|
Post by olegrand on Jul 17, 2017 15:07:26 GMT
I've seen a lot of 'ragequit' responses all over the internet blaming PC (Political Correctness) and Millennials for this, when in fact it was the new showrunner's idea - Chris Chibnall. Of course it was... but showrunners do not get their ideas out of nowhere, especially when those ideas have been insistently "floating" around throughout Capaldi's whole tenure - and now the people who felt "cheated" because the 12th Doctor was "an old white guy" or even "a white dude again" (don't tell me you don't remember reading similar comments pretty much everywhere back then) seem to feel "vindicated", as if they were somehow "owed" something. And that's what worries me here, for the future of the series. That being said, it's true that this change seems to generate (quite predictably) some very irrational reactions from a part of the fanbase, a bit like the (apparently terrible, but that's another matter entirely) Ghostbusters all-women reboot (e.g. people writing stuff like "you've ruined my childhood" etc.). I read Jodie Whittaker's first "post-reveal" interview and, while I can't wait to see her debut in the role, I must also admit that it did seem very PC-oriented, with phrases like "as a feminist" or "fans mustn't be afraid of my gender" (now, that struck me as slightly clumsy and unduly patronizing, suggesting the idea that anyone who disliked the idea of a female Doctor - and I'm not speaking for me here - was some kind of 30-years old virgin / anorak afraid of girls etc - not the best way, I think, to connect with your fanbase). Whether you find the "gender switch" idea fantastic or catastrophic, one thing is certain: it has set a precedent which will affect all future regenerations of the character - and I sincerely hope we won't have each new incarnation of the Doctor turn into some kind of competition or flamewar between people who seem to think that the only acceptable form of fiction is one that features a hero whose "identity" (and I use the term loosely here, since we're talking about a supposedly nonhuman character anyway) satisfies their definition of "correctness", socio-cultural vindication or whatever. And let's face it: this kind of attitude (which is quickly becoming prevalent in our "2.0 society") is largely as immmature as the 'ragequit' reactions previously mentioned (somehow, they struck me as the two sides of the same coin: people who seem to interpret this choice either as "their" victory or as "their" loss r defeat... and no, it's not how fiction should work). So yes, as far as I'm concerned, welcome to the 13th Doctor! But as always, time will tell
|
|
|
Post by Corone on Jul 17, 2017 15:14:58 GMT
I'm a little sad to loose the non-macho male lead archetype the Doctor has always been, as we have few to no others of that. (maybe Picard, possibly Harry Potter?) But I'm fully down with Jodie Whittiker taking over the role. I think they picked her simply because she was just what they were looking for, regardless of gender. So I'm really looking forward to seeing what she brings to the show with the same rampant excitement I reserve for any new Doctor. My main regret of the announcement, was that it wasn't followed immediately by the next episode!
|
|
Ordovician
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 79
Favourite Doctors: 2, 3, 4, 12
|
Post by Ordovician on Jul 17, 2017 15:28:16 GMT
Indeed. Some of the comments elsewhere are very depressing. The amount of vitriol being spewed about took me aback. I didn't expect it to be a popular decision but I was a bit surprised at just HOW hated it was. I was even more taken aback by how many women were grousing about it.
|
|
Ordovician
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 79
Favourite Doctors: 2, 3, 4, 12
|
Post by Ordovician on Jul 17, 2017 15:34:16 GMT
I would've been more surprised if the BBC hadn't announced an actress playing The Doctor on Sunday given the precedent set during the last couple of seasons with Missy and the Gallifreyan whose name escapes me. I still on some level wish they would've just done a Romana spin-off series, but ahh well. She's still overdue a comeback IMO. ^ This.
