OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

New "Doctor Who" trailer

POSTED BY: WHOZIT
UPDATED: Thursday, January 4, 2018 17:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 972
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, December 9, 2017 11:31 AM

WHOZIT




I'm sure the first words spoken by the new Who will be, "Do you know how to fly this thing?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 11, 2017 6:45 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I thought the next Dr. Who was a woman?

Was that just an internet hoax?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 11, 2017 5:01 PM

IMNOTHERE


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
I'm sure the first words spoken by the new Who will be, "Do you know how to fly this thing?"



Only if Doc #1 is still around to say "as a matter of fact, yes I do"

No, I'd bet the Internet on:

(Looks in mirror) "Oh, no, no, no... still not ginger!"

...or something else fitting the pattern:

"Horrified exclamation... dramatic pause... some comment completely unrelated to new gender."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 11, 2017 6:03 PM

MOOSE


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I thought the next Dr. Who was a woman?

Was that just an internet hoax?

Do Right, Be Right. :)



This is the Christmas Special, I'm guessing the new Who will show up at the end and lead into the next season.

The "THE" Doctor in this episode is the original Doctor (The First Doctor).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:27 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I thought the next Dr. Who was a woman?

Was that just an internet hoax?

Do Right, Be Right. :)



The next Doctor IS a woman , and I'm surprised there was nothing shown about " her " in the trailer. Absolutely stupid and ridiculous path they've chosen.

William Hartnell played the original Doctor, 50+ years ago. David Bradley is playing the role of 1st Doctor, as he's done so in the past. He bears an uncanny resemblance, which helps.

Jodie Whittaker will show up at the very end and assume the next version of The Doctor.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 14, 2017 12:55 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Interesting. I've never really watched any Who except for a few episodes with the guy from 28 days later (Chris Eggleston, or something like that). Was pretty cheesy, but enjoyable late night stuff to watch.

I had to laugh when I saw the frame selected for the video in the OP. I thought that was the new female doctor, but I thought it looked more like Dr. House.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:14 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


The 9th Doctor ( Christopher Eccleston ) will always be special to me, as it was his performance which finally drew me into the franchise. Pity that he only lasted 1 year, but of course, that gave us 10 ( David Tennant ) which is a very good thing.

Sad to see the series go sideways like this, after 50 years. Kill off the Doctor and start a whole new character, why not ?


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 15, 2017 7:50 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Eccleston... yeah. Him and Billie Piper (right?)

I saw about 8 episodes of it and it was pretty enjoyable. I didn't watch much TV or even play any video games for about 5 or 6 years around that time in my early-to-mid 20's. Way too much socializing at that time. I guess it just kind of fell off my radar.

It's something I've always considered watching from the very beginning one day. At this point though it would be almost a chore to get through. Kind of like starting Game of Thrones since I've never even seen 5 minutes of that show yet.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:49 AM

IMNOTHERE


Quote:


It's something I've always considered watching from the very beginning one day.



Since it originally ran from 1963-1989 and the 2005- version is a continuation, not a reboot, that would make re-watching Game of Thrones pretty trivial by comparison :-) That said, its probably easier to pick up part-way through than GoT... since the show is older than VCRs (and chunks of the show from the 60s have been lost) those of us who are under 60 managed to muddle through somehow!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:19 AM

IMNOTHERE


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The next Doctor IS a woman , and I'm surprised there was nothing shown about " her " in the trailer. Absolutely stupid and ridiculous path they've chosen.



Well, on past form she'll be in the Xmas episode for 10 seconds max, and it will be played as the big cliffhanger, so its not surprising that she's not in the trailer. The silly thing is that these plot developments are "spoiled" months in advance so that the death and regeneration of the Doctor won't be a surprise - however, here in the UK its easily the highest-profile dramatic role in TV and even if the BBC tried to keep it secret the Daily Murdoch would find out and splash it across the newsstands.

As for the "ridiculous path" - know what? I'm going to wait and see what they do with it. Of all the various suggestions for "gender flipping" well-established fictitious characters, the Doctor is the one role that does beg the question "does he always regenerate as a man?". Its a SF show - its meant to explore fantastic possibilities. If the scripts are up to par, they'll have good ideas about where to go with it and temper any politically-correct messages with humour.

E.g. we've just had a black, lesbian companion - and rather than just having lots of stories about her being abused by white straight men we've seen her putting both feet in her mouth when meeting a blue person, and her attempted conquest of a shy young woman was interrupted by the Pope walking into her bedroom. If they can deal with the "gender issues" of a female Doctor like that, then it should work.

(On the other hand, there was Madame Vastra who couldn't say a sentence without mentioning that she was married to a woman... we'll see)

...and in a couple of years time, it will be all change again.

