Monday, 17 July 2017

THE DAY THE DOCTOR DIED...



Well, that's it for me.  Barring the Christmas Special -
which I'll only be tuning into to see DAVID BRADLEY as
the first Doctor - I won't be watching any episodes of the new
series of DOCTOR WHO when it's shown in 2018.  For several
years now there's been a gay agenda in various TV shows, Doctor
Who included (culminating in a lesbian kiss in the last episode of
the recent series), trying to brainwash us all into believing that
gender is unimportant, and sexual orientation is a flexible
condition that we should all experiment with and further
erode traditional male/female roles in society.

You see, it's all those 'luvvy' thespians (and writers,
directors, and producers) most of whom were never quite
sure which side of the floor they danced on, wanting to rewire 
society into their ideal version of what it should be.  However,
that's not the main reason The Doctor has now had a gender re-
assessment inflicted on him.  The show is in trouble, suffering de-
clining viewing figures and lack of interest from the general pub-
lic ('cos it's written for fanboys in anoraks who enjoying dress-
ing up as Doctor Who or his companions) and it needs a shot
in the arm to revive interest in order to keep merchan-
dise sales propping up Auntie Beeb.

With that in mind, what better time to embrace
misandrist philosophy and remake one of Britain's iconic
male heroes into a woman?  Can you see that happening to
TARZAN, or SHERLOCK HOLMES, or JAMES BOND,
or any other legendary male hero of TV, Cinema, or literature?
Once, it would have been unthinkable, but not any more, alas, in
the mad pursuit of higher viewing figures and more merchandise
revenue.  The fact that the BBC has taken this desperate step
demonstrates what I've suspected for some time.  They simply
don't quite know where to take the show next, so have de-
cided on controversy to try and give it a much-needed
shot in the arm.  I'd have preferred the show to be
euthanised.  It would've been far kinder.

49 comments:

baab said...

TARZAN.
But only if they keep the costume.

TC said...

I have no objection to gay characters (I quit watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer when they killed off Tara) or strong heroines (I loved Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, Diana Rigg as Emma Peel, and Lucy Lawless as Xena). But the current trend of radical changes in existing characters is just going too far.

They could have done a spin-off series starring Leela or Romana. Similarly, Marvel could have done a solo Sif or Valkyrie comic book series. And a Falcon or Luke Cage series. But changing iconic characters serves the purpose of self-righteous virtue signaling while generating controversy, which, in turn, generates publicity. What appears to be an attempt to promote diversity is usually just a cynical marketing ploy.

TC said...

And, of course, no rational debate about this subject will be allowed. If you say, "I would prefer that the Doctor be male" (or that Steve Rogers be Captain America and Sam Wilson remain the Falcon, or if you prefer Peter Parker to Miles Morales, or Thor Odinson to Jane Foster), then you are a racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, blah, blah, blah.

Kenn said...

Agreed. Here in the States I randomly followed the Doctor's adventures when PBS showed packages now and again. Tom Baker was my first, and my first replacement Doc was Peter Davison. I enjoyed his crew of companions, and was shocked that Adric was killed off. American TV would never have allowed that back then! The gender "fluid" stuff is sad. As a gay guy, I hate being lumped in with the alphabet soup wants to do away with gender. Gender differences are WHY some of are gay. Interestingly, the report I read announcing the new Doc refers to the person playing the role as an "actor". A pet peeve of mine, simply because women were not originally permitted to act on stage, and the title of "actress" has never been diminished as "mistress", "governess", etc. were, or related to sex rather than gender. I imagine at some point, as with the MTV awards, actresses will have to compete with men for the Oscars. The first few will be thrown their way, but in the long run, just as with female athletes who have to compete against men who feel like women, the losers will be the women. So much for "feminism".

pete doree said...

