Big Chief Studios - 1/6 Doctor Who - #10 David Tennant

[Taibhse]

She's got my vote for 13th Doctor!

 

[DeadLeaves]

I love that Dave posted a "stay on topic" comment that was loaded with "off topic".

But I am interested in anything Tennant - dude's cool.

 

[lerath666]

Because this idea is ridiculous and for spectacle alone.

As for the 'throwing anything in that changes things up' idea, because it doesn't matter...it's only science fiction so it does not matter if it's silly, nonsensical or lacking in any creative merit at all!

That kind of backwards, 50's, American, formulaic-TV thinking, say one thing one week but go against it the next, reset button, doesn't need to make sense mentality is what has kept decent science fiction from coming to the fore for decades! This decrepit and destructive idea is what has made, and whatsmore, kept science fiction as the retarded bastard cousin of so called 'legitimate' entertainment.

Meh.

....incoming wall of text. Thou hast been warned.

Your opinion. your allowed to have it. At the end of the day, so long as it has a good story, that makes sense in the overall context of the thing ( in this case, Dr. Who as a whole) Then I'm good with it.

and for the record " lets not change anything and stick with the status quo" is the problem with most entertainment as a whole, not the other way around. this is the sort of thinking that leads to bland junk, that just fails to deliver. An example of this would be Superman returns. Another good example of this would be the MASSIVE stagnation that currently plages the majority of the video game industry.

Don't misread, I DO get where your coming from. I simply don't see any difference between " change for the sake of change" and "trying something different to breathe new life into a property" . Yes, there is a certian amount of spectacle involed. And it's also important to note there is a right way, and a right reason to try anything. COMPLETELY IGNOREING EVERYTHING that has come before is NOT what I'm advocating. In Scienc Fiction, i you're going to do something that contradicts an established status quo, then Yes, you most certianly need a reason for it. which is a huge advantage of science fiction. you CAN simply invent new science to allow it, so long as you explane it to the auidence as well. This averts confusion on the part of longtime fans, even if it divides them, while at the same time allowing the story to go into a different direction.

NOW, THAT SAID; I think part of the problem is that we're not fully articulationg our meanings. I think what you mean by "change for the sake of change" is more akin to the weird-*** ego driven " I need to change this from how it was to signify that it's mine now" or " i've got to diferentiate "my version" from every other version that's come before or since" Idocy that has run rampant over liscensed properties ever since there was such a thing as liscensed properties, OR playing in someone elses universe. If this is the case, then yes, I whole-heartedly agree with you.

I guess what I'm saying is that what I THINK matters to you, is the reason behind the influx of new ideas into a property. Am I getting that right?

Becuase I agree, " I'm changing this becuase i can, to leave MY mark on it" generaly makes for as lousy storytelling as "lets do the same old thing forever, it sems to work".


However " I know this is a little weird, but lets try This direction, and see where it goes" can often lead to some amazing stories.

Yes, ANY change will bring with it some spectacle, but lets be fair here.
Dr. Who is a story about a nigh-immortal alien traveling through time and space, changing his body around while he kidnaps people, and drags them with him on crazy adventures. These adventures include psychopathic statues that can move ( weeping angels), Evil, fascist aliens who liike like giant pepper pots ( Daliks), legions of goofy looking robots bent on asssimating all living things into them, who were clearly the insiration for star trek's borg ( Cybermen) Living plastic ( Automs) the list goes on. It's Chock-full of spectacle already. Every week is a new spectacle Trying to outdo the last. But it's not alone, most every Sci-fi program has that in spades.

For that matter, so does most visual entertainment, but I digress.
Calling it bad just becuase it's spectacle, is kinda like complaing the rain is wet.

Calling anything in fiction a bad idea without giving it a shot is kinda not fair either.

