Not really. The poll above words questions to put one option in a positive light and the other in a negative light. There are more subtile ways of pushing your agenda in polls, this is a very crude one. Most polls are neutral.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
You can still vote how you wish. Views won't be changed by the wording unless you are weak willed, and if the wording suggests one thing, those not agreeing with it should vote vehemently the other way surely.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
The irony is, this poll was posted by a feminist to outrage other feminists and get them to pass the word on and get bigger votes FOR a female Doctor. It seems to have backfired 8-)
People are influenced by how a poll is worked and presented, that's a fact. If you react to how it's worded and vote in protest to that is, you are still influenced. A professionals and objective would look more like this:
How do you feel about a female Doctor?
a) I'm against it.
b) I support it.
c) No opinion/ I don't know.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
People are influenced by how a poll is worked and presented, that's a fact. If you react to how it's worded and vote in protest to that is, you are still influenced. A professionals and objective would look more like this:
How do you feel about a female Doctor?
a) I'm against it.
b) I support it.
c) No opinion/ I don't know.
Exactly. This is worded to be against a female Doctor by a feminist wishing to enrage those for it and gain more votes. Like I said... interesting.
People are influenced by how a poll is worked and presented, that's a fact. If you react to how it's worded and vote in protest to that is, you are still influenced. A professionals and objective would look more like this:
How do you feel about a female Doctor?
a) I'm against it.
b) I support it.
c) No opinion/ I don't know.
Exactly. This is worded to be against a female Doctor by a feminist wishing to enrage those for it and gain more votes. Like I said... interesting.
I presume this is the thread to discuss classic Doctor Who, too? I did do a search...
I recently watched The Daleks/Edge of Destruction, William Hartnell's second and third serials
I've seen The Daleks before, as well as The Unearthly Child, but Edge of Destruction was new to me
a quick two episode filler, it is set entirely on the Tardis set and only features the four main actors
thus it is the first time we get a really good look at the Tardis's interior and learn a bit more about how it works
we also get to see more of Hartnell's acting, he seemd to have the least dialog of the four in the previous episodes even though it's his show: he notably messes up several lines, I wonder if that's why they usually gave him less dialog? I also wonder why they didn't just do more retakes and edits if the main actor had memory issues, these early shows look like they were filmed live-in-the-studio
the Doctor and his guests work their issues out in this story, there'd been mutual distrust in the first two serials with the Doctor being originally almost a villainous character, and things get heated
plotwise it doesn't make complete sense, but no less so than most of Moffatt's very clever plots ... we do learn more about the Tardis as a result, and best of all, the key button on the dashboard is labelled in sloppy felt-tip marker! we don't see enough sloppy felt-tip marker labels in the new episodes
bonus feature on the disc is an edited reconstruction of the completely lost fourth serial Marc Polo, using dialog and screenshots to re-tell the 7 part episode within half an hour. As a geography major and history buff, I find Marco Polo inherently fascinating, as important to European knowledge of the outside world as Columbus would be centuries later, and thus a good subject for a science fiction series that was supposedly focused on teaching children history. I wonder why this serial hasn't been properly reconstructed as an animation yet?
Also I wonder why the Doctor didn't use the Tardis (his flying caravan) to return Marco Polo to Venice, as the character kept saying he wanted to do? perhaps that was covered in the three hours of dialog not included in the condensation? probably because we've just seen in each previous serial the Doctor can't really control where the Tardis takes him
also:
I'm skimming through a book called The Doctors Who's Who (Craig Cabell, 2010). Its mostly capsule biographies of the actors who played the first eleven Doctors. But in the intro, the author mentions a first draft of The Unearthly Child where we actually learned where The Doctor and Susan came from, and the nature of their relationship. Suzanne (not Susan) was the character's earth name, the Doctor personally calls her Findoclare and says "Findoclare would rule, Findoclare would be Queen in a world greater than your minds could dream of, but her people are enslaved by Paladin hordes". The Doctor rescued her when she was a baby, and has been keeping her hidden from her enemies here on Earth. She just calls him Grandfather, as part of her cover-story and out of affection and gratitude. The show's creator Sydney Newman preferred the Doctor's origins be completely mysterious, so the backstory was written out and forgotten about until something completely different was explained seven years later (and Susan locked out on a Dalek-infested future earth and never mentioned again).