Couldn't agree more, Kid. For the last five years or so, British TV has had a blatantly gay and feminist agenda, to the point where there is literally nothing for straight men to watch or identify with.
Consider Bake Off, Strictly, endless gossip shows masquerading as lifestyle pieces, or shows like Film 2017 or Watchdog with two female presenters to one obvious male sidekick.
None of which individually I have a problem with, it's the absolute prevalence that gets to me.
If young girls, women, gay men or lesbians are getting role models for them, then that's great, but not by excluding the rest of us, please.
I watched the recent episode of Dr. Who where they were in Roman times, and there was a scene between the lesbian assistant and some roman soldiers, and there was a scene where the story stopped dead, so everybody could all discuss their sexual preferences ( all gay ). Apart from being bad writing, that's agenda and you've just insulted and excluded me.
So now we have a female Doctor and a lesbian assistant. That's great. What about me?
Yes, it's right that everyone has positive role models, and that we have a more open and tolerant society, where someone's gender or sexual preference is seen as just part of life, and whether you're a good person or not is the important thing.
But I don't believe this is how you go about it, and I don't believe this is what's happening.
I think this may be an extreme reaction to decades of male orientated programming, so hope that it's simply a case of things swinging so far in the opposite direction, that eventually we'll reach a balance and equilibrium.
But right now, on British TV ( and some cinema - remember the feminist tract that was Mad Maxine: Fury Road? ) straight men are completely ignored and excluded.
But of course, I'm sexist, homophobic and my sexuality is threatened. Or maybe I have a point?

Rip Jagger said...

I honestly don't see what all the hubbub is about here. The Doctor has been an old man, a young man, a big man, a little man, a bald man, a shaggy man, a handsome man, an ugly man, a wise man, a foolish man, a witty man, a mean man, a nice man, a friendly man, a hostile man, and on and on and on. That an alien being who periodically utterly transforms into completely different people would eventually become a woman seems utterly normal (within the fantasy parameters of course).

I'm reminded of the old riddle about the man and his son who are in the car wreck and arrive at the hospital and the doctor says that the young man cannot be operated on because he is the doctor's son. The answer of course is that the doctor is the young man's mother but the cultural blindness which has for a long time permeated society doesn't allow that obvious conclusion to click into our minds immediately. I imagine this old canard has lost steam in more recent times, but it does still have some cache.

Why has the Doctor always been white? That's the next Rubicon to cross to my mind. It's not about politics as about storytelling and the opportunities that allows. One thing about the Doctor is that we know that eventually he or she will change again. Just wait a few years.

Rip Off

P.S. Really loved Capaldi as the Doctor by the way. He got more and more relaxed in the roles and was doing well in the most recent series.

Ian said...

Anyone who reads your blog knows you're a homophobe and a sexist (Babe of the Day, really!?!) so this isn't a surprise. I'm using an alias instead of my usual name I use to chat to you because after this I don't want you following me back into the forums over this, I no longer want to chat with you. But you clearly don't know the Time Lords can change gender and this was said during Baker's years, or that it was said by the show's creator originally when the doctor first changed that a female should play the role one day. Also, and I know this might be hard for you to understand, but Sherlock, James Bond and Tarzan (yyaawwnn that's what all the idiots are saying online in the forum) aren't aliens capable of changing into someone new. Idiot sexist. You'll be the one missing out, you rot away in your little angry world while the rest of us continue to enjoy the show as we have been. Oh and the show's ratings are just fine, it's the 2nd biggest BBC show in the world. Nice try. Actually no it wasn't it was pathetic.

Joe S. Walker said...

Genderswapping any character is a lame, rotten idea. In fact, it's what people do when they have no real ideas - so I guess it's no surprise that Chris Chibnall, a writer devoid of originality, should unveil the Doctor's sex-change as his Big Idea. Expect the Sonic Screwdriver to be likened to a vibrator or an actual penis before we're all much older.

But I don't expect the Non-Doctor's tenure to be all that long. Apart from anything else, it's happening just in time for the gender-swap business to become passé; my guess is that within a year or two all but the incurably "woke" will have had enough of her.