How many people would go watch a movie with spaceships and magic where a boy goes off an an adventure seekeing revenge on the guy who killed his dad, only to find out his dad ACTUALY faked his death, and IS the guy he's been raised to belive he's got to kill? Put in THAT context, it sounds kinda hokey. But it's the basic plot of empire strikes back.


YES, I get that for every point I can make, there is likely a counterpoint where change was bad, and it failed.

Star Trek Enterprise comes to mind.

But, at the VERY least, do you see where I'm coming from?

 

[pixletwin]

Can we change the subject back to the Tennant figure and how agonizing this wait has been?

 

[Desamo]

Can we change the subject back to the Tennant figure and how agonizing this wait has been?

Yes please. I cant wait to see final sculpt pictures.

 

[lerath666]

I'm fine with the wait. Quality takes time. once it releases, it'll be like an awesome suprise gift.

 

[Star Puffs]

Because this idea is ridiculous and for spectacle alone.

As for the 'throwing anything in that changes things up' idea, because it doesn't matter...it's only science fiction so it does not matter if it's silly, nonsensical or lacking in any creative merit at all!

This is way over the top. You are just a bit too angry at the idea.

Are we to believe that Time Lords can travel through time but not manipulate genetic expression? In this century, we may well achieve that level of genetic engineering in real life.

Besides Virginia Woolf, one of the most important literary figures of the 20th century, used a gender swap in her novel, Orlando, published in the 1920's. It is perfectly legitimate plot device, that is as respectable as the overall quality of the work in which its executed.

 

[pixletwin]

Fascinating. Start a new thread.

 

[Star Puffs]

Fascinating. Start a new thread.

You are front and centre in getting the discussion going here, a bit late to play the 'start your own thread' card.

 

[pixletwin]

You are front and centre in getting the discussion going here, a bit late to play the 'start your own thread' card.

A deviation in a thread is always a good thing IMO. But you can have too much of a "good thing", which we have here. Even Dave came in and tried putting it back on track. Start a thread if you want to discuss it further. It's getting tedious seeing this FIGURE thread continuously bumped for this circular discussion.

So I will play that card, confidently. Thank you very much.

 

[lerath666]

fair enough. but we don't need a new thread, we can simply take it to the dr. who thread in movies

 

[pixletwin]

fair enough. but we don't need a new thread, we can simply take it to the dr. who thread in movies

That works for me.

 

[DGTWoodward]

Meh.

Spoiler

....incoming wall of text. Thou hast been warned.

Your opinion. your allowed to have it. At the end of the day, so long as it has a good story, that makes sense in the overall context of the thing ( in this case, Dr. Who as a whole) Then I'm good with it.

and for the record " lets not change anything and stick with the status quo" is the problem with most entertainment as a whole, not the other way around. this is the sort of thinking that leads to bland junk, that just fails to deliver. An example of this would be Superman returns. Another good example of this would be the MASSIVE stagnation that currently plages the majority of the video game industry.

Don't misread, I DO get where your coming from. I simply don't see any difference between " change for the sake of change" and "trying something different to breathe new life into a property" . Yes, there is a certian amount of spectacle involed. And it's also important to note there is a right way, and a right reason to try anything. COMPLETELY IGNOREING EVERYTHING that has come before is NOT what I'm advocating. In Scienc Fiction, i you're going to do something that contradicts an established status quo, then Yes, you most certianly need a reason for it. which is a huge advantage of science fiction. you CAN simply invent new science to allow it, so long as you explane it to the auidence as well. This averts confusion on the part of longtime fans, even if it divides them, while at the same time allowing the story to go into a different direction.

NOW, THAT SAID; I think part of the problem is that we're not fully articulationg our meanings. I think what you mean by "change for the sake of change" is more akin to the weird-*** ego driven " I need to change this from how it was to signify that it's mine now" or " i've got to diferentiate "my version" from every other version that's come before or since" Idocy that has run rampant over liscensed properties ever since there was such a thing as liscensed properties, OR playing in someone elses universe. If this is the case, then yes, I whole-heartedly agree with you.

