Moffat Says Missy Was a Turning Point for a Female Doctor

Masterfully prescient, one might say! Well, I would because I love wordplay! If you head on over to the Radio Times you can read a little article that discusses how we should have seen the signs coming to show us that the future would, in fact, be “all girl” as the Doctor himself wondered in the season finale.

And, of course, earlier on in the series the Doctor offered his opinion:

“We’re the most civilised civilisation in the universe. We’re billions of years beyond your petty human obsession with gender and its associated stereotypes.”

Much earlier, though, The Master [him|her]self regenerated into a woman, setting in concrete the fact that Time Lords can, indeed, swap genders when regenerating. It had been hinted at in the past and spoken of in throwaway lines, but with Missy turning up in 2014 we knew without doubt it was possible.

The Grand Moff was rather pleased with the casting of the Doctor, though:

“But never mind the fact everyone’s talking about how it’s a woman – it’s Jodie Whittaker! That’s the great thing. Jodie Whittaker, one of the best actors of her generation, is playing the doctor.”

He is suitably complimentary, claiming that he has seen “her first little tiny bit” and that it is “brilliant!”

He would say that, though, wouldn’t he? It’s all his fault that these hints and threads have built up in recent years… and I thank him for laying the ground work! I’m still looking forward to seeing Jodie Whittaker in action at Christmas. And the many months afterwards before we see series 11 is going to draaaaaaaaaaaaag!

  • The Lazy Womble

    In other news, water is wet!

    • FrancoPabloDiablo

      Water is not always wet. Take dry water for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water

      Also, it could be (and has been) argued that water is in itself not wet as the definition of wet means to be “moistened, covered, or soaked with water or some other liquid”. In other words it is rather the interaction and not the actual substance that creates wet. Some on the other side argue water is water so means it must be wet. However an argument against that could be that cake is not cake because instead it is rather a combination of ingredients just as water is a combination of Hydrogen and Oxygen. If you take the basic H20 and separate the three it will also no longer even be water so cannot even be argued they separately are wet.

      This is an old and interesting question. 🙂

      • The Lazy Womble

        “Wet” as a noun can mean “a liquid that makes something damp”

        • FrancoPabloDiablo

          Indeed but even in that context it can be argued that it refers to physical interaction. For instance it could be argued that if it is raining outside it might not be correct to say it is wet outside. It is only what the rain droplets come into contact with that become wet and as the rain droplets by themselves are not ‘wet’ you could more accurately say the roads, trees, cars or people outside are wet.

          • Bob James

            Where does that leave spotty, fat men in basements?

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            Where do you think I read all about this question from? In my basement gaining weight and growing spots of course! I thought it was obvious every fat, spotty basement creep was seriously consumed with being sexist, bigotted, rascist and really wanting to know whether or not water is wet!

          • Bob James

            Or if Moffat is a real boy.

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            Hold on now, you’re sounding a bit sexist there. Who is to say if he is a real girl? Think progressive thoughts!!!

          • The Lazy Womble

            But water is a substance that makes something damp is correct

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            EXACTLY! In your own words “water is a substance that makes something damp”. It is not necessarily ‘wet’ in or of itself.

  • FrancoPabloDiablo

    In amongst all the vitriol spouted towards people not having an orgasm about Jodie, I fail to hear anyone saying she is not tallented and a brilliant actress. The only thing I have personally seen her in was Attack The Block (if you haven’t seen it then look it up, it’s great) and all the things I’ve heard about her acting credentials are for the most part extremely positive and complimentary. And I doubt they would ever cast an actor (or now actress) who wasn’t accomplished. The point though that she is simply the wrong gender for the part. I love Michelle Gomez but Missy was never the Master to me. The fact she and everybody else refrained from addressing her as the Master made it easier for me to just imagine she was an original character similair to the Meddling Monk or the Rani for example. And I think due to her brilliance she absolutely deserved to have had an original character created for her. I wonder If Moff ever originally considered making Madame Kovarian the Master but bottled it. Thankfully Trump and Jung-Un might ensure the destruction of the world before this nonsense even gets screened. I would just plead with them both to at least wait until Boxing day so we can enjoy Twice Upon A Time 🙂