Kid said...

Interesting comments (and one insulting rant from someone in pursuit of a grudge) so far, guys. I'll wait to see if we get a few more before replying to them individually.

Philip Guest said...

No, I can't see this happening to Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes or James Bond...because these characters don't have the ability to regenerate into somebody else. That's what makes Doctor Who unique - the character's transformation every few years into a very different person. From older to younger, from irritable to friendly - and now from man to woman. In my opinion, it's a transformation that's well overdue.

What's happening with Doctor Who (and in other areas of TV) is that it's reflecting how society is changing. A greater, more sensitive acknowledgement of the LGBT community in drama isn't "brainwashing" or a "gay agenda" or anything like that.

Before you ask - I'm heterosexual, happily married and not an anoraked DW fanboy. I just appreciate a good science-fiction drama, which is why I've particularly enjoyed the last Capaldi series.

So I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this one, Kid.

Kid said...

And you're perfectly entitled to respectfully disagree with me, PG. However, there's already been talk in certain sections about making James Bond a woman, and while he's certainly capable of changing appearance, altering gender has never been part of his abilities. Also, despite "Ian's" assertion that the Doctor possibly being able to transform into a woman is an old idea, it's actually a relatively recent one brought in under an openly gay writer and producer (RTD) who was very obviously in pursuit of an agenda. The BBC have now decided to capitalise on the idea for the sake of being controversial and generating publicity for the show. Here's an idea, Auntie Beeb - how about just giving us decent stories for a start?

I'd also disagree that what's happening is reflecting how society is changing. Rather, it reflects how certain people (and I don't include all gay people in this, who are probably indifferent to the whole thing - I'm talking mainly about the 'militants') WANT to change society, which is a slightly different thing. Doctor Who was created as a man, has been a man for over 50 years, and now suddenly his history (the biggest slice of it at least) is being p*ssed on by those who say that there's too many men on TV (or white people, or heterosexuals, or middle class, or whatever.)

I'm afraid Dr. Who, with a few exceptions, has never been what I'd call "good science fiction drama". For that, you need to go back to some of the classic Star Trek episodes from the '60s. (No, I don't mean 'The Trouble With Tribbles'.) Dr. Who? Best thing ever to come out of it was The Daleks.

(Incidentally, I wouldn't have asked.)

******

I'll answer the previous commenters soon - honest.

pete doree said...

Absolutely Kid. Again, in that episode I mentioned, I found the new assistant an engaging and likeable character, until the moment the writer may well've just have flashed the word 'Agenda' in huge letters on the screen.
Reflecting change in society is great, but I genuinely don't believe that's what's happening in a great chunk of the media. This kind of bias is just too prevalent nowadays.
Again, I hope it's a reaction that will eventually reach a middle ground so that everyone feels included. If you feel you've been excluded ( not you, P. I mean the general 'you' ) surely the answer isn't to be the same as what's pissed you off to start with.

Kid said...

Baab, that's a sexist comment - and one that I find myself approving of. However, I'd rather see Sheena, Queen of the Jungle wearing just a loincloth - or a bear skin. (Or, in fact, her bare skin.)

******

Well, you were right, TC, as testified to by "Ian's" response. I don't see why they just didn't introduce a 'new' Doctor - as in one who is a separate individual from the one we know. David Tennant's hand was cloned into a 'daughter', so they could have made her the new Doctor while the old one had a rest for a while. 'Daughter Who' - hey, that might work.

******

Kenn, very interesting comment, most of which I agree with. Surely that would be impossible if I was a 'homophobe', eh? I just want characters to be as they were created, so no female Dr. Who, or female/black James Bond or white Black Panther, etc. What's wrong with that?

******

PD, you have a point - you're just not allowed to express it in today's 'brave new world'. You can on THIS blog though. You expressed yourself so pertinently that further reply from me would be superfluous.

