A comparison between the original Doctor Who series and the new reboot of the series. What are the main differences between the audiences, the actors, the writing, and the story lines. Is the new version of Doctor Who more mainstream than the original or will the original forever be considered a classic.
I would say there is a definite difference between audiences, at least at the time the original aired. – nsnow4 years ago
Doctor Who used to be only a cult series that was mildly known in different countries with varying notoriety. Now it has become a world-wide phenomenon and has an audience of millions, a lot of whom are teens and 20 year-olds. Only 10 years ago, not many people really knew what Doctor Who was outside of die-hard fans who caught it periodically PBS here int he states. The writing is also far better in terms of consistency between individual episodes, and across seasons. The actors on the other hand, have always been good. Like so many people say, no one has ever played the Doctor wrong, and no one cast has ever been wrong for the part. People will have their favorites, and plenty will have their problems with the 6th Doctor, but he is nonetheless, personality-wise, a version of the Doctor that is warranted and believable in amongst all the other personalities he has had. It is also very clear that the sets and FX are far better, although some instances can still seem quite laughable and even a little rough on the CGI, especially in the original 9th Doctor season. – Jonathan Leiter4 years ago
I think it's more popular now because some of the doctors have been highly attractive haha. Totally just my opinion, but what the doctor represents in the newer ones (note that I haven't seen the older ones) to a single girl is worth touching on. Like Amy Pond waiting for him to save her, and all the girls got to experience new things and live outside of time. What girl wouldn't want the doctor to come scoop her up for such adventures. Again, no idea what the old ones were like, so it's possible this was a common theme throughout. – Tatijana4 years ago
I think the idea of the Doctor taking on a companion who is a woman was partly about that concept, but it wasn't nearly as "romantic" or romanticized as it has been with the 9th, 10th, and 11th Doctors. I suppose the closest comparison would be the 3rd Doctor, because he was quite the heroic, knight-in-shining-armor figure who could not only fight with his mind, but with his actual fists. He had a sense of the regal, but also of the Robin-Hood in him I think. So in terms of "attractive" doctors, he was the most similar to the 10th or 11th versions, even if he was far older and more rugged in the face. Also, a lot of the classic fans kind of hated the fact that the newer Doctors were so young and even baby-faced in terms of their attractiveness to younger audiences and women. I don't really mind that aspect at all, I just take issue with it when the women themselves are incredibly selfish and ego-centric about their relationship with the Doctor, and what they expect from him. It's makes them very unlikable as protagonists. But when they're more like Amy was after she married Rory, then the Doctor's companions were fun to ride along with. – Jonathan Leiter4 years ago
In "Day of the Doctor," the "War" Doctor seems shocked when he witnesses 10 marrying and kissing Queen Elizabeth I. When he asks, "Is there alot of this in the future?," 11 responds, "It does start to happen." I think this represents the most stark contrast between the classic and modern series. Rose and River (and even, to a lesser degree, Clara) show the romantic heart of The Doctor, making him easier for human audiences to relate to. For The Doctor to know love and loss, it connects him to us in a deeper and more meaningful way, making him more like the gods of old rather than the separate, isolated Christlike figure of the original series. – TheHall4 years ago
We are now three episodes (possibly more by the time this topic is selected) into the new series of Doctor Who (2018), starring the talented Jodie Whittaker. Now seems like a good point to engage in a discussion of the show, its reception, the doctor as a woman, and Doctor Who fandom, in the light of the previous article The Artifice has published. ((link)
Has Whittaker lived up to the expectations placed on her both as a woman playing an iconic role, and as the newest of the Doctors?
What has been the overall reception by fans and general media to the portrayal of the doctor as a female now that three episodes have aired?
Has the new writer/show runner influenced the reception and portrayal of the doctor? Is this a positive or negative?
Is the new Doctor displaying a subversion of gender normalisation or is it continuing to present traditional stereotypes?
What do you think?
In my opinion it may still be a little too early to analyse Whittaker's Doctor as she is still finding her feet, so to speak. It's a tough role for any actor to take on and truly make it his/her own. I'll reserve judgement until the end of her first season. Having said that though, Chibnall must, in my opinion, up his game. The third episode in this new series, 'Rosa' was particularly weak, insofar as the resolution could have been reached by almost any time travelling hero/ine and the villain of the week was dispatched far too easily. Still, I'm sure others have their own opinion. – Amyus2 years ago
I did not see it as a big deal that a woman was finally put in the role, I guess I just assumed it would happen, maybe later than it should have happened but finally. On the other hand, two of my daughters who faithfully follow the show were absolutely excited that it finally happened. Since one of the questions addresses fan reception, it might be useful to discuss how male and female fans reacted to the news, followed by how they react now that it is underway. – Joseph Cernik2 years ago
The announcement that we would have the first female dr who really divided a lot of people. Personally, I think it is a fantastic idea, but I would love to see an article that looks at both sides of the argument. It would also be good for the author to look at other women in science fiction television roles, and what they brought to the role in comparison.
