#I want to get her last lines before Hartnell says the iconic 'one day I shall come back' speech

[finndiseicla]

I want to get a circular Gallifreyan tattoo but, I'm afraid it would make me look too much like a Susan Foreman kinnie.

[thiefofnobility]

I’m afraid I have to disagree, quite firmly. I understand this is an issue people feel quite strongly about, but I’m not going to admit I’m wrong because, in this case, I have a firmly held critical opinion and believe I am justified in expressing it.

Yes, the character isn’t from the sixties (though, let’s remember, it’s unclear where he is from back in Hartnell’s time, it’s initially suggested he’s a human from the future if anything). But the writing is. And a few progressive shining stars like Verity Lambert aren’t going to lift everything out of the cesspit of human injustice. And it shows in the writing, including that of the character of the first Doctor.

Context never can be erased from writing. Never. And it absolutely, absolutely shows in how the first Doctor was written. Of course, Doctor Who transcends that. Doctor Who can transcend most anything. But it’s always there. I certainly noticed it a lot when watching the classic series several years back, and I have a far more critical eye now than I did then.

This isn’t reinvention. It’s just making the implicit issues explicit text and dealing with them. Hell, the show’s done it with more recent eras already (even eras by the same people!) with things as little as the Twelfth Doctor pondering why everything is called “sexy” now, or responding to Donna’s ending with Clara. The show’s always going to be reflecting on itself. That’s fine. That’s how it moves forward, and Twice Upon a Time is very much about moving forward, specifically to Jodie Whittaker, which I think is rather safe to call a progressive endpoint. And I’m sure give it a few years and we’ll be laughing about how the show was so white up until the Fourteenth Doctor came along and sorted it all out.

Take Susan’s departure, for example, which I mentioned the other day. And I know I’m just fishing for controversy here. I don’t like that feeling, but equally, I’m not going to shut myself up when people keep pushing me to voice something rather angrily like you just have. So I will admit, it’s a good moment. Hartnell utterly shines. It’s iconic for a reason. And yet, personally, I find it uncomfortably chauvinist in a way that is indicative of the era. The Doctor is generally overbearing and paternalistic towards Susan, but this is a particularly bad case. He has stripped her of agency numerous times and infantilized her, but this really takes the cake. Earlier in the serial we get beautiful moments like Susan rejecting the whole heteronormative labor thing, saying “I eat” when asked if she can cook. God, I love that moment. But her ending up with David, that’s treated as her way of growing up and living the life she should have. Travelling the universe isn’t good enough, I suppose, nor leaving on your own terms. You’ve gotta be dumped off to be the housewife of the first man who gives you googly eyes. I get the feeling if we were to see a televised continuation of that at the time, it’d be about her learning to cook and clean and raise children and become a good little wife.

Seriously, those lines are loaded. “I want you to belong somewhere, to have roots of your own. With David, you’ll be able to find those roots and live normally like any woman should do.” Yikes. Gotta be a wife and give up adventuring to be fulfilled, apparently. It’s not cruelly intended or anything, it’s just good old fashioned gendered expectations of the time. Meant sweetly, but from a modern eye, horrific. Same as the spring cleaning line David Bradley has, sweet and harmless in the sixties, eyebrow raising now. It’s implicit, culturally ingrained chauvinism, that wouldn’t impact an alien from the future, but would absolutely impact how men (and let’s not pretend otherwise, it was overwhelmingly men writing, directing, and producing) would represent one.

It’s not something active or malicious, but it is, in my perspective, something that does happen a lot in the era. Not big things, just a bunch of little ones. That happens to pretty much all fiction, impacted by its context. And it seems like those little things will give birth to little reflective moments in a bigger and more interesting episode.

At the end of the day, though, really, I just want to be excited about my favorite show having one of my favorite Doctors return to close off one of my favorite eras.

