|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 19, 2017 14:18:59 GMT
So Stormcrow sounds like he reserves the right to walk out on the Doctor if the change makes him feel too weird. That's fine, it is - in the end - just a TV show. I do hope that if a real person in his life made the same change he would be a little less brutal. When did I say anything about walking out? When did I say the change makes me feel weird? When did the utterly fantastic notion of Time Lord regeneration have anything to do with real life? For that matter, when did I ever owe loyalty to a TV show? I compared the reactions to gender reassignment in real life to the reactions to Time Lord regeneration only to show that if real life gender reassignment is hard for people to accept, even when the difficulty has nothing to do with bigotry, then how hard must it be for people to see their heroes undergo a similar change without having any ability to engage in the process. You can't talk to the Doctor to tell him/her (here go the pronouns) how you feel about it. That's not an easy change. I'm not telling you how *I* feel about it, necessarily, I'm trying to explain the varied fan reactions. People who hate the gender-swapped Doctor aren't necessarily just sexist. There are real hurdles to accepting this. I believe you are reading into my analysis the negative reactions that some others have had. I pointed to legitimate reasons why these reactions occur; I expressed my doubts about Doctor Who as a whole, starting with the Moffat era. Moffat has always been a champion of gender-swapping regenerations. To me, little things like the changing of the outside of the TARDIS, and big things like inserting Clara into every important event the Doctor was ever present for, are related to this. The cook changes too much of the recipe. And if we MUST relate this to real-life gender reassignment, consider this: your mother suddenly announces out of the blue that she's just had surgery and is now a man. You may be okay with this intellectually, but there is absolutely no way your immediate reaction would be "Wow, that's terrific!" Most people would be at least momentarily stunned. Then they'd want to talk to mom about the change: Had mom always wanted it? What does dad think about it? You would be FORCED to think about your relationship with your mother. You still love mom, but you can't just keep going without thinking about things. And a LOT of people, even in the family, will likely have emotional—and even intellectual—difficulties understanding and accepting this change. IT'S NOT SIMPLE. You can say, "It's just a TV show." But if that's true why do you watch THIS show instead of another? People have strong emotional attachments to this show. When the Doctor changes, people question their relationship with the show. This is the biggest change ever, so the biggest questions ever are appearing. And I'm sure Chibnall was ready for all of it. This move was carefully calculated. The way was deliberately paved. They knew there'd be a backlash, and they did everything they could to prepare the audience for it.
|
|
|
Post by Eryx on Jul 19, 2017 20:23:09 GMT
I'm not keen on the gender swap idea. It feels like Moffat was catering to a vocal minority. However, from what I have seen she is a good actress and I'm looking forward to seeing where she takes the show and how it works out.
|
|
|
Post by jezmiller on Jul 19, 2017 20:42:40 GMT
Michelle Gomez's Master was farther still. Now she's loony-in-love with the Doctor and seeking redemption while killing people for no reason. Yes, we got our first major gender-swapped Time Lord and it immediately goes to flirtation, because Moffat always goes for the lowest-hanging fruit. There is basically no relationship whatsoever between the characters of Delgado's Master and Gomez's Master. For some reason the character even claims she can't keep the name "the Master," as if that's an exclusively male word. In his very first episode, the Master left a miniaturized corpse in a lunchbox for no reason (save as a practical joke). A short time after that (the Doomsday Weapon), he offered the Doctor, his childhood friend, a half share in the universe. As for her being loony-in-love, or in love in any form, Missy's own view of precisely that interpretation is a matter of public record: "Oh, don't be disgusting. We're Time Lords, not animals. Try, nano-brain, to rise above the reproductive frenzy of your noisy little food chain and contemplate friendship. Friendship older than your civilization, and infinitely more complex". I am not sure that their relationship's fundamentals have altered as radically as you believe. The point about calling herself "the Master" is interesting; I talk about it below. Gender is one of the most fundamental parts of human personality and social behavior. The moment we meet someone our brains MUST identify the gender of the person; if for some reason we can't, we become very uncomfortable. We build enormous taboos around the intersection of genders, not because we're