MovieChat Forums > Martoto > Replies
Martoto's Replies
It's violent enough.
+
Ralph Feinnes (2012 - )
John Huston (1967)
David Niven (1967)
Edward Fox (1983)
That adds up to 6 (six).
No it was the same character - "M". The same way that all the Bond actors play the same character.
Are you mental? The name of the thread is "why I don't like a female doctor" not "why I don't want to be a female/male".
I'm asking the OP how the gender of the tv character is more important to them in relating to what they do than their personality, mannerisms, kindness, courage etc.
Your own gender and sexual identity is important to you, obviously. But the show has already set up that Timelords (who are not "men" or "women" but consciousnesses that walk in eternity) do not place the same importance on their gender. In the same way that they don't perceive time the same way that we humans do.
Try reading what the OP is complaining about and the replies first before making glib complaints.
What is it about the stuff that the Doctor character does that requires it to be a male alien of over thousands of years old in order for you to relate to it?
Saying that gender matters to you but a change in personality, manners etc are ok is actually an extremely sexist thing to say. Think about it for one second.
Yeah. Spielberg had a great touch with bit parts in his early movies.
Anyone that annoys the broflakes
It has not been presented as an ideological choice. It has been presented as a choice that could only have precluded by the opposition to certain ideologies.
People sympathetic with those ideologies have expressed their feelings about the casting in the context of those ideologies because it represents a watershed for those who are conscious of it.
No matter what the intent. This represents a material change, not an acceptance in principle and the abstract, which confirms that apparent opposition to a perceived ideology does not influence the casting choices. That is a distinction that deserves to be recognised. The process of recognising that distinction does not mean that the distinction has been presented purely for ideological purposes. Neither is it anti male to acknowledge the setting of a precedent of non-male actors being cast in a previously male-cast regenerative alien role.
The idea that the doctor can regenerate as an alien woman is not an ideology unless it is set against the idea that the doctor cannot regenerate as an alien female.
Much was made of Eccleston's northern-ness when he was cast without northern ideology being claimed to be the sole deciding factor for the casting, or claimed that anti-southerness was now a feature of Doctor Who. [b]It's a totally spurious and paranoid conclusion that the casting of a female doctor is to facilitate writing that will be anti-male. [/b]
It would seem that the "correct" presentation of this decision that some people seem to be looking for is for the new producer and the new Doctor to come out and say how happy they are that the new series will now proceed with much better writing since some fans are afraid that the writing will be as poor as they deem recent series to have been. That's never going to happen though is it?
So what you are ultimately asking for is for people to keep their opinions about the value of their "ideologies" to themselves.
It is no more an ideological choice than if the producer was asked who to cast as the doctor and he said "a man".
It's totally academic since Whittaker didn't cast herself. She didn't choose herself to be the Doctor.
Here is the rationale given for the choice of actor for the 13th Doctor
"Jodie is not just a talented actor but she has a bold and brilliant vision for her Doctor. She aced it in her audition both technically and with the powerful female life force she brings to the role. She is destined to be an utterly iconic Doctor.
We hope viewers will enjoy what we have in store for the continuation of the story."
Unless you're opposed to the ideology of having a bold and brilliant vision for the Doctor, or technical ability or life force (which happens to be female, for a novel change) then you have no problems with the ideology of the choice.
There is a difference between changing a character mid show, and making a new show with character cast in a different gender than in a previous adaptation.
Whether people think something sucks or not is irrelevant.
What's wrong with making a film with a tough, streetwise private detective who's name happens to be Shaft?
That's one role for each of those two actors. But the speculation was that Attack Of The Block might be the "sole" reason that Whittaker was considered for the role.
[i]"Perhaps the movie "Attack the Block" (2011) is the sole scifi action piece that helps put her in mind for Doctor Who?"[/i]
I don't think you were trying to denigrate her. The implication though is that it is necessary to scrutinise her in a way that people did not feel the same need to when it was any of those previous actors announced.
She's an actor. She has 49 credited roles to her name. A quick browse of the nature of those films/shows can put anyone's mind at ease as quickly as they did when it was any prior Doctor's turn (considering that it was not implied that they might have been cast on the strength of one genre-similar film role at that time, IIRC)
Attack The Block is probably the role that most Dr Who fans are going to be aware of. But preamturely limiting ourselves to what Dr Who fans will likely be readily aware of is a mistake.
Because he's a purple faced, piss stained wanker.
So angry. The little piss-stained, purple faced broflake.
Why should idiots be protected from spite?
And if they be idiots then whatever spites them must be right and worthy.
And isn't everyone that's not a racist in favour of diversity by default?
And the Doctor will not make fun of them, ever. She will be sure to let them buy her loads of drinks and and compliment the Daleks on how cheeky they all are when they try to chat her up.
How much notable sci-fi action had Capaldi, Smith, Tenant, Eccleston, McCoy, Baker, Davison, Baker, Pertwee, Troughton and Hartnell done that helped put them in mind for Doctor Who?
They are all just movies. What you think or do about them is an entirely different thing.
To what? You cannot state that the hype or the rating is "over" until you've seen what's been hyped or rated.
How can you declare that something you've never watched one second of was overhyped and overrated?
Sounds like it's you that needs put out of their misery. You're so miserable about films you haven't seen.
A remake and a recast of the same character in the same show are two entirely different things.
Buffy was written specifically to deliver the novelty of a high school girl being a vampire killer. If that was changed it wouldn't be a remake of Buffy.
There's only been one instance of a franchise being reconceived and rebooted with a set different characters of a different gender. That franchise didn't need strong male characters. It needed academic nerds, geeks and misfits. Gender was irrelevant
What happened there then? The broflakes wet their pants over nothing.