  • FrancoPabloDiablo

    In amongst all the vitriol spouted towards people not overjoyed about Jodie’s miscasting, I fail to hear anyone saying she is not talented and a brilliant actress. The only thing I have personally seen her in was Attack The Block (if you haven’t seen it then look it up, it’s great) and all the things I’ve heard about her acting credentials are for the most part extremely positive and complimentary. And I doubt they would ever cast an actor (or now actress) who wasn’t accomplished. The point though that she is simply the wrong gender for the part. I love Michelle Gomez but Missy was never the Master to me. The fact she and everybody else refrained from addressing her as the Master made it easier for me to just imagine she was an original character similair to the Meddling Monk or the Rani for example. And I think due to her brilliance she absolutely deserved to have had an original character created for her. I wonder If Moff ever originally considered making Madame Kovarian the Master but bottled it. Thankfully Trump and Jung-Un might ensure the destruction of the world before this nonsense even gets screened. I would just plead with them both to at least wait until Boxing day so we can enjoy Twice Upon A Time 🙂

    • ColeBox

      I have a problem with the conflicting stories that Moff and now Chibs are quoting… For Moff, it has been that he only had Capaldi in mind and that Mat Smith was just so right for the part. It is then reported that a black actor was *offered* the part, but turned it down. Where does that fit?

      Similarly, Chibs only intended to cast a female Doctor, but then there is that rumour about Sacha Dhawan being ‘on the top of the list’.

      • Bob James

        Both Patterson Joseph and Chewitol Ejiofor were in the running pre Matt Smith. I had heard (from a “source” at a convention who had a good track record being loose lipped and usually correct) that Ejiofor was virtually signed but thought twice about how the commitment to a television series might effect the prospects of his potential film career. So, I suspect Moffat’s lied. The Sacha Dhawan story was just a rumour, I believe, but Dhawan has stated since that he’d like to be considered after Whittaker leaves the role.

  • ColeBox

    Or will series 11 be the Doctor in draaaaaaaaaaaaag? I’ll get me coat.

  • Bob James

    Soon now. And we’ll rejoice in the silence after Moffat finally shuts up. He seems to be sounding more ridiculous every time he opens his mouth lately. But I’ll say one thing for him, as well as for Chibnall. They’ll be heroes or they’ll be martyrs. In my opinion, they deserve neither status. I get it, I get it. “So long and goodnight” to those of us who won’t be along for this ride.

    • Jack Ashcraft

      It is quite clear from what the powers that be behind DW have said, that we long term fans who see this silly stunt casting (virtue signaling) for what it is aren’t wanted. When that sort of vitriol comes from those making the show, you know there’s a problem.

      Again: 1 season of Whittaker, and I bet it gets cancelled or she gets tossed out fast as they desperately try to salvage something they’ve been destroying for at least 5 years.