bigoted, but because we are biologically hardwired to want to know the gender of the person we're interacting with. Remember the "Pat" sketches from Saturday Night Live, about a person whose gender was indeterminate, and who managed to foil everyone's attempts to figure out if Pat was a man or a woman? The other people in those sketches didn't NEED to know Pat's gender; they were DRIVEN to know. An extremely interesting point, and one which made me think quite hard. However, what we are talking here is not gender ambiguity, but a switch from one unambiguous gender to another. The genetically hard-wired confusion which you're talking about shouldn't be triggered. The Doctor may be male or female, but at any given point in time, there will no question of which. When a real-life person undergoes gender-changing therapy, that person's personality CHANGES. That's person's relationships with others change. That's the whole point: you want people to relate to you as your new gender, not your old. And this transition is very difficult for a lot of people. Yes, a lot of people are just trans-phobic, or whatever it's called, but many loved ones have trouble adjusting to the new person. This is a loved one who actually interacts with the changee and can talk to them about it. Now consider the Doctor. Throughout all his changes, his fundamental personality has always remained, and fans have built up relationships with this character. Some of them can't adjust to the change of a regeneration, and declare they don't like the new Doctor. Now make this one huge change: the Doctor is female. This is the most fundamental change to someone's personality you can make. The Doctor's fictional fundamental personality may remain as always, but fans' relationships with this character almost inevitably must change in a way that has never changed before. This is not just another regeneration; in our brains this is fundamentally different Also very interesting points. And it's impossible to be objectively right or wrong about such a subjective judgment. All I can say, based on my own experiences, is that you are placing a far greater emphasis on gender as a determinant of personality than I would. My mother and I (I'm male), are far more similar in personality than my father and I are. And certainly far more similar than, say, Hartnell and Tom Baker were. And I'm going to hate every moment of confused pronouns. A German friend mentioned that in German, "Doktor" would now have to become "Doktorin" (I probably misspelt that), because Doctor isn't a gender-neutral title in German. That got me wondering... how many gender-specific terms is Gallifreyan likely to have? The whole "Time Lord" / "Time Lady" distinction assumes that "Lord" is a gender-specific term in Gallifreyan, but that assumption seems illogical. Why on Earth (or, more to the point, Gallifrey), would it be? I wonder if Gallifreyan just has a word for "sibling" rather than "brother" or "sister", or "spouse" rather than "husband" or "wife". Yes, I know that Missy made a fuss about the Lord/Lady distinction, but she probably understands English without any help from her TARDIS translator, and Mr. Magister / Professor Thascalos / Sir Gilles Estram always did like playing with words. "Missy" was probably more of another nudge-nudge wink-wink hint from a Time Lord who never quite grasped the concept of an alias, than something she adopted because she didn't think she could call herself "the Master".
|
|
rulandor
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 149
Favourite Doctors: Three, Four, Seven, War, Twelve
|
Post by rulandor on Jul 19, 2017 20:54:38 GMT
A German friend mentioned that in German, "Doktor" would now have to become "Doktorin" (I probably misspelt that), because Doctor isn't a gender-neutral title in German. No, you didn't misspell it. As form of address, you won't hear "Doktorin" much, though, but "Frau Doktor" or simply "Doktor". As academic title, there is no difference. A "Dr. Schulz", for example, could be male or female, and would be called "Doktor Schulz". So, the change to a female Doctor won't make a huge problem in dubbing the series. "Ich bin der Doktor" will be okay.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 19, 2017 21:09:52 GMT
Michelle Gomez's Master was farther still. Now she's loony-in-love with the Doctor and seeking redemption while killing people for no reason. Yes, we got our first major gender-swapped Time Lord and it immediately goes to flirtation, because Moffat always goes for the lowest-hanging fruit. There is basically no relationship whatsoever between the characters of Delgado's Master and Gomez's Master. For some reason the character even claims she can't keep the name "the Master," as if that's an exclusively male word. In his very first episode, the Master left a miniaturized corpse in a lunchbox for no reason (save as a practical joke). A short time after that (the Doomsday Weapon), he offered the Doctor, his childhood friend, a half share in the universe. Okay, they have "sadistically