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Jul 17, 2017 16:02:58 GMT
Indeed. Some of the comments elsewhere are very depressing. The amount of vitriol being spewed about took me aback. Yes, it's completely unwarranted - and from both sides of the fence. And once again I really value the pervading atmosphere of courtesy of this forum. I was even more taken aback by how many women were grousing about it. I don't see why women should be more pleased than men about this choice - again, it seems to take the assumption that all we want in a hero is some kind of ego-mirror for ourselves. Sylvie, my wife, who shares my enthusiasm about DW (and DWAITAS BTW), is not especially thrilled with this decision (but not especially revolted either) - and why should she? Because she should feel that Jodie Whittaker is "closer" to her than the previous Doctors were? As if a person's anatomical gender conditioned everything he/she should feel or think?? As if, somehow, all men or all women should more or less think alike or that we should automatically "relate" to someone because we think we have the same sexual organs as them? Well count me out. I think that many people miss the point here: many DW fans are disappointed with this decision (and once again, this is NOT my case) NOT because they are male but because the Doctor has always been male (so far) - which is NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL. Even if we don't share these people's disappointment, we should at least try to understand or even respect their feelings - and I'm not speaking about hopeless misogynistic trolls here. Putting all persons who are not thrilled by the gender switch into the same bag (one with "male chauvinistic pig" written on it) seems to be utterly unfair, patronizing and alienating. I'm not saying anyone here does this (and this, as I pointed out above, is a testament to this forum's excellent ambiance) but it's a reaction I've observed over many other sources on the web and I find it very regrettable. I've just rewatched the Jodie Witthaker trailer and found it really intriguing - and that's what any good DW trailer should be, eh? A postscript from Sylvie: What bothers me most is the kind of pointless, ludicrous "war" that this decision seems to generate (from both sides, including that of the people who somehow view the switch as some kind of "overdue victory"). What I'm really awaiting for the next season is GOOD DW STORIES (regardless of the Doctor's gender), something which I feel we've been deprived throughout most of the post-Russell T. Davies era (with the exception of the last season, which really went in the good direction).
|
|
The Master
2nd Incarnation
"I am the Master and you will obey me"
Posts: 26
|
Post by The Master on Jul 17, 2017 16:20:26 GMT
I wonder what the response would have been if it was Peter Dinklage.
|
|
Rassilon
Administrator
Grand Administrator
Posts: 751
|
Post by Rassilon on Jul 17, 2017 16:27:06 GMT
15th. Tennant regenerated back into himself. Nonsense. He clearly redirected the regeneration energy OUT of himself and did NOT regenerate. Matt Smith was out of all 12 regenerations, ergo Tennant regenerated twice. I'm not going to get involved in a prolonged argument about semantics.
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Jul 17, 2017 16:35:30 GMT
Speaking of Peter Dinklage, I did use him for a regenerated Drax in my campaign! And my alternate Doctors (I drifted from the official continuity after David Tennant's Tenth Doctor) included Paterson Joseph (in his "Marquis de Carabas" apparel, of course) and Kenneth Branagh... with a final, ultimate return to Paul McGann (for complicated reasons that made real sense in the context of our campaign). (sorry for the digression)
|
|
Ordovician
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 79
Favourite Doctors: 2, 3, 4, 12
|
Post by Ordovician on Jul 17, 2017 18:03:30 GMT
I don't see why women should be more pleased than men about this choice - again, it seems to take the assumption that all we want in a hero is some kind of ego-mirror for ourselves. I suppose on hindsight I should have clarified that a bit more. Back when they were only talking about the possibility of a woman Doctor, I never saw any negative comments from women about it, of the comments I saw anyway. It wasn't until now, that they went ahead and went through with it, that they cropped up. From some of the same people that claimed they were all for it earlier. That's what shocked me. This I definitely agree with. It's the stories that matter. And as was said earlier, the fact we have a different showrunner and might get better stories now is more important to me than who they picked as the Doctor, honestly.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 17, 2017 19:30:38 GMT
Nonsense. He clearly redirected the regeneration energy OUT of himself and did NOT regenerate. Matt Smith was out of all 12 regenerations, ergo Tennant regenerated twice. As I said, the Doctor "redirected the regeneration energy OUT of himself." He used up that energy for something other than regenerating. He originally had the ability to use that energy twelve times, and he used the penultimate burst to make a half-human copy of himself, and he did not regenerate. Twelve bursts of regeneration energy; one of which was used to make a copy of himself, not to regenerate. If you want to call copy-Doctor a "regeneration," eh, whatever. You just used semantics to change the numeric answer to a question. The semantics are relevant. I don't think it's fair of you to get the last word and then try to shut down the discussion, especially when you did the very thing you just accused me of.