      • Bob James

        I’m in a slightly different position, in that apart from what I view as mostly minor aspects, I have been pleased with the majority of what both RTD and Steven Moffat have done in their respective eras. I haven’t been a fan of sexing up the Doctor/Companion relationships, nor of Moffat’s escalating gender agenda, but I hardly expect that anything could be all positives. I have commented previously about how I found, on the whole, RTD’s approach to be more balanced in bringing Who into a modern context. He dropped our character’s fantasy and whimsy into a reality based setting, which not only enabled suspension of disbelief, but in my opinion brought a much needed and welcome depth of character and story. I remember distinctly the completely irrational “fan” fears that Russell, being openly gay, was going to make the Doctor gay. Aside from some humour involving the supporting cast (Barrowman! His Captain Jack somehow credible and over the top at the same time), this obviously didn’t happen. I bring this up because my previous point was that I never felt that RTD imposed an agenda on Doctor Who. Every showrunner will no doubt bring his/her vision to the show, but Russell never “bent” it, in my opinion. He understood and respected the integrity, identity, and essence of Doctor Who. He brought that forward. Moffat’s gerrymandering didn’t ruin the best and brightest of his contributions to Who, but as time went on, and especially with the arrival of Missy, the rot setting in was becoming evident. Moffat’s been driven by this pseudo feminist gender marginalizing and deconstructing agenda at least since his Comic Relief send up “The Curse Of The Fatal Death”, and while I laughed then, I’m not laughing now. And yes, it’s no television show’s responsibility to address or confront societal inequalities, but when one considers how inclusive, progressive, and diverse Doctor Who has been since its return, I consider what it has accomplished as significant. It felt like growth, progression, and momentum up until Moffat decided to seed the clouds and then make it rain. he hijacked and subverted the mythology. I feel like he allowed his agenda driven thinking to overcome his integrity, and also allowed his agenda to hijack Doctor Who. He and Chibnall are obviously on the same page with this. I feel as if Doctor Who has been lost. As if its perceived transcendence and immortality has been brought crashing down to earth by someone’s muddled, contemporary capitulation to some seriously errant thinking, which does no favors to feminism, equality, or diversity. The future being “all girl” is no more balanced or correct than the past and up to the present’s imbalance of being far too “all boy”. I guess I’m saying that I truly feel bereft, and that Doctor Who has more days behind it than ahead. Whatever kind of success or failure results from this bold new direction, I truly feel Doctor Who, as it once was and had remained for so long, has been undone. Like the Doctor has left us. And that makes me sad.

        • Simon Danes

          Actually, could I cautiously suggest that RTD allowed his Christianophobia to make itself known? Torchwood was explicitly atheist with its denial of life after death. The comment made by the Doctor about “what really happened” at the resurrection was grossly offensive and was designed to be so. It should have been cut. Conversely, the Doctor’s quip about getting the last room at the inn at the first Christmas was funny and affectionate; it neither endorsed Christianity nor denied it. Classic-Who wisely steered clear of religion altogether (apart from the third Doctor’s closeness to Buddhism, of course); offending religious minorities in your audience is not the best way to endear a programme to people.

          • bar

            Torchwood was only atheist in an angry, adolescent way. They clearly believed in some form of existence after death – something haunting Jack in his black space between lives, telling Owen to be ‘brave’ – why be brave if there’s truly nothing? Many of my friends are atheist and we have some great fun conversations and deep respect for one another (and for Doctor Who, which we all love). Another friend, equivalent of a bishop in the URC, felt there was real ‘grace’ in Random Shoes – I don’t, but the breath of the TARDIS at the end of the gospel parallel ‘End of Days’ was a hint of grace. Doctor Who’s more speculative, grown-up musings don’t insult anyone, and its values of changing things for other people’s sake, asking questions and speaking truth to power are central to my faith too.

            I guess the reason this gender-agenda has upset so many is that whereas few people profess to have a real faith, everyone has a gender, chosen or imposed. Needling religious minorities can be got away with, needling the sense of identity of your whole audience is a bit daft. Some male viewers will feel ‘got at,’ disempowered or even redundant, some female ones insulted or annoyed at whatever the writers think a female Time Lord should be. I can’t imagine the script NOT continuing to make an issue of it, nor letting people just get on with watching the show as though nothing had changed.
            And whatever the actual show does, the meeja will have a field day. Just as people continue to make jokes about daleks not being able to do stairs despite evidence to the contrary for decades now, so people will make sexist jokes about pink TARDIS throwcusions, and whether Time Lords have PMT.

            I’ve lived through this in the church; change is messy, slow and painful. It takes more than a teaspoon and an open mind; it takes an awful lot of KINDNESS. The 12th Doctor called for kindness; let’s stand with him. Even when he’s a her.