Weeeeelll, let’s start by pointing out the fact you are wrong when saying it’s unclear where the Doctor comes from. In the unaired pilot, Susan straight up says she was born in the 49th century. She also calls Ian and Barbara “Earth people” and the Docco says he is “of a different race”. If the unaired pilot is not canon enough for you, I will use examples from the aired pilot. In which the Doctor says “the children of my civilization” and “I tolerate this century but I don’t enjoy it”. So however you got “sexist 60s human” from that is beyound me. While they didn’t have a name for Gallifrey at the time, they explicitly said he is from another planet and from the future. And even if THAT’S not enough proof for you, I should argue that whether or not they knew where he was from at the beginning is actually totally irrelevant. The point is, we know now and the story is being written now. So, hypothetically speaking, if One did ever say something sexist in his days, it was because of the time period it was written in and not because it’s something the Doctor would say. So why make him say it now? We know the Doctor now and there would be no need to point out something that isn’t actually part of him. 

You seem to be totally missing the point, however. The show is not reflecting on itself. The First Doctor has never shown an ounce of distaste or disrespect for someone based on their gender. He has never made a comment that comes off as sexiest. They are adding a character trait that was not there before for the sole purpose of being woke. Now, I’m doing this paragraph by paragraph, so I’m waiting to get to the part where you give me actual context from the show because so far it’s just been fancy words and generalizations.

AH! But here we go. Yes, let’s take Susan’s departure. But before we do, may I go to “I’m not going to shut myself up when people keep pushing me to voice something rather angrily like you just have” because did I in no way encourage you to become angry over this. I was telling you, as a One stan, the view point we have. If it came off as rude, I’m sorry, but that’s what voicing your opinion over the Internet does. And perhaps, my friend, as an analysis blog who posts opinions and replies to anons, you should understand this. I did not and do not have malicious intentions. I simply want to clear this up and clear the name of my favourite Doctor.

Whom you are trying to convince me is okay to completely destroy for the sake of unnecessary relevance. So if anyone should be angry, it’s me. But I’m not. I want to do this as civil as possible.

Now, back to Susan.

“The Doctor is generally overbearing and paternalistic towards Susan”

Pardon my French but, ehem, no shit. He is her grandfather and she is the last thing he has of his family and his home planet. Naturally, he would want to protect her. Whether I think it’s overbearing, no. I suppose that’s a matter of opinion. I think he has a reasonable level that any grandfather with his grandchild in dangerous situations would have. I believe the words you are looking for is protective and love. In fact, using Susan is a rather awful example because she was the one person he initially only showed affection for. Of course, he gained affection for Ian and Barbara when they all became besties, but from day one, Susan was the one he was the softest on.

“Earlier in the serial we get beautiful moments like Susan rejecting the whole heteronormative labor thing, saying “I eat” when asked if she can cook.”

I’m sorry I had to pause for a second because I think you might be looking too much into this. I’m 99% sure that was comic relief at best. What’s the opposite of cooking? Eating. What’s the key to comedy? Opposites.

“But her ending up with David, that’s treated as her way of growing up and living the life she should have. Travelling the universe isn’t good enough, I suppose, nor leaving on your own terms. You’ve gotta be dumped off to be the housewife of the first man who gives you googly eyes. I get the feeling if we were to see a televised continuation of that at the time, it’d be about her learning to cook and clean and raise children and become a good little wife.”

I understand your job is to analyze, but the thing is, this scene isn’t that complicated. The Doctor did not leave Susan with David because David fancied her. She did not stay to become a good little wife or because it’s the “role of a woman” to look after a man/children. The whole point was that the Doctor felt he was dragging her down. Susan expressed numerous times that she wanted a place to belong, somewhere to stay and not have to keep moving around. The trouble was, she felt so attached and protective of her grandfather that she couldn’t bare to leave him. The Doctor, however, selflessly, forces her to stay. Because he knows she could do good in this time period and he knows she would be happy here (which she was). But he also knew she was too loyal to leave him. It had nothing to do with romance. It was a good place to give her what she wanted. It had to do with the Doctor giving up the one person he cared most about to let her live the life she wanted and make her not feel obligated to take care of him. 

