process about not interfering in history; and got themselves locked up by Robespierre during the French Reign of Terror and ended up arguing opposing sides in the revolution. Four out of eight adventures in that first season were historicals - and these were pure historicals, with no science fiction element beyond the time travellers themselves, so immersion in a historical era was the entire point of those adventures, learning about past cultures and debating whether or not interference in historical events was either right or possible. You know, all the same stuff that the 13th Doctor and companions were just criticised for doing as if it were a brand new thing for the show.

In later seasons, the First Doctor and companions spent several months living in a villa in Nero's Rome, thwarted an attempt to prevent the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, got tangled up with Richard the Lionheart and Sultan Saladin at the height of the Crusades, got involved in the Trojan War, learned a painful lesson about non-intervention in historical events during the Massacre of St Bartholomew's Eve, and got caught up in the gun-toting affairs of Doc Holliday and Wyatt Earp in the days leading up to the infamous shoot-out at the O.K. Corral. Adventures in history were baked into the show right from its conception, they really were, although pure historicals quickly gave way to pseudo-historicals, in which additional science fiction elements must also be confronted during visits to the past.

The Third Doctor is a bit of an outlier because he had the use of his TARDIS taken from him by the Time Lords and was thus confined to 1970s Earth for so much of his run - even when he regained the use of his TARDIS, it was mainly controlled by the Time Lords, who weren't against using this renegade to do their dirty work on other worlds, so the majority of his TARDIS travel was off-world adventuring with only one historical adventure that I can think of. But in the early years of the show, the concept of the TARDIS as a time machine, exploring Earth's past, was really heavily leant into - Chris Chibnall's writing might lack subtlety, but the general tenor of his work really isn't anything new for the show, merely the continuation of a long-standing tradition. Doctor Who has always been a show about time travel, in both of its incarnations (Nine and Rose met Charles Dickens in only their third adventure together, let's not forget), and has always engaged in philosophical and political debate, right from the word go.

Heh, and whenever I see someone complaining about the show 'suddenly' being political, as if this is a radical departure from the norm, I feel like pointing them at Sarah Jane Smith in 1974, loudly and confidently proclaiming women's lib to an alien queen! There really is nothing new in Who, merely new takes on old themes.

Edited by Llywela
  • Love 4
Link to comment
LoneHaranguer

LoneHaranguer

7 hours ago, Llywela said:

I don't understand why anyone would complain about a time travel story this season as if it were a new thing for the show, because it really isn't.

The Doctor is known for meddling, not being part of history as we know it. It's tough to write the latter well; Quantum Leap managed it by hiding what was really going on.

Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

1 hour ago, Llywela said:

Oh heck, no - the very first Doctor Who adventure was historical. In his first season alone, the First Doctor (and companions) reintroduced fire to a group of cavemen who had lost their firestarter, and helped them resolve a political crisis to boot; spent several months travelling across the Gobi desert with Marco Polo, thwarting attacks on his life and saving a young girl from an arranged marriage in the process; caused political upheaval in an Aztec community when one of their number was mistaken for a goddess, and learned a valuable lesson in the process about not interfering in history; and got themselves locked up by Robespierre during the French Reign of Terror and ended up arguing opposing sides in the revolution.

Holy shit, I have to watch Classic more. That sounds exceptionally interesting. I have a ton on my dvr.

Also not to mention Ten and Donna's first adventure was Pompeii. 

Link to comment
Llywela

Llywela

2 hours ago, LoneHaranguer said:

The Doctor is known for meddling, not being part of history as we know it.

I don't know what you mean by this. I've just described a whole bunch of examples in which the Doctor took part in history as we know it. And those were just examples of a single Doctor, the very first.

Doctor Who is a show about time travel. It always has been. Every Doctor there has ever been has had adventures in history, as well as in space - some more than others, it is true, but the history of the show is riddled with adventures set at key moments in history. Sometimes that history has needed a nudge, to get it back to what it should be, for whatever reason. Other times the main thrust of the adventure was to escape without interference in the course of events. But it simply isn't true to say that the Doctor has never been part of history as we know it. The Second Doctor was at the Battle of Culloden in 1746. The Fifth Doctor thwarted a plot by the Master to prevent the signing of Magna Carta in 1215, the foundation of parliamentary democracy - and also caused the Great Fire of London in 1666. Nine fanboyed all over Charles Dickens. Ten was knighted by Queen Victoria, and ensured that Pompeii was destroyed by Vesuvius on schedule. Eleven had Winston Churchill ringing up to invite him to help out with the war effort - and took Vincent van Gogh to the future to witness an exhibition of his paintings. Twelve went on an adventure with Robin Hood. And those are just a handful of examples. I honestly don't see how Thirteen meeting Rosa Parks, and visiting her companion's grandmother in Partition Pakistan can be considered any kind of departure for the show. It is literally the same thing Doctor Who has always, always done: use a variety of historical eras as material for new adventures.