I'm not entirely sure that there is a valid, non misogynistic, reason not to have a female Dr. Who. An article focusing on the evolution of the Dr into this new incarnation and its impact could be fascinating without being inflammatory. Combining that with or creating a separate article focusing on women in leading/supporting roles within science fiction could be interesting as well. – L Squared3 years ago
Im of the opinion that creating genuine original kickass females are better than just substituting original male characters....Ellen Ripley is my favourite character in sci-fi... Maybe some more great characters ??? – RedFlame20003 years ago
There is an article for this already approved and pending publishing. – SaraiMW2 years ago
Since their first appearance on the "Blink" episode of Doctor Who, the alien species known as the Weeping Angels have garnered a large popularity amongst the fanbase that rivals that of series mainstays like the Daleks and the Cyber Men. Instead of asking why the Weeping Angels have managed to acquire such popularity, this topic asks the writer to investigate the symbolism encoded into Weeping Angels. How can a viewer interpret these creatures? What can these interpretations reveal about the viewer’s reality? In a sense the topic centers around two key concepts. What are at least some of the possible interpretations and how do these interpretations comment upon the viewers’ reality?
Steven Moffat, the writer for Doctor Who since 2010, has said horrible things about the female fan base of this show, and Sherlock, which he co-created, as well as detestable things about women in general. Highlights might include calling women "needy," calling actress Karen Gillan (Amy Pond) "wee and dumpy" and claiming that women only enjoy Sherlock because they are attracted to Benedict Cumberbatch. This is enough to enrage anyone, but does it affect the quality of his Doctor Who episodes when he dismisses the majority of his own fan base as boy-crazy, "needy" idiots.
There has always been a sort of dismissal for anything in pop culture which attracts female viewership, (especially young female viewership), implying that girls don’t know the difference between good and bad entertainment. As feminist scholar Stacy Wolf says, "Historicizing the devaluation of girls’ tastes shows how categories of cultural worth are highly gendered." (Changed for Good, 222) Does this apply to Doctor Who since Moffat took over? This study would compare the quality of female characters on Doctor Who before and after Moffat and their overall impact on the quality of events.
I haven't personally read or seen any of Moffat's sexist remarks. Although that doesn't mean that I don't believe he said or meant them. If he's like this, I can believe it. However, only recently have I felt truly like his writing of female characters has shown it's true colors. When Russel T Davies was running Doctor Who, Rose Tyler was interesting, she had her cliched female moments and she could be rather self-centered, but she was fun and unique. Martha Jones wasn't much of a character for the most part. She was a tad vague and devoid of distinctive identity I felt. But then Donna Noble really shook things up and had a strong voice for a change. She also had no romantic interest in the Doctor, thank goodness. When Moffat did fully take over, Amy Pond was really really delightful, especially when she was eventually married to Rory and their companionship together took off apart from the Doctor: which had only happened once before (I believe), way back with the first Doctor. Then there was River Song on and off. She's been incredibly captivating and intriguing, especially when we finally get to see how she went from being Amy and Rory's daughter, to Amy and Rory's childhood friend, to the River Song we eventually know, and then up to when she has to kill the Doctor, after which we find her locked up in prison, randomly escaping to go on adventures throughout the 11th Doctor's run. Finally there's Clara Oswald. And after all of the ups and downs (minor ones) with the previous companions and characters, Clara is the one I was most disappointed in, because at first I really really loved her. She was spunky, she was steadfast, she was inquisitive, curious, and very very loyal, and she was also rather attractive to me personally. But her character just fell apart when the 12th Doctor came around. His transformation changed her, revealed her to be an incredibly shallow character, beyond the reasonable reaction of not knowing who or what this new Doctor was or was going to be compared to the last one. She also showed that she could be incredibly needy, selfish, and even demanding when it came to her relationship with the Doctor, when before she would have never acted that way. All of these observations and feelings have been confirmed and shared by many other fans as well. She just turned into such a unlikable person that by the end, I'm rather glad to see her finally go. I just wish it had been a tad sooner. So if anything, Clara's character at the moment the 8th series began is when I could tell something was screwy with Moffat's writing of female roles: when before it was only in small slightly awkward doses. I'm not sure who or what I expect for the next companion, but if anything, I'd appreciate another duo dynamic by bringing on both a male and a female companion, but more of a platonic pairing rather than a romantic one. I also believe Moffat is supposed to be leaving the show now, though he may have changed his mind recently. I don't know the exact details on that. – Jonathan Leiter4 years ago
It’s been debated time and time again about the viability of making a film based on the Doctor Who franchise. As we have a confirmed "K-9" film, we are entering a place where we are as close to a modern Doctor Who film than we will get. What do you think are some possible set backs of making a film version of Doctor Who? Should it be canon to the story? Should it follow an independent story-line?
I have no idea why it couldn't be a film. Everything else seems to be turned into a film these days. I mean, essentially a film is just a really long episode. – Tatijana5 years ago
My only concern about this is that you ask if it should be "canon to the story." What even is the story of Doctor Who? It changes constantly with each new doctor, new companion, new villain, etc. Unless you mean making a movie from where the last episodes have left off, I'm not sure where they could even start or what would constitute and "independent story line."Can the 50th anniversary special ("The Day of the Doctor") be considered a movie? Like Tatijana said, would it just be a long episode? Or are there other criteria that it would need to be considered a movie? If it is simply length, there are a few episodes that already qualify. – Deanna5 years ago
I would argue that it could not, and still be a quality film, because the cult following is so large, that any minute variance from the television series would likely be noticed, and treated accordingly. I would also refer to the fact that in the last decade, a number of television shows from the 1970s were made into full-length films, and most of them did not turn out well. As such past track record seems to be against Dr. Who, even though the era that I mentioned is a bit later than the start of Dr. Who. – JDJankowski5 years ago