I tried doing a Google search for the name Findoclare and got nothing. You'd think with all the Doctor Who content online there'd be discussion of this first draft, so maybe its been discredited?
EDIT: Cabell spelt it wrong. Findooclare, with two O's, produces results
Netflix now has series 9 of Dr Who -{ and I did laugh at one episode where the Dr had to give Davros a bit if his
Regeneration energy, saying it might cost him a hand or a leg in a future regeneration. As I laughed my daughter
( Who's a big Who fan ) asked what's so funny. To which I replied, well it did lead to him losing his penis ! After all
He regenerates as a Woman ! .............. Then she started laughing.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
If any of you have just watched the Dr Who Christmas special and wondered what the hell was that about? google "The Angel of Mons" and it may give you a bit of background as to what the translucent glass being was supposed to represent? The actual apparition originally appeared during August 1914 -{
Two highlights in my opinion, the brief reappearance of Clara "Boing" Oswald & the TARDIS gobbing out its new peroxide pilot!
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
edited December 2017
I think the Angel of Mons reference being used as a throwaway gizmo in a trivial programme for Moffats own ends is utterly disgusting, despicable and sick. It rapes and trivialises the very memories of brave men that suffered much.
I enjoyed it, I loved P Capaldi as the Doctor, Sad to see him go. As for the new .......
......as Lulu might sing " We Shall See !!"
Although my Daughter a young twenty year old, I'm guessing the new Doctor is supposed to
Appeal to, has said she's done with Dr Who now and will not be watching any more .
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,817MI6 Agent
I said the same thing when the news broke in 2006 that Mr Craig was the new James Bond.
CR-06 would get seven outings at the cinema out of me, and today, it is still my outright favorite Bond film.
With the Doctor (esp now Moffat is gone) anything is possible.
But I too, will miss Mr Capaldi.
Its criminal he was never given the quality of material he deserved.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
) She seems very determined. I even got a rant from her, On all the strong
Female characters Dr Who has always had, and says this is all crazy " politically
Correct " cobblers !
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
) She seems very determined. I even got a rant from her, On all the strong
Female characters Dr Who has always had, and says this is all crazy " politically
Correct " cobblers !
The Doctor has always had strong female characters pushing him on the straight and narrow. If the roles are now reversed, then that's not a very strong position for the female Doctor. Unless they make the male characters dunderheads. Which I guess will be the case. Not very politically correct is it.
I have no interest in a female Doctor WHO, because he isn't female. James Bond isn't either and neither is Sherlock Holmes or Robin Hood. If they brought Romana back and gave her a spinoff series then that would be cool, but changing a male character to female to make it politic is just lazy and a bit stupid. Do something new and leave the original character alone. It's worked for Star Wars. Let's make Lassie a cat, and Wonder Woman a bloke 8-)
Just saw it, and I enjoyed it. . .I like the way the first Doctor is still in the early 1960s, with his un-PC ideas and words, and a tear came to my eye when the WWI Brits and Krauts began singing carols. As for the first female Doctor, I'll give her a chance. I gave a certain Daniel Craig one, and I'm happy about that!
I thought Capaldi was great in the episode (He's always fantastic) but the episode was a bit average for me.
Nice idea having the 1st Doctor back but felt a bit heavy handed (smack-Bottom etc), I get it, Moffat you are #woke and all that, doesn't mean you have shove the leftist propaganda down our throat so much, but I digress...
That being said, the best part of the episode for me, was the 12th's final speech and 13th's entrance, I am part of the wait and see crowd but I loved her first few seconds on the screen so far and the decision to keep her Yorkshire accent
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
I haven't seen DW for a number of years - I originally stopped watching after the Hartnell/Troughton series but i did pick up again for Eccleston/Tennant but stopped again when Smith took over who was bloody awful.
But I enjoyed this episode and David Bradley was marvellous as Hartnell - quite an extraordinary resemblance and he had the character down to a T. However a woman as DW is a big no-no and just another sop to the PC brigade. Interestingly, like TP's daughter, my 11 year old granddaughter who loves DW also says she now has no interest in the new Doctor and won't be watching.