But we are straying from the point of this topic now, so I'll leave it there.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
Mabinogia

Mabinogia

16 hours ago, Llywela said:

But there are a lot of people out there who can't stand having a female Doctor, yet don't want to admit that that's their problem, so they try to invent other reasons to complain.

I think this is the heart of it because all the complaints I've seen are basically complaining that Doctor Who is exactly they way it's always been. It's about time travel, it's about politics, it has more than one companion, etc, etc. None of these are really valid since the show has, throughout it's history, done all of these things. Literally the only difference is the doctor is now female. 

I'm not a huge fan of some of the choices Chibs has made. He really isn't the greatest storyteller, but I appreciate him bringing back some of the quieter storytelling. I appreciate him pulling back on everything being the biggest most important thing ever, because that can get exhausting. It's okay now and then and Moffat, who is notorious for making everything the most important thing ever, has done some great storylines just like he's done some terrible ones, just like every other show runner this show has ever had. Chibs has had some great storyline and some not so great ones too. It's the nature of a show like this, I think, where there is constant change in actors, writers, show runners. This is an ever changing story, almost like a giant, decades old, chain fanfic. 

The greatest thing about Doctor Who is, if you don't like this current version, wait it out and a new one will come along. I hated Matt Smith and didn't watch his seasons, but jumped back in for Capaldi and I'm all in for Whittaker. I was hit or miss on Moffatt (love is writing, hate his overall storytelling) and will be hit or miss on Chibnall. I think I love his ideas but hate his writing ironically enough. lol But the show will change again soon and who knows what the next group will bring. Could be better, could be worse. Even the naysayers might be begging for this creative team to come back. Who knows. 

  • Love 5
Link to comment
Sakura12

Sakura12

Last season has had some issues with its writing, but saying that Doctor Who was never about history and politics is not true. It's a show about time and space. For me the Rosa Parks episode was one of the better ones this season. 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

(edited)
1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

I think this is the heart of it because all the complaints I've seen are basically complaining that Doctor Who is exactly they way it's always been. It's about time travel, it's about politics, it has more than one companion, etc, etc. None of these are really valid since the show has, throughout it's history, done all of these things. Literally the only difference is the doctor is now female. 

It's a vocal minority of butthurt dudebro incels or whatever combination thereof. They're all over social media because their balls haven't dropped and they don't have anything better to do, like get their shit together and maybe they'll get a date. Jodi will be the best Doctor ever if they were actually on a date with a woman who expressed some interest. That's all it is. 

Discussing something like maybe Yaz is a little underused, or the Doctor should have been the one to shoot the giant spider is standard criticisms. But they said this was going to be a soft reboot of a sort and they were pulling back on the huge end-of-the-universe plots and they did. The series was fine, and they should look back at it and see how they can improve for the next one. 

There's always going to be some people who don't like the current Doctor or showrunner. As long as the ratings stay well enough, I hope by the time they do the 100 year special that we'll be arguing why hasn't the Doctor been an non-human alien yet. 

Edited by ganesh
  • Love 3
Link to comment
ElleryAnne

ElleryAnne

Quote

Literally the only difference is the doctor is now female. 

Quote

It's a vocal minority of butthurt dudebro incels or whatever combination thereof. They're all over social media because their balls haven't dropped and they don't have anything better to do, like get their shit together and maybe they'll get a date. Jodi will be the best Doctor ever if they were actually on a date with a woman who expressed some interest. That's all it is. 

Gee, such persuasive arguments about the merits of the season.   As a happily married woman, I guess I simply have to love the past season.  Except I don't.  Some of the online media articles have perfectly valid complaints, IMO.  Most of the complaints that I've seen in the media have been about other aspects of the show - particularly the writing and the "PC" aura many of the episodes have.  I don't see the point in dismissing it all as "they just hate a woman Doctor", as if none of the other reasons are valid, simply because one doesn't personally agree with them.  YMMV, of course.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
Llywela

Llywela

1 hour ago, ElleryAnne said:

Gee, such persuasive arguments about the merits of the season.   As a happily married woman, I guess I simply have to love the past season.  Except I don't.  Some of the online media articles have perfectly valid complaints, IMO.  Most of the complaints that I've seen in the media have been about other aspects of the show - particularly the writing and the "PC" aura many of the episodes have.  I don't see the point in dismissing it all as "they just hate a woman Doctor", as if none of the other reasons are valid, simply because one doesn't personally agree with them.  YMMV, of course.

