Joun_Lord wrote: ↑
Attack the Block is apparently the gift that keeps on giving. It helps that the entire cast was fantastic.
Why I'm mostly okay with the casting. Whittaker is an excellent choice not based on her gender but on her acting ability. I've always said that should be the primary motivator for things like this. However more then a few people are going to say she was only hired based on her gender, because the bosses of Who wanted a female Doctor or Bust (there is a pun in there somewhere). Might burn long time fans who might already think politics is taking over the show at the expense of the writing. I hope people will give her a chance even if it was politics that were at work in her hiring because even so she's still a fantastic actress.
Oh, I'm already seeing whining all over the place about how this was just done for no reason, just to have a woman. With the obvious underlying implication of "Of course
a woman could never actually get the role on merit".
But while I don't doubt that the show runners wanted a female Doctor (with good reason, see my previous post), who the hell cares, if she can play the part well?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Whatever the quality of the writing, their has never been a bad actor as the Doctor.
I do not expect that streak to be broken now.
The real question is how they are going to play it. Are they going to make 13's gender a thing, throw it in everyones face or not? I hope not and with the treatment of Missy who right down to the sexual tension with the Doctor could have been played by a man (even if they made the sexual tension far more obvious, like sledgehammer over the head obvious).While I was initially iffy about Missy she turned out to be one of the few good things about more recent Who, she was written pretty darn good. Now one could make the argument she was barely the Master anymore, more or less a new character that we were told was the Master with a few Master-ish traits thrown in but its not like the Master has remained consistent through all his incarnations. The Simms Master couldn't be any different from the Delgado Master, especially the manic Obama people eater Master.
They can't simply ignore her gender altogether- if nothing else, it will affect how some others interact with her.
But at the same time, that's not fundamentally so different from any regeneration. The Doctor changes. Those changes are acknowledged. But they are still, ultimately, the Doctor.
All the Doctors themselves have been pretty distinctive. Quite often they do feel like different people with the same name, kinda are. Just the differences between Capaldi and Smith Doctors are great to say nothing of some of the other more unique Doctors. So having a Doctor who is different isn't a bad thing if they don't write the new Doctor different by going "lol imma woman". But again I don't think they will, I hope they won't.
My real concern is just the writing in general, the companions being extra special shits, random characters being better at being the Doctor then the Doctor. The writing just hasn't grabbed me and that sucks because both Capaldi and Mackie are excellent actors and have good chemistry but it feels wasted, the stories are sub-par, it has the same problems that the Clara era had about just not being all that enjoyable.
I mostly agree with this.
I fear Capaldi will be remembed as one of the less well liked Doctors because of how tired the show was during his run, how for atleast some fans its stopped being fun. That Mackie will probably be just a forgotten Companion or remembered for less then ideal reasons. And thats a goddamn shame because both put in their all, just the writers didn't do their part.
I think Capaldi
will be remembered well, at least in time. He's a damn fine actor. I expect he'll be seen by fans in much the same light as Colin Baker seems to be- good actor unfairly undermined by shit writing. Though I don't think his era will be regarded as badly as Baker's, either.
Bill might get largely lost in the crowd due to the briefness of her run (fuck you Moffat). Which sucks. Really, really sucks. She deserved two seasons minimum, especially when Moffat's obsession, Clara, got more than two and a half despite oscillating between generic and unlikeable most of the time (again, no fault of the actor who played her).
Which is why, despite normally disliking the "Bring back X" crowd of fans, I am strongly in the "Bring back Bill" camp, for the same reason I'm in the "Bring back Eight" and "Bring back Jenny" camps- unfairly wasted potential.
With Whittaker she is coming in for a relatively clean slate, new head writer and all, so hopefully its a chance for a soft reboot that allows the show to be fun again. And I'll give it a chance, me the ultimate arbitrator of whats good and whats stinky, just as I gave things like the Capaldi Doctor and Stargate Universe a chance. Hopefully like my last computer chair they don't let me down. Because that fucking hurt.
Doctor Who soft reboots, sort of, with every regeneration. And somehow mostly makes it work, despite my usual misgivings about half-assing a reboot. Probably because they've found a way to work it more or less naturally into the continuity (such as it is) of the series.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver
"Trump admirers like @TuckerCarlson describe themselves as "nationalist." But their nationalism attaches not to the multiracial American nation... but to a multinational white race with a capital in Moscow"-David Frum