MovieChat Forums > Martoto > Replies
Martoto's Replies
The doctor's personality isn't the same each time though. When a completely different actor was recast for the role in 1966, they made it inevitable that a woman would one day play the role.
I'm only surprised that the opportunity wasn't exploited sooner.
Cool. All are welcome in the Tardis.
It seems utterly ridiculous that a character that can regenerate into older/younger people can't also regenerate into apparently different genders. When they invented regeneration and recast the role with a completely different actor in style, personality and appearance in, 1966 they made it possible and ultimately inevitable that a female actor would play that role.
Whittaker is great. Loved her in Attack The Block.
Sounds like more good times ahead.
Who are you quoting with "change for the sake of change"? Yourself by the looks of it.
Who is apologizing? Nobody.
It's only being made a contest by you in your mind.
What Whittaker is acknowledging is the fact that in some people's eyes she WILL have to win their acceptance in the context of being a woman.
Jodie Whittaker is doing the exact same thing and expressing the exact same feelings of gratitude and excitement as her predecessors but also acknowledging and reassuring anyone who is anxious about the change in gender.
And there are people who social values will cause them to be anxious about this state of affairs. Whittaker doesn't need to keep her mouth shut about that context.
No need to get your giblets in an uproar in the first place about people declaring what and who they are to provide context for their feelings.
I'm ignoring all your bullshit from now on and letting you get on with enjoying the taste of your own shit off someone else's dick.
That's why a female doctor is perhaps overdue. There never was any barrier over the past fifty years to a fun and interesting female actress, except convention and the status quo being overvalued or fear of the reaction from the audience.
Perhaps a specific agenda re casting was necessary, ultimately, in order for the show to explore a female doctor.
There is an perception among many people that a woman is ought to be boxed in from playing the role of Doctor who. So Whittaker is correct to acknowledge the significance of being the woman to win the role and to change that perception.
Haven't heard anything that suggests creativity, fun etc being skewed towards feminism, if such a thing is possible.
Putting them in context isn't putting words in someone's mouth.
Someone expressing their feelings about being given an opportunity being twisted into a indication of lack of creative intent is a complete pile of pish.
Drink deep, dipshit
What argument? I'm not trying to win anything.
You are a stupid fucking wanker who writes CAPITALS because somebody declared how they feel as a woman, actor, human and feminist.
That makes you wanker. Not my name calling.
Which words were put in your mouth?
Poor broflake can't handle people declaring their status as a human, as a woman, as an actor, as a feminist, never mind someone else's opinion.
In your opinion, which I'm supposed to handle, she should be silent about who she is. So go take a f uck to yourself.
By the way. It's not my argument. You clearly are a reactionary f ckng broflake. I mean, you are taking Whittaker's statement about herself as a statement about the creative intent or lack of it. And you're complaining about words being put in our mouth. Just shut up ya stupid wanker.
What f - uck? You the dick who cherry picks "feminism" out of the list of context in which she's expressing her feelings about winning the role, in order to call it "pissing all over" some half-baked notions of propriety.
Open a window. Have long glass of water, broflake. The go f uck yourself. You'll enjoy that far more than watching or complaining about Doctor Who by the sound of it.
Well if you have been paying attention to social media, you would have noticed that there is always a not insignificant reaction from those opposed to a female doctor every time it comes up as a possibility.
Just witness below the demented twisted arguments for denouncing the show by virtue of her expressing her feelings "as a woman, and actor, a human, a feminist".
What complete garbage. Speculating about who would complain if Buffy was made a dude?
Last time I checked, Buffy doesn't regenerate. Why the hell would they recast her with a guy?
I don't recall Capaldi, Smith or Tenant being obliged to explain and justify the creative intent beforehand.
As a human, woman, feminist and actor or whatever, Whittaker has a right to express her feeling about winning the role in all of those contexts.
To whinge about that as if it predetermines the creative intent or lack of it beforehand is completely hatstand.
I think you'll find that pretty much all actors assimilate what they brought to and from each of their previous roles with the role they are currently playing to varying degrees. Regardless of their gender. If you have a serious problem the possibility of previous female characters that a female actor has played having any influence in their creating the role of the doctor then you should have vehemently protested the possibility of a woman playing the part of the Doctor and stated that it has to be a man in the role because they've played men before.
This is just another half wristed way of arguing that the doctor is always played by and as a man so women are ill equipped.
So you think it would have been better for the BBC to tell Whittaker, "Oh by the way, if you happen to have any feminism in you, could you please keep it to yourself. Just in case people think we want them to think that this is a politically motivated appointment".
So what if it was always going to be a woman? For fifty years it was always going to be a man. Saying that it was always going to be a woman simply acknowledges the fact that they were always going to take this opportunity this time to break new ground with the doctor character. Gender not being a factor in finding acting talent, this stated policy is entirely justified.
"Feminism is supposed to be about equality, not shifting the balance to the other extreme."
So you want there to be a male and a female doctor at the same time? Or you want there to be a female doctor without anyone acknowledging that fact in any way? Which is it? What would placate you?
Consciously hiring a woman then represent an unwelcome "extreme" that you have an issue with. Whereas you were comfortable with the previous extreme, where the Doctor was consciously not cast as a woman, and had no appetite to challenge that with vague and tenuous arguments.
Using someone's honesty and forthrightness against them because it frightens you. Please. Have some dignity.
"A careful observer can pick up on ideological changes in a group or in a media communication so "openness and honesty" are not necessarily required or valid. "
What a demented load of tosh. It's not valid for her to be transparent about her outlook because you might possibly have anticipated them?
Completely paranoid reactionary nonsense to hearing stuff you really don't want to face in reality. By which I mean the fact that a female doctor will turn out successful and popular without any undue controversy.
People can make public whatever they like. Seriously. Jodie Whittaker being open does not preclude you or any other bozo from forming and having their own opinions. Your anxiety about that situation in light of Jodie's perfectly valid admissions is entirely your problem.
By the way. She's talking about how she feels, as a feminist and a woman, an actor, a human etc, about winning the role. At not point does she state that the role needs to be more feminist. Or are you similarly anxious about a humanist or and actorist agenda being more important than the role itself? No you're just cherrypicking for the stuff that pushes your buttons.
Adios, broflake.
So she isn't allowed to acknowledge that she's a feminist? She isn't allowed to be open and honest?
Take a vacation broflake.
Acknowledging the change in an open and honest way is not setting up a platform. Get a grip of yourself.
Is your language Fuqwit?
So can we assume that people keen to point out that fewer people are complaining than those anticipating a backlash have zero complaints?
Great to hear.
Sounds like she's read some of the fearful panic mongering that's been popular since Missy came on the scene.
That's a good thing that the expected backlash has not materialised as yet. Not really a cause to suspect her reassurances as "projecting". (projecting what? Her own fear of a female Doctor? Her fear of a male doctor?)
Aye. The similar films could easily be replaced by the director's filmography.