Those of us protesting the specific arguments mentioned above have agreed that there are legitimate criticisms to be made about last season, we are simply saying that those specific criticisms are not legitimate., and that making such false claims undermines the more legitimate critiques.

Was last season well written? Not particularly. Were all the companions well served in terms of storyline and development? No, they weren't. Was the Doctor strongly drawn? Not really. Was last season the first time the show has ever delved into famous moments in history or dabbled in political commentary, as so many critics seem determined to claim? Quite the opposite, it has been doing both since 1963. That is the point being made here.

Want to talk about poor writing and PC agenda, as if either is anything new for the show? Let us not forget this particular atrocity, from a Moffat-penned 11th Doctor episode.

Quote

THIN ONE: Hello. I'm the Thin One. This is my husband. He's the Fat One.
LORNA: Don't you have names?
FAT ONE: We're the thin fat gay married Anglican marines. Why would we need names as well?

 There is nothing new in Who, merely new takes on old themes. 

  • Love 4
Link to comment
tv-talk

tv-talk

2 hours ago, ElleryAnne said:

Most of the complaints that I've seen in the media have been about other aspects of the show - particularly the writing and the "PC" aura many of the episodes have. 

As someone who didnt particularly like this last season and found Whitaker to be ok at best, my feeling is that most of the people complaining about the "PC" aspect of the show wouldnt have minded in the least if the Doctor was still a man. The vitriol towards the Rosa Parks episode wasnt because people hate the civil rights movement (at least i hope not!), but rather that they cast white men as bad. For men like Frazier Hines who had no problem watching and enjoying several decades of shows portraying Africans as savages or East Asians as "inscrutable" or black Americans as "thugs and drug dealers" etc etc, to have a storyline where white maleness is the "bad" is simply a bridge too far. And that is the height of hypocrisy imo.

At least he's an old man tho, it's somewhat to be expected. The young guys who are similar are just the incel losers mentioned above for the most part- at least here in the States. Sure there are plenty of men (all races) who find some of the current women-centric push in media to be a bit of a bore or overdone- but the guys that get so upset over it and flood message boards etc with vitriol...losers that cant get a date.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
LoneHaranguer

LoneHaranguer

3 hours ago, Llywela said:

There is nothing new in Who, merely new takes on old themes.

I think this hits the point of contention. Whether something is new, or a different take on something old, can be a matter of opinion, depending on how narrowly or broadly you're categorizing what was done. Although, even if it was done before, it doesn't necessarily mean it would work as well decades later, with a new viewership, and new Doctor.

Link to comment
ganesh

ganesh

5 hours ago, Llywela said:

Those of us protesting the specific arguments mentioned above have agreed that there are legitimate criticisms to be made about last season, we are simply saying that those specific criticisms are not legitimate., and that making such false claims undermines the more legitimate critiques.

Yes, there's a very clear difference. To the example I previously posted - hey, I think Yaz was underused. That is most certainly not what is going on over much of the social media outlets. It's littered with the exact type of person I was characterizing. Note that I'm not singling out this particular site, and there is a clear record of episode discussions we can review to show that in fact complaints about "PC" whatever are negligible if they actually exist at all. 

Complaints focused on how they did a history episode or 'time travel' with Rosa Parks are patently ridiculous for the points we've already covered.  

I mean, people were screeching to the heavens about how UNIT suffering from a lack of funding was a clear leftist political agenda that the show was pushing against Brexit. 

It was a plot device for the Doctor to say, 'we're on our own and have to do this ourselves.' And they did. It's what the Doctor does - she inspires 'ordinary' people to do something they never thought they could do. The show is literally that. "There are beings on other worlds that sing songs about her (Donna)."

3 hours ago, tv-talk said:

As someone who didnt particularly like this last season and found Whitaker to be ok at best, my feeling is that most of the people complaining about the "PC" aspect of the show wouldnt have minded in the least if the Doctor was still a man.

And that's it in a nutshell. Nevermind that they've been talking about the possibility of the Doctor being a woman since the 80s, and even did a comedy short on it. 

3 hours ago, tv-talk said:

The young guys who are similar are just the incel losers mentioned above for the most part- at least here in the States. Sure there are plenty of men (all races) who find some of the current women-centric push in media to be a bit of a bore or overdone- but the guys that get so upset over it and flood message boards etc with vitriol...losers that cant get a date.