|
|
|
Post by Hedgewick on Jul 17, 2017 21:28:53 GMT
This is fantastic news. Our roleplaying team is celebrating the announcement of Jodie Whittaker as the Thirteenth Doctor. We can't wait to see her in action. She's gonna be brilliant!
|
|
Rassilon
Administrator
Grand Administrator
Posts: 751
|
Post by Rassilon on Jul 17, 2017 21:31:57 GMT
Matt Smith was out of all 12 regenerations, ergo Tennant regenerated twice. ...Nonsense. He clearly redirected the regeneration energy OUT of himself and did NOT regenerate.... As I said, the Doctor "redirected the regeneration energy OUT of himself." He used up that energy for something other than regenerating. He originally had the ability to use that energy twelve times, and he used the penultimate burst to make a half-human copy of himself, and he did not regenerate. Twelve bursts of regeneration energy; one of which was used to make a copy of himself, not to regenerate. If you want to call copy-Doctor a "regeneration," eh, whatever. The Doctor regenerated completely, healing himself, but without the change because he prevented that last bit of energy "going all the way" that would have changed his appearance and siphoned it into the hand. He was still in appearance the 10th Doctor (War Doctor sequencing notwithstanding), but was in fact the 11th incarnation. The 'copy Doctor' you refer to (The Metacrisis Doctor) was created as a result of Donna touching the hand. Don't take my word of it - watch the episode again. The first few minutes has the explanation. Journey's End, 2:26 onwards. And then of course in the preceding episode 'The Stolen Earth' at 44:50+ he says "I'm regenerating" before doing so.
|
|
|
Post by cigarman on Jul 17, 2017 22:45:24 GMT
I honestly have no idea why some folks are blaming the millennials for a female lead on the show... I've seen a lot of 'ragequit' responses all over the internet blaming PC (Political Correctness) and Millennials for this, when in fact it was the new showrunner's idea - Chris Chibnall - to have a female Doctor. He says in an interview that he went to the BBC and said just this expecting a refusal but they agreed. They said they wanted to take risks. So we have Chris Chibnall to blame for this stupidity and disrespect for over 50 years of tradition. If he felt that the show needed a female Time lord, there are other options. Doesn't Chibnall know anything about the History of the show? Apparently not. What about bringing Romona back from E-space to join The Doctor again? What about The Rani turning back up? If this is an example of the idiotic decisions Chibnall makes as showrunner, all the more reason not to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Marnal on Jul 18, 2017 0:36:51 GMT
Actually my problem with Chibnall is that all of his Dr Who to date has felt overly safe and paint-by-numbers. Him taking a chance on a female Doctor is the first sign I've seen that he's willing to try anything new.
|
|
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 18, 2017 1:53:11 GMT
I have abandoned numbering the incarnations of the Doctor. Most of the time, "the Doctor" is sufficient, even if you haven't established which incarnation it is.