******

RJ, when was The Doctor a bald man? I must've missed that one. However, you inadvertently stated my case (sort of). In all these incarnations you mentioned, one word kept popping up - and that word was 'man'. Says it all really, so a cynical gender reassignment operation is just a marketing ploy to increase interest, stemming from a controversial idea first touted in pursuit of a militant agenda. I've also warmed to Capaldi this series, who was allowed to do what he's good at - act, instead of being saddled with the persona of babbling, wannabe stand-up comedian that the last few Doctors turned into. He was ill-served by some duff stories in the first two series, so it's a shame to see him go now that he's found his feet.

******

"Ian", you're a t*sser - away and play in the traffic. Tried a bit too hard with your excuse for using an alias, we all know the real reason.

******

Let's hope you're right, JSW, and that it doesn't last long. What the Beeb haven't twigged yet is that making the Doc a woman won't make much difference if most of the stories are still mainly sh*te.

Right, think I answered everyone. Any more comments?

Kid said...

Oops, another one from you, PD, came in while I was typing out (and then published) my reply, so when I published yours, it jumped into place before mine. I must be doing something wrong - I'm not used to so many people agreeing with me. I must be losing my touch as a cantankerous old b*st*rd. Very pertinent comment once again, ta.

Ian said...

Well if wanting everyone to be treated equally is an "agenda" then that shows what kind of a backwards tosser you are, not someone else. The sexist and homophobic ways of you and the others here are clear for anyone to see. Good riddance, you've lost a subscriber. And no, they aren't changing Bond and no it wasn't just introduced with Davies in Who.

Kid said...

That's it, keep the pretense going right to the end. And congratulations on demonstrating that you don't do joined up thinking very well. No one said Bond was being changed; however, just recently a well-known actress was saying that Bond could and should be played by a woman. Not JANE Bond (as another actress suggested), but JAMES Bond. That's the sort of absurdity that rears its ridiculous head when people suggest that gender or ethnicity shouldn't matter when it comes to a role. Also, when it comes to Dr. Who, the act of regeneration was a later construct, an artifice, to accommodate a change of actor in the part. Suggestions that Time Lords could change gender didn't come until much later. I researched the history of it before I answered your rant. And changing genders from a man to a woman has nothing to do with 'equality'; if anything, it's giving an actress a role that she isn't right for, purely in the name of positive discrimination (and the ensuing publicity). And there's nothing 'equal' about that sorry philosophy.

And, hey - you're no loss. Don't bother commenting again, it won't see print.

Ian said...

Well since it won't see print (because you don't want people to have opinions other than yours, clear from your blog comments here) then fuck off. Just fuck off. Fuck off and don't darken this world again. Go on, fuck off and die. Oh dear is that too much? Is that shocking? Well you wished for the same to me above. So, you tosser, you pathetic loser, you sexist, homophobic cock bag, go suck on your own.

Kid said...

Well, go on then, just one more, seeing as how you insist. The joys of being a blogger, eh, folks? (And if I didn't want views other than my own, why did I publish RJ's, PG's and yours? Didn't think things through, did you?)

Phil S said...

Kid we love you but I just don't get it. James Bond is a certain character and I didn't even like Daniel Craig he's too blond. He's a hard drinking womanizer described in the book as resembling Hoagy Carmichael. I don't even like the updated Sherlock series. I have no problem with a female Doctor since she is an alien and it's never been stated he or she has to come back looking a certain way ( as far as I know since I stopped watching after Tom Baker). Having said that if the stories are going to include gay interaction I have to ask has the show ever shown heterosexual romantic interaction? ( again I don't think it did). It's still a children's show and I don't think it's appropriate. It's got the same problem as comic books. Originally for children it's now in the hands of fanboys who what more grown up stories but can't because it's a kids show ! So yes on one hand the casting doesn't bother me. On the other hand - if they're going to beat the sex change to death I wouldn't like it. Because that was never the character. I'll think about it more and be more coherent after I read your reply.

Steev said...

Did you have the same problem when Nick Fury turned out to be black?