Of course, its a crying shame that Joanna Lumley wasn't available...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 17, 2017 7:47 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by IMNOTHERE:
Quote:


It's something I've always considered watching from the very beginning one day.



Since it originally ran from 1963-1989 and the 2005- version is a continuation, not a reboot, that would make re-watching Game of Thrones pretty trivial by comparison :-) That said, its probably easier to pick up part-way through than GoT... since the show is older than VCRs (and chunks of the show from the 60s have been lost) those of us who are under 60 managed to muddle through somehow!






Yeah... LOL. I'm aware of the history of the show, though not in great detail. A more appropriate comparison of something I've always meant to watch but would be a chore now is every season of every Stargate show out there.

They've really actually lost chunks of the original run though? That's a shame. :(

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 18, 2017 11:36 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Want to know what rustles my jimmies ? All this b.s. talk by the Left of " cultural appropriation " , and yet they're the ones LITERALLY appropriating characters and genders, for their own damn agenda ! 50 + years of The Doctor being a male, and it's perfectly fine. So a couple of years ago, knowing in advance they were going to flip him to her, the writers just arbitrarily made it a thing, when before, it's never been. So then, when they DO flip the Doctor, they have a built in ( PHONY AS HELL ) excuse...' Oh yeah, we've seen this on Gallifrey already. It's old news. ' 2 years ago, if that !! Spare me ! There's no canon for this type of crap ! They just made it up to fit current psychosis of gender flipping mania that's going around, screw everything anyone else has done w/ this show since before they were even BORN!!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 19, 2017 5:32 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Snowflake hypocrisy.

It's at the very core of everything they say and everything they do.

Don't worry Rappy... they're going to get what's coming to them. It can only go on for so long before they start tripping all over themselves.

I'd urge you to look into the events surrounding Lena Dunham in the last month or two for a good example of what I'm talking about.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 22, 2017 8:25 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I've posted this before, and it's not just Dr. Who. Many want to make Idris Elba into James Bond. Not just ANY 00 agent, but actually CALL him James Bond ! That's ridiculous ! Clearly he's shown himself to be of the same caliber of awesome. But the agents should be seen like the XXX franchise. ( no, not THOSE xxx movies ) Where Xander Cage is enlisted , then they introduce Darius Stone... different actor, for a different character, but still the same level of bad assery.

And don't get me started on Thor-ina, what ever the hell that was about.

I just detest and reject this damn appropriation crap, for all of its lazy, pointless and ridiculous absurdity.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 23, 2017 10:51 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Appropriation. That's exactly what it is.



Watch this though. Watch how she puts her hands on him when he wants to just leave, and then yells that he isn't to put his hands on her.



Then she asks the guy with the camera "why are you filming this?", and when he says "for everyone's safety", she tries to take the camera.



Typical, hypocritical SJW left.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 25, 2017 10:48 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Well, as it was a farewell to Peter Capaldi, I chose to watch. A bit convoluted, more so than your standard Dr Who episode. I liked the sentiment, but in the end, in comparison to the others , this felt a bit overly self serving ( to the writers ) and a long winded good-bye to a good, but honestly, the least compelling Doctor as of late.

And I don't blame Capaldi one bit for the stories which were given him. I think he showed himself to be quite capable and could have been far better than he was allowed to show.

But we all know this wasn't about Peter Capaldi as it was about setting up the NEXT Doctor. Oh, how they tried to casually, cleverly drop in dated references to women and a woman's place. Yes, we GET IT already.

An end of an era - well, they got one thing right. Hardly anyone could call the 12th Doctor's appearance an ' era '. His was hardly special at all, unfortunately. The 'era' is that a He will become a She, and that truly is the end of the Doctor.

Sure didn't seem like the Tardis appreciated the change all that much either. Tossed the new gal out on her ass and looks like it was going to self destruct. Wouldn't blame it if it had. But , of course, I'm sure it'll 'fix' itself and reappear, some how, all pink an frilly inside...

Yeah, I'll stop right there.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 26, 2017 4:33 PM

GWEK


At the risk of getting sucked into the political part of this conversation, "appropriation" is exactly the wrong term. This is actually the opposite.

But that's neither here nor there.

If The Doctor is a woman or James Bond is black, so what? I mean, as long as the stories are good.

"Timeless" characters like Bond and The Doctor and comic book characters are recast, rebooted, and re-imagining all the time. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

Let's look at James Bond as a theoretical example. He's been played by three Englishmen, an Irishman, a guy from Scotland, another one from Wales, an Australian and an American. His age and appearance have shifted through the decades, and if we consider him as a single individual who has been in constant service to the Crown, he's over 100 years old.

There are two ways to interpret James Bond: either he's a single individual (in which case his story essentially makes no consistent sense) or he's actually a series of individuals taking on the assignment of "James Bond, 007," in which case, why couldn't be be black? Or Asian? Or once again American or Australian?