kill people" in common. And...? Yeah, they SAY that, but most Missy scenes with the Doctor belie that claim. I added the "loony" to indicate that it's not a typical romance, but Missy HAS suddenly gone to being flirtatious and kissy where as a man the Master never was before. Quite a coincidence, if mere coincidence it is. I'm not saying the regeneration gender-swap is the same as Pat; I'm using Pat to point out that real people feel great urgency to put everyone around them into gender-boxes. When people jump boxes, and when people can't easily be put into a box, people get uncomfortable, because the NEED is still there. I'm not saying that personality is greatly dependent on gender; I'm saying that part of changing gender is changing personality, or at LEAST "how others perceive their relationships with me." Now you're just coming up with hindsight justifications. Undoubtedly any language-using race that could switch genders would incorporate that fact into any gender-based elements of their language. But Doctor Who didn't EVER give the SLIGHTEST lip-service to this until Moffat. Moffat wanted gender-swapping, so he injected it into Doctor Who and now it's permanent. But it's a late addition, and anytime you look back at pre-Moffat and apply this you're creating post-hoc justifications. "Missy" the name came about because Moffat wanted to surprise the audience, having "Missy" appear without knowing who she was, until she connects the dots for us: Missy -> Mistress -> Master. It was a stunt. The "I couldn't very well call myself the Master anymore" was just the dialog that performs the stunt.
|
|
koloth
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 52
|
Post by koloth on Jul 19, 2017 21:49:07 GMT
Moffat certainly paved the way for genderswapping, with The Corsair, The General and Missy/Master, but he didn't do it himself.
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jul 20, 2017 16:23:24 GMT
Niiice... Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/doctorwho/comments/6np0da/spoiler_fan_art_includes_13th_doctor_ultimate/
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jul 20, 2017 16:37:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Corone on Jul 20, 2017 20:08:54 GMT
Re: other regenerations I must also admit that after watching Jessica Jones, I really want David Tennant to play the next incarnation of the Master. What a reveal that would be when you think you are watching a multi Doctor episode...
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 20, 2017 23:55:21 GMT
Oh no. I just realized that people are going to Rule 34 the heck out of this.
|
|
tampahawke
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 92
Favourite Doctors: 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, (12th on revison) *Fugitive "Ruth" Doctor and the WarDoctor-because!!*
|
Post by tampahawke on Jul 21, 2017 5:13:04 GMT
Rule 34?
|
|
|
Post by CountClockwise on Jul 21, 2017 6:50:00 GMT
Rule 34: There's porn of it, no exceptions
|
|
Jacobin
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 27
Favourite Doctors: Three and Four.
|
Post by Jacobin on Jul 21, 2017 22:03:21 GMT
I really can't understand the rage of people (who have seemingly cared little about Who,) complaining about how the show is being made PC.
The doctor is a woman now... the issue is...? What exactly?
They say political correctness. Really just that they can't handle a woman playing the role.
Really just masking sexism behind a flimsy guise.
The vast majority of Who seems to be somewhat inconsistent and made up to do whatever cool things the show writers want, it's not coincidental this is the thing which people decide to see fault in.
Sex changes during regeneration are already canon as well, so people complaining about it are just blatantly not concerned with the lore.
|
|
|
Post by cigarman on Jul 22, 2017 0:16:32 GMT
I really can't understand the rage of people (who have seemingly cared little about Who,) complaining about how the show is being made PC. The doctor is a woman now... the issue is...? What exactly? They say political correctness. Really just that they can't handle a woman playing the roll. Really just masking sexism behind a flimsy guise. The vast majority of Who seems to be somewhat inconsistent and made up to do whatever cool things the show writers want, it's not coincidental this is the thing which people decide to see fault in. Sex changes during regeneration are already canon as well, so people complaining about it are just blatantly not concerned with the lore. I've been watching Doctor Who for over 45 years. How long have you been watching? It's people like you who have ZERO respect for over 50 years of tradition. Just more PC Millenial BS and name calling. Label anyone who disagrees with this idiotic casting choice as a "sexist" and dismiss them. Typical.
|
|
Jacobin
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 27
Favourite Doctors: Three and Four.
|
Post by Jacobin on Jul 22, 2017 4:06:22 GMT
What's wrong with this apparent "PC Millennial BS"?