Kid said...

PS, actually Dr. Who is made by the Drama Department of the BBC, not the Children's Department (that's always been the case since 1963), so technically, it's not a children's show. However, in a way it is, because it's been embraced by children as something they enjoy, and it's traditionally been perceived as a children's show because of the SF content, which was considered juvenile (if not infantile) by those who looked down on the subject. I'm just suspicious as to the reasons behind the change. On the one hand, it's clearly a cynical marketing ploy to hopefully increase interest in the programme. On the other, the whole idea of Dr. Who being able to switch genders and/or ethnicity is one of those PC 'inclusivity/diversity' concepts that just wearies the hell out of me. It's designed to blur the distinction between genders, sexual preferences, and any kind of difference between people, and it was introduced by people in pursuit of a specific agenda. It's now been hijacked for the Beeb's own ends, but it's also the principle behind the idea that sits ill at ease with me. The Doctor has been a man for 2,000 years (in the show's continuity), had children, grandchildren, and been snogged by at least one companion. Now he's suddenly a woman and all that is apparently meaningless? Nah, just doesn't seem right to me.

******

S, as far as I knew, black Nick Fury is the son of the original, who obviously had a 'romantic liaison' with a black lady. That doesn't bother me at all.

Steev said...

Not according to Marvel. He's the original, in a different storyline, He has a kid, but it's not him. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Nick_Fury. But it's nice that you can make up your own stories, I guess that is the point.

John Pitt said...

Bloody hell, Kid and I thought that I had troubles over this matter! So rest assured you are not alone!
I made it perfectly clear that I wanted David Bradley, but when I heard the news, I thought well it doesn't affect me in the slightest, so I am not bothered one way or the other. BUT, me being me, I could see the funny side of the situation ( e.g. I envisaged her fighting the Dalings, the Cyber-ladies and the Carol Voords! ). But, when I uploaded a pink Tardis with the caption, "BETTER GET USED TO SEEING THIS!" on a Doctor Who FB group, little did I know what it would generate! A stream of abusive comments from people with absolutely no sense of humour! I thought I was public enemy number 1!
And then I clicked on here....

Steev said...

The point being, he can be black. She can be female. They're all fictional.

Kid said...

Actually, I didn't make anything up. A friend told me that black Nick Fury was the son of the original. That seems to be borne out by the Marvel Database - http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Nicholas_Fury,_Jr._(Earth-616) - which I just looked up. So what's your point? I thought we were talking Dr. Who.

(Oops, missed out a comma in the link, so retyped it.)

******

I'm used to being Public Enemy #1, JP, so it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Consider the irony - people talking about tolerance, acceptance, diversity a greater, more sensitive acknowledgement, inclusivity, etc., yet look at the intolerant vitriol that arises from not agreeing that The Doctor should be a woman. Sadly, it would appear that the pathetic malcontent's hate is not confined to just one bitter individual. I'm told that I can't accept opinions other than my own, but do you see me 'going off on one' like the deluded 'Ian'? The facts speak for themselves.

******

True (about being fictional), but even fictional characters need to have some kind of internal consistency, and not be buffeted by the whims of any writer's unbridled imagination (unless it's the original writer). So James Bond could be black, or gay, or an alien, if some writer decided it would shake things up a bit? Nah, that's just being silly. And I've no objection to Nick Fury Jr. being black, although I would have one if they decided to change him into a woman. I'm afraid your so-called point doesn't have much potency from my point of view.

Dave S said...

I'm also disappointed that we've been given a female Doctor apparently in the name of political correctness. To me, the character that I've been watching and reading about since at least 1980 is a male, and I feel it will be difficult for me to adjust to a female playing the role. If anyone wants to label me a sexist over that, go right ahead, I've been called worse.

