« Topics
1234...26272829303132
bilky asko4,677 posts since 9 Sep 2006
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
And you wonder why people of your ilk fail to convince these "blatantly prejudiced" people. Laughing


Tell me, what facts have you got that support the idea that the Doctor shouldn't be played by a woman?

I never said that the Doctor shouldn't be a woman. I would have thought that it was obvious that I was speaking in regards to other people. Laughing

I didn't say you did say that. I am pointing out that if there is no factual basis for the Doctor not being played by a female, then there's no reason to put "blatantly prejudiced" in inverted commas as if it's untrue.
Cavan693 posts since 21 Oct 2012
Meridian (South) Points West

Tell me, what facts have you got that support the idea that the Doctor shouldn't be played by a woman?

I never said that the Doctor shouldn't be a woman. I would have thought that it was obvious that I was speaking in regards to other people. Laughing

I didn't say you did say that. I am pointing out that if there is no factual basis for the Doctor not being played by a female, then there's no reason to put "blatantly prejudiced" in inverted commas as if it's untrue.

I put it in inverted commas so it doesn't look like I'm the one calling them blatantly prejudiced.
bilky asko4,677 posts since 9 Sep 2006
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
I never said that the Doctor shouldn't be a woman. I would have thought that it was obvious that I was speaking in regards to other people. Laughing

I didn't say you did say that. I am pointing out that if there is no factual basis for the Doctor not being played by a female, then there's no reason to put "blatantly prejudiced" in inverted commas as if it's untrue.

I put it in inverted commas so it doesn't look like I'm the one calling them blatantly prejudiced.


So why do you disagree with that statement? There'd be no reason to distance yourself from it if you agreed.
Cavan693 posts since 21 Oct 2012
Meridian (South) Points West
I put it in inverted commas so it doesn't look like I'm the one calling them blatantly prejudiced.


So why do you disagree with that statement? There'd be no reason to distance yourself from it if you agreed.

Because it depends on what you're basing your perceived view of the new series on. If someone doesn't like it just because she is a woman, then yes, they are prejudiced. However, if they are concerned about diversity from a financial point of view, I understand their view.

Marvel Comics is a good, recent example of incorporating more gender-swaps of popular characters and the company admitted that that was the reason for their declining sales. Some fans are concerned that such a change may similarly impact Doctor Who, thus explaining their reluctance.

Once again, I'm merely regurgitating arguments others have made just to play Devil's advocate.
Alan de Robson68 posts since 8 Aug 2012
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
"Prejudiced", "bigoted", "narrow-minded" are words that are spewed out about others and their opinions far too easy. It's disappointing to see the Twitter-like "lynch them now for expressing a different opinion" reactionaries on TV Forum.

Let me offer an alternative perspective as one who is not happy that the Doctor is now a woman.

I am a big sci-fi fan - a big fan of sci-fi characters. Some of my favourite characters of all time have been women, for example...

• Capt Kathryn Janeway, Seven of Nine, and B'elana from Star Trek Voyager
• Laura Roslin (president) and Starbuck (fighter pilot)* on Battlestar Galactica
• WPC Annie Cartwright (Life on Mars)

...and of course, not forgetting...

• Rose Tyler, Clara Oswald, Ace, and Bill Potts, the Doctor's companions.
• Gwen Cooper and Naoko Mori from Torchwood

Part of their magic was the fact they were women. Would a male character as President of the Colonies be better than Laura Roslin? No. Part of all our identities is that we are male, female, or somewhere in between - it's part of what makes us who we are, whether we're gay, straight, black, white, religious, non-religious, etc.

I argue that, although there is no reason why the Doctor should not be a woman from the perspective of what is possible in the Whoniverse, he has always been a male and that has always been a vital part of his identity. I feel that this is messing with the story too much.

It's like Queen. My musical hero is Freddie Mercury. I wish I'd seen them in concert. "Queen" have recently toured with the very talented Adam Lambert and earlier Paul Rodgers. But because a fundamental part of their identity is no longer there (Freddie + John Deacon), they're no longer Queen. They're a different entity.

This make me a purist. This may make me a snowflake. It may make me many things, but it's not a sign of sexism, bigotry, etc, to want the gender of the Doctor to remain male.


* Yes, I know Starbuck was originally a male on the 1970s Battlestar Galactica but the re-boot was almost a completely different series from the original
OFCOM's queen bitch
5
mat76, DavidWhitfield and 3 others
  • UBox
  • 623058
  • Cavan
gave kudos
D.Page1,204 posts since 30 Oct 2013
London London
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-_bSdWEYK8

She is... The Doctor. Whether you like it, or not.


Video already uploaded earlier in the thread. Keep up.


Irrelevant. The video was used to emphasise the point.


BBC Worldwide have just blocked my earlier upload on copyright grounds. Therefore, your later upload of the same clip can now be seen as existing in the thread for a valid reason. Only now, though Wink
Whataday7,591 posts since 13 Sep 2001
HTV Wales Wales Today
Perhaps there would be some merit to the puritan argument that The Doctor should always be a man if Doctor Who was in its prime, but it is floundering at the moment. It needs to freshen up and this could be the shot in the arm it so desperately needs.
1
Austin Tatious gave kudos
Charlie Wells3,620 posts since 26 Nov 2003 Moderator
Anglia (West) Look East (West sub-opt)
Okay, things seem to have got a bit heated in places since the announcement of the new Doctor was made. It's understandable that people have mixed opinions on the news, however could I ask everyone to keep things civil and follow the forum rules when posting.
"Listen, we've all got something to bring to this conversation, but from now on what I think you should bring is silence." - Rimmer
7
mat76, Austin Tatious and 5 others
  • MetalGearRex
  • DE88
  • Cavan
  • 623058
  • London Lite
gave kudos
JCB1,810 posts since 21 Sep 2004
Blimey. TV Forum has let it's inner Digital Spy out. I can't even make out why people are outraged anymore...even you seem confused.

Maybe the ratings decline you're so concerned about happened because people are finally bored of the 54 year old cycle of white men? Interestingly, regarding the JW reveal, for every one "I'm DONE WITH THE SHOW" tweet there's about five "I might start watching/come back now". Let's not forget that what we still refer to as the "new era" of Doctor Who is actually 12 years old now and a lot has changed in society since that big reboot in 2005. All this revamp is doing is adapting the show to changing tastes just like Russell T Davies did in 2005. His regeneration of the show alienated many old-school fans but brought in a brand new fanbase as will this new, very different, incarnation. If you can't cope with the change then fine! just stop watching...my little niece will start.
8
bilky asko4,677 posts since 9 Sep 2006
Tyne Tees Look North (North East)
I put it in inverted commas so it doesn't look like I'm the one calling them blatantly prejudiced.


So why do you disagree with that statement? There'd be no reason to distance yourself from it if you agreed.

Because it depends on what you're basing your perceived view of the new series on. If someone doesn't like it just because she is a woman, then yes, they are prejudiced. However, if they are concerned about diversity from a financial point of view, I understand their view.

Marvel Comics is a good, recent example of incorporating more gender-swaps of popular characters and the company admitted that that was the reason for their declining sales. Some fans are concerned that such a change may similarly impact Doctor Who, thus explaining their reluctance.

Once again, I'm merely regurgitating arguments others have made just to play Devil's advocate.


Economic arguments are always weak, especially in this case as nobody can accurately forecast the financial impact.

Because the series has an established and regular method to change actors, it's not too difficult to make alterations when required, so in effect the economic argument is null.