Really just sounds like loaded rhetoric. I don't see what's wrong with it. Breaking with tradition is not bad in and of itself.
|
|
|
Post by Nyder on Jul 22, 2017 7:01:59 GMT
been watching Doctor Who for over 45 years. How long have you been watching? It's people like you who have ZERO respect for over 50 years of tradition. Just more PC Millenial BS and name calling. Label anyone who disagrees with this idiotic casting choice as a "sexist" and dismiss them. Typical. Personal attacks are against forum rules. Calm down and discuss in a civil manner or not at all.
|
|
|
Post by Nyder on Jul 22, 2017 7:37:35 GMT
What's wrong with this apparent "PC Millennial BS"? Sounds like nothing more than rage that the new actor is a woman and you don't have a legitimate point to make. Goading of this sort is also considered a personal attack rather than genuine debate. Discuss civilly.
|
|
Jacobin
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 27
Favourite Doctors: Three and Four.
|
Post by Jacobin on Jul 22, 2017 19:07:17 GMT
Goading of this sort is also considered a personal attack rather than genuine debate. Discuss civilly. My bad. I have amended my post.
|
|
|
Post by cigarman on Jul 22, 2017 21:45:06 GMT
Too tempting to start a flame war here, so I am done with this thread. Moving on.
|
|
|
Post by Marnal on Jul 24, 2017 18:09:30 GMT
Given that I’ve been warned that I might be causing offense I’m only going to answer direct questions at this point. There is nothing about the Jodie Whitaker Doctor issue that makes it worth getting banned from this forum. The whole thing is virtually a non-issue for me.
@”When did I say anything about walking out?”
I took your statements: “And, being a fan and not an actual loved one, fans have no control over or say about what has happened. You either accept it or abandon the character. ... Whittaker may play an excellent character. But it will be a character more changed than it ever has been before, and there is a real danger that it will be a change too far.” to mean that you would stop watching the show if you found you couldn’t accept the change.
@”When did I say the change makes me feel weird?”
That is the only way I can interpret statements like “it may strain fans' abilities to relate to the character. I don't know how *I* am going to relate to the character. ...my unfiltered feelings about this, even though I'm not sure I understand them myself: I feel like I'm losing something. I can't put my finger on what it is.”
@”When did the utterly fantastic notion of Time Lord regeneration have anything to do with real life?”
(As I said above) in this particular case, I was hoping it doesn’t. And I'm delighted to hear that you don't feel a connection must be made on this point.
@”For that matter, when did I ever owe loyalty to a TV show?”
The only statement I made on the issue was tell all the readers that nobody owes loyalty to a TV show.
@”You can say, "It's just a TV show." But if that's true why do you watch THIS show instead of another?”
Because it keeps breaking the rules. It delights in breaking the rules and subverting expectations and traditions. And [when well written] it shows that there is some deeper truth that led to the breaking of those rules. Dr Who does many wonderful things, but this is the one thing it does that you can’t readily find in Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, etc...
For me “The Doctor is male” is just one more rule the show will take delight in breaking.
|
|
|
Post by Marnal on Jul 24, 2017 18:22:39 GMT
jezmiller said: @"That got me wondering... how many gender-specific terms is Gallifreyan likely to have? The whole "Time Lord" / "Time Lady" distinction assumes that "Lord" is a gender-specific term in Gallifreyan, but that assumption seems illogical. Why on Earth (or, more to the point, Gallifrey), would it be? I wonder if Gallifreyan just has a word for "sibling" rather than "brother" or "sister", or "spouse" rather than "husband" or "wife"."
There's been some evidence that the TARDIS translation of Gallifreyan [or any language] is pretty loose and more interested in providing the critical point of any statement then if being technically accurate. We know the TARDIS imposes accents on people [sometimes just for fun]. We know it edits out swear words and replaces them with less offensive words. What other tweaks and changes is it undertaking?