          • Bob James

            But even in the face of his open admission of atheism, RTD sure did write some fairly overt messianic overtures into his work. Resurrections, and forgiveness, belief in the Doctor “saving” the world. I am not so adverse to any writer threading their beliefs or convictions through their work, as I am having a writer elevate driving an agenda over the real focus, as I see it, of storytelling. Russell may have interspersed his beliefs or even his positions on issues (let’s not even get started on the politics, even though I must say, I mostly concur with him) into his work, but I never perceived this rising to the saturation level of Moffat’s pseudo feminism, or obvious “Gender is insignificant pertaining to and in regards to identity” sledgehammer propaganda. So for me, the matter and issue isn’t about the writer’s views, beliefs, and convictions being a presence in his/her work, or whoever may agree or disagree with them on a basic level. It’s about those views, beliefs, and convictions becoming the driving force and message of the work. Moffat is very well free to preach his “gender is insignificant” message through a vehicle appropriate for it. RTD had his “Cucumber”, “Banana”, etc., and well before that “Queer As Folk”. My question and issue is when did Doctor Who become anyone’s pulpit? And while RTD may have brought his worldview into the context of Who, I don’t believe he ever began preaching his gospel or shoving his “message” down anyone’s throats.

          • Jack Ashcraft

            And therein lays the rub. Chibnall and Moff have violated the integrity and identity of Doctor Who in an irreparable manner, and likely see themselves as quite progressive and edgy, when in fact they’ve come off as smug and self consciously cosmopolitan.

          • Bob James

            That is probably what bothers me most. This casting was going to be divisive, no way around that. But this whole affair has been conducted with a startling lack of civility and grace. This whole thing has just been rammed through, and stuck in our faces. Whether it’s Whittaker herself urging fans not to “fear her gender” (WTF?), Moffat being openly and verbally abusive towards anyone who isn’t thrilled with this casting, or the knowledge coming out later that Chibnall’s condition for taking the showrunner job was that he be allowed to cast a female Doctor, this has force fed agenda and disrespect for Whovian fandom and mythology written all over it. In their own smug way, Moffat, Chibnall, and even someone like Colin Baker rudely weighing in (Peter Davison’s concerns being “rubbish”, and all that), these bold progressive pioneers are really no better than people who would object to this outright because they ARE sexist, misogynist, chauvinistic, and anti feminist and/or equality. Maybe it’s Moffat lashing out over all the abuse he’s taken (most of it, very unjust, in my opinion) during his tenure, but with every thing he says lately he keeps coming across as some sort of smug, rude, cheerleading jerk. Dissenters should just shut up? Dissenters are all automatically amongst the ignorant, intolerant, time for us to go old guard 20%, because we aren’t over the moon about this? And his numbers sure seem like something he just pulled out of his arse in a heated moment. All while a clueless brain dead BBC, incapable of finding its own arse with both hands in the dark just green light it all and start patronizing us. I’m not going to be one of those folks who subject myself to watching each week, and then proceeding to the internet to rage against the wind. But damn if I don’t feel disrespected and marginalized, cast aside and made to feel discarded. I have to get over that, because fans like me don’t rate, we don’t matter, and if this sort of attitude is already so prevalent why would I even entertain the possibility of keeping an “open mind” and sticking around and watching?

          • Jack Ashcraft

            I agree 100%.

  • Simon Danes

    Sorry peeps, but this is getting all rather vitriolic. I am looking forward to Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor and will be watching the new series. In Capaldi’s time, the series has lost viewers; this shouldn’t matter in the times when you don’t need to watch a first broadcast to see a programme, but you can be sure some unimaginative BBC suits will have sucked their teeth when the overnights came in and will have contemplated doing a Michael Grade on it. Changing the sex of the Doctor is a radical decision and it’s clearly upset many; it will also bring in new viewers. Doctor Who cannot and must not be made for the hard-core fans; we are a tiny fraction of the audience and attempts to please just us (cf some of JNT’s output) usually backfire. I can remember when Peter Davison was cast and some of my contemporaries in fandom said it was a disaster and they wouldn’t watch.

    A 54 year old programme cannot stand still; to remain popular, it has continually to extend its audience and to change.