Now, I would say that makes James Bond a WOMAN might be a bit problematic, because his (for lack of a better term) "maleness" has always been an integral part of the character, no matter the actor or interpretation. But beyond that, as long as the writing is good, does it matter?

(Having said that, Trevor Noah has a good bit on why, even though he loves Idris Elba, he shouldn't be Bond: because most of the places Bond goes are full of white guys, and he's stand out as the obvious spy, an inversion of the clever opening moments of Vin Diesel's xXx.)

On The Doctor... Yes, the role has always been a male up to now, but, once again, we're looking at a character who has been interpreted and reimagined multiple times across generations. Within that time, he's just age and appearance time and time again in a way that defies categorization or expectation. Do we have any reason to believe that, with enough reincarnations, The Doctor WOULDN'T become a woman? (Or for that matter, black or Asian or Australian or - God forbid! - American?)

Caveat: I have been a loyal fan of the show since it's return a decade or so again, but any and all efforts to attempt to watch the earlier incarnations have been met with boredom and slumber. With that in mind, there may be something in the earlier versions that long-timers can point to.

A lot of the enjoyment of this current interpretation of Doctor Who is the interplay between The Doctor du jour and the Companion(s) du jour, as well as the tension of the current status quo vs the previous. Sometimes it works great. Sometimes, not so much. If this particular interation works well, who cares? And if it doesn't work well, that's not because The Doctor happens to be female. It will be the fault of bad writing or casting.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 26, 2017 5:44 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:
At the risk of getting sucked into the political part of this conversation, "appropriation" is exactly the wrong term. This is actually the opposite.

But that's neither here nor there.

If The Doctor is a woman or James Bond is black, so what? I mean, as long as the stories are good.



No, not " so what ? ". It matters. 50 years of building a brand , an image, of something which has become to be known to stand for something, and in an instant, that's been hijacked.

We already know the Doctor is NOT the last of the Timelords. So why the hell not just introduce a way for another to escape, this time a woman? Honestly, how freaking hard is that ?

Quote:


"Timeless" characters like Bond and The Doctor and comic book characters are recast, rebooted, and re-imagining all the time. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.



Bond was crafted after a specific individual. He wasn't black, or gay, nor was he a she. That's the POINT ! It doesn't prohibit that any of those - gay, black, female, dwarf, trans... could ALSO be their own brand of "00" agent. In fact, it's a sad shortcut to appropriate / steal / over write, what ever works best for you, another established character just to appease the whims of a lazy current culture.

Quote:



Let's look at James Bond as a theoretical example. He's been played by three Englishmen, an Irishman, a guy from Scotland, another one from Wales, an Australian and an American. His age and appearance have shifted through the decades, and if we consider him as a single individual who has been in constant service to the Crown, he's over 100 years old.



All white males, btw. After the original real life individual who the character was created.

Quote:



There are two ways to interpret James Bond: either he's a single individual (in which case his story essentially makes no consistent sense) or he's actually a series of individuals taking on the assignment of "James Bond, 007," in which case, why couldn't be be black? Or Asian? Or once again American or Australian?



Because he's not. He's one CHARACTER, and that person happens to be a white male. Doesn't keep a black lesbian from being ANOTHER " 00 " agent, full of her own brand of awesome, clever quirks, skills, etc...

Quote:



Now, I would say that makes James Bond a WOMAN might be a bit problematic, because his (for lack of a better term) "maleness" has always been an integral part of the character, no matter the actor or interpretation. But beyond that, as long as the writing is good, does it matter?



It matters because it's not James Bond. You mean to tell me that ONLY excellent writing can be accompanied by a MALE 00 agent ? This makes absolutely no sense, what so ever.

Quote:



(Having said that, Trevor Noah has a good bit on why, even though he loves Idris Elba, he shouldn't be Bond: because most of the places Bond goes are full of white guys, and he's stand out as the obvious spy, an inversion of the clever opening moments of Vin Diesel's xXx.)



Exactly my point !! Thank you !

Quote:



On The Doctor... Yes, the role has always been a male up to now, but, once again, we're looking at a character who has been interpreted and reimagined multiple times across generations. Within that time, he's just age and appearance time and time again in a way that defies categorization or expectation. Do we have any reason to believe that, with enough reincarnations, The Doctor WOULDN'T become a woman? (Or for that matter, black or Asian or Australian or - God forbid! - American?)

Caveat: I have been a loyal fan of the show since it's return a decade or so again, but any and all efforts to attempt to watch the earlier incarnations have been met with boredom and slumber. With that in mind, there may be something in the earlier versions that long-timers can point to.