So yes the fact that some females have been referred to as Time Lords in some cases but Time Ladies and others could just be down to the vagaries of how the ancient TARDIS telepathic circuits choose to interpret things for that particular companion. A true translation of "Time Lord" might be gender neutral. The same might be true of their other pronouns.
Does the Doctor refer to the TARDIS as being 'she' because its got XX circuits or because the TARDIS chooses to translate the Doctor's statements that way???
Indeed, an number of continuity issues in the franchise could just be down to the TARDIS translation circuits being old and doing an inconsistent job translating things [or maybe its just fine tunning things for each companion?]
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 24, 2017 18:44:37 GMT
@”When did I say anything about walking out?”I took your statements: “And, being a fan and not an actual loved one, fans have no control over or say about what has happened. You either accept it or abandon the character. ... Whittaker may play an excellent character. But it will be a character more changed than it ever has been before, and there is a real danger that it will be a change too far.” to mean that you would stop watching the show if you found you couldn’t accept the change. @”When did I say the change makes me feel weird?”That is the only way I can interpret statements like “it may strain fans' abilities to relate to the character. I don't know how *I* am going to relate to the character. ...my unfiltered feelings about this, even though I'm not sure I understand them myself: I feel like I'm losing something. I can't put my finger on what it is.” Most of what you quoted was me trying to explain why SOMEONE who doesn't like the change might not like the change. It was not commentary about how *I* feel about it. The bit that DID describe how I feel had a larger context: I feel uncomfortable with many of the changes Moffat has made. This change is a change that makes me feel uncomfortable, and I can't articulate why, but it is the same discomfort I get when Moffat decided to inject Clara into every important moment of the Doctor's life, or when Moffat writes dialog that says the noise the TARDIS makes that everyone loves is actually the brake and it's not supposed to sound like that, or when Moffat claims that the Doctor chose to call himself "the Doctor" because he wanted to be a healer. Etc., etc. Moffat retroactively changes things I have already watched. It's almost, but not quite, as bad as a franchise reboot, where they take away the things you love about the franchise and replace it with their own filler. Sometimes they're even brazen enough to claim that if you liked the old version you'll LOVE the new version. And when did this "rule-breaking" trend start? I don't watch Doctor Who because it breaks rules. I watch Doctor Who because it is—or was—about fairly ordinary people with extraordinary morality discovering the universe and defending those in need. Yes, the Doctor is extraordinary, but the less "gosh, he's so alien" the better. It's his extraordinary intellect that should be showcased, not his superhuman powers. It's his relationships with his companions that should be the center, not his relationships with his enemies. If you think Star Trek hasn't broken rules, you haven't been paying to Star Trek recently. It's almost unrecognizable from its original form. If you think Babylon 5 didn't break rules, you simply weren't watching it. Babylon 5 PIONEERED the science-fiction multi-season plot arc. Here's a TV show that I'm sure everyone will agree broke all the rules it could: The Prisoner. Guess what happened to the 2009 miniseries that reimagined it? So I'm not saying whether casting a woman as the Doctor is a good or bad thing. I'm just saying that I understand why not everyone is singing for joy in the streets about the choice.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 24, 2017 18:48:41 GMT
There's been some evidence that the TARDIS translation of Gallifreyan [or any language] is pretty loose and more interested in providing the critical point of any statement then if being technically accurate. We know the TARDIS imposes accents on people [sometimes just for fun]. We know it edits out swear words and replaces them with less offensive words. What other tweaks and changes is it undertaking? What evidence? This is the first time I'm hearing about any of this. Because it is common practice, when anthropomorphizing any vehicle, to call it "she" instead of "he."