What I find remarkable is that the views of me and people like me are simply being dismissed as the ramblings of old fogies or met with hostility - one comics professional (who I don't believe I've heard of) can post on Twitter that anyone who doesn't like the casting can 'STFU and don't watch it' and this is not only tolerated, but congratulated. It seems as if some people have just decided that if they shout louder than others, then their opinions become the default correct viewpoint that everyone else should either adhere to or be dismissed and abused.

I do not want a female Doctor. Should anyone want to take that personally and abuse me for it, go ahead.

Someone in the Daily Mail comments section made the point that this casting is like Jackie Chan playing Poirot. It reeks of stunt casting, cheap sensationalism used in lieu of actual ideas.

I'm undecided right now whether I'll be watching the next series. Part of me wants to give it a try - it is after all something that has meant a lot to me for almost my entire life, but part of me also thinks that the Christmas special might be a good jumping-off point. If I switched off just as the regeneration scene starts, I would have seen The Doctor in his final body, meeting his original self, and passing away having fought the good fight so many times.

I'm also concerned at Chris Chibnall's comments that he always intended to cast a female Doctor - shouldn't he be looking for the best actor available, irrespective of anything else? The fact he's said that just confirms to me that this is a gimmick, a way of causing controversy simply to get attention.

Anyway, that's my thoughts for the mo.

Btw Ian, just for your own reference, Sydney Newman made the comment about the Doctor becoming female during the Colin Baker era, around 1986ish, not at the time of the first regeneration. Also, Time Lords changing gender was mentioned in the Baker era? Can you point out exactly where this was as I'm really struggling to recall it. Thanks in advance.

Kid said...

Great comment, DS, and it gets right to the heart of the matter. To all those of us who grew up on Doctor Who, it's a slap in the face to find a familiar, much-loved character from our childhoods being hijacked in the cause of political correctness, or for the purpose of generating controversy and creating fresh interest in the show. (And establishing or confirming the reputation of Chris Chibnall for being a forward-thinking, daring, and creative show-runner. Hah!) So stuff those who grew up on the show and have a fond affection for it - all that matters is tomorrow's audience. I wish I could go back in time and steal your comment to use as my main post. It says it all. As for 'Ian' (demoted from "Ian" - why use 4 apostrophes when 2 will do?), his comment about DW being the BBC's 2nd best show in the world may or may not be true (who knows with such clearly unstable people?), but even the Beeb admit that the show has been in decline in recent years, so their motives for this controversial move are obvious.

Dave S said...

Feel free to use my comment in whatever way you like on the blog, Kid, I don't mind.

As I've posted on a Who forum tonight, I don't think that the 'male Doctor/female companion' formula is behind any drop in the show's popularity. I think the writing needs to more accessible to the casual viewer and maybe reducing the number of episodes to cut out some of the filler would help improve the average quality. If anyone is suggesting that the novelty of a female Doctor will attract more viewers, I think they're right...but how many of them will become regular viewers if the stories aren't up to scratch?

Then again, if the audience does drop after the initial novelty wears off, Chibnall can just make another 'bold and progressive casting decision' and bring back K9 as a cat.

Kid said...

I think the boldest thing he could have done is give the gig to David Bradley. The first Doctor was always the best 'take' on the character, I felt, and with some decent (and as you say) accessible stories, things would've been shaken up a bit. I may use your comment as my next post, if you don't mind, as I think it deserves its own spot.

Colin Jones said...

I recall Catherine Zeta-Jones saying that Bond should be a woman (and herself playing the role natch) but that was years ago and she meant JANE Bond - I agree that a woman playing JAMES Bond is silly. But a woman Doctor doesn't bother me in the least and it could be quite refreshing. I just don't see any "gay agenda" in this and the Doctor is a role that could have been played by both sexes from the beginning. And gender fluidity in sci-fi is not new - Ursula Le Guin's "The Left Hand Of Darkness" dealt with the issue back in 1971. Pete Doree said we will now have a woman Doctor and a lesbian assistant but Bill has left the series so I assume the new companion will likely be male - another male/female pairing in the Tardis, what a shocker !