A lot of the enjoyment of this current interpretation of Doctor Who is the interplay between The Doctor du jour and the Companion(s) du jour, as well as the tension of the current status quo vs the previous. Sometimes it works great. Sometimes, not so much. If this particular interation works well, who cares? And if it doesn't work well, that's not because The Doctor happens to be female. It will be the fault of bad writing or casting.



The companion doesn't need to be a smokin' hot girl. Or even a cute girl. But the writing will , as always , be the key. I just think it's a cop out. A surrender to the nonsense of today's " fluid " gender fad. Over all, I think it hurts the franchise because of 12 prior versions and 50 + years of established back stories and episodes.

I don't mind a female time lord, in her own TARDIS. Just not going to be a fan of her being THE Doctor.

Never.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 26, 2017 10:36 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

The companion doesn't need to be a smokin' hot girl. Or even a cute girl. But the writing will , as always , be the key. I just think it's a cop out. A surrender to the nonsense of today's " fluid " gender fad. Over all, I think it hurts the franchise because of 12 prior versions and 50 + years of established back stories and episodes.

I don't mind a female time lord, in her own TARDIS. Just not going to be a fan of her being THE Doctor.

Never.

As of today, 840 episodes of Doctor Who have aired. The regenerations are the primary reason Doctor Who was able to evolve from British children’s educational programming to a 50-years-old-and-counting genre TV standard with fans all around the world. The show was always science fiction, and it had always had time travel and visits to alien worlds baked into its premise of an alien in a stolen spaceship gallivanting about the cosmos. But the regeneration aspect has meant that any time the show seemed to be creatively flagging, it could recast its main role and jet off in another direction. The new showrunner, Chris Chibnall, worked with the new Dr. Who, Jodie Whittaker, previously on Broadchurch, a terrific collaboration that suggests great things for the new Doctor.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 26, 2017 11:04 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



No problem w/ Jodie. She and David Tennant were in Broadchurch. Some good stuff there. But my comments above stand.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 27, 2017 11:03 AM

GWEK


I'm going to trim some text out here and there to try to keep the length of this down.

AURaptor, I know I'm not going to convince you to change your viewpoint any more than you're going to convince me to change mine, so that's not my intention here. I have some genuine questions, and I'm going to try to ask them as respectfully as I can.

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:
If The Doctor is a woman or James Bond is black, so what? I mean, as long as the stories are good.



No, not " so what ? ". It matters. 50 years of building a brand , an image, of something which has become to be known to stand for something, and in an instant, that's been hijacked.



As Second has clearly pointed out, the "brand" of Doctor Who has changed considerably over the years. The same is true of something like James Bond. Or Thor. Or Star Wars.

I personally see the current change to The Doctor as further EVOLUTION of that branding. I understand that you may personally LIKE this particular evolution, but how is it hijacking?

As a point of comparison, I'm a lifelong Star Wars fan. Loved the Original Trilogy. Liked the Prequel Trilogy. Not a big fan of the Sequel Trilogy. But to me, that's just evolution and interpretation. Not hijacking.

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
We already know the Doctor is NOT the last of the Timelords. So why the hell not just introduce a way for another to escape, this time a woman? Honestly, how freaking hard is that ?



Because the show is called "Doctor Who." The brand, as you say, is built around THIS PARTICULAR Time Lord. It's the same reason Idris Elba shouldn't play 006.

Suddenly throwing a new character at the center of it... THAT would be hijacking the brand.

Quote:


Bond was crafted after a specific individual. He wasn't black, or gay, nor was he a she. That's the POINT!



By your strict interpretation, James Bond should have been retired long ago. And should only have been played by Sean Connery. That's clearly not going to happen. How do you explain that today's James Bond is the same age, if not younger than, the James Bond of 50 years ago? You can't.

If Bond is a specific individual, he is a specific individual who is constantly reinterpreted and reimagined. The original movie James Bond was an animal of the Cold War, and has been reinterpreted multiple times (sometimes successfully, others, not so much) to move past that.

For the record, I'm not saying that the idea that there are multiple spies is the role of "James Bond, 007" is any more or less valid that the "solo individual" approach, just that many folks have interpreted it that way to resolve the logical conundrums. I have no personal preference myself.

Quote:


It doesn't prohibit that any of those - gay, black, female, dwarf, trans... could ALSO be their own brand of "00" agent. In fact, it's a sad shortcut to appropriate / steal / over write, what ever works best for you, another established character just to appease the whims of a lazy current culture.



I find it ironic that you're using the argument that changes to a particular "brand" are negative - but changes to match the prevailing currents are exactly what good branding does. That's the POINT of branding - to have timeless core elements that can successfully evolve and change.


Quote:

All white males, btw. After the original real life individual who the character was created.


All white males FOR NOW, btw. Time marches on.