|
|
|
Post by jezmiller on Jul 24, 2017 18:54:09 GMT
jezmiller said: @"That got me wondering... how many gender-specific terms is Gallifreyan likely to have? The whole "Time Lord" / "Time Lady" distinction assumes that "Lord" is a gender-specific term in Gallifreyan, but that assumption seems illogical. Why on Earth (or, more to the point, Gallifrey), would it be? I wonder if Gallifreyan just has a word for "sibling" rather than "brother" or "sister", or "spouse" rather than "husband" or "wife"." There's been some evidence that the TARDIS translation of Gallifreyan [or any language] is pretty loose and more interested in providing the critical point of any statement then if being technically accurate. We know the TARDIS imposes accents on people [sometimes just for fun]. We know it edits out swear words and replaces them with less offensive words. What other tweaks and changes is it undertaking? So yes the fact that some females have been referred to as Time Lords in some cases but Time Ladies and others could just be down to the vagaries of how the ancient TARDIS telepathic circuits choose to interpret things for that particular companion. A true translation of "Time Lord" might be gender neutral. The same might be true of their other pronouns. Does the Doctor refer to the TARDIS as being 'she' because its got XX circuits or because the TARDIS chooses to translate the Doctor's statements that way??? Indeed, an number of continuity issues in the franchise could just be down to the TARDIS translation circuits being old and doing an inconsistent job translating things [or maybe its just fine tunning things for each companion?] I'd go with the fine-tuning idea. I'd be the last one to deny that the TARDIS can be a little eccentric, but I suspect that it tries to translate things in a way that fits the listener's world-view. Presumably the point of the telepathic circuits is to allow a Time Lord to blend as inconspicuously as a seventeen-foot long scarf will allow. Any unusual phrasing would draw attention to the speaker, so it uses terminology - including gender-specificity - which the listener would consider "normal". Likely we hear the Doctor refer to the TARDIS as an "old girl" because our default cultural assumption is that ships are female. Similarly, although we have a word for "sibling", we wouldn't use it in casual conversation; we'd say "brother" or "sister" instead. So a TARDIS would put a gender-appropriate spin on a gender-neutral word when converting it to English. And we don't have a gender-neutral word for "Lord", so it's stuck with a gender-specific term whether it likes it or not. (Besides, can you imagine how the Dowager Countess from Downton Abbey would react to a woman being referred to as a "Lord"? Oh, my dear...) It might be amusing to have a misaligned translation matrix as one of a TARDIS' minor system faults. This little scene from Harry Harrison's Stainless Steel rat series springs to mind... "It beith I who spake, noble sirs. I hite Ga Binetto."
He was something interesting to look at, dressed in baggy velvet clothes with high boots, a big hat with a curly feather, curly mustachios too which he twirled with his free hand. The other hand rested on the pommel of his sword. Since Inskipp was still muttering I would have to talk to him.
"We don't care how tall you are--what's your name?"
"Name? Namen--verily. I am named Ga Binetto."
"What gives you the right to come barging into a secret meeting like this?"
"Forsooth, there be no secrets hidden from ye Temporal Constabulary."
"The Time Police?" This was something new. "Time travelers from the past?" This was beginning to confuse even me.
"Ods bodkins, varlet, nay! Why thinkest thou that?"
"I thinkest that because that outfit and language haven't been around for maybe thirty-two thousand years."
He flashed me a dirty look and made some quick adjustments on some knobs on the pommel of his sword.
"Don't be so damn superior," Ga Binetto snapped. "You try hopping from time to time and learning all the disgusting languages and dialects. Then you wouldn't be so quick to..."
|
|
|
Post by Marnal on Jul 25, 2017 6:10:00 GMT
Stormcrow said: "And when did this "rule-breaking" trend start?"
When they made a phone booth into a time machine.
"If you think Star Trek hasn't broken rules, you haven't been paying to Star Trek recently. It's almost unrecognizable from its original form."
They pushed some social boundaries, but the result was exactly what we liberals had been asking for. While very noble and worthy of respect that's not the same thing as the rule breaking the Dr Who does. There characters in the show treated those 'rule breaks' as normal. There was no political faction asking for a time machine that looked like a phone booth.
"Babylon 5 PIONEERED the science-fiction multi-season plot arc."
Yes but people weren't tuning in to see Sheridan turn into a cactus or G'kar defeat the Shadows with bee's wax. The characters in the show didn't even notice anything odd about the plot arc structure. The characters in a Doctor Who story KNOW that they've never seen [nor ever expected to see] anything like that before. Doctor Who succeeds by putting things and ideas together that do not belong together.
"What evidence? This is the first time I'm hearing about any of this."