"I have pictures of all your faces, but you always turn up in the wrong order...I NEED A SPOTTERS GUIDE"...River song.
|
|
|
Post by da professor on Jul 18, 2017 9:59:52 GMT
Glad to see only one negative poster on this thread. Would prefer he quit attention seeking and stop posting what is basically the same argument, but we can't have everything. What we can have, and in fact do, is a new Doctor and the prospect of new adventures to come. Can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by Nyder on Jul 18, 2017 10:17:14 GMT
Glad to see only one negative poster on this thread. Would prefer he quit attention seeking and stop posting what is basically the same argument, but we can't have everything. The casting decision is clearly a controversial one and not all members agree with it. Nevertheless, all are welcome to post their views, positive or negative, on the forum so long as the discussion remains civil. What we are vigilant against is any descent into the levels of vitriol and rage which have been demonstrated elsewhere over the past couple of days. So far, thankfully, there has been little sign of this here.
|
|
|
Post by jezmiller on Jul 18, 2017 14:03:10 GMT
Am I the only one who doesn't get what all the fuss is about?
So far, there seem to be two irreconcilable points of view
(1) The Doctor is a woman! Isn't it wonderful?
No, it isn't. Consider Michelle Gomez. She was a wonderful Master because she combined the playfulness and sense of fun that made you sneakily (and guiltily) root for her, with the authority and powerful presence that she needed to speak of "a friendship older than your civilization" and make you believe in her as a creature who was that old, had seen that much. The fact that she happened to be a woman had three-sevenths of b-all to do with her success in the role. Jodie Whittaker isn't guaranteed to be a successful Doctor just because she's a woman. It'll be down to her charisma, her presence and her personality (though some solid scripts that show her off to her best advantage won't hurt). I haven't seen Broadchurch, but a friend who has, assures me that she has all the needed qualities to make a good Doctor. But if she's a success, it won't be because of the presence or absence of a Y-chromosome.
(2) The Doctor is a woman! Isn't it terrible?
No it isn't. The Doctor is an ethical being who wins using charm and superior intellect. Those qualities weren't considered the exclusive property of one gender, even back in the 1960s. I could understand it if it were, say, James Bond, whose modus operandi is to get into fights and seduce beautiful women. Yes, I know that a woman could also do both of those things, but it would change the dynamic quite significantly. The Doctor's MO, by contrast, could be used equally well by a member of either gender without changing the dynamic at all.
I am reminded of a discussion in the Thin Blue Line, when Inspector Fowler's staff speculate about Sherlock Holmes' and Biggles' sexuality. The point of Sherlock Holmes and Biggles, Fowler complains indignantly, is to solve crimes and kill Germans, and their sexuality is an irrelevance. Well, the point of the Doctor is to save planets, fight monsters and annoy Daleks. His or her gender is immaterial.
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jul 18, 2017 15:05:04 GMT
Some great art emerging... The Thirteenth Doctor by Titan Comics Artist Christian Ward
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 18, 2017 18:32:27 GMT
Those qualities weren't considered the exclusive property of one gender, even back in the 1960s. I could understand it if it were, say, James Bond, whose modus operandi is to get into fights and seduce beautiful women. Yes, I know that a woman could also do both of those things, but it would change the dynamic quite significantly. The Doctor's MO, by contrast, could be used equally well by a member of either gender without changing the dynamic at all. Part of the point in changing actors is to change the dynamic. When a beloved character is changed too much, it is no longer that character. I was only kind of so-so with John Simm as the Master, because his character was nothing like the Master of the older show. Instead of sneaky, methodical, and refined he was flamboyant, boorish, maniacal, and mad. (The latest appearance of Simm's Master was a strange return to the old personality.) Simm played an excellent character, but he played a different character. He took it farther than the character could maintain. 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. 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. 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. 