And also James Bond may have some roots in reality, those roots have diminished over time, and at this point, any attempt to anchor him by such (unless it were the point of a particular story and interpretation) is pointless. The current Daniel Craig version of James Bond alone throws a lot of the earlier versions into disarray, forget about some distant and largely forgotten antecedent. However, the current version still pays respects to the older versions.

As another example, consider Batman. The Batman of the 1960s TV show is very different from the original comic book character, and both are very different from the Christian Bale version. Do any of these versions (or the countless other versions) invalidate one another? No. They're just evolution. If we're going to say "James Bond must always be white because he was white first," we should also logically say "Batman must always be campy."

Quote:


Quote:


(Having said that, Trevor Noah has a good bit on why, even though he loves Idris Elba, he shouldn't be Bond: because most of the places Bond goes are full of white guys, and he's stand out as the obvious spy, an inversion of the clever opening moments of Vin Diesel's xXx.)



Exactly my point !! Thank you !



Respectfully, that's not your point at all.

Your point appears to be that since Bond was white first, he must always be white (as a sidepoint: Movie James Bond was also Scottish first, but never Scottish again. This may seem minor, but why draw a line? Culturally, it actually DOES matter which part of the United Kingdom he's from.)

My point (or rather Trevor Noah's) is that there may be a logical STORYTELLING reason not to do it. That's completely separate from the point you seem to be making. In essence, you're making a cause for a CAUSE for James Bond to be ever-white, while Noah is discussing the EFFECTS of what would happen with a change.


Quote:


The companion doesn't need to be a smokin' hot girl. Or even a cute girl. But the writing will , as always , be the key. I just think it's a cop out. A surrender to the nonsense of today's " fluid " gender fad. Over all, I think it hurts the franchise because of 12 prior versions and 50 + years of established back stories and episodes.



See, here's where we get to the core of our difference of opinion, I think. What you see as a copy out and a surrender to modern society (because "fluid" gender isn't a fad; it's evolution of social mores), I see as writers saying "Look, we've had diminishing returns on male Doctor after male Doctor... Let's try something new."

It takes the established brand and spins it in a new and creative way. Will it succeed? Time will tell. Back in the day, no one thought anyone except Sean Connery could play James Bond, after all.

Quote:


I don't mind a female time lord, in her own TARDIS. Just not going to be a fan of her being THE Doctor.

Never.



And you don't have to be a fan.

But it doesn't mean that the creative folks are in any way wrong or at fault to attempt it. It doesn't mean that the history of Doctor Who has been co-opted, hijacked, or destroyed. It just means that some folks won't like it. And others will. Just like the Capaldi. Or Smith. Or the Tenth Doctor. Or the Ninth. Or the Second.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 27, 2017 2:36 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


There was Coke. Some genius thought up the idea of NEW Coke. It almost sank the brand.

But throwing a new character , a female for a male's part, that IS changing the brand.

Quote:

By your strict interpretation, James Bond should have been retired long ago. And should only have been played by Sean Connery. That's clearly not going to happen. How do you explain that today's James Bond is the same age, if not younger than, the James Bond of 50 years ago? You can't.


Umm, no. James Bond wasn't even the REAL person for which the character was made, so this is nonsense. The Bond character , as much as it annoys you to read, is white, male, and British. ( Not sure how that's an overly strict interpretation. It's pretty basic, actually ) That the ACTOR playing Bond isn't British doesn't change the fact, because ... it's ACTING. You're not going to suggest Idris Elba PLAY the role of a white 00 agent, are you ? Nor should you say the same for a woman playing the Doctor.

Santa Claus was based on an actual person, St. Nicolas. The fabricated character which arouse from that person wasn't black, Asian or a lesbian. It REALLY isn't that hard to follow that , yes, the character can change in appearance and personality, the template of ' Santa' remains the same.

You want to foster a NEW character w/ any array of diversity , for the sake of inclusiveness, by all means, make your own. Don't steal another one already established.

Sorry, but science doesn't cater to social mores. The XX / XY reality of chromosomes is as it was 100,000 years ago. Gender fluidity is a fad.

I won't be a fan from now on, that's for sure. Sad they ended the series as they did, but 54 years is an epic run.

The writers could have gone any number of ways. Even black, Asian, gay , what ever, as long as it was a male. But switching genders is simply a bridge too far.


But hey, know what ? Hope it all works out and the series goes strong for another 50 years. Enjoy.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 28, 2017 5:54 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Ask Marvel comics how their attempt at changing all of the characters to minorities and females have gone.

Short answer... Nobody buys Marvel comics anymore.


To pretend this appropriation isn't everywhere now on one hand and then scream at whites, particularly white males when they "appropriate" somebody else's culture in blatant hypocritical fashion is the definition of problematic.

