Pearl Mackie Shares Preview of Bill Potts 5.5″ Action Figure

As something of a special Christmas treat, Pearl Mackie has shared a first-look preview at the upcoming action figure for her Doctor Who character, Bill Potts!

This is the first confirmation that a figure of Ms. Potts is coming, presumably from Character Options, and likely in 2018.

In the photo, left on Twitter on Christmas Day, the figurine is wrapped in festive decor and is based on Bill as she appeared towards the start of Doctor Who Series 10, i.e. wearing the rainbow top and chunky trainers she sports in The Pilot (towards the end), primarily Smile, and, briefly, Thin Ice.

Further details are unknown, including whether this will be available widely or if it’ll be exclusive to particular stores, like Forbidden Planet (unlikely, as its exclusives are generally limited to Classic Who figures) or Toys ‘R’ Us (more likely, based on previous sets, although the retailer’s financial troubles might prove troublesome).

We’ve been pretty disappointed with many recent Doctor Who action figures – mainly because the majority are 3.75″, meaning you don’t get a solid enough level of detail and you still have to pay a chunk of cash for them. Fortunately, the 5.5″ figure line is alive and well. Or at least, it’s alive. The frequency of releases leaves something to be desired, but fortunately, the smaller ones haven’t signalled the end for bigger figurines.

This Bill figure does further signify that more releases are planned; we can only presume it will be announced by Character Options in the Toy Fair, held in London between 23rd and 25th January 2018. We can only guess which other figures are in the pipeline. Our money’s on the Thirteenth Doctor, John Simm’s Master (from World Enough and Time/ The Doctor Falls), Nardole, and the First Doctor, as played by David Bradley.

Which action figures would you like to see next? Will you buy Bill Potts? How about a bottle of water, which you can pretend is Heather…?

  • Rick714

    The 3.75” figures were indeed horrendous but I have it on good authority that they are being discontinued in favor of the 5.5 coming back and with Character Options renewing their contract, hopefully we’ll see an uptick in more series 10, 5.5 figures coming soon including Capaldi in the maroon coat. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t see a new regen two pack with him and Jodie.

    • daft

      I’ll post this here Rick, I don’t need another futile conversation with Franco. DWC is tacitly now for people who whinge about the casting of the female doctor adfinitum, they’ll be spreading their bile in 2018, 2028 and for as long as they live, basically. People get over bereavements faster i.e. adjusting to changing reality, but that’s not going to happen here. #cultbox for sanity 🙂

      • Rick714

        Thanks Daft, I appreciate it and you’re right, they’ll just keep going and going. Some of these folks mystify me.

      • Philip

        I don’t think that’s fair, Daft, but if that’s how you feel, there’s not much I can do about it. Except to say that the DWC crew are split – there are some of us who aren’t happy about the current direction, and there are some who are more than happy. Most are sitting on the fence to see how it all plays out anyway. Publicly, we have to tread a line – we always report the news regardless, so otherwise, we try to cover as many eras as we can. Hopefully fairly. Of course news about Jodie’s era will split opinions, more so than any other era… but I won’t stop anyone commenting unless they’re genuinely offensive or whatever.

        • daft

          If you think someone consistently raving about feminazis, snowflakes and various others abusive terms to support their outlandish conspiracies theories is ‘fair comment’, clearly your personal opinions on the matter have clouded any true sense of critical perspective. That’s fine if you are happy to be the modern incarnation of DWB, but don’t expect the average visitor to hang around whilst others grasp ineffectually at some measure of personal responsibility and growth. I saw the writing on the wall months ago, and with opinion pieces like ‘Post Doctor Who Fandom, And How To Do It’, and ‘Cautiously Welcoming Jodie’, no matter how well meaning by the writer, it shows there’s been very little progress towards actually dealing with the casting challenge in any meaningful way.

          • reverend61

            As the writer of one of those pieces, Daft, I’m going to step in here and suggest that you might have missed the point a bit. I’ve always been happy with Jodie’s casting, in the sense that I’m ever happy with any big Doctor Who changes! I’ve stayed largely silent on the matter here, but my track record speaks for itself on other sites. The piece that I wrote was concerned far less with the idea of a female Doctor, and far more with the idea of fandom itself: like you, I saw the writing on the wall some time back, and it was far in advance of any casting change. Doctor Who has become one of these programmes we all take far too seriously and the fallout from this casting – something that happens every time a new Doctor is announced, although I think we can all agree it was almost certainly worse on this occasion – was reflective of the sort of fanaticism (on both sides of the coin). I fell out of love with Doctor Who some time ago, but it had nothing to do with Jodie’s casting – and if that’s something that readers ascertain from the piece I wrote, that’s unfortunate, but it’s also par for the course. “You see what you expect to see, Severus.”