    I accept that this change is one too far for many; I don’t like people being upset and I don’t gleefully trample on their feelings. That the Doctor has always been male can clearly be seen as establishing a tradition and I respect that view, though I don’t hold it. Some fans dismiss all of nu-Who; some fans dismissed the TV movie; some wrote the programme off after Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy were cast. Some will not watch the new incumbent. In the 1990s, it was fashionable to dismiss all of Pertwee’s tenure as rubbish and unfairly to caricature his Doctor as a right wing, establishment toff (and he was none of those things).

    Martin Wiggins once said that Doctor Who fans are actually fans of a particular period of the programme. Most of us think there were some periods when the show dipped and there were some glory years too — but we disagree as to when these times were.

    If (and only if) the Jodie Whittaker episodes are not up to scratch, that will, in my view, not be because a woman is playing the part. The production values will remain high, so it will come down to the quality of the scripts and how JW (who’s a very versatile performer, capable of playing the role in many different ways) is allowed to interpret the character. I hope they’ll let her play it straight rather than silly, and that the intrusive humour of some of the Moff’s era is toned down. But I welcome the casting.

    • FrancoPabloDiablo

      What in particular are you finding vitriolic about what has been said thus far? I personally have commented about the vitriol people with my opinion experience and then have gone on to have a lovely light hearted debate about the wetness of water and we’ve even poked fun at the insults and accusations as humour is the best defense for anything.

      And regarding something you said, can I just comment that I am blessed never to have grown up with a particular ‘period’ as I got into the show properly during the 1992 – 93 BBC2 repeats where they showed some of the best stories from each doctor. For me the ‘wilderness years’ were a goldmine as apart from the TV Movie I had all those years to catch up with and watch all the stories from the 26-year history regardless of order. I will always remember and treasure trips to either HMV or Virgin to see what stories were available on VHS – and as my dad was obviously paying most of the time unless I had pocket money or Birthday/Christmas money the ones on sale usually got the thumbs up for purchase. I also strongly remember being stricken down in 1995 with glandular fever and my dad buying me the entire Key To Time videos as well as the original Grand Theft Auto game. Even to this day, when I am forced to take a sick day there is nothing more satisfying for me than watching Ribos, Pirate or Stones!

    • Bob James

      “Vitriolic” is saying things that equate anyone not on board with this casting as “spotty fat men in basements” (and why bring on insults to people, anyway?), it’s people like both Moffat, and RTD wishing dissenters would just “shut up”. A lot of the discourse here has been a send up, just throwing a little bit of the ridiculous back at them. Moffat, Capaldi, Mackie, Gatiss, and Lucas (Gomez being the sole individual who seemed to recognize the severity of what was said) sat there at an SDCC panel while Chris Hardwick called any dissenters, “not true fans”, and “assholes”. No one seems to be allowed to dissent without being labelled sexist, misogynist, anti equality, and/or anti feminist. They can do what they want with Doctor Who, but if a fan of 39 years like myself and others who aren’t hanging party favours and streamers over this are expected to just stand here, take verbal abuse and be disrespected, then that’s ridiculous.

      • Simon Danes

        I disagree with nothing you say, Bob.

      • Jack Ashcraft

        Spot on, Bob!

    • The Lazy Womble

      I am reserving judgement until we have some screentime to judge. That is not vitriol. I agree that if the episodes are not up to scratch it is unlikely to be because of the casting. And, for clarity’s sake, my comment about water being wet was intended to convey that it is bleeding obvious that the creation of Missy was a turning point for a female Doctor.

    • Simon Danes

      Of course, the convention incident was a disgrace. Of course, people who do not like the Doctor’s changing sex have respectable reasons for their view. It is highly offensive to put it down to sexism.

      But — and I’m not pointing the finger at anyone — we need to rise above the ire and venom of those who insult people who hold different views.