I think dreadlocks look stupid on white people. But they can wear them if they want to. Anybody who's not white and says otherwise can just stop using the internet... hell... they can stop using electricity. Both of which were invented by white men.



I'd think it would be insulting if I was a black guy or a woman and they had to ape long time white characters like they do. What? You can't create a new character that people would watch?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 28, 2017 1:29 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


This is one of the reasons I haven't posted here in a long time, and probably won't much in the future either. Too many butt-hurt conservatives who can't stand a little change in their life. And even when the poster is more liberal like myself, I don't always agree with their position either, especially when they make the same type of ad hominem attacks.

I'm not going to do anyone's homework for them, but if I cared to I could search and provide links to articles that were published back in the early 80s when Tom Baker was leaving the show. Both he and the BBC said they were considering a change to a woman, and Baker said he thought it was a good idea. I'm sure if they had, there would have been even more of a backlash then than now.

I haven't seen The Last Jedi yet, so haven't been reading those threads, but I have seen other places where there's been a lot of whinging about the SJW agenda. Without details about the film, I'm still convinced I'll think those arguments are utter bullshit too.

Jodie Whitaker is a very good actress, and I don't doubt she will do credit to the role. I hope all viewers give her a chance, just as every new actor to the role deserves a chance. I'm certainly looking forward to it, and I wish we didn't have to wait so long. Still no word on when her first episode will air.

ETA: I'd welcome anything Idris Elba cares to do, even James Bond.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 28, 2017 5:25 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
This is one of the reasons I haven't posted here in a long time, and probably won't much in the future either. Too many butt-hurt conservatives who can't stand a little change in their life. And even when the poster is more liberal like myself, I don't always agree with their position either, especially when they make the same type of ad hominem attacks.

I'm not going to do anyone's homework for them, but if I cared to I could search and provide links to articles that were published back in the early 80s when Tom Baker was leaving the show. Both he and the BBC said they were considering a change to a woman, and Baker said he thought it was a good idea. I'm sure if they had, there would have been even more of a backlash then than now.



I appreciate how you dismiss valid and well thought out reasons for why some dislike the idea of this change and cast if off as mere ' butt hurt '. Sorry,but you don't get to dictate to others how they're suppose to feel about - anything.

Quote:



I haven't seen The Last Jedi yet, so haven't been reading those threads, but I have seen other places where there's been a lot of whinging about the SJW agenda. Without details about the film, I'm still convinced I'll think those arguments are utter bullshit too.



I guess my main beef w/ the new eps are that Ben Solo comes off as a whiny emo brat who has no valid claim for moving to the dark side. Both his parents are alive, neither were kidnaped, tortured and raped by Tusken raiders, and no one has a clue who Snoke was, as he some how turned Ben from long distance ? Meh... lame.

Quote:



Jodie Whitaker is a very good actress, and I don't doubt she will do credit to the role. I hope all viewers give her a chance, just as every new actor to the role deserves a chance. I'm certainly looking forward to it, and I wish we didn't have to wait so long. Still no word on when her first episode will air.

ETA: I'd welcome anything Idris Elba cares to do, even James Bond.



Jodie's fine. But she's not the problem.

Idris Elba is a bad ass. He'd be awesome in just about anything. Especially as another OO agent. But he's not James Bond. Silly to think Ian Flemming ,who used himself and his own brother , among others, as inspiration for Bond. None of which look anything like Idris. Just sayin'.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 28, 2017 8:11 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


Okay, I apologize for the "butt-hurt" remark, that was inappropriate. But that doesn't mean I agree you have a valid and well thought out point.

"It's never been this way, I don't want it to change, so it shouldn't change" is not valid or well thought out. It's petty.

Hell, forget about Idris Elba, I'd like to see a woman take on the role of Jane Bond. There is no valid argument against that being a good idea. James Bond is a fictional character, it doesn't matter who he was based on. A woman could be just as action-oriented, and ruthless, as a male Bond. And I believe Jodie Whitaker will prove that The Doctor can be a woman, and excel at it. If she doesn't work out, I'll be willing to admit it.

As for 6String's comment about Marvel comics, we shouldn't overlook the fact that a lot of women are ridiculed as "fake geeks" and they may not be comfortable in the typically male-centric comic shops. A lot of people prefer to buy the trade paperback collections rather than individual issues, but that means the individual issues don't get enough pre-orders, leading Marvel and the shop owners to the conclusion certain titles are not in demand.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 28, 2017 11:34 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Okay, I apologize for the "butt-hurt" remark, that was inappropriate. But that doesn't mean I agree you have a valid and well thought out point.

"It's never been this way, I don't want it to change, so it shouldn't change" is not valid or well thought out. It's petty.