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. I'm not going to opine on whether this change is good or not. I have no control; my opinion doesn't matter. 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. Not because it's not fair or morally wrong or political correctness gone amok, but because it may strain fans' abilities to relate to the character. I don't know how *I* am going to relate to the character. I think all this is probably not a big deal. The new Doctor will probably be interesting to watch. But I'll tell you 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. I've felt all through the Moffat run that I've been losing something, and this may be the culmination of it, or at least the bottom of the slope. I don't know what that is, but I know I didn't feel it during Davies' run, where every character relationship was gay or bi or interracial or a woman in power some other progressive message. I started feeling it the moment Moffat put the St. John's Ambulance sign back on the TARDIS. How am I going to FEEL about the new Doctor? And I'm going to hate every moment of confused pronouns.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 18, 2017 18:50:42 GMT
The Doctor regenerated completely, healing himself, but without the change because he prevented that last bit of energy "going all the way" that would have changed his appearance and siphoned it into the hand. He was still in appearance the 10th Doctor (War Doctor sequencing notwithstanding), but was in fact the 11th incarnation. Healing yourself does not equal a new incarnation. As you quote, he says he didn't "go all the way." He also says "I'm still me," not "I'm a new me" or "I'm a new copy of me." After absorbing radiation from the Immortality Gate, the Doctor first heals himself, then wanders around for a bit before finally changing. He doesn't heal himself by making a new copy of himself, only to have it overwritten by his next incarnation. The healing part of regenerating is shown to be the part that doesn't involve changing. When the Doctor is regenerating on Trenzalore he first becomes young, "healing" his aging, before he changes. He doesn't regenerate into a young copy of himself, which then regenerates into a new body; he just de-ages before completing the regeneration. So the regeneration process is heal first, then change. In "Journey's End," the Doctor lets the "heal" phase happen, but redirects the "change" part into his alternate hand. He does not reincarnate into an identical form.
|
|
thereviewer
3rd Incarnation
Posts: 278
Favourite Doctors: Jodie Whittaker, Matt Smith, Peter Capaldi, David Tennant, Christopher Eccelston, John Hurt, Paul McGann, Sylvester McCoy, Peter Davison, Tom Baker, William Hartnell
|
Post by thereviewer on Jul 18, 2017 19:21:45 GMT
Some great art emerging... The Thirteenth Doctor by Titan Comics Artist Christian WardCome to think about it, I wonder when Titan Comics are going to start with the 13th Doctor ongoing series. I'm not quite sure how long their contract to make Doctor Who stories extends for, but I hope we get to see Doctor 13 participate in Multi-Doctor Events. Their last two previous Multi-Doctor stories were a success in my opinion, and if the upcoming Lost Dimension crossover is as good as I think it's going to be, then I think 13 deserves a non-televised multi-doctor event. Gotta wonder if they'll stop with the Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth ongoing after Year 3, or keep making stories. I would personally like to see more stories in spite of our incoming Doctor. After all, when Titan began their publishing run, it had been only a couple of months since we watched Matt Smith become Peter Capaldi and yet the stories still felt like an unseen season.
|
|
koloth
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 52
|
Post by koloth on Jul 18, 2017 20:46:58 GMT
Actually my problem with Chibnall is that all of his Dr Who to date has felt overly safe and paint-by-numbers. Him taking a chance on a female Doctor is the first sign I've seen that he's willing to try anything new. I felt exactly the same way when Moffat took over. All his episodes prior to taking over were structured, clever and watchable. After his first year it started to go down hill and flounder. I must admit I can't name a Chibnall story off the top of my head, they were that memorable. But now he's stuck his stick in the sand and he's certainly owning it. I say good luck to him. EDIT: I thought series 10 was a big who by numbers. The first series Capaldi felt comfortable in the role for me but nothing to write home about. If they tied in the fishbricks from 'Thin Ice' with the mission to Mars, or the Cybermen being the Truth Monks I would have seen that as daring.