Dunsade Dave said...

No probs Kid, use it as you think appropriate!

I think Kenn and Pete both make great points too.

John Pitt said...

I suspect that the hatred and insults we incur come from a younger, very immature section of the internet users?

Kid said...

Er, how could the role be played by BOTH sexes from the beginning, CJ? It's one actor at a time. And the idea that the Doc could possibly be a woman didn't surface until more than 20 years later, although Wikipedia says it didn't turn up 'til around 2010 or thereabouts. As for being a 'gay agenda', it's not the agenda of every gay person on the planet, obviously, but there's a hardcore band in the 'arts' that are determined to push their idea of how things should be and thereby influence (and thereby engineer) society's thinking. That includes blurring (if not obliterating) the distinction between genders and sexuality. On Radio 4 last week, I heard some prominent lesbian saying that they had achieved a great deal in the last 30 years, but there was still so much more for them to do. Like what? Take over the world? Surely they've got everything they want? No, they (and I'm talking about the militants) won't be happy until everyone is at least bisexual and heterosexuality is in the minority. If they'd wanted a woman Doctor to shake things up a bit, they could have used his cloned daughter for a while and seen how it worked. It's the casual dismissal of 54 years of continuity for the sake of shock effect that concerns me the most. That's truly a sign that they're devoid of REAL ideas.

******

Thanks, DS, mostly everyone has made good points - apart from the obvious.

******

JP, your comment is showing up in my email inbox, but not in my blog's pending file. Strange, but I've cut and pasted it, so no harm done. I don't know about younger, but certainly very immature, that's for sure.

Colin Jones said...

Kid, L.S.'s blog has a newspaper clipping from 1981 which says the BBC was considering a female Doctor to follow Tom Baker - was that a hardcore band in the arts trying to engineer society ? If a woman had been given the role in 1981 we would have long since accepted a woman Doctor like we accept a woman Prime-Minister.

TC said...

I suspect that the "prominent lesbian" is a professional activist who can't afford to admit that gay people already have equal rights in the US and UK. She has to claim that there is still "so much more to do" to justify her sinecure.

baab said...

I have mulled it over since my earlier comment,
I knew this would be a good post.

If the new Doctor had been another tousle haired fopp i would have gone along with it .
But this throws a great big spanner in the works.

The actress is extremely like-able and can act.
The old flirtatious interaction with the assistants will continue,as usual,whoever they are.

There are a few issues in regard to sonic screwdrivers and other male motif,but I reckon they will be considered with a more critical eye and in doing so ,any other obvious agenda will be equally scrutinised.

I now look forward to an interesting period in the character known a Doctor Who,
I hope the team give us sci-fi crazines and intrigue and all the rest of it....


On the other hand,
If the new character makes any statements in regard to being a man trapped in a females body...........

Kid said...

1981 was still a good many years after the programme started, CJ, and swapping genders was not part of the original 'regeneration' concept of 1966. John-Nathan Turner was the producer of the show at the time, and was openly gay, and also, if BBC Producer Richard Marsen's 2013 book is to be believed, was (along with his partner) preying on male teenage fans of the show. (And I'm not for one second suggesting that all gay folk are predators.) So, ignoring the sarcasm dripping from your question, if 1981 was the year the idea was first mooted, it was mooted by an allegedly predatory gay producer whose main focus, according to sources, was generating publicity for the show (although bedding teenage boys wasn't part of that strategy, obviously). I'm sure you can put 2 & 2 together yourself.

******

She was introduced as 'prominent', TC, but I'd never heard of her and can't even recall her name. I think the fact that she claims there's still a long way to go clearly demonstrates that she's in pursuit of an agenda, despite CJ's scorn of the very idea that a militant gay person might have a mission to influence society according to their own convictions. That's how most militant people (of all shades of opinion) usually operate. You were spot on with your earlier comment by the way.