From the novels. Mostly the New Adventure series IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 25, 2017 14:30:11 GMT
Stormcrow said: "And when did this "rule-breaking" trend start?"When they made a phone booth into a time machine. That was done explicitly as a cost-saving measure. That's also not a trend. The series was set up a certain way, and the first time a big rule was broken was when they recast the Doctor. After that, the next big rule-breaking didn't come until the Doctor was exiled to Earth and the format of the show changed. From that point until the cancellation, there were only minor changes. The last rule-change I can think of was in the final original season, where the Doctor's backstory began to change. That's not a trend. EDIT: I can think of one more classic-series change: the Key to Time series. This was a change in format to a series-long plot arc, though the arc part of it was only loosely connective. Moffat, on the other hand, changed tons of things in a few years. Aha. If by "breaking rules" you mean the characters being surprised by learning something about their world that they didn't know before, then you're not addressing my concerns at all. I'm talking about fundamental changes to the presentation, backstory, or dynamics of a show. "The Doctor was with Rassilon and Omega when the Time Lords invented time travel" would have been a fundamental change to the backstory if it had been given time to develop. "The Doctor chose his name because he wanted to be a healer" is a similar fundamental change in backstory. "The Doctor's companions don't travel around with him; they have day jobs and just go on occasional trips" is a fundamental change to presentation AND dynamics. "The Doctor is female" is very likely to be a fundamental change in dynamics; the audience AND the companions will NOT relate to the Doctor in the same was as before. Never having seen anything like something before is not what I'm talking about at all. Turning into a cactus is a perfectly normal hazard in the Doctor Who universe. Doctor Who is normally more cinematic than much other science-fiction. And I should care about the novels... why, exactly? I gave my reasons why so many things Moffat has done make me uncomfortable. I think I have given rational arguments or, when dealing with emotion or opinion, have tried to describe the emotion or opinion in a detached way. I don't understand why you want to paint me as being unreasonable here, or why I should change my mind when I've given it plenty of thought already.
|
|
rulandor
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 149
Favourite Doctors: Three, Four, Seven, War, Twelve
|
Post by rulandor on Jul 25, 2017 15:40:58 GMT
While following this thread, I had a strange journey myself.
At first, when I heard of the 13th doctor casting, I was mildly surprised and didn't feel any strong inclination to view it as good or bad or anything. There even was a sort of expectant feeling: this might go well, or it might not, but it will be very, very interesting.
The discussion about the gender swap then brought up other feelings I have about contemporary culture. In the name of diversity and openness, which in and of themselves are very good things, we have developed a culture that abhors discussion of variant viewpoints. There is only wright or wrong, and if you have the wrong opinion, oh boy, you will regret it!
So, contemporary society and culture have a strong intolerant undercurrent, while sailing under the flag of tolerance, diversity and openness. The elites (be they showrunners, actors, journalists, politicians, whatever) know better than you, and if you know what's best for you, you toe the party line.
So, feeling and expressing trepidation about changing fundamentals of an established character concept into something that might be narratively well thought-out, or it might by only a ritual sacrifice to the zeitgeist, means that you are possibly EVIL.
Still, while expressing sympathy for the doubters of this casting decision (and being slightly doubtful myself), I remain expectant toward Chris Chibnall's tenure. If he will prove to be less preachy than Moffat, I would find that very pleasant. And if he downplays or even forgets about Moffatisms (companions being not companions anymore, but recurring guest stars, the thing with the brake noise, the impossible girl and so on), that would regenerate not only the doctor, but the whole show.
But if Doctor Who continues to become more of a very typical media construct of our times, trying strenuously to educate us dummies about all that is good and proper and the error of our possibly out-dated attitudes, then I might pack up and leave (at least into an "old series exile", re-watching happily the old doctors 1 to 7 back and forth).
In case I instigated fears that I might be a chauvinistic fossil, I would like to add that I prefer female lead characters to male ones in film and tv, simply because I find them more interesting - though I prefer those leads to be women from the start, not being changed into them on the way. I started loving strong female characters with Ellen Ripley and never stopped, devouring every single adventure of Buffy Summers, Echo, Tru Davies, Sarah Manning and her sestras, of Rey in "The Force Awakens", of Clarke and Octavia and Lexa in "The 100", of Madison and Alicia and Luciana and Elena Reyes in "Fear the Walking Dead" and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by Marnal on Jul 25, 2017 16:38:39 GMT
stormcrow said "That was done explicitly as a cost-saving measure. That's also not a trend. The series was set up a certain way, and the first time a big rule was broken was when they recast the Doctor."