Which. Funnily enough. Is the opposite of chauvinism.

“I want you to belong somewhere, to have roots of your own.” Because that’s straight up what she has been asking for for the past few episodes.

“Yikes. Gotta be a wife and give up adventuring to be fulfilled, apparently.” Nope. Because once again, Susan expressed that she wasn’t fulfilled by adventure and wanted to belong somewhere. Because, believe it or not, people all want different things. Not everybody wants adventure. Some people want roots. This, of course, all coming from her trauma of being pulled from her home planet and exiled into a stolen time machine where she proceeded to go on adventures in which she watched friends and her grandfather nearly die multiple times. So no, it has nothing to do with being a good little wifey but instead, wanting to be home somewhere. Sort of like when you take a long vacation and you just want to get to your own bed. But Gallifrey is off limits because it didn’t exist at the time of writing so the Doctor gave her a new home.

“that wouldn’t impact an alien from the future, but would absolutely impact how men (and let’s not pretend otherwise, it was overwhelmingly men writing, directing, and producing) would represent one.” Yes, which is a totally valid argument considering Verity Lambert, a female, produced the episode. And like.................. all of Hartnell’s era. Most of it, anyway. Up until Mission of the Unknown. Also, fun fact, Verity was one of the first women to be awarded role as a full time producer in television. So, y’know, Doctor Who was also built on powerful females in charge.

“It’s not something active or malicious, but it is, in my perspective, something that does happen a lot in the era. Not big things, just a bunch of little ones.” Lots of little things you haven’t named. I, personally, cannot think of any. And neither can you, apparently, as the one example you did give wasn’t actually an act of sexism.

If One is truly one of your favourite Doctors, you shouldn’t be excited for what Moffat is going to do to him. Because a true One fan knows this is not something he would do. He adored his companions, he never once said an offhanded chauvinistic line to them. And ESPECIALLY not with the intentions of it being such.

And, once again, even if you can come up with a valid example that perhaps I may have forgotten about as there IS a lot of Classic Who, I would like to go back to my original statement by saying any slightly, offhanded sexist remarks would yes, be because of the time period it was written in. However, just because they did it back then doesn’t mean we have to do it today. If you go out and call someone a racial slur and say “Sorry! They did it in the 60s and I’m just trying to make a point that it’s offensive now” doesn’t actually help anything. You still were an asshole to somebody, somebody got hurt, and nothing was gained, because yeah, no shit it’s offensive. The fact that Moffat would even think of adding such a plot device despite it not legitimately being a part of the First Doctor’s personality, says more about Moffat than it does about the writers of the 60s/The First Doctor. He’s essentially doing what writers in the 60s did and then pulling himself back up and going “It’s okay! I know this is wrong!” Good for you, Moff. We didn’t need to know that because it affects Doctor Who in no way and reflects on something that never existed.

As someone who likes Moffat, you should be thankful I disagree with this. Because if he didn’t do it to begin with, he would’ve saved himself some dumbassery.

Also it’s 2am so this is a mess, forgive me.

[freeforpublicuse]

13 reasons we’re excited to meet Jodie Whittaker’s Thirteenth Doctor Today (Monday 26th March 2018) marks the 13 anniversary of modern Doctor Who, which began with Russell T Davies’ Rose in 2005 and is soon to have another exciting reinvention under new showrunner Chris Chibnall and first female Doctor Jodie Whittaker. So with that past in mind, and given that Whittaker is playing the thirteenth incarnation of the character (not including the War Doctor) we thought it was the perfect time to look ahead at the future of Doctor Who in its new and exciting form. 1. The new Doctor sounds pretty exciting Jodie Whittaker in Doctor Who (BBC, HF) While we still haven’t seen much of Jodie Whittaker’s new Time Lord, a few descriptions of her character have been released, with the BBC describing her as “a super-smart force of nature” and co-star Sharon D Clarke suggesting this is a fun and ass-kicking version of the Time Lord. “Jodie is phenomenal. She’s just joy, absolutely joy. She’s gonna slay it,” Clarke said. “And what’s lovely about Jodie […] because she always plays these kind of dour characters who are downtrodden, [is to play] someone who’s up and hopeful and fighting crime – she’s just bouncing around the set. “She’s definitely earning those two hearts that the Doctor has,” Clarke concluded. “She’s wonderful, I absolutely adore her.” In other words, this sounds like Whittaker’s Doctor is an upbeat woman of action, and just the sort of dynamic presence the series needs. 2. It’s a back-to-basics take on the series Chris Chibnall Ever since new showrunner Chris Chibnall took over, it’s been emphasised that he will be bringing Doctor Who back to its roots, with sources within the series previously telling RadioTimes.com that the Broadchurch creator is looking to expand the sci-fi drama’s appeal. “There is a feeling that the drama has been complicated by self-referential plotting at times and Chris wants his Doctor Who to be a show notable for its emotional intelligence,” a source said last month. This account was backed up in an interview for Royal Television Society magazine Television, where Chibnall said he was looking for “risk and boldness” and his longtime collaborator James Strong agreed there had been a need for a change. “It used to be – and I stress this is my personal opinion – at the heart of the schedule, an unmissable family show and, for some reason, it’s slipped a bit from the national consciousness,” said Strong. “For me, when it goes towards story­lines that are a little bit more for the fans, I think you can lose that general appeal. I think Chris is going to offer a slightly different take on what the show should be… I think Chris, essentially, writes emotional thrillers, and that’s perfect for that show.” In other words, this could be a version of Who to bring the series back to the mainstream. 3. Intriguing new writers Apart from Chibnall himself, we don’t know who’s writing for the new series, with various regular contributors like Sarah Dollard, Mark Gatiss and Jamie Mathieson ruling themselves out of contention. However, thanks to various sources (including former series star David Tennant) we know that pretty much all the guest writers will be entirely new to the series, meaning we could be getting some interesting new takes on the half century-old series. 4. In fact, pretty much everything is new When taking over Chibnall cleaned the slate even more than predecessor Steven Moffat did from the Russell T Davies years, with almost every part of production down to the writers, VFX artists and even composer Murray Gold replaced with new faces. While it isn’t true that new is always better, it’s good to see that Chibnall is committed to refreshing the show behind-the-scenes as well as on screen. 5. A whole team of companions Doctor Who stars Mandip Gill, Bradley Walsh, Jodie Whittaker and Tosin Cole (BBC, BD) One of the earliest details revealed about series 11 was that Jodie Whittaker would have a whole group of companions, with Bradley Walsh, Mandip Gill and Tosin Cole playing Graham, Yasmin and Ryan respectively. This is sure to create a rather different dynamic in the Tardis – in the modern series, the Doctor has tended to have no more than two regular companions – perhaps evidenced by the BBC’s insistence that the trio be referred to as the Doctor’s “Tardis team” rather than her companions. We’re intrigued to see how it plays out on screen. 6. A “family” feel Speaking of the Tardis team, RadioTimes.com sources have previously suggested that there’s a “family” feel to the new series, with new crew supposed to evoke the vibe of First Doctor William Hartnell and his companions Susan, Ian and Barbara. “The first Doctor played by William Hartnell was a grandfather to Susan and he had the companions Ian and Barbara in these early adventures,” said a source. “Chris’s show will be very much its own thing but that is kind of the vibe.” And rumours suggest the series will also have a “family” feel in appealing to all viewing generations, rather than just the die-hard fans who’d watch Doctor Who anyway. 