I guess what I'm saying is that what I THINK matters to you, is the reason behind the influx of new ideas into a property. Am I getting that right?

Becuase I agree, " I'm changing this becuase i can, to leave MY mark on it" generaly makes for as lousy storytelling as "lets do the same old thing forever, it sems to work".


However " I know this is a little weird, but lets try This direction, and see where it goes" can often lead to some amazing stories.

Yes, ANY change will bring with it some spectacle, but lets be fair here.
Dr. Who is a story about a nigh-immortal alien traveling through time and space, changing his body around while he kidnaps people, and drags them with him on crazy adventures. These adventures include psychopathic statues that can move ( weeping angels), Evil, fascist aliens who liike like giant pepper pots ( Daliks), legions of goofy looking robots bent on asssimating all living things into them, who were clearly the insiration for star trek's borg ( Cybermen) Living plastic ( Automs) the list goes on. It's Chock-full of spectacle already. Every week is a new spectacle Trying to outdo the last. But it's not alone, most every Sci-fi program has that in spades.

For that matter, so does most visual entertainment, but I digress.
Calling it bad just becuase it's spectacle, is kinda like complaing the rain is wet.

Calling anything in fiction a bad idea without giving it a shot is kinda not fair either.

How many people would go watch a movie with spaceships and magic where a boy goes off an an adventure seekeing revenge on the guy who killed his dad, only to find out his dad ACTUALY faked his death, and IS the guy he's been raised to belive he's got to kill? Put in THAT context, it sounds kinda hokey. But it's the basic plot of empire strikes back.


YES, I get that for every point I can make, there is likely a counterpoint where change was bad, and it failed.

Star Trek Enterprise comes to mind.

But, at the VERY least, do you see where I'm coming from?

<<spoiled by me for space>>

I think we may have smashed this one to death but I actually agree with alot more of your post than you might think.

@ starpuffs, I was not angry at all. but fair enough...I'll keep on topic (mostly) as much as possible

 

[Captain Britain]

This is way over the top. You are just a bit too angry at the idea.

Are we to believe that Time Lords can travel through time but not manipulate genetic expression? In this century, we may well achieve that level of genetic engineering in real life.

Besides Virginia Woolf, one of the most important literary figures of the 20th century, used a gender swap in her novel, Orlando, published in the 1920's. It is perfectly legitimate plot device, that is as respectable as the overall quality of the work in which its executed.

As the father of two daughters I hate to think there's anything they can't do. But I think it's perfectly legitimate to get annoyed at the idea that the Doctor can change sex. At the very least I would be concerned that boys, who already spend much of their time in a woman's world, had lost a great male role model.

And anyway, a woman can absolutely dominate Doctor Who without playing the Doctor - Verity Lambert and Billie Piper spring to mind.

As for getting angry, if James Bond became a female part in the next Bond film I'd be pretty angry. Guess that makes me some kind of misogynist dinosaur.

Sheesh. This is what happens when BC don't post photos for a while...

 

[momaw]

As far as I am concerned, baring the last half season, the prior 2 1/2 seasons it may well have been called the Amy Pond show as the Doctor took a back seat to her. So really we are already coming out of what was pretty much a female doctor anyway.

So only a few more months and we should see this figure.

 

[Star Puffs]

Start a thread if you want to discuss it further. It's getting tedious seeing this FIGURE thread continuously bumped for this circular discussion.

The thread will go back on track without even a push as soon as BCS shows something new. Here is as good a place as any to discuss it.

As for getting angry, if James Bond became a female part in the next Bond film I'd be pretty angry. Guess that makes me some kind of misogynist dinosaur.

The nature of James Bond's sexual exploits and physical violence make him being a male essential to the role.

A woman could not behave exactly like James Bond and be plausible, even if she were a skilled fighter, used sex in her espionage tasks, etc. The Doctor on the other hand does nothing I would consider quintessentially masculine. I mean I seriously thought River was somehow the doctor from the future for a long time.