That's not my positon at all. " It's never been this way " is an objective fact. " I don't want it to change " , isn't petty at all. In some cases, it makes sense for change to occur. ( Spider-Man , Ironman , Captain America... all can 'change', do to their character's creation and who can wear the mask, the suit, or carry the shield. ) " So it shouldn't change ". As I said, some cases it's not an issue. Others, big issue. And as w/ The Doctor, or James Bond, these are characters which have stood the test of time being basically varying degrees of the same basic design.

Quote:



Hell, forget about Idris Elba, I'd like to see a woman take on the role of Jane Bond. There is no valid argument against that being a good idea. James Bond is a fictional character, it doesn't matter who he was based on. A woman could be just as action-oriented, and ruthless, as a male Bond. And I believe Jodie Whitaker will prove that The Doctor can be a woman, and excel at it. If she doesn't work out, I'll be willing to admit it.



Jane would be ...well, a different person. Fair enough. But Bond ? Does she HAVE to be related, or bear the same name ? I think with Bond, too many are getting fished in w/ the view that the character is ONLY awesome because of the name. ( Gee, now why would that be ? ) But Bond is just an agent. A very GOOD agent, as the premise dictates, or otherwise we'd not have his long lasting reputation on which to build. And we all know what reputation is

And we already have dozens of bad ass women. how would you feel about Dirk, the Vampire Slayer ? Or Wonder Man ? Larry Croft: Tomb Raider ?

There's so much more I could go into all this, but it's clear that what's been done is done, I'm not going to accept it, and those who think it's fine or even awesome will get to enjoy what ever comes next.



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 29, 2017 7:52 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I'm not a Conservative.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 29, 2017 8:42 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not a Conservative.

Do Right, Be Right. :)



Don't you just love it when others label you and try to fit you into a box of their own design and definition ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 29, 2017 1:22 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


At least he didn't call me Alt-Right or a Nazi.



I think it's funny how the Left has gotten so bad in the last 10 years that I agree with you on more things these days Rap. I don't recall us seeing eye to eye on much back in 2007.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 29, 2017 6:38 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
At least he didn't call me Alt-Right or a Nazi.



I think it's funny how the Left has gotten so bad in the last 10 years that I agree with you on more things these days Rap. I don't recall us seeing eye to eye on much back in 2007.

Do Right, Be Right. :)



Not sure I agree with much of what I said in '07 either.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 30, 2017 7:42 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


lol... ain't that the truth?

If anything, I'm quite a bit more Liberal these days. I wasn't anti-Republican back then, but I was anti-neo-con and sure as hell anti-Bush. The "Patriot Act", the insane military spending putting us at great risk of going bankrupt (or at least giving other not-so-friendly countries leverage against us), nukes in Iraq, never-ending wars that we're still in to this day.

I was never a Democrat, but I feel like I was arguing on a completely different side back then. It was my choice to do that back then though. Everything has changed so much in 10 years. I don't feel comfortable sitting where I'm at right now, but I've kind of been pushed into this camp because the left has gone completely off the reservation.

I want to call it Cultural Marxism, but Google the term and the first hit you get is a website saying that it's a buzzword used by neo-nazis. I'm not even kidding. Do it.

Absolutely insane.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 30, 2017 6:09 PM

IMNOTHERE


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Because he's not. He's one CHARACTER, and that person happens to be a white male. Doesn't keep a black lesbian from being ANOTHER " 00 " agent, full of her own brand of awesome, clever quirks, skills, etc...



I think there's a key difference between The Doctor and James Bond that makes this a poor comparison:

James Bond is supposed to be a human, and has been firmly established as a white male. Sure, the films are anachronistic but the "James Bond 007 = Dread Pirate Roberts" code name theory is just a fan theory, not cannon - having the character change race or gender would be... silly (if they want diversity, give the current Moneypenny a spinoff movie...)

The Doctor, however, is supposed to be a shape-shifting alien - that was established by the end of the very first series. The plot hole is actually "why does he always change into a white British guy?" If there's one fictional character that you could gender-flip plausibly, the Doctor is your ma..., sorry, person. Its a SciFi/Fantasy show - its supposed to throw curve balls at the audience. I'm just waiting to see if the stories are good.

(Not quite sure why they showed the Doctor's wedding ring falling off after the regeneration though... surely the BBC aren't saying that she can't still be married to River? She's a Time Lord, not a Trill!)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 30, 2017 7:26 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



The only reason regeneration of the Doctor even became a thing in the first place is that William Hartnell was getting up in age, and the producers of the show didn't want the series to just end. It was an after thought, because thanks in large part to the popularity of the Daleks, the show had to go on.

Originally, Dr Who was more about a feisty old Time Lord taking his grand daughter and a couple of teachers through space and time giving them ( and the audience ) a look into science and history. That's it ! It was never imagined of ever becoming this grand saga , where humans, the galaxy and even the cosmos itself often faced dire peril.