You can see this reflected in the hate towards the Captain Marvel movie before it was even released. And then it grossed 50 quadrillion. Or Rey. It's a systemic societal issue, though we're seeing it here through Thirteen. 

IIRC, they were thinking of Twelve being a woman but were able to get Capaldi. Which, really, if you get him, you're going with him. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
angora

angora

6 hours ago, ganesh said:

IIRC, they were thinking of Twelve being a woman but were able to get Capaldi. Which, really, if you get him, you're going with him. 

I'm glad it worked out that way, as much as Thirteen's place in the show is overdue.  Not only do I love Capaldi, but I also would've been SUPER wary of a female Doctor written by Moffat.

11 hours ago, Llywela said:

Want to talk about poor writing and PC agenda, as if either is anything new for the show? Let us not forget this particular atrocity, from a Moffat-penned 11th Doctor episode.

Quote

THIN ONE: Hello. I'm the Thin One. This is my husband. He's the Fat One.
LORNA: Don't you have names?
FAT ONE: We're the thin fat gay married Anglican marines. Why would we need names as well?

 There is nothing new in Who, merely new takes on old themes. 

OMG, way to make my blood boil.  Aside from the grossness of that exchange, let's not forget that "A Good Man Goes to War" takes place in the 52st century!  I would hope two male Anglican marines being married wouldn't be a shock in that age, and what's more, I'm so depressed by the idea that Moffat apparently thinks the phrase "gay married" would still exist 3,000 years from now.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Mabinogia

Mabinogia

2 minutes ago, angora said:

I'm so depressed by the idea that Moffat apparently thinks the phrase "gay married" would still exist 3,000 years from now

That's my biggest issue with political/social storylines set in the future. It's just too fucking depressing to think that thousands of years from now humans will still be racist and sexist and anti-gay and pretty much still the same jerks we are today. It works better if they go beyond "human" terms while still touching on the theme of prejudice, like with the Ood being enslaved, it was a story about slavery and one group using the skills of another for their own gain, but it wasn't so much the world hasn't advanced at all since the present so much as we just found a whole new way to be dicks to each other. I don't think I'm expressing myself well but I hope my meaning is coming across. I'm ill, and very exhausted from my MS so it's hard for me to focus.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
tv-talk

tv-talk

(edited)

I think ST:Discovery is an absolute abomination that should be deleted from the time space continuum...and am not afraid to admit a big part of the reason for that is the concerted effort to make Burnham superior to Spock and basically every other character in 5 decades of ST.  They literally beat you over the head with her being smarter and more able than any man in history of the show has ever been to the point of making jokes at the expense of males ie "tiny male brain" etc. There's basically no way they would have done that with a male character and it's very much intentional to write a female character that way probably as an attempt to expand the audience further., Same thing to a much lesser extent with Rey and even less so with Capt Marvel. However it IS an actual thing, the telling part is anyone caring so much as to get apoplectic over it. 

And to come back to DW...the ironic thing is this was not done in the LEAST with Whitaker's Doctor. My main issue with the season was how out of sorts and not-Doctor they made her. It's almost as if someone didnt want to piss off the men watching by having a Doctor at full power be a woman so they tamped her down 2 notches...and STILL people flipped out over it. My hope is that next season she actually gets to be THE DOCTOR in all the character's fullness.

Edited by tv-talk
  • Love 2
Link to comment
DanaK

DanaK

@tv-talk with all the “cuteness” of The Master regenerating into Missy and the nonsense where Moffat went overboard with her being a woman, I so appreciate that WhitDoc didn’t do that. 13 got on with it and didn’t rail against men or whatever and only got annoyed with the woman thing when people tried to prevent her from doing something because she was female, like in Witchfinders. I hope that makes sense

  • Love 7
Link to comment
benteen

benteen

(edited)

The new classic Doctor Who to be animated is The Faceless Ones.

Doctor Who The Faceless Ones

Interestingly enough, while Episode 1 and 3 exist, all six episodes will be animated.  Surviving archival material from the original stories will also be included (I'm assuming Episode 1 and 3).  This is the final story for Ben and Polly and features Pauline Collins, who I believe the writers wanted as the next companion.

They've acknowledged that it's unlikely that some of the classic stories will ever be animated due to the poor quality of some of the recordings and because some of the stories are so complicated (multiple actors, costumes, location shooting, etc.).

Edited by benteen
  • Love 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...