      Some (not all) of the comments on this page are OTT in their tone. Sorry, but there we are. Ad hominem attacks always wound and add nothing to the debate. The DWC has a strong reputation for balance and for courtesy. I do not think that Chris Chibnall is acting in bad faith or is seeing who he can upset. I think the decision to cast Jodie Whittaker was made in good faith and was done after careful thought. The viewing figures are falling. Change is endemic to Doctor Who, though I fully accept this change has been one too far for many of us. My main concern about CC as the showrunner, and this is not to insult him personally, is that I have not liked most of his scripts and I am uncertain how good the quality of the new series will be. But if he goes down the road of a team approach, we should get some decent stories; he seems to favour a more light touch approach than RTD, the Moff or Andrew Cartmel.

      Well, let’s wait and see.

      • bar

        Hi Simon, not sure how much help I can be on the ‘balance’ point; I will still watch Doctor Who with JW, and am – like Womble – refusing to judge till she’s settled into the role, and we’ve seen how well (or not) she’s written. My only objection to a female Doctor was the dearth of decent male role-models, but as James L pointed out, that is society’s problem, and it shouldn’t be down to one show alone to fix that.

        The other concern was the failure of the leadership to be aware of (or care about) the turmoil and disappointment that would split fandom. The establishment everywhere these days seems less aware of what ordinary people think. So though I am more positive and optimistic than many, I utterly respect people like Bob and Franco, and ! refuse to leave – like Dr Moo – just because there aren’t enough upbeat voices praising the change before it happens.

        I hope you are right about the casting decision, but I have to say the direction the show has taken, since RTD but particularly with Moff’s messing with continuity and mythos, is ‘we’ll do it because we can’ or ‘because it seemed like a good idea at the time.’ When people express concern that the casting decision was part of a socio-political trend with unguessable consequences thay have a point. This change is NOT like taking a cosmic hobo and making him a bouffant Bond, or him into a bohemian alien, etc.Nor is it like taking the Buddhist Letts/Dicks era and replacing it with Hinchcliffe/Holmes horror and humour mix. It echoes, whether deliberately or not, the ‘male good, female better’ thinking which – as a woman – I mistrust.

        If the writing takes Doctor Who back to an adventure drama with SF
        themes and away from love stories and companion-arc domination then I
        for one will be delighted. But while we’re waiting to see what happens, I’m glad DWC is a safe place for all opinons. In fact, I think I’d be proud if I were one of the DWC team, that people are using it as a safe space to think & talk it through, even if that gets a bit uncomfortable at times.

        • Philip

          Bar – as you’re a considerate, lovely, and prolific commenter and reader, rest assured: you *are* part of the DWC team 🙂

          • The Lazy Womble

            I agree with you Philip. But I also agree with Bar. All of the editorial team should be very proud of the community they (and hopefully we) are creating.

          • bar
          • Ranger

            Rightly said, Philip.

            We can always rely on Bar for intelligent, caring, balanced and reasonable discussion.

            I also have to say that I think this site has a lot of great members, who, though discussions may get heated, do respect each other. I’ve been going through this thread and have upvoted comments from both sides of the discussion, because everyone has made some cogent and reasoned arguments that make sense. People know my views on this casting, but that does not mean that I can’t understand, and appreciate, the views of members who don’t agree with me; and I think all of the commentators in this thread share that understanding.

      • FrancoPabloDiablo

        Again, where did you detect vitriol in what has been said? Which comments exactly do you feel are OTT? What ad hominem attacks here are you referring to? You say we need to rise above such things which I mentioned I sense we were doing with humour and light heartedness. We can express our opinions followed by some banter surely.

      • Jack Ashcraft

        I think calling Jodie one of the best actors of her generation is more hype than substance. She’s not really that impressive. In fact, she’s rather mediocre.

        • Simon Danes

          Didn’t say she was, old boy.

          • Jack Ashcraft

            If I had quoted you as saying so your response would have been on target. However, as I was referring to the quote from Moff in the article, I’m left a bit perplexed.

      • Bob James

        Chris Chibnall is nowhere remotely near or in Andrew Cartmel’s realm. Or RTD’s for that matter. In my opinion, we are encountering the least inspired choice of showrunner since the show’s return. I don’t know if they would have accepted had they been asked, but both Toby Whithouse and/or Phil Ford would, in my view, have been considerably superior possibilities.