The thing about the wedding ring was curious. Obviously, if The Doctor's ring finger does shrink, it's going to fall off. Unlike The ONE Ring, crafted by Sauron, I don't see this one changing sizes.

I'm sure it'll be addressed to the satisfaction of any fans still watching.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:55 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I'm a reasonable guy. I've never watched the show save for a few episodes with Eccleston and even the last one he was in where he changed. That's how I learned about that part of it.

In this case, if the writing is good, it's not a terrible thing, and it's not without a legitimate reason.

The only problem for me is the timing, really. If they hadn't been doing this in so many other areas where there is no rhyme or reason for it and just to further a political agenda, it wouldn't be lost in a sea of this type of thing mindlessly and needlessly happening.

I don't blame Rap for not wanting to watch it. And if the ratings slump after it happens I really hope that I don't start hearing a lot of stories about how it's the sexist men out there that are destroying the show.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 31, 2017 3:13 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


The new reboot starting w/ #9 was when I really came on board as well. 9 and 10 were really brilliant, and some of the no great episodes were still watchable.

I've tried to go back and get a taste of the older shows, but it was such a completely different sci-fi landscape, and so much has changed, I really found it hard to relate. Most folks don't appreciate a show " for its time ... ". To many, that's just another way of saying something sucked, or they had really crappy special effects ( often true ) , but the stories themselves were what mattered the most.

I am very glad for the work done to revive and carry on the legacy. I truly hope it goes for another 50 years, and beyond.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 1, 2018 2:03 PM

IMNOTHERE


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The only reason regeneration of the Doctor even became a thing in the first place is that William Hartnell was getting up in age, and the producers of the show didn't want the series to just end. It was an after thought,



Sure - it was an afterthought 50 years ago that has since become thoroughly integrated into the show and is a major part of the reason that it is still going today. The "educational" angle was ditched fairly early on, and the original "no monsters" rule didn't survive the second story that introduced our favourite mobile trash cans.

Its not like "identity politics" is new territory for the show, either - so far its been handled with humour, a light touch and even a hint of subversion. If the new scripts are bad, I'll turn off with everybody else. However, a fantasy show in which the main character gets a new body every couple of years really does beg the question of "why always the same gender and race"...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 2, 2018 7:53 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Like I said before, the problem is the timing. Dr. Who is not at all being edgy right now. They're late followers of a trend that is taking over every aspect of media from TV to movies to comic books to video games.

It just comes off as annoying at this point, and there are going to be a lot of people tuning out I'm sure. Mark my words, there is going to be quite a few articles written about the show falling in ratings because of all of the neck-beard misogynists out there, with an emphasis on the white ones.

Ask me how I know.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 2, 2018 5:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by IMNOTHERE:

However, a fantasy show in which the main character gets a new body every couple of years really does beg the question of "why always the same gender and race"...



What if that's how regeneration is suppose to work w/ the Gallifreyans ? Would that really bother you sooooo much ? A man, born a man, can only regenerate as... a man !! OMG! The HORROR ! ( same goes for a woman , btw ) Seems to have been that way for 50 years. That indicates to me a pretty solid pattern.

How is that such a terrible message ? There ARE fixed points in time, that can't be changed, and no, you can't change sex when you regenerate.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 2, 2018 8:53 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I wonder if there ever was a line about it actually on the show? I find it hard to believe that Billie Piper or somebody never asked him "so, do you ever regenerate as a woman?"

That would be like when they recently black-washed Hermione Granger and Rowling said "I never said Hermione was white".



OOPS.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 4, 2018 5:14 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The Last Jedi
Sat, January 20, 2018 08:43 - 51 posts
New "Doctor Who" trailer
Thu, January 4, 2018 17:14 - 41 posts
So Joss Whedon tried to save Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and kinda fails? 'Justice League' was a box office flop?
Fri, December 22, 2017 08:17 - 11 posts
Is 'Altered Carbon' the next Big Franchise? new dark dystopian sci-fi from Netflix...
Thu, December 14, 2017 01:03 - 3 posts
I dislike Superman
Tue, November 28, 2017 22:22 - 62 posts
Star Trek Discovery is AWESOME!
Thu, November 23, 2017 18:01 - 30 posts
The Good Place... anybody seen it?
Mon, November 13, 2017 23:45 - 3 posts
Nathan Fillion on Rick and Morty
Fri, November 10, 2017 11:45 - 15 posts
"The Orville" new SciFi on FOX
Wed, November 8, 2017 19:58 - 50 posts
IT!
Mon, October 23, 2017 10:51 - 18 posts
Gal Gadot Cast as Wonder Woman!
Sun, October 22, 2017 16:19 - 40 posts
Dark Matter
Tue, October 17, 2017 10:11 - 18 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL