Anyone heard the Doctor Who news?

I should also mention that Donna Noble's mind-wipe was a reference to an earlier companion exit: that of Jamie and Zoe. Same story that introduced the Time Lords (back when they were actually threatening and not comedy bureaucrats like they became in most of their other Classic Who appearances) and the Doctor being banished to Earth, as well.

However, because of a series of comic strips in TV Comic that not only featured Jamie again, but had the Time Lords using animated scarecrows (that was reused!) to drag the Doctor off to regenerate into Jon Pertwee at the end of it, it created the season 6b theory that the Doctor didn't immediately regenerate at the end of The War Games and even picked up Jamie again for more adventures. It's popularly believed that The Two Doctors takes place in this timeline, as both gray-haired Pat and a very well-preserved Frazer (that had Colin Baker checking his passport, because of how young he still looked--Frazer is a year younger) look 16 years older.

The World Shapers is a 6th Doctor comic that actually does kill off Jamie as a hermit old man who has been abandoned by his family (presumably after remembering everything he'd forgotten--Big Finish depicts this) and sacrificing himself for the Doctor by aging to death. Zoe also dies in a Big Finish quadrilogy starting with City of Spires (which features a fictional Land of Fiction!Jamie whom Zoe created to befriend the Doctor and finds out he's not real). At the end of this quadrilogy, Zoe is converted into a Cyberman as they invade her space station. They are thus both companions who not only got brutally mind-wiped, but whom the Doctor witnessed the deaths of.

This is who the 10th Doctor was referring to when he used the alias of James Robert McCrimmon in Tooth & Claw. Of course, it's also a reference to the fact that David Tennant is Scottish.

"I won't forget you, you know."
"I thought I forgot something important, but it's nothing."

From The War Games:

Frazer not only voices Jamie for Big Finish, but the 2nd Doctor as well. He's quite noted for his Patrick Troughton impression. Bill (1908-1976), Pat (1920-1987) and Jon (1919-1996) have all been gone for quite a long while. It's just him, Anneke Wells (Polly) and Wendy Padbury (Zoe) left from this era. Wendy is actually Matt Smith's agent and was the one who discovered him when he was doing youth theater! Matt, unlike David Tennant, was not a fan prior to getting the role. Tennant was the one who gave him the DVD of The Tomb of the Cybermen. That's why Matt went completely against Moffat's idea of the 11th Doctor and the piratey costume design and brought his own tweed jacket from home. He added the bow tie after seeing Pat.

Unlike Jodie, Matt did do his homework thanks to David! David had been watching the show since he was three years old and it was still Tom Baker and Lis Sladen (Sarah Jane) in the TARDIS. Peter Davison, of course, is his father-in-law. Davison was actually Moffat's favorite Doctor, not David's (that was Tom Baker), so people get really confused by Time Crash.

William Russell (Ian Chesterton) is the oldest companion actor still alive. He's 96 years old. His much younger son is Alfie Enoch (Hogwarts student Dean Thomas) from Harry Potter. Harry Melling (Dudley Dursley) is Pat Troughton's grandson. Both of Pat's sons David and Michael Troughton have appeared in NuWho.

For those not aware, Diana Gabaldon was watching The War Games when she came up with the idea for Outlander. That's why the male lead is named Jamie Fraser. Jamie McCrimmon, also from the Battle of Culloden in 1746, was played by Frazer Hines. It also features time travel and a WWII nurse. Note that The War Games prominently features a WWI nurse. Frazer is well aware of it and cameo'd on the show. Outlander is partially Doctor Who fanfiction. LOL.

 
Last edited:
Oops. Hartnell died in 1975. Should've checked that.

Ditto "I thought I'd forgotten something important, but it's nothing."

Bloody forum edit limits. They get me every time.

Back to NuWho.

I think what is very clear is Chibnall and Jodie's idea to have a Doctor who has no clue of the character was one of many colossal errors. Especially given that it's not merely an acting job for a few years and then onto "better" things. It's likely an acting job you'll be still in 50+ years later and perhaps still doing it when you've hit 90+ like William Russell and Bernard Cribbins both have. There's a whole list of actors who have either played these roles until they've died (Nicholas Courtney's funeral was practically a Doctor Who reunion) or have already hit the half a century marker and then some. Tom Baker has banked so many unreleased audio adventures, they're going to be probably releasing these things years after he's gone. Even Christopher Eccleston, who everyone thought was the most unlikely actor (other than the late Jackie Lane with the elusive Dodo Chaplet as the one holdout who refused to ever act again) to ever turn up at Big Finish, has now joined.

If Jodie thought she didn't have to know a damn thing about Doctor Who, she's going to be in for a shock when Big Finish comes knocking. You might find yourself being like David Tennant making audio adventures with a relative of Sara Kingdom (played by Jean Marsh, who was coincidentally married to Jon Pertwee in the '50s), a character who died in a William Hartnell serial. LOL. At least he knows who that is.

It's NOT a three-series-and-done job.
 
Last edited:
p01h7354.jpg


There was already a really similar episode to what you described, except it was on The Sarah Jane Adventures. It involved Rani Chandra being sent back in time to when 16-year-old Lady Jane Grey awaited execution in the Tower. And it was one of the best episodes of the show (heavy story content for a children's show, but that was RTD!). Some of those episodes, like that one, are actually heartbreaking and could easily have been in Doctor Who proper. It also was a case of a show with a whole cast of what would normally come across as "diversity kids" who were thankfully extremely talented and treated like well-rounded characters, because RTD was actually capable of writing that well.

It used to be often said that they should just make Rani Chandra the next Doctor's companion, as she already had such a genuine connection to the show's history as one of Sarah Jane's kids, the future owner of Sarah Jane's house with Mr. Smith in the attic (which, given that Sarah Jane has now officially been written as having died, means it might already be her house), had met two Doctors (David Tennant and Matt Smith) already plus the Brigadier and Jo Grant, and had experienced time travel a few times (also to when Sarah Jane's parents were killed in a car crash when she was a baby). Rani is everything Chibnall wanted Yaz to be, but will never be. Even her parents were proper characters! The Sarah Jane Adventures was better written than anything the main show has done in years, for that matter.

Seriously, I wouldn't complain in the slightest if Anjli Mohindra came back as Rani. The new writer would already have a lot of material to work with already provided to them by RTD.

p00v202d.jpg


Though I've also been a huge proponent of historical companions becoming a thing again. Jamie McCrimmon from 1746, after all, is my second-favorite companion ever.

The show did have a false start with the idea of a historical companion in Trojan handmaiden Katarina, who quickly got sent out of an airlock when it became clear that she was just too ill-suited for TARDIS travel. Katarina was the very first companion to die.

Victorian-era Victoria Waterfield was such a traumatized, orphaned teenage girl whose father was murdered by the Daleks that, in spite of Jamie being in love with her and heartbroken about her leaving, she left to settle in the 1960s because all she wanted was a stable life without being further traumatized by every TARDIS adventure (indeed, she's where most of the bad reputation of screaming companions comes from, though that's not even really that fair to her, because she does have her awesome moments). She was then replaced by brainy, logical Zoe Heriot, who came from a future (though not anymore) space station.

And yet, through both of those, it was Jamie who was the 2nd Doctor's closest companion (almost unheard of since the Pertwee era for any Doctor to have a closer male companion with all the females being clear third wheels), to the point that if they were any closer, they'd be Siamese twins. Pat and Frazer were one handsy duo. They also had the same haircut. LOL.

Jamie, who came in the TARDIS not even knowing how to read (Polly Wright taught him), was in a position where absolutely everything was fantastical to him, whether it was a trip to Gatwick Airport in the 1960s ("It's a flying beastie!" is his famous quote at seeing an airplane for the first time, as well as a hilarious scene with airport staff over the fact that neither the Doctor or Jamie have passports) or an alien planet (including being part of the first TARDIS team to go to Gallifrey!). Jamie was also a major flirt with the ladies, though didn't often get too far. LOL. So much comedic mileage was gotten out of how bizarre that TARDIS team was wherever they landed, given you had a little alien hobo man, 18th century Highlander in a kilt and either the Swinging '60s Mod duo of Cockney Ben and posh "dolly rocker duchess" Polly, the Victorian girl (Victoria hilariously was uncomfortable wearing a short skirt, only for it to be pointed out that Jamie's was shorter--Victoria later even wears a plaid miniskirt to match Jamie's) or the smarty pants Zoe in her glittery catsuit.

Nobody showed their undies/short shorts more often than Jamie (the lead weights in that kilt were not keeping it down!--The Dominators has explosions sending it up around his waist), Zoe Heriot in The Invasion (same serial that brought us the up-kilt shot of Jamie on a ladder, as he looks down to make sure the Doctor isn't looking up--LOL) and Jo Grant (she changed her underwear color in the same episode once--yellow, white and red undies) in the age of the miniskirt. LOL. '60s-'70s Doctor Who is occasionally unintentionally hilarious in that regard. Also, all the flubbed lines from William Hartnell, and my personal favorite from Pat Troughton, "sexual air supply" instead of "sectional air supply". Tom Baker also has his legendary "Spack off!" ("Stand back!"/"Back off!").

They looked out of place everywhere. There is comedic mileage in companions who stick out like a sore thumb everywhere, including modern Earth, yet are utterly endearing and relatable.

There's a beautiful moment in The Mind Robber where Jamie climbs Princess Rapunzel's hair, only to be asked if he's a prince. He answers that, no, he's the son of a piper, which sounds as much a fairy tale as the World of Fiction that the TARDIS team has ended up in. There's a huge meta component to that story with the romanticized Highlander son of a piper and the glittery catsuit future girl. Not to mention the Doctor himself being an alien! This is a story where the Doctor's greatest threat is writing himself into becoming fictional. No other TARDIS team would ever have that much fourth wall-breaking meta in the World of Fiction.

Jamie, like the Eliza Doolittle-esque educating of Leela later on (The Talons of Weng-Chiang even has her being dressed up for a night at a Victorian theater), or even how the Brigadier and Ace were some of the more "violent" companions (the Brig famously blew up the Silurians against the Doctor's orders), was also a bit of a "savage" who tended to think it was his job to protect the Doctor, rather than the other way around.

Jamie was the companion who flung rocks at Quarks, couldn't understand why the Dulcians in The Dominators wouldn't fight back against an invading enemy and took up arms himself (a futuristic alien gun, at that), knocked a rider off a horse to steal it and often jumped into action against everything from Daleks to Ice Warriors. The Doctor also manipulated Jamie in The Evil of the Daleks, knowing that his instinct would be to go rescue Victoria from captivity by the Daleks (indeed, it was Jamie who rescued her). This was because male companions in the '60s were expected to be the action heroes instead of the Doctor, but that all changed with karate-chopping Jon Pertwee.

Even at the end when facing the Time Lords, it is Jamie who is trying to argue with a resigned-to-his-fate Doctor to do something to get away. Jamie certainly had a reason to never want to go back, given that he escaped being hanged and put on a slave ship in his first story (and as I mentioned, got sent back with his memory wiped), but you can see his growth with scenes like the Redcoat who his tossed into prison with him in The War Games and you have a Jacobite and a Redcoat teaming up against their alien captors.

The LONGEST-SERVING companion ever was Jamie. He still holds the all-time record of 116 episodes. And as Frazer often tells it, if it weren't for Pat's nagging wife and his agent complaining about how they were stuck in "children's" television for three years (note that Frazer's career went all the way back to doing a film with Charlie Chaplin!), that they'd never have left because of how much they loved working together (it showed on screen).

Interestingly, the 10th Doctor comic strips even had him traveling with Heather McCrimmon, who was a modern descendant of Jamie. Part of the story is that she was already full of artron radiation embedded in her genes from Jamie's long stay in the TARDIS and it got passed down. It's how an alien threat found her (like Donna Noble with the huon particles). There have been a few stories about companions and their descendants who got physically altered by the TARDIS. Martha's story arc on Torchwood was about how she's immune to every Earth disease, which seems to have been the Doctor's way of making sure an incident like Dodo Chaplet giving a future human colony (plus future companion Steven Taylor) a deadly case of the common cold would never be repeated again.

If a historical companion is ever done again, Jamie is the ultimate one to think back to.

This is why it's immediately off putting that they pat themselves on the back so much for having diversity with Yaz and Ryan, as if we didn't have Rani and Clyde over 10 years ago, who were amazing characters.

I think the way they tackled racism against Martha in Human Nature/Family Of Blood has felt a lot more progressive than anything they did in season 11 or 12, and it was so effortless.
 
This is why it's immediately off putting that they pat themselves on the back so much for having diversity with Yaz and Ryan, as if we didn't have Rani and Clyde over 10 years ago, who were amazing characters.

I think the way they tackled racism against Martha in Human Nature/Family Of Blood has felt a lot more progressive than anything they did in season 11 or 12, and it was so effortless.

Maybe they should bring back Rani as an official companion. It would be a nice reward for fans who did watch the Sarah Jane adventures and Rani has met the doctor previously.
 
Maybe they should bring back Rani as an official companion. It would be a nice reward for fans who did watch the Sarah Jane adventures and Rani has met the doctor previously.

I would be so happy if they brought Rani on as a full-time companion. For another thing it could encourage more Doctor Who fans to go back and watch The Sarah Jane Adventures.

And we know Rani's actress could be interested because she did play a role in season 11 as that spider creature I can't remember what episode but it was a fairly big part for a creature.
 
Well if we're talking about what we'd do to fix DW I'll say this.

1/Cancel the current version.

2/ Produce an animated series that ignores the revival. It will feature a new 9th Doctor. However it will not completely jettison the revival. Instead the revival now takes place in an alternate universe to this one. Both had a similar history to each other, but diverged at certain points. You could do a story somewhere down the line that is like the Spider-Verse or the upcoming Flash movie with Michael Keaton and Ben Affleck. IE we have one of the new who Doctors cross over from another universe into the main one. Maybe Matt Smith or more likely David Tennant could return?

In fact I'd like to see a story where there is a threat to all universes that forces the animated Doctor, the new who Doctor, the Shalka Doctor (f who was from a previous animated special featuring an alternate 9th Doctor in 2003) and the Cushing Doctor all travel from their own universes and work together. Like I said Tennant or Smith could voice the New Who Doctor, whilst Grant would return for Shalka Doctor, and a voice actor could fill in with Cushing.

The threat can even be the Daleks of many different universes forming an alliance to destroy all of reality (except for a special planet they live on. Then they can war with each other for who are the supreme Daleks.) We can have the Daleks from the New Who, the animated series (who will presumably resemble the classic era Daleks more.) The Cushing era film Daleks, and some new variant from the Shalka universe.

The animated/classic Daleks would be led by Davros in his emperor casing from Remembrance and the Emperor from Evil, the new who ones by the modern Davros with a clawed hand and the red Dalek, the Cushing Daleks led by the old Emperor from the comics.

We could even see their different servants. (Robomen/Ogrons for the Classic/Animated, Colony Sarf for New Who and the film Robomen for the Cushing ones.)

This story would come later. Maybe a few years in once the new animated series was established. You'd just start the new animated series with a new Doctor, not mention which one he was. Just have him go on adventures and then casually mention "I'm on my 9th life" and then this adventure would establish them as different universes.

This would be the best option as it would allow you to junk the following crap from New Who.

Clara Oswald
Missy
Gender bending time lords
Jodie
Pretty much everything since 2014 LOL.

However you could keep the good bits. As this is an alternate reality, you could not only have the odd crossover, but you could also have alternate versions of New Who characters in this universe. For instance maybe Martha Jones runs UNIT in the new universe. Freema could even reprise her role. The Angels could also exist in this reality too.

(Personally though I'd jettison Jodie from the New Who universe too. I'd either have a new 13th Doctor for that universe, or if Capaldi came back, set it after the Doctor falls and have him say that when he refused to regenerate he survived but lost all of his regenerations, establishing him as the last one. Jodie can be yet another weird universe that has nothing to do with any of them LOL.)

3/ Go for eccentric character actors in the role of the Doctor. Make sure whoever is cast has the following requirements.

Is a MAN. (If you can't get the sex right for the character you've no business casting the role. Want to see a show about a female hero? Go invent one!)

Is an eccentric character actor. Not only should he look a bit odd. (As the drawing will be based on him.) His most high profile roles prior to playing the Doctor should be as villains, crazy comedy characters, or unconventional character parts.

4/ Use the fact that its animated to its advantage. Have plenty of stories set on exotic alien planets. Look to the works of authors like Arthur C Clark, Olaf Stapeldon, tackle really big sci fi questions, and have the most colourful monsters.

By all means focus on history too. Again the animation can allow you to do stories set in the past, IE one about the fall of Rome. You can also cover world history to a greater extent, and not just British history (which is obviously the easiest for the BBC to make look realistic LOL.)

5/ Create new villains and monsters for the Doctor to face for most of the stories.

By all means use the Daleks, Cybermen and the Master, but don't overdo them, and also don't turn them into generic villains!

This is a huge problem with Who recently that when it brings these icons back it doesn't even write them in character.

The Master is the worst victim of this. For the Master cast a MALE actor who is suave, charming, pompous and can manipulate people and twist their minds. Don't go for a pound shop Joker (like John Simm) and for the love of god don't go for anyone resembling Pissy Missy.

Use Pissy Missy as an example of what NOT to do when writing the Master.

6/ Have companions from different planets and times too. Vary things up a bit from always being in 21st century earth. NO Doctor/companion romances. If you have to bring that element in, make it be between the companions themselves.

7/ Return to the original TARDIS interior. Chibnall's one is ugly as sin. The TARDIS should always look cosy and have a Ray Gun Gothic feel to it.

8/ Do NOT kill off the Time Lords. The Doctor works best as a traveller, not some pound shop Superman moaning about the last of his kind. People say you have to kill them off to stop them from being overused. Here's a thought. Just. Don't. ****ing. Use. THEM!

Or only use them now and again when you have a really, really good story. Like most things they're good in small doses (War Games, Deadly Assassin.) Rather than prevent stories like that from ever happening, just push them to the background.

9/ Don't abandon continuity. Continuity isn't just a thing for nerds. It is a facet of story telling. You need it for things like character development and story arcs and world building. New Who sadly it seems thinks all continuity is for nerds and wants to toss it in the bin.

10/ No messing about with the Doctors origins. That's not how you bring mystery back. You bring mystery back by making the Doctor a more alien and distant character. Don't get bogged down in trying to tease there is something big behind "Doctor Who?" like Moffat did, as that will ultimately go nowhere, and don't try and answer it like Chinballs did, because nothing can ever live up to it. Focus on going forward and adding to the Doctor Who lore and story, rather than rewriting it.

11/ Come up with two spin offs. Romana, a Time Lady companion of the Doctor who was last seen exploring another universe. Also do one about Absolam Daak, a bounty hunter who fights Daleks in the future. Both of these series can stand out from DW and have the odd crossover it with, creating a shared DW universe.

If they do all of these things then yes. I think a DW animated series could be huge, and a proper continuation of the original series. Sadly however even though it would be the easiest thing to do. No one is bothering because of stupid identity politics, self loathing fanboyism, and a lack of respect for the classics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NileQT87
NileQT87
Retconning the entire revival is not going to happen. Give up on this. I'm a huge fan of Classic Who, too, but this crap gives Classic fans a bad reputation. Some of us very much do love NuWho and even decisions like romance, the Time War, etc...
[B][I]NileQT87[/I][/B] Retconning the entire revival is not going to happen. Give up on this. I'm a huge fan of Classic Who, too, but this crap gives Classic fans a bad reputation. Some of us very much do love NuWho and even decisions like romance, the Time War, etc...


Why can't it happen? Other series have retconned bad sequels and poor decisions.

Godzilla did so dozens of times. There was the original Godzilla series which began with the 54 movie, and then lasted until Terror of Mechagodzilla. (The showa era.)

It was retconned out with Godzlla 1984 that ignored all of the sequels to the 54 movie and started from scratch. This led to another series, Hesei era which came to an end 15 years later. Then in the 2000s another series started, which ignored both the show and Hesei sequels and featured another direct sequel to the 54 movie.

Why can't classic who be DW's version of the 54 Godzilla? IE every version from now on is a direct sequel to it, rather than to New Who?

To me the only obstacle to this is certain New Who fans, and the current makers of New Who being bullies who on the one hand have no respect for the classic era, but on the other want to latch onto it like a parasite because it's the only way their version will be remembered.

And no this doesn't give classic who fans a bad name. What does give classic who fans a bad name is their willingness to roll over and take their supposedly favourite franchise being vandalised.

No other fandom is as desperate to be liked as DW. It all stems form the horrible treatment Classic Who got from the mainstream media in the 90s. Due to the BBC's dislike for it. (As the organisation was run by snobs back then.) They sabotaged DW and undermined it every step of the way.

It was really rough, but sadly Classic Who fans I think lost their confidence and mojo and became determined that the DW brand would be popular again. As a result they accepted things that they thought would make them mainstream regardless of whether it was right for DW, that no other franchises fans would have.

Look at Godzilla fans for example.

The 98 Godzilla is really no different to New Who. And I'm talking about the Eccelston era.

Both were made by people with a total lack of respect for the original, who wanted to make the old property like whatever was popular at the time. In the 98 Godzilla's case it was Jurassic Park. In DW's it was ironically Buffy and Angel.

Both threw out time honoured traditions and staples of the character that define him because the makers thought they were silly and old hat. Godzilla's firey breath, his indestructability, the Doctors asexuality, his flamboyant dress sense, his status as a renegade from his kind, a scientist that wanted to explore the universe etc.

In their place were cheap knockoffs from other franchises. IE the Doctor and Rose was a flich from Buffy and Angel, Xena and Gabrielle, the Doctors coat was modelled on Angel and Spike etc.

The difference however is how fans reacted. Godzilla fans had the correct attitude of. "This isn't Godzilla. It might be a fun, even great monster movie in its own right. Hell it's better than some Godzilla sequels that were shit. Still it's not Godzilla. The name has been slapped onto a totally different monster. If you are going to make a Godzilla movie. Try and make it like Godzilla. Otherwise what's the point?"

Doctor Who fans in contrast however had the more pathetic attitude of "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah we're popular again! The snobs in the media aren't making fun of DW, we're running with the cool kids. Who cares if we have to believe a guy kissing Billie Piper is the same character as Hartnell. "

Now obviously I am not saying that any classic era fan that likes New Who is like that. I myself like the first 7 years of New Who as a fun series in its own right. However this trying to make out that, new who is a perfectly faithful sequel, that DW is all about change, that DW needed to become New Who or else it would NEVER be popular and it must always adhere to the RTD template, that New Who is sacred and that unlike with other franchises we can never say "you know lets scrap that and start again."

THAT is when we get into the self loathing fanboy crap as that is basically people worshipping RTD for making DW cool again and the most important thing being to get back to Ten Inch when DW was cool. (Not saying you are necessarily like that, but that is the attitude on pretty much all DW forums.)

All of this has eaten the franchise alive. To start with we have a show desperately still clinging to the Tennant template out of fear of doing anything new making it nerdy and unpopular. (Even though it is more unpopular than ever before LOL.)

We also have the "it's all about change" looming over its head. This lie was originally used to justify the revival being so unfaithful to the original. Now however the current makers actually believe it, and think that by constantly rewriting the shows past they are keeping it fresh.

Finally even the political crap, whilst I am not going to get into it, that has happened because the show has no confidence and idea of itself. This "the Doctor can be anyone, there is no canon" nonsense is what led to the Timeless Children and Jodie's casting. That's why even among series that have fallen victim to PC posturing like Star Trek and Star Wars, Doctor Who STILL stands out as the worst affected.

Meanwhile Godzilla got a proper and faithful reboot. The Legendary films are proper Godzilla movies. They are updated in practical ways. Less goofy plots, better effects, but they are proper Godzilla movies. Godzilla looks like Godzilla, he is indestructable, he has his fire breath, he fights other monsters etc.

Godzilla HAS actually endured to subsequent generations. I see little kids looking at the new Godzilla movies and enjoying the character the same way I did. As the king of the monsters. The Doctor meanwhile? What the hell is there of the classic era in Jodie?

Godzilla fans made it clear that they weren't happy with something just baring the name Godzilla. The next big G film as a result gave us a proper Godzilla. DW fans because New Who was popular for a few years with Eccelston and Tennant, bought into all the "all change is good, the Doctor has no identity crap." And as a result the problem just got worse, with political fanatics jumping on that argument to use for their own agenda and the result is Jodie, Jo Martin, The Timeless Children and DW being all but dead in terms of mainstream popularity and in terms of its fandom as no one has any idea who or what the Doctor is anymore.

Don't believe me?

See here. The original Godzilla.


Now compare that to the Legendary Godzilla.



Now lets look at how the Doctor has been reimagined
Doctor-Who-Truth-behind-William-Hartnell-s-exit-as-the-first-Doctor-revealed-1325546.jpg


e8be6f14c7b3bd73b8c8b1434e6187d9b4f35c05.jpg


Yep that's where having a confident fandom will get you. Far from being too precious, Classic era fans need to be MORE precious. They need to get confidence in their character again and push for a more faithful version. Sadly the only way to do that as far as I can see is to dump New Who. You can't possibly do a serious version of Classic Who with the Timeless Children and Jodie.
 
Ick.

I'm quite glad I live in a timeline where I can have BOTH of my favorite Doctors from opposite ends of the show.

Sure, I might like to wish for a Dallas-ing of Jodie Whittaker with Peter Capaldi waking up Bobby Ewing-style, but barring that, a simple retconning of the Timeless Child garbage à la the Time War. I really, really did not like that part of the 50th anniversary, as not only did they do anything with the comedy bureaucrat Time Lords back (not that I wouldn't love Romana back--could easily pick up from where they left off as a same-species romantic relationship with history as just that--though they could've just fob-watched her), it completely trashed some of the most interesting development the Doctor had ever had. I am a huge supporter of character development for the Doctor. And if that means taking a chapter out of the Angel playbook, heck yeah!

Also, it's not like even William Hartnell didn't have Cameca flirting with him and having to run away from her cocoa marriage proposal in The Aztecs. LOL. Not to mention Jon Pertwee clearly getting jealous of King Peladon and Cliff Jones' romantic interest in Jo Grant, never mind Jo actually stating right there in The Green Death that she was running off to be with Cliff because he reminded her of a younger version of the Doctor. Sarah Jane and Rose had precedence. Tom Baker openly said that playing the Doctor as being in love with Romana had crept into his personal life.

The Doctor was introduced as a grandfather, so the Doctor was never and will never be asexual. The Looms were retconned the second the Master and then the Doctor were shown as children, rather than asexually hatching fully adult from the Looms.

The Doctor was introduced as a sexual being, no matter how much John Nathan-Turner tried to make the audience forget (because he was gay and wanted the Doctor to be more relatable for gay fans). JNT went so far as to tell Carole Ann Ford that she couldn't call the Doctor "Grandfather", as she always had. That's why that awkward-as-hell unscripted moment between Peter Davison and Carole Ann exists, because JNT forbade them from acknowledging each other as family. He also forbade young, pretty Davison from putting his arms around his female companions (JNT exempted Adric, of course), despite the Doctor having always been affectionate with companions, male (hello, Jamie) and female (running while holding hands began with Jo, because severely myopic Katy Manning knocked herself out running into a tree and it became tradition borne of safety concerns) alike.

The asexual agenda was the opposite of the William Hartnell era. RTD (so much for "gay agenda", given he gave us the most heterosexual Doctor since Hartnell) only retconned JNT's retcon by reminding us of the very first thing we were ever told about the Doctor (that he was Susan's grandfather), not the rest of the show.

So, yes. A person who counts David Tennant and Patrick Troughton as their favorite Doctors can happily exist.

 
Last edited:
Ick.

I'm quite glad I live in a timeline where I can have BOTH of my favorite Doctors from opposite ends of the show.

Sure, I might like to wish for a Dallas-ing of Jodie Whittaker with Peter Capaldi waking up Bobby Ewing-style, but barring that, a simple retconning of the Timeless Child garbage à la the Time War. I really, really did not like that part of the 50th anniversary, as not only did they do anything with the comedy bureaucrat Time Lords back (not that I wouldn't love Romana back--could easily pick up from where they left off as a same-species romantic relationship with history as just that--though they could've just fob-watched her), it completely trashed some of the most interesting development the Doctor had ever had. I am a huge supporter of character development for the Doctor. And if that means taking a chapter out of the Angel playbook, heck yeah!

Also, it's not like even William Hartnell didn't have Cameca flirting with him and having to run away from her cocoa marriage proposal in The Aztecs. LOL. Not to mention Jon Pertwee clearly getting jealous of King Peladon and Cliff Jones' romantic interest in Jo Grant, never mind Jo actually stating right there in The Green Death that she was running off to be with Cliff because he reminded her of a younger version of the Doctor. Sarah Jane and Rose had precedence. Tom Baker openly said that playing the Doctor as being in love with Romana had crept into his personal life.

The Doctor was introduced as a grandfather, so the Doctor was never and will never be asexual. The Looms were retconned the second the Master and then the Doctor were shown as children, rather than asexually hatching fully adult from the Looms.

The Doctor was introduced as a sexual being, no matter how much John Nathan-Turner tried to make the audience forget (because he was gay and wanted the Doctor to be more relatable for gay fans). JNT went so far as to tell Carole Ann Ford that she couldn't call the Doctor "Grandfather", as she always had. That's why that awkward-as-hell unscripted moment between Peter Davison and Carole Ann exists, because JNT forbade them from acknowledging each other as family. He also forbade young, pretty Davison from putting his arms around his female companions (JNT exempted Adric, of course), despite the Doctor having always been affectionate with companions, male (hello, Jamie) and female (running while holding hands began with Jo, because severely myopic Katy Manning knocked herself out running into a tree and it became tradition borne of safety concerns) alike.

The asexual agenda was the opposite of the William Hartnell era. RTD (so much for "gay agenda", given he gave us the most heterosexual Doctor since Hartnell) only retconned JNT's retcon by reminding us of the very first thing we were ever told about the Doctor (that he was Susan's grandfather), not the rest of the show.

So, yes. A person who counts David Tennant and Patrick Troughton as their favorite Doctors can happily exist.


What does ick stand for?

Anyway, you couldn't be more wrong. It wasn't just JNT wanting the Doctor to be asexual. Even in his time most of the other people working on the show agreed with it, but certainly it had been introduced before.

William Hartnell was adamant that there be no sex or romance in the character. His asexuality played for comedy in The Daleks Masterplan, he tells a young beautiful actress to put some clothes on when she is in the middle of a dance. Also the Aztec girl being engaged to him is not the same thing. It's a comedy story where he ends up being engaged to someone without knowing it.

Jon Pertwee meanwhile always viewed the Doctor as a father figure to his young companions. When someone mentioned the idea of there being a sexual subtext between him and Jo Grant in an interview, he was absolutely disgusted. There's also a 90s interview which I'll try and dig up where Jon outright says "the Doctor is asexual."

Tom Baker also said as much. Go watch the interview on Whose Doctor Who documentary which is included on the Talons of Weng Chiang DVD.

He says that there are so many things he can't do or else he won't be the Doctor anymore and one of them is falling in love.

Now I am not saying that there can't be any romance with the Doctor to be fair. Yes he had a grand child, and the looms idea is utter bullshit. The fact that Time Lords have two genders alone is proof that they have to reproduce. (That's the only reason two genders exist LOL, hence the sontarans, a clone race just being the one gender.)

Still ultimately the Doctor just isn't a very romantic character. There are many reasons for this.

To start with as they are all meant to be the same person, that means that no matter how young you cast the Doctor, it is William Hartnell under the new face. Therefore it can be a bit creepy to have basically William Hartnell get off with Rose Tyler who is only three years older than Susan!

Second of all he isn't built for romance stories. He is an alien from another world, who usually travels with people. Really him falling in love with a human, a race that are so far behind, it looks odd. Also he is designed to travel from planet to planet, never settling down. So if you do have him fall in love then you run into a problem of what do you do when this companion leaves? If it's meant to be true love, then you'll have to kill her, or have her get ripped kicking and screaming from him. (Like Rose.) That might work once, but if you keep doing that then it will just end up undermining each love interest. Also it might disrupt the flow of the transitioning from companions, as one will end up overshadowing the rest as his one true love, or else if he forgets about her then it won't look that special anymore.

Also as I have said many times before the great thing about the Doctor was that it allowed actors who normally can't be the leading man a chance to play the lead. In contrast to the big square jawed superheroes like David Boreanaz, or Superman, here we refreshingly had a male hero who was played by an old man with a stick, a 5 foot 6, weird, eccentric character actor like McCoy or Troughton. (A man who normally played victims in his other roles.)

When you try and in Russell T Davies' words make the Doctor into a sex god, then you obviously can't cast that type of actor. That would be like if I came along and did a version of Miss Marple where I cast a big gorgeous Maggie Q, Lucy Lawless type to play her. People would rightfully look at that as taking away one of the few roles for older, more unconventional character actresses. It's the same with the Doctor by trying to sex him up.

Finally a great thing about Classic (True) Who is that it always kept the focus on sci fi, adventure, horror and exploring the universe. Again because it starred a more distant, alien hero. Trying to shift the focus onto relationships and romance ultimately compromises that.

The Doctor overall just isn't built for love stories. He's a weird, unconventional looking, alien character, often played by an actor who is much older than his young female companions, who is always on the move, and is designed for sc fi stories. Sure maybe now and again if you are really careful you can have the odd romance.

You mentioned Romana, and yes that could have worked, as Romana is a Time Lady who can look old and young and is alien and weird like the Doctor. However you can't keep doing it like they have done in New Who.

Also the whole last of the time lords thing was not right for the Doctor. It made him more angsty, but that's not good. The Doctor is meant to be an anti establishment character. He lives the life he does because he wants too. He chooses to go travelling, to defy his people's rules and that's what helps him stand out from them. IE because of who he is.

Having it that he is special because he wiped them out, is less interesting and also makes him into too much of a god like figure.

Also if you don't like the Time Lords, as I said. Just. Don't. Use. Them!

There have been good Time Lords stories, like The Deadly Assassin and The War Games. Why bother preventing any writer from ever being able to do a story like that, when you can just not have them show up if you hate them? It's like when DC got rid of the multiverse because of it was too overbearing, which again just cut off a large number of stories they could do, forcing them to bring it back. (Much like Gallifrey.)

For me the Doctor being a bit mopey about being the last isn't a substitute for The Deadly Assassin.
 
NileQT87
NileQT87
Pat was listed at 5'8.5" (Frazer claims 5'8"). Bill (Jacqueline Hill was 5'7" in flats--always had an inch on him) and Sylvester were 5'6". As pointed out, 6'3" Tom and 6'2" Jon were the tallest. That's just the start of your misguided claims.
When David Tennant was first cast, the reaction wasn't that he was a "sex god", but infamously that he was "weaselly-looking". He even commented on how a person who looks like him could never play James Bond. As much as he got the nickname "David Ten-Inch" from Billie Piper, he was also the subject of a long line of jokes about being too skinny.

Also, I am that weird, weird fangirl who thinks Pat, Jon, Tom and Peter D. are all attractive, handsome men, not just David and Matt.

I'm a big fan of that infamous photo of shirtless Pat posing with Frazer in little shorts doing his flirty leg. LMAO. They loved to mess with the humorless censors and were highly mischievous. They'd get #metoo'd now for pulling crap like untying Wendy's kilt-like skirt while she napped during rehearsals in the church, which caused her to run through the church in her panties and curtsy to the vicar.

Paul (the original romantic Doctor who kissed a companion), Chris and Peter C. have their fangirls, too, but meh. It's really just Bill, Colin and Syl that are really off-putting for most female fans in a romantic sense. Colin was infamously off-putting to the entire fanbase, for that matter. The costume and trying to strangle Peri didn't help, but let's not forget that the '80s had a big problem of fans refusing to believe that was the same Doctor they had loved. JNT ran the show into the ground and got it cancelled.

Tom literally wrote in his autobiography about having sex with fangirls who asked him to wear the scarf. Enjoy that bit of imagery. LOL.

And hello, I wouldn't be on this site if I weren't a big fan of immortality trope love stories with huge age gaps.

Also, Susan wasn't really 15. She was just under a century canonically, but posing as a high school student. Note that she had a tragic love story with a human man named David and even had a half-human son. She remained ageless while David didn't. It certainly puts a shortsighted light on the Doctor leaving her behind on Earth to be with a human man.
 
Last edited:
When David Tennant was first cast, the reaction wasn't that he was a "sex god", but infamously that he was "weaselly-looking".

Also, I am that weird, weird fangirl who thinks Pat, Jon, Tom and Peter D. are all attractive, handsome men, not just David and Matt.

I'm a big fan of that infamous photo of shirtless Pat posing with Frazer in little shorts doing his flirty leg. LMAO. They loved to mess with the humorless censors and were highly mischievous.

Paul and Peter C. have their fangirls, too, but meh. It's really just Bill, Colin and Syl that are really off-putting for most female fans in a romantic sense.

Tom literally wrote in his autobiography about having sex with fangirls who asked him to wear the scarf. Enjoy that bit of imagery. LOL.

And hello, I wouldn't be on this site if I weren't a big fan of immortality trope love stories with huge age gaps.

Well just to be clear I am not saying that the actors who played the Doctor were ugly. I don't like calling anyone ugly, and there is a world of different between calling someone ugly and unconventional.

Hell most of my pin ups like say Paloma Faith are what you would call unconventional, but in no way shape or form is Paloma ugly. She's sexy because she's so quirky.

Half the time being unconventional is more to do with personality too, which granted can affect how you look. Paloma again is an example of this. She and Billie Piper look pretty much identical to one another LOL, but because Paloma has a more offbeat persona, dresses in a more offbeat way, then she is less conventional than Billie. Hence why Billie plays conventional romantic leading roles like Rose, whilst Paloma has graduated into playing weirdo, offbeat, mad villainous characters like Bet Sykes in Pennyworth.

That's pretty much what the actors who played the classic era Doctors are like. For a variety of reasons, sometimes their age, their persona's they'd all become firmly character actors that wouldn't get cast in conventional roles by the time they were cast as the Doctor, so they had taken on Bet Sykes type parts. I'm not even talking about just being able to play conventional romantic leading roles btw. Most casting directors would never cast Tom Baker as a normal guy in a soap or a sitcom because he is too weird in terms of how he acts, how he talks etc.

Trying to make the Doctor into a conventional leading man therefore who gets off with his young, conventional sidekick in the type of love stories we see everywhere is getting away from him being a weirdy guy. I'm not saying you can never cast a more conventional leading man, which Davison was, but even then you don't write him as such.

Also whilst some assholes online may have made fun of David for his looks, he was cast to be appealing. He'd played Casanova prior to the Doctor and was already a bit of a sex symbol thanks to that show.

Casanova was the part that won Ten inch the Doctor. Look at the part that won Tom Baker the role? Playing a mad, evil wizard in a Ray Harryhausen film. Similarly Hartnell, the two parts that won him the role. One was a bastard, bullying villain in a sitcom. The Army Game, another was a closeted homosexual in This Sporting Life. (Which for the 60s was a very daring role for an actor to take on.)

Also RTD's pitch for the show I believe said that the Doctor needed to be sexy, and really it was obvious he was going in that direction from the start.

Ultimately these things exist for a reason. The Doctor being asexual, Godzilla being indestructable. They were created for story telling purposes and to set the characters apart.

Again though I can't stress I'm not even saying that New Who was bad. (Not up until the Capaldi era anyway. From then on it's shit. Ironically however Capaldi was a more natural choice than Tennant or Eccelston, so that shows the writing is the most important thing.)

I'm not even saying abandon its story telling style forever. However if we want to go back to the style of Classic Who (which I do.) New Who needs jettisoned.

We can't possibly have the original Doctor back, now that he has been rewritten to be a gender bending/womanizing/non Time Lord/angry god/brainwashed super spy with billions of pre Hartnell lives who can turn into animals! Seriously! The way things have been messed up, the next Doctor could be a six headed kangeroo.

That's the issue here. So yes I fail to see any harm in doing an alternate sequel that is like Classic Who. Much like the Legendary Godzilla films, it's updated in a practical way. IE better effects, sets, by all means if you need romance have it be between the companions etc. But keep it DW, and have the Doctor be the Doctor, which sadly rules out female Doctors, romantic Doctors and certainly any Timeless Children or the Doctor being an angry god that makes the villain run away scared.

Hey after this alternate sequel is done, (lets say it has a run of 15-20 years) we can then do another alternate sequel that is like an updated version of Tennant, or something else, and on and on it goes. Alternate sequels or total reboots to the original, but they can all be connected via the odd crossover with each other as taking place in alternate universes.

That's the only way forward for the DW franchise. We certainly can't go on after Jodie and the Timeless Children, and we need a proper idea of who the Doctor is again, which hey why not go back to Classic Who which had a decent core characterisation and is one a lot of people would like to go back too?

You might think I am overdoing this, but look at this quote from a celebrated New Who writer Paul Cornell. (He was also one of the people most aggressively pushing for a female Doctor.)

Because when you say ‘the books just aren’t “canon!”’ or ‘the books “happened” and the TV show can’t ignore them!’ you’re not saying something like ‘for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction’, you’re saying something like ‘the South will never surrender’. You’re yelling a battle cry, not stating the truth. Because there is no truth here to find. There was never and now cannot be any authority to rule on matters of canonicity in a tale that has allowed, or at the very least accepted, the rewriting of its own continuity. And you’re using the fact that discussions of canonicity are all about authority to try to assume an authority that you do not have.

In the end, you’re just bullying people.

Because in Doctor Who there is no such thing as ‘canon’.


THAT type of attitude right there is what has killed DW. That became the dominant opinion and not only led to the Doctors core character being dismissed, but an obsession with going back and rewriting the past, rather than thinking up new stories (ironically.) Hence the Timeless Children. Similarly this crap is what allowed the political fanatics to weasel their way in and gain support at first, (which they did) until people realised it was too late with the Timeless Children.

Meanwhile how has Godzilla who has always had a confident fandom who want to preserve the character as opposed to Paul Cornell's endured through the decades?

Godzilla in 1975


Godzilla in 2019.


Clearly the same character. It's changed yes, but in practical ways, IE new stories, twists on the lore, new effects and sets etc.

Now compare that to DW.

Doctor Who in 1975


Doctor Who in 2019


Yeah not quite the same character LOL. When you can't even get the sex right that's a bad sign.
 
Last edited:
@burrunjor I think the show wanted to corner the female market hence why they went for the more attractive Doctors with Tennant and Smith. They believed they were giving the audience what they wanted. However they then overdid it with the "girl power" mindset with both Clara Oswald and then Jodie's Doctor which was driven by Moffat and Chibnall's opinion on what women want, rather than what women actually want.

I think what most people want from Doctor Who is an entertaining show with decent writing and a bit of eye candy to look at, whether that be Doctor or companion. They want humour, they want enjoyment, they want adventure, they want to be able to look forward to the next episode and not get lectured on social issues.
 
@burrunjor I think the show wanted to corner the female market hence why they went for the more attractive Doctors with Tennant and Smith. They believed they were giving the audience what they wanted. However they then overdid it with the "girl power" mindset with both Clara Oswald and then Jodie's Doctor which was driven by Moffat and Chibnall's opinion on what women want, rather than what women actually want.

I think what most people want from Doctor Who is an entertaining show with decent writing and a bit of eye candy to look at, whether that be Doctor or companion. They want humour, they want enjoyment, they want adventure, they want to be able to look forward to the next episode and not get lectured on social issues.

It's a bit of a myth that women never liked sci fi and Doctor Who.

Throughout the 60s, 70s and even early 80s, Doctor Who was a family show that everyone watched. Men, women, old grannies and grandads, little boys and little girls. Also in the 80s when the show first caught on in America (its viewers were over 9 million.) Most of its fanbase were women!

I think it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy that women don't like sci fi. Men and women do have different tastes in some ways, yes. Men can gravitate towards action perhaps more than women. Still all of us need imaginative fiction.

I think all of us need every type of fiction to an extent. We all need a bit of comedy, we all need a bit of soap opera, we all need a bit of gritty, dark realism, and yes we all need a bit of escapist imaginative fiction. Back in the 60s and the 70s, in the UK there wasn't really any stigma against sci fi. It was seen that way, and that's why not only Doctor Who, but numerous other sci fi series were able to enjoy mainstream popularity. Ironically a lot of American sci fi series that had flopped in America (where there was more of a stigma) like Star Trek were huge successes in the UK.

Sadly however it seems from the 80s the UK started to adopt America's stigma against sci fi of "it's only far sad basement dwelling men". From then on DW obviously suffered from this as did sci fi in general, and like I said I think a lot of young women instinctively thought "sci fi isn't for me."

Hilariously though these women would often have a sci fi and fantasy series as one of their favourites. Buffy, Game of Thrones etc. It would just be one that escaped the stigma.

I do also think though that the most important thing to get women watching a show is to have strong female characters. Look at Batman and Spider-Man.

Batman has always had a much bigger female fanbase than Spider-Man because he has more dynamic female characters. Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Batgirl etc. Whilst some of these characters may be a bit dated by today's standards, they were for their time, strong, proactive female characters who could outfight and out think Batman.

Spidey's female characters like Mary Jane, Gwen Stacey etc are just damsels in distress for him to rescue. I know that some people say Mary Jane has become more interesting as time has gone on, but even then she is basically just an ordinary woman who can't take part in the action and her role in pretty much all adaptations is to get captured.

It's worth noting that Spidey has more soap opera and is on the paper a more appealing character to women, being a nice, nerdy, adorkable, romantic Tennant type as opposed to Batman who is often celibate, angry and a loner.

Still more women like Batman because there are better female characters. (This is also probably why Classic Who was always popular with women during its heyday as it always had strong female companions.)

With this in mind when bringing DW back I think that it could have got over the stigma by just giving it better effects and making it a bit scarier, and got girls watching by having kick ass female companions. As you say not do a Clara Oswald who was a total Mary Sue, but have them be strong, dynamic and someone little girls could look up to. I still don't think they needed to sex up the Doctor to get women watching to be honest.

Still if eye candy is what's needed, just get a young hunky male companion and a sexy female companion and have them get off. That could easily ease people back into having a wierdo older Doctor again.
 
I do also think though that the most important thing to get women watching a show is to have strong female characters.

I disagree. Women want a good show with decent writing, not to be told "you will obviously enjoy this show because it's got a "strong" female character". Clara Oswald could've been classed as a "strong" female character because "she does what she wants, she doesn't let a man tell her what to do" (and look where that got her. Her death was her own fault). I despise Clara more than Kennedy from Buffy which says a lot. I'm not going to watch a show just because there's a "strong" female character in it, and given how certain factions view "strong" women characters as being man hating "feminists", I don't want to watch a show where a female character is constantly bitching about "male privilege".

Women want more than a character who is an aggressive bitch with a chip on her shoulder who doesn't listen to good advice just because it comes from a man.

It's worth noting that Spidey has more soap opera and is on the paper a more appealing character to women, being a nice, nerdy, adorkable, romantic Tennant type as opposed to Batman who is often celibate, angry and a loner.

Batman gets laid as Bruce Wayne, if he's celibate, it's because he chooses to be.

You're kind of comparing apples and oranges with Spiderman and Batman. Batman is darker and has the likes of the Joker, Spiderman is lighter and the villains aren't on par with Batman's rogue gallery.

With this in mind when bringing DW back I think that it could have got over the stigma by just giving it better effects and making it a bit scarier, and got girls watching by having kick ass female companions. As you say not do a Clara Oswald who was a total Mary Sue, but have them be strong, dynamic and someone little girls could look up to. I still don't think they needed to sex up the Doctor to get women watching to be honest.

Again you're basically saying that having women characters will make women watch. It's like sating having black characters will make black people watch, having gay characters will make gay people watch, having disabled characters will make disabled people watch etc.

Shows have to do so much better than just having a "strong" woman character. By that logic, women should've lived Jodie's Doctor because she's a woman who isn't a damsel in distress.

If we take Kennedy and Tara from Buffy as an example, Tara would be seen as a "weak" female character by today's standards of "strong" female characters. Regardless of the fact she escaped an abusive family situation and had the strength to walk away from Willow when Willow's behaviour was unhealthy, Tara would be seen as weak because she's not aggressive, she doesn't spoil for a fight, she doesn't hate men or just use them for her own pleasure. Tara basically just likes to mind her own business and get along with everybody regardless of their gender. Kennedy on the other hand is entitled, selfish, aggressive, sexually harasses Willow which would just be viewed as "being proactive in expressing her feelings" because she's a lesbian, if she was a man it would be called sexual harassment. Kennedy is an awful person yet would be classed as a "strong female character" in today's media landscape.

Women want higher standards than that.

Still if eye candy is what's needed, just get a young hunky male companion and a sexy female companion and have them get off. That could easily ease people back into having a wierdo older Doctor again.

People don't like weirdos, it's very off-putting. Plus a "weirdo" older Doctor is likely to be seen as creepy and not the sort of person that anyone in their right mind would be willing to disappear off with.

Both Donna and Amy were the best companions because they weren't in love with the Doctor. Even though Amy may have initially fancied the Doctor, she got over that and was very much in love with Rory. Both 10 and 11 were just purely platonic with them.

They need a good looking male Doctor that women would want to run off with, and a female companion that can hold her own but also listen to the guy who knows a lot more than she does.
 
I disagree. Women want a good show with decent writing, not to be told "you will obviously enjoy this show because it's got a "strong" female character". Clara Oswald could've been classed as a "strong" female character because "she does what she wants, she doesn't let a man tell her what to do" (and look where that got her. Her death was her own fault). I despise Clara more than Kennedy from Buffy which says a lot. I'm not going to watch a show just because there's a "strong" female character in it, and given how certain factions view "strong" women characters as being man hating "feminists", I don't want to watch a show where a female character is constantly bitching about "male privilege".

Women want more than a character who is an aggressive bitch with a chip on her shoulder who doesn't listen to good advice just because it comes from a man.



Batman gets laid as Bruce Wayne, if he's celibate, it's because he chooses to be.

You're kind of comparing apples and oranges with Spiderman and Batman. Batman is darker and has the likes of the Joker, Spiderman is lighter and the villains aren't on par with Batman's rogue gallery.



Again you're basically saying that having women characters will make women watch. It's like sating having black characters will make black people watch, having gay characters will make gay people watch, having disabled characters will make disabled people watch etc.

Shows have to do so much better than just having a "strong" woman character. By that logic, women should've lived Jodie's Doctor because she's a woman who isn't a damsel in distress.

If we take Kennedy and Tara from Buffy as an example, Tara would be seen as a "weak" female character by today's standards of "strong" female characters. Regardless of the fact she escaped an abusive family situation and had the strength to walk away from Willow when Willow's behaviour was unhealthy, Tara would be seen as weak because she's not aggressive, she doesn't spoil for a fight, she doesn't hate men or just use them for her own pleasure. Tara basically just likes to mind her own business and get along with everybody regardless of their gender. Kennedy on the other hand is entitled, selfish, aggressive, sexually harasses Willow which would just be viewed as "being proactive in expressing her feelings" because she's a lesbian, if she was a man it would be called sexual harassment. Kennedy is an awful person yet would be classed as a "strong female character" in today's media landscape.

Women want higher standards than that.



People don't like weirdos, it's very off-putting. Plus a "weirdo" older Doctor is likely to be seen as creepy and not the sort of person that anyone in their right mind would be willing to disappear off with.

Both Donna and Amy were the best companions because they weren't in love with the Doctor. Even though Amy may have initially fancied the Doctor, she got over that and was very much in love with Rory. Both 10 and 11 were just purely platonic with them.

They need a good looking male Doctor that women would want to run off with, and a female companion that can hold her own but also listen to the guy who knows a lot more than she does.

You misunderstand me. I was not for one second saying that the only thing that women want is strong female characters and that the only way those female characters can be strong is to be aggressive.

(PS I was banned from a website for daring to suggest that women characters should be more 3 dimensional as apparently that made me a misogynist. )

My point is that in a tv show or film you probably do need to have characters that people can relate to to some extent. For instance Buffy has plenty of strong male characters, so little boys could watch it and want to be Angel, Spike, even Giles. Similarly DW has plenty of strong women who little girls can want to be growing up.

This does not mean however that you make it anti men, or that you replace all existing strong roles for men or that you can't have a central heroic figure. However having a wide variety of characters will get a wider audience. That's all I meant.

Those characters can come in all shapes in sizes. IE they can be smart and resourceful, kick ass fighters, villains etc. In no way am I pushing for a Clara.

And as for Batman and Spider-Man, well to start with Spidey has an amazing rogues gallery. It's universally celebrated as the best after Batman incidentally. Also it can get very dark. Venom and Carnage are two of the most terrifying villains in all of comics.

Also I'd hardly call Spider-Man light hearted. His girlfriend is thrown off of a bridge. The Green Goblin is pretty vicious all things considered.

Also my point was that RTD pushed the narrative that in order to get women liking DW, he had to make it a soap opera, downplay the sci fi and make it all about romance. He openly said that's the only way women would like it. Hence why all of those things dominated his era.

Meanwhile my point was Spidey is all about romance, focuses on soap opera etc, yet compared to Batman he has a tiny, tiny female following and the reason for that is that there aren't really any dynamic female roles. What little girls are going to want to be Mary Jane? Gwen Stacey?

Batman however which generally speaking doesn't focus on soap opera, is more of an adventure, and features a hero who apart from a few exceptions shies away from romance, still has a big female following, because it has dynamic female characters that little girls can want to be when playing with their friends.

That's my point. Of course it means nothing if the show itself isn't good, but still if you're talking about going for a specific female audience, a strong and interesting female character is more important than eye candy.

Also saying that no one will want a weirdy Doctor, well then I guess we shouldn't have cast. William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton, Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker and Slyvester McCoy and Peter Capaldi for that matter.

They all fit into that category, and like I said that was one of the things that made DW unique! It's like saying lets cast Maggie Q or Beyonce as Miss Marple.

There are hundreds of conventional leading men. DW offered up something new.
 
Also saying that no one will want a weirdy Doctor, well then I guess we shouldn't have cast. William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton, Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker and Slyvester McCoy and Peter Capaldi for that matter.

Whilst I can't comment on the pre-9th Doctors, I never particularly liked Capaldi's Doctor. I didn't think I'd like Tennant when he turned up but loved him after his first episode, same with Smith. Capaldi on the other hand still doesn't work for me. I think it's telling that the show had to have Smith's Doctor tell the audience via Clara that they should try and accept the new Doctor.
 
He's saying a bunch of rubbish about Pat, Jon, Tom, Peter and Paul of the Classic Doctors, at the very least. They were all very affectionate (Seven/Ace were also affectionate, but definitely platonic--Sylvester had some acting weaknesses like anger, but was definitely nicer than Colin's performance started), nice or even fanciable Doctors. "Weird" does NOT mean unfanciable to women, as some men like him are convinced of.

It's why I brought up Tom Baker having sex with fangirl groupies who asked him to wear the scarf. There are so many older male fans who are convinced he's the ultimate example of the weirdo male Doctor that no women fancy, when that's painfully not the case. Patrick Troughton had quite the scandalous love life by having a whole other secret family (Frazer even went with him to drop off money at his second family's house).

Jon Pertwee was where the need for a hunky male companion was eliminated, because he was the action hero. You no longer needed Ian Chesterton, Steven Taylor, Ben Jackson, Jamie McCrimmon and Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart (who was introduced in the Troughton era!) to be these action-oriented attractive men there precisely to get women watching. Don't believe me? Seriously, it's written right there in the casting call for Ian Chesterton in 1963 for him to be a leading male type to get women to watch. William Russell was coming off of playing Sir Lancelot. Frazer Hines is quite open about the fact that his role in the show was to get girls to watch (he definitely reveled in the female attention).

While William Hartnell was the crotchety, old grandfather wizard type, William Russell was doing all the heroic swashbuckling, with Ian going from fighting Aztec warriors to spending time as a gladiator. Ian was essentially the template that the Doctor later became and he was the one who taught the Doctor a more heroic morality, starting with when Ian stopped the Doctor from killing a caveman with a rock. Ian was also the one arguing with the Thals that they couldn't be pacifists waiting for the Daleks to kill them all and they had to fight back. Ian and Barbara also had to deal with a Doctor who tricked them into going to Skaro and was incredibly distrusting towards humans initially (bordering on full-blown xenophobia, actually). However, after Ian left and despite being quickly replaced by Peter Purves as Steven Taylor, you do see Hartnell starting to take on a more heroic, swashbuckling role, as you do start to see him swordfighting and such. The Doctor we know today was starting to be born already, but still had a few seismic changes left to go.

Now, Patrick Troughton, as you can see in all the fanvids, was actually very spry, even if he was playing an impish Charlie Chaplin-esque figure. His performance was extremely physical, as you can see in those famous scenes of him jumping and running through mirror rooms and hopping as he avoided explosions. He was actually a former leading man type and was the very first leading man Robin Hood on British television ever. And in comparison to Bill looking decades older than he was and being in extremely fragile health already (arteriosclerosis in the brain was really doing a number on him, so it wasn't just wearing a white wig), even though he was only 55-58, Pat was a very sprightly 46-49 whom the young teen or 20-something companions weren't even outrunning. When you see Pat with his hair brushed back instead of done like a Beatles mop, he was not a bad-looking man, despite being a character actor. Still, like with Ian/Barbara and Ben/Polly, it was Jamie/Victoria who were the unrequited romantic drama storyline there to get the girls watching.

The Doctor is more like a best friend/uncle/partner-in-crime figure to Jamie, in particular. He's definitely not a grandfather who keeps trying to replace his granddaughter (Susan to Vicki) anymore. Actually, I'd say it's Ben and Polly where the Doctor really finds his first companions who feel nothing like replacements for his granddaughter and Ian/Barbara clones. They're way too hip for that and William Hartnell looks hilariously out of place in the Swinging Sixties club that he first meets Ben and Polly in. Enter Pat with a Beatles haircut, who wouldn't look out of place at all. Then when Jamie enters the picture the next story, they're an inseparable Odd Couple buddy comedy for the next three years. There are fatherly moments like the Doctor trying to comfort a distressed Jamie about Victoria leaving by saying he was fond of her, too, but boy, does it turn into more of a best-friend dynamic. Slash 'shippers rejoice (I'm not one, but yeah... they invaded this corner of the fandom).

Then came Jon Pertwee. The Doctor was suddenly this karate-chopping, cape-wearing, bouffant dandy James Bond figure with a Navy tattoo, complete with Pertwee's love of driving every kind of vehicle imaginable (there's a whole episode that is nothing but him driving, flying and motoring--Whomobile, gyrocopter, motorboat, ATV, etc...). While Jon was a bit older than Pat (a year older, but playing the role for five seasons after) at 50-54, he was the first Doctor to really treat the role as a leading man who can do all of his own fighting and at times even got very close to seeming like a romantic leading man in his relationship with Jo. Jo's line in The Green Death followed some scenes with the Doctor in The Curse of Peladon and also later in The Green Death where the Doctor actually seems to be playing a game of oneupmanship with male rivals for his companion's affections. Katy Manning for sure has talked about how that line reads as a confession of non-platonic feelings for the Doctor now, given it was part of the idea behind the Big Finish story The Other Woman.

Tom Baker very much continued what Jon Pertwee brought for the role. While he might seem really, really odd, he was most certainly not a female audience repellent. His companion relationships (same as Pertwee's) were actually highly 'shippable, especially Sarah Jane and Romana. The Doctor's relationship with Leela was based on Professor Higgins and Eliza Doolittle, and I shouldn't have to tell you that that's a romantic movie, even if it's less so with that one by comparison to how often the Doctor carried and put his arms around Sarah. Once again, it's this ultra affectionate performance where you have a Doctor who is often carrying, hugging and acting very protective around a young female companion who he plays clear favorites with. See "Harry Sullivan is an imbecile!" for who was third wheel in that TARDIS team. It's the same with Pertwee towards Jo with those very intrinsically male, possessive interactions towards male rivals like King Peladon and Cliff Jones. Female viewers spot it from a mile away. Tom Baker wasn't even acting anymore when he reacted to the glamorous Mary Tamm and the Honourable Sarah "Lalla" Ward (who is literal British nobility). There was a behind-the-scenes Christmas video with John Leeson doing drunk Christmas carols in his K-9 voice where Tom Baker is asked what he wants for Christmas and he gives a very suggestive leer at Mary Tamm. The whole Doctor/Romana dynamic was the Doctor completely overwhelmed by Romana being better at being a Time Lord/Lady than him, but also him teaching her how to be more worldly, heroic and human with street smarts beyond the stodgy academics of Gallifrey. The idea that the Doctor seemed to be having something more than platonic going on with Romana is far from a new interpretation and it wasn't helped by the fact that Tom Baker married Lalla Ward, even doing in-character computer commercials with the computer flashing "Marry the girl, Doctor" on the screen.

Contrary to what the fanboy culture that took over the fandom in the '80s-'90s that agreed with the very nonsense that killed the show dead in the '80s. It was a time that included much less-affectionate relationships with multiple mouthy companions (well, just Tegan--silent Nyssa couldn't even get in a word edgewise, which is why it's a joy when it's briefly just Davison with Nyssa between Tegan getting left at Heathrow until Amsterdam) who just absolutely swamped a less-strong Doctor like Peter Davison (not to mention the Doctor being openly irritated with Adric and Turlough actually starting his time in the TARDIS as an attempted murderer), the loss of the iconic Pertwee/Baker format of having just one young girl in the TARDIS who seems to be a bit in love with the Doctor (replaced instead by having Colin Baker literally try to strangle Peri--who went from saying how Peter Davison was sweet, nice and attractive in comparison to the "tasteless", abrasive Doctor who didn't care what his companions thought of him--this was literally the worst possible thing to copy when Peter Capaldi started off the same way!) and dramatic narratives and actual character growth amongst Doctors and companions alike that absolutely did exist in the '60s-'70s! I think a lot of fanboys would be shocked if they really compared the character development in the '60s-'70s episodes (note that those American fans were largely watching a lot of Tom Baker reruns on PBS that were a decade old when JNT became obsessed with the American convention circuit) to what is there in the '80s.

I will say that Colin Baker's absolute best moments in his ill-received era are when he suddenly softens up incredibly a lot with Jamie coming back, because otherwise the Two/Jamie vs. Six/Peri comparison would be utterly awful with the difference in how Jamie is treated in comparison to Peri. Colin corrects this a bit by actually having a really good dynamic with Jamie (yeah, it seems all the Doctors love Jamie). Although it was way too late, Colin did have a much-needed deep reaction to when he thought Peri was brutally murdered. "You killed Peri." There have been discussions that things might've been different and the relationship between the Sixth Doctor and Peri would've been better had Jamie remained to soften things. Jamie (always a flirt) even kissed Peri on the cheek at the end of The Two Doctors. As it stands now, because of Patrick Troughton being long dead, Colin Baker has essentially inherited a lot of his companions, including Jamie, Zoe and even Victoria. They've all been used to give him that much-needed softer side and their stories with him get frickin' tragic, given both Jamie and Zoe died while with the Sixth Doctor. Add to that the fact that Peri was retconned from being murdered, as well, only to have a fate possibly worse than death--marriage to Brian Blessed as King Yrcanos. Yikes.

Unfortunately, you'll have to listen to missing episode reconstructions to hear some of the most emotional content from the '60s like in The Evil of the Daleks when Jamie calls the Doctor "callous" while he's being manipulated into rescuing Victoria and the Doctor is using Jamie to produce the "human factor" to create human-Dalek hybrids or when Jamie does NOT take Victoria leaving well at all. In fact, the entire end of Fury from the Deep, pt. 6 should put all thoughts that Classic Who didn't have "girly" emotions running amok all over it to rest.


This type of dramatic exit wouldn't be out of place in NuWho! And the emotions being non-platonic are subtle as a brick.

These '80s-'90s-era JNT fanboys were absolutely appalled with RTD's appeal to genre savvy female fans who grew up on the wave of serialized drama in '90s genre shows (these are NOT girls who hate sci-fi/fantasy, contrary to what Burun thinks!). By the JNT and New Adventures years, the fanbase was full of incels who thought Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy were the perfect representation of themselves and reveled in how neither one of them were appealing to those icky fangirls. They were also appalled when Paul McGann kissed Grace Holloway in the TV Movie for the same reason they were appalled by Rose Tyler (as if Jo Grant hadn't already hinted as such that she had feelings for the Doctor all the way back in 1973).

The New Adventures books, specifically the infamous Lungbarrow, went out of their way to desexualize Time Lords (despite there being Time Ladies) into a completely asexual species that Looms itself fully-grown from machines.

JNT, of course, had gone out of his way to rewrite Doctor Who history to even eliminate that the Doctor was ever a grandfather in the first place. JNT was highly sensitive about how affectionate young, traditionally-handsome leading man Peter Davison (second-youngest Doctor ever after Matt Smith) could be with female companions (no hugging Tegan and Nyssa, but could hug Adric, despite the Doctor having a notably horrible relationship with Adric until he sacrificed himself) and indeed barred Carole Ann Ford from interacting with any Doctor but Richard Hurndall. Just calling the faux-First Doctor "Grandfather" was a compromise with JNT and Peter Davison went against the script to try to put in a Fifth Doctor/Susan moment (it looks more like a creepy leer). For JNT, it was because the Doctor being a heterosexual breeder with biological family was alienating to the gay audience and so wanted to pretend that the Doctor was asexual (to the point of casting less-fanciable Doctors next--or possibly ones that were more in his league--his partner Gary Downie was an absolute lecherous creep to fans at those American conventions and was accused of sexual assault!) in a way he absolutely was NOT in the '60s-'70s. Colin Baker's performance almost feels reactionary against Peter Davison's leading man looks, to the point where Peri actually comments on this change very negatively (exactly like how Clara had to be reassured by Matt Smith to accept Peter Capaldi going out of his way to be a total prick in series 8). RTD clearly didn't agree with JNT on the Doctor being asexual or that being more appealing to the gay audience!

The show ate itself by kicking out a huge part of the audience that used to watch and was chased out. RTD just went backwards in time to pick up the same audience the show used to be written for before. And news to Burun, women were 'shipping Mulder/Scully (hell, they were also a significant part of the original Star Trek's audience with most of them making up Spock's very female fanbase) in the '90s well before Buffy/Angel made it to the screen. Mulder/Scully, F.Y.I., were the couple that the terms "'ship" and "'shipping" were invented for, despite it taking The X-Files an aggravating seven seasons to get them together romantically (damn you, cockblocker bee!). Isaac Asimov himself wrote a whole essay on the fact that women were more into Spock than Kirk (whose fanbase was overwhelmingly male, despite seeming on paper like he should be the male hero attracting the ladies) and the complete bafflement of male viewers about why all these fangirls preferred Spock. Given that the Doctor isn't wildly different in archetype from Spock at times, it should be less of a surprise that even Classic Doctors get these same fangirls who also like Spock.

Long gone was the BBC internal paperwork that listed how each and every role was being written and cast to appeal to every possible demographic, including the boys (and dads) who wanted to see Zoe's butt in a glittery catsuit perched atop the TARDIS console and famously Peter Davison's entire regeneration sequence (it's a good one--the Fifth Doctor heroically sacrifices himself for Peri) getting overshadowed by Peri's cleavage (definitely got attention for that gratuitous bikini cleavage shot, too, though Turlough gets similar attention amongst gays and gals for stripping down to a Speedo in the same scene), and the girls who got to swoon over the likes of Ian and Jamie, who were written with them to watch precisely in mind. As much as female audiences like female identification figures, people like Burun seem to be in complete denial that the males in the Classic show were ever written for females in mind, including increasingly so the Doctor himself. Yet, a lot of the same gate-keeping male fans in the Doctor Who fanbase will openly go on and on about who the hottest female companions were.

Males who think throwing "feisty", "strong" females on the screen will cover the female audience (seems to me it was a lot of males and lesbians reacting to Jodie Whittaker being the hottest Doctor ever more than the straight females were--LOL), despite females arguably being the most resistant to Jodie Whittaker's casting (serious blunder by Chibnall to not realize that that was definitely not what the female audience wanted after years of wishing to be taken away from their lives by the Doctor, not unlike Peter Pan and Wendy), really ought to ask more females about what they like to see on screen. They're a lot like those baffled fanboys who don't understand why fangirls prefer Spock to Kirk or think that the Classic Doctors were all completely repulsive to female audiences, and so think that the massively positive, swooning reaction to David Tennant (who is in fact a very *unconventional* leading man, just like the rest with the exceptions of Peter Davison and Paul McGann--you're not going to see those two playing roles like Barty Crouch, Jr. and Kilgrave any time soon!) means that he was completely unsuitable for the part.
 
Last edited:
Jodie- and best of all- Chris Chibnall are leaving after this coming season and a few specials.

I’m very excited that this era is finally coming to an end, I thought for sure they’d keep it going until the 60th anniversary which would have been awful.
I just hope the next writer they find is on the level of at least Moffat and as for the doctor, I kind of hope they cast another woman, but one that will work. Just to prove it’s not gender that was the issue. Sarah Jane Smith would have been an excellent doctor.


I don't think it's sexist to say Doctor Who is and always should be a man. Not saying a woman couldn't play the part, as that was already proven back in the 70s with Romana, just that you shouldn't because the character is fundamentally a male role model. Plus, tradition. It's like how James Bond is a man. But the BBC jumped the shark with casting Jodie, and there's not really any way to fit the genie back into the bottle, unless they act as if the whole affair never happened, which is not very likely. So I pretty much treat Doctor Who post-Capaldi (and even including his last season) the same way I treat the Disney Star Wars remakes: like they don't exist.

On a related note, though, I've been rewatching the first season of the "new"/rebooted Doctor Who from 2005 after several years. I remember really disliking that season and not caring much for Eccleston or Rose at the time, but I've been really appreciating it now that I see it with new eyes. Sure, there are still things that bug me like the fart jokes with the Slitheen or episodes being way too short and wrapping up too quickly compared to the original/classic series, but I really did not give it its due credit when I was younger. Rose is great, Eccleston is fantastic, and some of the scripts upon rewatch really live up to the hype (like Rose and Dalek for instance.)

I have not seen the Jodie Whitaker season of Doctor Who, I dropped off in Capaldi's last season. I'm sad that it's a trend that we can't have a new era Doctor Who doctor for more than 3 seasons.
Also, another criticism I've had of the show, is the overuse of the Daleks and the Cybermen. It's too the point that I no longer find them threatening but rather comical. *Ex-ter-min-ate* lol.

I agree about the 3 seasons rule. Pertwee and Tom left the greatest impact I think, probably in part because they stayed on longer than the rest. But that's exactly why Davison chose to leave after 3, because he didn't want to get typecast like Tom did. Tennant followed his father-in-law's advice, and thus the precedent was set from there. Although I suppose Troughton was the first to choose to stop after 3 years. Hartnell had health issues and the McCoy and Colin's eras were cut short.

Oh yeah, they should've lain the Cybermen and Daleks down to rest permanently probably some time in the 80s. The Master too. But hey, famous brands bring in the crowds, right? Plus I think the estate of Terry Nation has some sort of contractual agreement or something that the Daleks have to be in every season.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with people saying the Doctor has always been a masculine character. If you look back over the years, its normally been a very nerdy, floopy haired brainy, socially awkward type. Doesn't sound that masculine to me. What modern culture has proved is that women can be nerdy, and brainy, and awkward. Not only can they, but they should be allowed to. One thing I liked about Whittaker as a choice was that she didn't conform to the standard stuffy middle class type. The point stands there's no logical reason why you can't have a female doctor. Even if it was written in the text, it doesn't change much to change that. Its Sci-fi afterall, not a flippy Mike Leigh film.

Someone in this discussion has already outright said they don't want a female doctor again ever. Which not only smacks of sexism, but makes no sense. That's a bit like saying no matter how good she is in the role you wouldn't want her just because it wouldn't conform to some narrow idea people have of what the Doctor should be.

I agree with the point that we need more new stronger female characters. That's the way forward. But that still doesn't mean that shows like Doctor Who shouldn't move with the time. Afterall by putting a woman in such a role it normalise it. Maybe teenage girls who wouldn't normally watch the show might be drawn into it. It might be a cliche, but its progress.


I don't think it's sexist to say Doctor Who is and always should be a man. Not saying a woman couldn't play the part, as that was already proven back in the 70s with Romana, just that you shouldn't because the character is fundamentally a male role model. Plus, tradition. It's like how James Bond is a man. But the BBC jumped the shark with casting Jodie, and there's not really any way to fit the genie back into the bottle, unless they act as if the whole affair never happened, which is not very likely. So I pretty much treat Doctor Who post-Capaldi (and even including his last season) the same way I treat the Disney Star Wars remakes: like they don't exist.

On a related note, though, I've been rewatching the first season of the "new"/rebooted Doctor Who from 2005 after several years. I remember really disliking that season and not caring much for Eccleston or Rose at the time, but I've been really appreciating it now that I see it with new eyes. Sure, there are still things that bug me like the fart jokes with the Slitheen or episodes being way too short and wrapping up too quickly compared to the original/classic series, but I really did not give it its due credit when I was younger. Rose is great, Eccleston is fantastic, and some of the scripts upon rewatch really live up to the hype (like Rose and Dalek for instance.)



I agree about the 3 seasons rule. Pertwee and Tom left the greatest impact I think, probably in part because they stayed on longer than the rest. But that's exactly why Davison chose to leave after 3, because he didn't want to get typecast like Tom did. Tennant followed his father-in-law's advice, and thus the precedent was set from there. Although I suppose Troughton was the first to choose to stop after 3 years. Hartnell had health issues and the McCoy and Colin's eras were cut short.

Oh yeah, they should've lain the Cybermen and Daleks down to rest permanently probably some time in the 80s. The Master too. But hey, famous brands bring in the crowds, right? Plus I think the estate of Terry Nation has some sort of contractual agreement or something that the Daleks have to be in every season.

Yeah but come on, those crappy Lucas prequels were far worse than the newer films. I think most SW fans would see some value in the new films. Again another ugly side to online fandom. People not accepting a female lead in a SW film, not accepting a black character in one of the big roles etc... Once again people not moving with the times. Yawn.
 
Back
Top Bottom