7. Exciting guest stars Alan Cummings (Getty, EH) While the BBC have remained tight-lipped about details of the new series, a few guest actors have accidentally confirmed their involvement including actor Alan Cumming (who revealed he was set to play King James I in an upcoming episode) and comedian Lee Mack, who says he “harassed” Chris Chibnall into giving him a small role. There are also rumours that Sex and the City/The Good Wife star Chris Noth could be popping in for a guest spot, but even if he’s not, the calibre of actors joining the series leave us intrigued to see who else is involved. 8. A different side to the UK This might sound a little strange, but it’s kind of great to see the series focusing on areas of the UK outside of London, with large swathes of the series set to take place in Chibnall’s university town of Sheffield according to set reports. This is sure to make the series feel more representative of its home country as a whole, while also expanding the scope of the storytelling to tell different tales of weird and wonderful alien attacks. 9. Tricky (and educational) historical periods BBC, Getty, TL While Doctor Who has always visited weird and wonderful historical locales, one rumoured destination this year has a bit more bite to it than usual – segregation-era Alabama, supposedly featuring the story of Civil Rights icon Rosa Parks. While the details of this episode are scarce and the BBC aren’t confirming or denying its inclusion, the story looks set to address race and racism more than Doctor Who has done before, while reports elsewhere suggest that the series is looking to have a more educational aspect. This could be a good or a bad thing, as we’ve discussed elsewhere, but at the very least Chibnall seems to be trying to take the show in a direction that feels fresh while honouring the original concept created by Sydney Newman and Verity Lambert in the 1960s. 10. A spooky Halloween episode? More unsubstantiated reports suggest that Doctor Who’s late airing this year has allowed the BBC to include a Halloween-themed episode, possibly involving witchcraft and Alan Cumming’s King James I and airing around the end of October. If the rumours do turn out to be accurate it would be a nice addition to Doctor Who’s scarier episodes. 11. A brand new Tardis Doctor Who_Series 11_Costume Reveal We can talk as much as we like about social issues, new writers and the changing world’s influences on the new series, but we know that most fans are more excited about seeing things like the new Doctor’s costumes, sonic screwdriver and other paraphernalia that have constantly updated throughout the years. Chief among these exciting new designs will be the Thirteenth Doctor’s Tardis interior, which seems set to be redecorated following the destruction of the Twelfth Doctor’s console room at the end of Christmas special Twice Upon a Time. Frankly, we can’t wait to see what new look we have in store for the Doctor’s Tardis, and based on the striking cosmetic changes to the exterior that we’ve seen already (well, as striking as another blue box can be) we’re expecting great things. 12. The return of old foes Doctor Who Daleks If it’s a Doctor Who series, you can pretty much always expect iconic villains the Daleks to turn up at some point, and according to rumours the new series will be no exception. Sure, it’d be great to see Whittaker’s Doctor take on some brand-new monsters as well, but it’s become a traditional baptism of fire for new incarnations to come face-to-stalk with the tinpot terrors so we’re glad they’re apparently back in the new series. And who knows? Maybe there’s another new design in the offing… 13. And finally – Doctor Who could be appointment TV once again (BBC, TL) We kind of touched on this point earlier on, but it bears repeating – how good would it be if Doctor Who became PROPERLY popular again? Obviously, “popular” is pretty subjective here – it’s a hugely successful show beloved by millions – but as James Strong noted above, in the 13 years that Doctor Who has been back on TV it has recently not quite matched the days of Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant’s Time Lords. That is, until now – because since the announcement of Jodie Whittaker’s casting, the world has become interested in Doctor Who again. People who had drifted away may now be tempted back by the buzz around the series, while others who may have never considered watching might decide the new take on the series is finally one they can get involved with. We won’t reach the viewing heights of the mid-noughties, of course – the way people consume TV has changed a lot in the past 13 years – but for at least a while, Doctor Who might become the TV event of the year once again. And no matter what you think about any changes to the series, you have to agree that increased interest in a 13-year-old reboot of a 55-year-old TV series can only be a good thing. For Doctor Who to survive, it has to change – and so far, we’re liking what we’re seeing.