Edit: Even the name "James" is solely male, whereas "The Doctor" is totally gender neutral.

But I think it's perfectly legitimate to get annoyed at the idea that the Doctor can change sex.

But how can you be upset by a fictional process like regeneration spitting out a different variant on the same species? Do you oppose a non-white doctor as firmly?

I cannot help but sense this is one of those 'I don't want to have to explain that to my kids' issues, as in you do not like the fact the move speaks to the existence of sex swaps in real life.

 

[Darklord Dave]

So do you feel the need for the blue suit too if they were to do a variant? It's not as drastic a change as Smith in his last season - which I really want.

Personally I didn't even notice when Tennant changed suits.

 

[DGTWoodward]

The thread will go back on track without even a push as soon as BCS shows something new. Here is as good a place as any to discuss it.




The nature of James Bond's sexual exploits and physical violence make him being a male essential to the role.

A woman could not behave exactly like James Bond and be plausible, even if she were a skilled fighter, used sex in her espionage tasks, etc. The Doctor on the other hand does nothing I would consider quintessentially masculine. I mean I seriously thought River was somehow the doctor from the future for a long time.

Edit: Even the name "James" is solely male, whereas "The Doctor" is totally gender neutral.



But how can you be upset by a fictional process like regeneration spitting out a different variant on the same species? Do you oppose a non-white doctor as firmly?

I cannot help but sense this is one of those 'I don't want to have to explain that to my kids' issues, as in you do not like the fact the move speaks to the existence of sex swaps in real life.

In my totally and exclusively personal opinion, I have to say Star Puffs, it seems that you are in fact the person with more issues about gender than anyone else here.

We were talking within the context of the show...

The Doctor has by tradition always been male and should continue to do so.
The reason for this is that there are already female Time Lords (Time Ladies?) so there is no real appreciable reason for change.
Even taking into account The Corsair, who once regenerated as female...by it's very mention, and the underlying hint of humour and surprise that goes with the revelation, indicates that this was a highly unusual event.

But your really short sighted comment about the James Bond type and the idea that a woman could never be that violent, is muddled and confusing at best, Were you taking in terms on screen violence, becasue you'd be wrong. Are you talking of real life, well then because you'd also be wrong. Rose west, Myra Hindley...do those real life names ring any bells? But this in particular.....

I cannot help but sense this is one of those 'I don't want to have to explain that to my kids' issues, as in you do not like the fact the move speaks to the existence of sex swaps in real life.

...indicate that there are the exact same types of issues of which you point at Cap:B within you yourself, that need addressing before you lay that particular hammer down on others.

 

[ProgMatinee]

I'll throw my meager 2 cents in. Personally, I'd rather have a wonderful actress than an average or below actor, if it ever came down to it.

If Emma Thompson came down and said, I'll play The Doctor for 2 or 3 years. You give her the damn role. You just do because she's that good.

It might fall flat, it might be great.

I think you do the same with race or religion or sexual orientation. Should they give a role to someone BECAUSE of these reasons? Nope.

And lets be real about it, the Doctor being regenerated into a woman is completely different than a real person changing sex. Why? Because they're changing actors with different physical and personality attributes anyway. Duh.

Edit: Also, I want to say, the matter would only be as big as an issue as the writers make it. Say the current companion is around for the regeneration. Upon seeing the new Doctor remarks, "Doctor, you're a WOMAN!" The only needed response would be "Well, that does happen sometimes." Cue laughter. Then its over. From then on it need not mention, unless maybe they run into the Master or someone that personally knows the Doctor and then cue the gag line.... "Well, that does happen sometimes." Its like the running TARDIS gag. Its not in every episode, but just once a season or so.

Now if the writers had some fixation on the issue, well overtness could ruin even the best intentions.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

Oh boy. Thread derailed again

......