            Simon is another matter and I wouldn’t want to put words into his mouth, but like the rest of us he is looking at things with balance and a dose of healthy scepticism, rather than the extremes of unchecked adulation or ranty complaining. We have the unfortunate and frankly impossible task of endeavouring to tread the middle ground here, and that inevitably lands us in hot water, because people do tend to see patterns that aren’t there. Just yesterday, for example, I uploaded a video featuring the Thirteenth Doctor which made absolutely no statement on whether or not I approved of her, but which was interpreted by a couple of people as a sign of dissent. I put them right and moved on, and that was the end of that. It’s par for the course. When you are ambivalent or ambiguous, others will fill in the blanks. For my part I welcome Jodie but am also aware that things could go catastrophically wrong, something I also felt with Matt. It’s nothing to do with gender: it’s just how we are.

            By and large we do not censor conversation here at the DWC: I have seen other sites that do, and the result is a lot of vacuous sycophancy or barren hatred, depending on which way things have gone. Unfortunately the bile is not about to go anywhere anytime soon and we are not about to remove it, unless it breaches our general, reasonably liberal comment policy. You are always welcome to engage with people who start arguments at your discretion, but – at the risk of teaching grandmother how to suck eggs – might I diplomatically suggest that you might be better off ignoring them? It’s easy (and I know this from bitter experience) to think you’re defending the common good, but any sensible person worth their salt knows that the comments one receives are not by any means reflective of the feelings of the general populace: it stands to reason that people usually only speak when they’re fired up one way or another. I have to bite my tongue on a regular basis on social media, so I know how difficult it is, but comment removal is a slippery slope to censorship – and unless people are trolling or being particularly offensive, we’re not about to start taking down things people have said. If that means we lose readers, that’s unfortunate, but I would like to hope that the DWC is a site that allows the airing of difficult views and only steps in when it is absolutely necessary – and words like ‘snowflake’ and ‘feminazi’, while tiresome, do not warrant that sort of intervention.

            I do hope your recent experiences don’t put you off commenting. I always enjoy your contributions, whether or not I agree with them.

          • daft

            reverend61, thanks for your reply, I’m a little dismayed a semi-private conversation (welcome to disqus’ lack of user options) is now public, but given your long response, it would be rude not to reply in kind. 🙂 The point is we are just shy of six months since the announcement, and DWC ‘cautiously’ welcomes the new doctor, the mere fact you have to put caveats in the title shows it’s still deemed too offensive to welcome the new doctor fully, whether because of a fear of reader backlash, editorial interference or self censure. That doesn’t sound like a site embracing all segments of fandom, merely pandering to the few i.e. ‘we’ve gotta get excited about the new era, even if you don’t’. And when you do report new series items, invariably it’s trolled by the same individual using offensive terms like ‘snowflake’ and ‘feminazi’. And just because they don’t personally offend you, you are unlikely demographically to be representative of them, they are terms *expressly* designed (and reinforce) offense to those groups. Or is DWC say diametrically opposed to feminism is all its varied forms? Interesting. As such, any site that routinely congratulates a user for their contributions using those terms is *not* welcoming of all individuals, and is in fact pandering to Alt Right considerations. Just because it felt like a handy ‘go to’ for some individual to embrace, rather than take a deep introspective look inside why they found a female doctor so offensive, it doesn’t mean it’s a legitimate response. In the same way I was uncomfortable in Dr Moo engaging in triumphalism after Jodie was announced, I don’t appreciate a site becoming a defacto mouth piece for either the Alt Left or Alt Right. I venture like many here, I don’t go to a TV news site for a free side-serving of *hate*.

          • reverend61

            I can’t speak for Simon. But there is nothing wrong, Daft, with welcoming any new Doctor with a note of caution, be it male or female. I suggest that you may be giving the title more credence than it arguably deserves, at least within the context of the article – which I felt to be fair, balanced and mindful of historical context. Doctor Who needs a shot in the arm and this decision may be it, but as I’ve said before it is entirely possible that it’s going to be a complete disaster and that the show will not survive beyond this three year contract. We are in uncharted territory and I look forward to seeing what lies in these fresh waters, but I am also mindful of sharks and typhoons. That’s not being anti-feminist, anti-Whittaker or anti-Chibnall: that’s called knowing your history. The simple fact is that Doctor Who could go down the tubes at any time, and the optimism with which we greet this new era must be tempered with the acknowledgement that the show is not going to last forever in its current form.