  • Simon Danes

    I probably should have kept my mouth shut, shouldn’t I? I retract nothing of what I said and I am not going to point fingers. But a few points:

    1. Surely someone out there approves of JW’s casting?
    2. Bedford Doc Soc holds a monthly pub meeting and when we met for a few drinks after the casting, the general view was that it was a bit silly but nobody was dead against it. I do not agree that there is necessarily a political agenda at work.
    3. I am a Catholic. We have had a male priesthood for nearly 2000 years and a strong tradition has been established that priests are men. (That’s even longer than the tradition that the Doctor is male!) The Mass, until the ghastly new translation was imposed upon us by the Vatican, is almost identical to the Anglican Eucharist. On holiday, I went to an Anglican Eucharist soon after the Church of England started to ordain women. The priest celebrating the service was a woman. Initial reaction was “Oh!” — surprise. Ten minutes into the service, I’d forgotten that it wasn’t being taken by a man — the person taking the lead, if you like — and it made no difference. I suspect a lot of people will have a similar reaction ten minutes into the first JW episode.
    4. One of the things I enjoy about Doctor Who fandom is that people often hold radically different views from my own. I thought Matt Smith was superb. I liked Love and Monsters. I thought the series was almost unwatchable for a number of years when — not telling! People disagree. And they can do so in good faith. We may be disappointed but it’s just not worth getting angry about.

    • Jack Ashcraft

      And then there are those of us who simply find it an example of agenda casting, and refuse to watch what we firmly believe to be a parody of DW.

      Doctor Who: The Drag Era, if you will.

    • bar

      No you shouldn’t have kept your mouth shut Simon; where there’s dark, there has to be light! For now there is nothing for the optimists to go on, whereas those who feel they have been robbed of something have 54 years of that something to mourn. Ok, it’s not 2000 years, but the sense of identification is the same. Once the new series starts, there’ll be evidence, examples, reactions – things for the pro-change team to talk about. Your time will come!
      If you want some more positive and hopeful musings, I recommend http://november32nd.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-344.html

    • The Lazy Womble

      No, Simon, you should not have kept your mouth shut. I have found your comments to be polite, respectful and well-argued. Debate is healthy. (Though it can sometimes be uncomfortable). Actually I am convinced that several people out there approve of JW’s casting. I myself do not disapprove. I am just waiting to judge casting and writing together.

  • DonnaM

    I have come to a decision. As I see it, all that can be said on the Thirteenth Doctor’s casting has been said. Minds have been made up or left carefully ajar, with or without reservation. There’s nothing to be gained talking in circles around it.

    Until there’s something concrete to comment on – a companion named, a costume to consider and so on- I intend to avoid the whole damned shouting match. So I want to thank TDWC for the articles on the show’ s past fifty four years – I will be reading them with even more interest than before!

    • Ranger

      I tend to agree, Donna. I’ve said my bit, I’m keeping mostly quiet now, until we have something to comment on.

      • kwijino

        Same here. Mainly, it just seems to be a mindset from sci-fi creators that if we don’t accept their attitude and their “revolutionary” ideas, which all seem to be “let’s turn all science fiction heroes into women,” (cf Ghostbusters, new Star Wars, Star Trek Discovery, and now Doctor Who) then we are sad, lonely anoraks who hate all women. As I have stated, I love the Nikita series, Tomb Raider, Fringe (Olivia Dunham), Rogue Angel, and I liked the Hunger Games and Divergent movies all right. If you make a new story, I’m with you. It’s just the recasting for politics part that I object to. But I have made my objections known, so I am gonna be mostly quiet now also.

        I also support FrancoPabloDiablo and the other posters here in that DWC is a nice site and worth visiting.

    • Planet of the Deaf

      I’m largely staying out of such discussions as well, the whole thing has been debated to death.

      The attitude of some senior Doctor Who figures I have to say has been pretty unpleasant too, I don’t think their tone has been helpful at all, and has left a slightly sour taste in my mouth.