The 14th Doctor

I just saw that today, too.
I haven't been able to find a schedule for any remaining episodes featuring Jodie Whittaker or when Ncuti Gatwa will take the TARDIS helm.
 
I don't know the date, but there is one more "special" before the end of the year. I'm guessing will be aired somewhere about Halloween or just before the Xmas season. [BBC is 100 years old on 18 Oct so that is a slot too I guess]. Gatwa will be shimmied in, just in time for the Doctor Who 60th Anniversary season.
 
Neil Patrick Harris Says Ncuti Gatwa Will Be First Gay Doctor in ‘Sexier’ New ‘Doctor Who’

Oh look everyone the Doctor (who is an alien) is also now gay! Well who would have guessed that the new season would have ticked some more boxes! Does that mean that the Doctor never really had a romantic interest in Rose then? Or are they making the character bi? Maybe they could just avoid sexuality altogether - you know on the basis this is a kids show. Do we really need "sexier"?

Much like the Jodie Whittaker era - expect the worst viewing figures ever, people want to watch SF for fun and escapism, not for lectures on modern progressive politics.

Another season I wont be watching.

The worst thing is that Get Woke Go Broke doesn't even apply as this is funded by the BBC and therefore by the wider public at large who have no choice but to pay for a license.
 
Quite glad I disengaged from the show a while ago.

The Doctor shouldn't, I think, be having romantic escapades of any variety.

Get back to basics. Fun adventures anywhere in time and space. A benevolent protagonist who is good because he does good, not because he was born as Space Jesus and is effortlessly and inherently special.

Still, my opinion doesn't mean much. Unless they retcon and abolish the deranged imaginings of Chibnall I have no interest in watching it again.
 
For me I think giving the Doctor romantic interests is out of place, I've always understood that each regeneration is a new persona. They certainly act differently. So it could be very possible for X Doctor to be in love with someone and Y Doctor to not feel that same way.
I've always thought of it more like the Host/Trill arrangement [but with added sparkles]
The show really needs better stories. I'll accept almost anything if I am entertained by the tales being told.
 
Last edited:
I've only seen three doctors, but they seem to go towards ace romantics. They'll have a relationship, but I don't think I've seen him even do much smooching. Besides, isn't the default sexuality in the Whoniverse pretty much anything that can consent? Sure the Doctor has always seemed biased towards women, though nine didn't seem to shy away from Harkness, but it doesn't seem like something to make a big deal out of.
 
I'm not as bothered by this as i thought I'd be. The Doctor is an alien, so why not morph into a black, gay man in his next incarnation. (I still think Richard Ayoade would've been a great Doctor.)

Besides, I always felt that the Doctor was Pan Sexual and that he/she was a little bit in love with all of his companions.

I agree with Thaddeus that there shouldn't be any romance.
 
SilentRoamer said:
Or are they making the character bi?
Click to expand...

Oh do catch up! I think that was pretty much well established in The Doctor Dances - back in the Eccleston days.

I don't watch the show these days - and I have distinct memories of watching now 'lost' episodes back in Troughton's time - because I don't watch ANY TV these days and, though Doctor Who was one of the last shows I did make a date with, I stopped watching it because I got so fed up with the character being (as @thaddeus6th so wonderfully put it "Space Jesus [who] is effortlessly and inherently special".)

As for mutable sexuality. Sexuality is mutable. I knew women who were separatist Lesbian teenagers back in the 80s who are now married to men, married men with grown up children who left their wives for other men, transgender women who love both men and women, (no transgender men - that I know of). For many humans sexuality is not 'fixed'. For many it is. The Doctor is the least 'fixed' character in fiction. The Doctor regularly (willingly?) changes their body ("HMmmm, new teeth!") and their entire personality. Why not their sexuality too? (Hmmm, new urges!).
 
JunkMonkey said:
Oh do catch up! I think that was pretty much well established in The Doctor Dances - back in the Eccleston days.

I don't watch the show these days - and I have distinct memories of watching now 'lost' episodes back in Troughton's time - because I don't watch ANY TV these days and, though Doctor Who was one of the last shows I did make a date with, I stopped watching it because I got so fed up with the character being (as @thaddeus6th so wonderfully put it "Space Jesus [who] is effortlessly and inherently special".)

As for mutable sexuality. Sexuality is mutable. I knew women who were separatist Lesbian teenagers back in the 80s who are now married to men, married men with grown up children who left their wives for other men, transgender women who love both men and women, (no transgender men - that I know of). For many humans sexuality is not 'fixed'. For many it is. The Doctor is the least 'fixed' character in fiction. The Doctor regularly (willingly?) changes their body ("HMmmm, new teeth!") and their entire personality. Why not their sexuality too? (Hmmm, new urges!).
Click to expand...

Thinking about this a little more I actually agree with this. The Doctor probably has always been somewhat changeable, much like his/her food tastes and personality change, I expect his/her sexual preferences does. However it just doesn't have a place in the story (in my opinion).

I just don't think the Dr's sexuality it has any relevance or place in a kids story - and I expect (in fact I pretty much know ahead of time) that a large thrust (pardon the pun) will be in regards to a certain political agenda. Much like the Chibnall era which continually pushed political messaging at the expense of the quality of the writing and at the expense of the viewership figures. The numbers don't lie, Chibnall and Whittakers vision for Dr. Who has been an objective failure.

As I said earlier, do we need "sexier" or any sort of focus on sexuality in what is essentially a kids show? I don't think so.

I also think Richard Ayoade would be an amazing Dr. He has that kookiness and an aura of intelligence and is just really funny. However I haven't seen him in anything serious and the Dr. does have those moments where he has to deliver a range of emotion (thinking of the Rings of Akkaten monologue).
 
SilentRoamer said:
Thinking about this a little more I actually agree with this. The Doctor probably has always been somewhat changeable, much like his/her food tastes and personality change, I expect his/her sexual preferences does. However it just doesn't have a place in the story (in my opinion).

I just don't think the Dr's sexuality it has any relevance or place in a kids story -
<snip>
As I said earlier, do we need "sexier" or any sort of focus on sexuality in what is essentially a kids show? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I don't think it needs a "sexier" look, or a "focus on sexuality" either but I think the real reason the Who numbers are tanking is because it IS a kid's show. Kids just don't watch as much television these days and, well, basically, like the recently defunct Neighbours, it's an old show that people just aren't interested in any more. It's long past its sell by date. Attempting to make it more 'relevant' is one way of trying to revive interest in it but going back to a scary monster of the week (where the monster isn't us) formula is going to sink it even faster.
 
JunkMonkey said:
I don't think it needs a "sexier" look, or a "focus on sexuality" either but I think the real reason the Who numbers are tanking is because it IS a kid's show. Kids just don't watch as much television these days and, well, basically, like the recently defunct Neighbours, it's an old show that people just aren't interested in any more. It's long past its sell by date. Attempting to make it more 'relevant' is one way of trying to revive interest in it but going back to a scary monster of the week (where the monster isn't us) formula is going to sink it even faster.
Click to expand...

These are good points.

I somewhat disagree though - it could be a great family feature. This is where they should be aiming, and lets be honest, when families sit down with their kids to watch shows they mostly don't want political messaging.

Another criticism is the general dulling of the storylines, the "timey wimey" stuff in the Matt Smith era was quite confusing with a reasonable barrier to understanding but audiences lapped it up.

I think a return to roots - perhaps monster of the week occasionally but with big arcs like the Matt Smith era, solving difficult problems without violence would be a pathway to success.

Managed decline doesn't seem a smart way to regain viewers. I appreciate your perspectives @JunkMonkey so thanks for engaging.
 
I am expecting the 60th anniversary series [or specials] to have a lot of money thrown at them and then for there to be a 1 or 2 year hiatus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Robert Zwilling India set to launch lunar orbiter, lander and rover July 14th Technology 0
The Crawling Chaos How Would a Lone, 14th-Century Saboteur Scuttle a Ship? Writing Discussion 31
CriticalCarrot Ideas for the casting of the 14th Doctor? Doctor Who 51
A 14th Female Doctor for the wrong reason not the right Doctor Who 166
Dave 5.08: Falling Skies - Stalag 14th Virginia Falling Skies 9

Similar threads


Back
Top