******

Having a women will make no difference to the quality of the scripts, Baab, which, with a few exceptions, have all been pretty lacklustre over the last few years. On the matter of influencing society (which CJ was knocking), the Doctor being a Time Lord, is supposed to be a member of an advanced race, with humans, by comparison, being rather primitive and backwards. So when The Doctor says something along the lines of Gallifreyans being not too bothered by gender distinction and the like (and sexuality is a part of that), the clear idea being presented is that this is a superior, more advanced and enlightened attitude, and one we should emulate. No agenda? It's as clear as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face.

Dave S said...

I checked out the clipping you mentioned, Colin. I must admit that I thought the speculation about a female Doctor in 1981 was based on a flippant comment Tom Baker made in an interview at the time, rather than any genuine plan of the BBC. Wonder if this is what Ian was referring to when he said it was mentioned in the Baker era? If so, I'd hardly call it definite proof. Maybe he'll pop in to kindly clarify that for me.

Kid said...

If it was attributed to the BBC, DS, it's more likely to have come from JNT rather than Baker, though TB may have echoed the idea in a flippant, possibly sarcastic manner. It's always possible that, originally, it was meant as no more than a controversial tease to increase interest in the show (especially when there was a new Doctor being decided upon), but was then adopted by those with their own reasons for wanting such a thing. Whatever, it's certainly worked from a publicity point of view, as it's what everyone is still talking about. This post has received massive interest and some very thought-provoking comments. (It's good to talk, eh?)

Joe S. Walker said...

So a female Doctor was considered back in 1986. That would be when the ratings were crashing and the head of BBC1 openly wanted to kill the show. The words "Hail Mary pass" come to mind.

It would have been a lousy idea then, too.

pete doree said...

Just to poke the bear one more time, I don't think anybody's mentioned Torchwood and Captain Jack yet. Anybody wanna say there was no agenda in that show?

Kid said...

1981, '86 - it doesn't much matter anyway, JSW, because the point is that it wasn't part of the character's 'abilities' in 1963 or '66. It's a much later development for purposes of controversy, publicity and pursuing an agenda. It all strikes me as a bit desperate in fact.

******

You're kidding, PD. An agenda? In Torchwood? Well strike a light, I must have missed it. Surely the agenda was just to entertain - with a bit of gay sex and swearing thrown in. Where's the harm? (Nah, I thought I'd say it to see if it flew, but it fails to convince me. Just put it down to irony.)

Joe S. Walker said...

The later series of Torchwood were a marked improvement on the earlier ones partly because they cut down on the sex-rubbish.

Kid said...

Only ever watched one episode, JSW (one about fairies - stop making up your own jokes), and then gave up on it. Mainly because when I tried watching it again, there were always some guys snogging the faces of each other. I felt like a peeping tom (but there's never one around when you need one - little joke there), and there was simply nothing to hold my interest.

Kid said...

Och, 'Jon D' ('long-time reader, first-time commenter'), what are you like? As transparent as Sam's Spook, that's what you're like. So I'm afraid your thinly-veiled insults won't be appearing today. Congratulations though, on having yet another of your aliases mentioned on the blog - you must be so proud. It's nice to see that you're so desperate to appear here - I guess I'm doing something right.

Lionel Hancock said...

I would have thought casting David Bradley to take over the role would be a better direction to take. Going back to its beginnings is more positive than pushing it over a cliff... I doubt I will watch any new episodes..Its just not going to be the same anymore..

Kid said...

I agree so much with what you say, LH, that I'm sure to be accused of BEING you.

-3- said...

baab- Your Tarzan remark is exactly what i was going to say.

On the Doctor, I'm wait-and-see at the moment. If they use this as a good story mechanism (WHY have both the Doctor and the Master regenerated into female form at the same time?) it could be interesting.
I don't really expect them to do anything to explore any story possibilities here, though. Just that vague, clinging hope.

Kid said...

I've had a vague, clinging hope that every new episode over the last several series might actually prove worth watching. Very few have fulfilled that hope.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...