            I do not think we are a mouthpiece for either Alt Left or Right; nor do I think (with one or two exceptions) our user base particularly reflects either base (I don’t think there are many Breitbart readers in here; I’ve seen Breitbart readers and this is not the sort of page they frequent). We do, however, allow contributions from both. That there are particular people posting particular comments is a by-product of the depth of feeling surrounding this matter but it is not our job to tell anyone what to think: merely to present an experienced, reasonably detached perspective and take it from there.

            That you consider the DWC is opposed to feminism is unfortunate but I take it as something of a compliment. Because there are plenty of anti-Whittaker advocates out there who have reacted in anger to some of our coverage – and I’m in a position to know this, having spoken with quite a few of them. We do not serve the left or the right: our job, rather like the BBC, is to be impartial. And when the left accuse you of right-wing bias and the right accuse you of the exact opposing view, that’s a surefire indication that you’re doing your job reasonably well.

          • daft

            I raised the feminist issue as a supposition for you to duly consider, and then you deem to take it as some kind of offhand compliment. That’s unworthy. To be hand’s off with moderation isn’t being impartial, it’s ultimately deciding who you want to frequent your site. And returning in a circular fashion to my original comment to Rick, that preferred user base seems to be disillusioned 40+ white males. If that’s the site you ultimately want, you are right on track. As with anything BBC related, ‘other sites are available’, the very point I made to Rick at the start of this (elongated) conversation. *over and out*

          • Philip

            Daft, of course this was going to be an elongated conversation; we typically stay out of private conversations, despite this being a public forum, but you can’t seriously expect to criticise the site without us sticking up for ourselves? Of course there are other sites available; the staff behind the DWC frequent them because the DW fanbase is supposed to be a community. It’s fractious, yes, but all communities are. Equally, that’s why Simon added “cautiously” to his article: James is right – he welcomes Jodie, but his point was that he didn’t like the stir it has caused. That’s why he’s cautious. Because it’s hurt people. James is equally correct in saying it’s only right to be cautious with any Doctor. It’s always a worrisome time.

            Your “opposed to feminism” idea is just bizarre, so I won’t bother with that one; however, I’d like to assure you that there isn’t “editorial interference” – I wouldn’t do that to our contributors because I respect them and their opinions. Equally, we’re not “hands off with moderation”: if someone is genuinely offensive, particularly targeting one person (be they writer, commenter, or whoever), we’ll do something about it. We’re not going to censor someone who likens folk in general, or the direction of the show, to an agenda, i.e. “feminazi” etc.; if were *were* to censor anything like this, if we lived in the society of Fahrenheit 451, where any generalised comments are taken as personal affronts so must be expunged, we would have to consider your own comments – in which you insinuate that anyone opposing your views are “disillusioned 40+ white males” who “grasp ineffectually at some measure of personal responsibility and growth” – to be offensive. These days, you can find offense in everything and anything. We’re not going to be sycophants, but we’re not going to bad-mouth something entirely anyway. We’ve lots of people working behind the scenes, and they all have different opinions on everything. And that’s just the way it should be.

          • egyptian bar

            To take offence is an active verb, not a passive one. Some commenters with STRONG opinions also have a huge sense of humour and like other people so it’s a deliberate choice to be offended by them. Others have less of a give-and-take ability with opposing opinions, and I can see why some viewers find it easy to be offended. I choose not to. Doctor Who is a tough old bird and doesn’t need me to get all defensive on its behalf.
            This will blow over Phil; keep being kind and hold the line, as the Doctor does. If Jodie proves to be wonderful, people who are irrevocably angry about life (and the fact that someone dares to disagree with them) will find somewhere else to vent. The rest will stick around and continue to comment in their own unique way 🙂

  • Planet of the Deaf

    Slightly off timing, I can never work out whether these figures are aimed at adult collectors or children. I assume the 3.75 figures were aimed more at children.

    They’ve missed the Xmas market anyway, and from a “toy” point of view, Bill will soon be “history” as the next era of the show starts

    • Bob James

      The 3.75 scale weren’t aimed at anything except CO playing things on the cheap.

  • Joe Siegler

    I’ll buy all of that, except 13.