'A government owned police box in a junkyard' was the first rule they broke. Susan, the unearthly child who didn't fit, was the second. A box that's bigger on the inside then the outside is the third. Susan revealing she's an alien but would rather stay with the humans is the fourth. The protagonist of our family adventure show KIDNAPPING too perfectly innocent people just to win an argument with is grand-daughter if the 5th. A police box being examined by a caveman is the 6th. And that's just the first 26 minutes. Heck the opening credits were something nobody had ever seen or heard before on TV. Eventually, once the show started developing its own rules, it started breaking them to. And [for the most part] its never stopped. Heck one of the few constants of the series is the Police Box and that still a rule break because that's the one thing that SHOULDN'T remain constant. The moment Doctor Who gives up trying to do the startlingly unexpected is the moment its stops being Doctor Who.
"Turning into a cactus is a perfectly normal hazard in the Doctor Who universe."
But having your gender flipped isn't a perfectly normal hazard?
"And I should care about the novels... why, exactly?"
Given that most of the New Adventure novels were written by Rad fans I don't think you would like them.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 25, 2017 20:04:20 GMT
stormcrow said "That was done explicitly as a cost-saving measure. That's also not a trend. The series was set up a certain way, and the first time a big rule was broken was when they recast the Doctor."'A government owned police box in a junkyard' was the first rule they broke. Susan, the unearthly child who didn't fit, was the second. A box that's bigger on the inside then the outside is the third. Susan revealing she's an alien but would rather stay with the humans is the fourth. The protagonist of our family adventure show KIDNAPPING too perfectly innocent people just to win an argument with is grand-daughter if the 5th. A police box being examined by a caveman is the 6th. And that's just the first 26 minutes. Heck the opening credits were something nobody had ever seen or heard before on TV. Eventually, once the show started developing its own rules, it started breaking them to. And [for the most part] its never stopped. Heck one of the few constants of the series is the Police Box and that still a rule break because that's the one thing that SHOULDN'T remain constant. The moment Doctor Who gives up trying to do the startlingly unexpected is the moment its stops being Doctor Who. As I said, being unexpected is not breaking the rules. Intentionally making incongruities is not breaking the rules. GIVEN a time-space machine that looks like a police box, whose owner can't control it and who tries to keep it a secret, the rest follows naturally. That's not breaking the rules. That's called a premise. Until Moffat, it was not. I don't know who Rad is. I'm quite finished with this tangent now.
|
|
|
Post by Marnal on Jul 26, 2017 2:46:43 GMT
Stormcrow said: "I don't know who Rad is. I'm quite finished with this tangent now."Heh. Reminds me of Leia's "Lando System?" line from Episode V. It sounds like you don't care what a Rad is but in case anyone wants a glimpse into pre-RTD fandom... Rad stands Radical. Classic Who fandom tends to break down in the Trads [traditionalists] who want everything to be the same as their favorite era of the show. And the Rads [radicals] who want the stories to be constantly trying new and unexpected things. The conflict dates back at least as far as when "Deadly Assassin" completely retconned everything fandom knew about the Time Lords [back in the 1970s] and they've been going on ever since. You don't hear a lot about it these days [my impression is that a lot of the Trads never made the jump to the new series in 2005, but I could be wrong about that], but the discussion we've been having is a classic example of a Rad/Trad argument. "Until Moffat, it was not."Actually there was the story "Exile" in 2003 which depicted an alternate timeline where the Second Doctor regenerated into woman for their third incarnation. I don't believe it was written by Moffat. "As I said, being unexpected is not breaking the rules."Two rules that have saved me endless grief. Never argue about color and never argue semantics. If you hit either of those points just give up on convincing the other guy. We clearly can't agree on the foundational language to hold this discussion with so I'm out.
|
|