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jul 18, 2017 21:04:05 GMT
Actually my problem with Chibnall is that all of his Dr Who to date has felt overly safe and paint-by-numbers. Him taking a chance on a female Doctor is the first sign I've seen that he's willing to try anything new. I agree but it's worth noting he was working within the other show runner's mandates. His tenure writing for Torchwood was anything but safe; it was dark, visceral and somewhat innovative: Day One, Cyberwoman, Countrycide, End of Days, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Adrift, Fragments and Exit Wounds. The crux of it here is what tone he will take with 13 and how dangerous he wants to play it. He already said he has a 'five year plan' and has instigated the first female Doctor. Given he more or less has Carte Blanche as the show's supremo, I err on the side of cautious optimism for what lies ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 18, 2017 23:40:09 GMT
Being a writer and being the producer are two very different things, as I'm sure Moffat could attest to.
|
|
|
Post by Marnal on Jul 19, 2017 2:41:36 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.
|
|
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 19, 2017 5:21:17 GMT
just a lil something that usually seems relevant about EVERY time a new doctor is announced
|
|
|
Post by olegrand on Jul 19, 2017 8:03:36 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. Sorry, but that does seem a bit excessive, doesn't it? As if to suggest that anyone disappointed with this gender swift idea was, what, "transphobic"? Let's not jump to conclusions and keep in mind that reality is one thing and fiction another thing entirely. One of the reasons so much vitriol was thrown on so many other forums is precisely because some people absolutely WANT to interpret other people's reactions in terms of identity politics or, to use a looser term, of ideological sensibilities. Furthermore, I don't think a gender swift as part of regeneration can reasonably be interprteed as a metaphor for RL sex transition... because then, what would all those previous, same-gender regenerations be metaphors of? Cosmetic surgery? Come on! Losing interest in a TV show for all sorts of reasons and rejecting a real-life person because you feel that person has become "too weird for you" cannot fairly be compared - if only because in the latter case, we are talking about real human beings, with all the real grief, emotional complexities and RL consequences they imply. Perhaps one might infer some kind of connection between the two attitudes but they certainly are not the same things. Perhaps the whole Doctor gender-switch will cause some viewers to think about stuff (let's keep it vague) that they'd never thought about previously or even to reconsider some of their pre-existing opinions about this and that. But right now it does seem unjust and premature to pass judgment on anybody who doesn't agree with one's perception of things. As a previous post reminded, sexual identity has never been a defining trait of the Doctor in his previous incarnations - and if we agree with that (I do), it would be quite illogical and intellectually dishonest to suddenly decrete that sexual identity "has always mattered" just because the character is now played by a woman. Either "these things matter", or they don't. Anyway, I don't want to start any form of "battle" here. As I've pointed out in one of my previous posts, this forum really shines (yes, I really think that) by its overall atmosphere of courtesy and respect between members. But even bearing this in mind, I must say I hesitated and took some time before posting my reactions, interrogations and opinions about the new Doctor - perhaps I was "testing the waters"... and once again, this forum proved true to its reputation. And it's a good thing, I think, that posters can express and explain their varying opinions on this matter here, without the alas-too-frequent escalation into name-calling, anathema-throwing etc. seen on so many other discussion boards. Throughout its history, the DW fandom has always harbored various sensibilities and opinion groups - everyone has their favorite Doctor, or their favorite companions, or New-Who fans who think the "old stories" are definitely too quaint for them or Classic-Who fans who think that the rebooted series will never be what "true DW" was... or people who just love the show in any of its incarnations. One of the wonderful aspects of all this is that those various subgroups usually manage to get on quite well - perhaps diversity (in its broadest or loosest sense) has been part of the Whoniverse ever since the Second Doctor stepped in. This is one of the things that make DW unique... and most probably one of the reasons why the show could actually be triumphantly revived in 2005. So let's keep this DW spirit alive and accept that, no, all Whovians do not think or feel the same (and some of them can even have extreme views). (Sorry for the long rant).
|
|
Rassilon
Administrator
Grand Administrator
Posts: 751
|
Post by Rassilon on Jul 19, 2017 8:35:09 GMT
I do hope that if a real person in his life made the same change he would be a little less brutal. Please be aware that extremely personal criticism of a member is moving into breach of forum rules.
Let's stay on track about 13.
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jul 19, 2017 13:35:20 GMT
|
|