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
Just saw it, and I enjoyed it. . .I like the way the first Doctor is still in the early 1960s, with his un-PC ideas and words, and a tear came to my eye when the WWI Brits and Krauts began singing carols. As for the first female Doctor, I'll give her a chance. I gave a certain Daniel Craig one, and I'm happy about that!
I thought the constant un-PC remarks was ridiculous. The First Doctor never behaved like that with the constant wittering about Polly doing the dusting and hoovering. Yet another pandering and twisting of characters to make an unwarranted point.
.................................
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,762Chief of Staff
I too am happy to give her a chance, but Capaldi is a hard act to follow.
I never really took to Capaldi at all...Smith was a very hard act to follow and the episodes Capaldi had were poor, imo. There were moments of good stuff, but that was all. Ironically I thought this last episode was probably his best.
I've been watching Doctor Who since the early 1980s (Tom Baker on my local PBS station).
I personally have no problem with a female Doctor. I haven't seen Jodie Whitaker in anything, so I am reserving judgement on her performance and her accent.
As for showrunner Chris Chibnall, I have reservations based on his previous writings in the DW universe.
I shall be sad to see Capaldi go, more than ready to see Moffat go.
I'm not worried about who the next Doctor shall be, all twelve actors so far have been memorable. I'm confident Jodie Whittaker will be strange and funny and unique, in her turn. I'm more worried about who this next showrunner is. Based on the problems with recent seasons, that's the more crucial issue.
Anybody got any opinions on Chris Chibnall? I've never seen Torchwood, but Wikipedia shows he wrote several regular Doctor Who episodes over the years ... and none of them are ones that stuck in my mind. Whereas Moffat did write some of the most unforgettable shows during Davies' run, every one of them remained stamped in my brain years after, and based on that record I had much higher expectations of him than what we actually got once he was in charge fulltime.
Has Chibnall indicated any change in direction once he takes over? has anybody within the Doctor Who organisation ever said out loud that the shows no longer make sense and nobody cares about the characters anymore, and that maybe another approach is needed? or will Chibnall follow the same bad storytelling habits?
Also, plotwise, gotta question about Capaldi's last episode.
Has it been established that when different incarnations meet, they somehow forget? There's been so many of these episodes starting with the Three Doctors (1973), yet...
in this new episode, we see the First Doctor prepared to die, at the end of The Tenth Planet, seemingly unaware that he is destined to successfully regenerate. Should he not at the very least remember meeting "the clown" and "the dandy" in the Three Doctors? and several more such meetings over the years?
actually, any such memory would spoil the surprise of the regeneration episodes, wouldn't it? he is always surprised to see his new face and learn his new personality traits, that would never work if he remembered meeting his future selves. Yet I don't remember any in-story discussion that time-travelling past selves as a rule cannot remember meeting their future selves.
For that matter, how come one incarnation of The Doctor never meets his own exact self in a time-travelling mixup? why is it only ever past selves?
Comments
You can say that about all polls.
How do you feel about a female Doctor?
a) I'm against it.
b) I support it.
c) No opinion/ I don't know.
Exactly. This is worded to be against a female Doctor by a feminist wishing to enrage those for it and gain more votes. Like I said... interesting.
Yes, interesting.
An unexpected event left both Drs . Close to tears.
Bradley Walsh to be the new Doctor's first companion.
I recently watched The Daleks/Edge of Destruction, William Hartnell's second and third serials
I've seen The Daleks before, as well as The Unearthly Child, but Edge of Destruction was new to me
a quick two episode filler, it is set entirely on the Tardis set and only features the four main actors
thus it is the first time we get a really good look at the Tardis's interior and learn a bit more about how it works
we also get to see more of Hartnell's acting, he seemd to have the least dialog of the four in the previous episodes even though it's his show: he notably messes up several lines, I wonder if that's why they usually gave him less dialog? I also wonder why they didn't just do more retakes and edits if the main actor had memory issues, these early shows look like they were filmed live-in-the-studio
the Doctor and his guests work their issues out in this story, there'd been mutual distrust in the first two serials with the Doctor being originally almost a villainous character, and things get heated
plotwise it doesn't make complete sense, but no less so than most of Moffatt's very clever plots ... we do learn more about the Tardis as a result, and best of all, the key button on the dashboard is labelled in sloppy felt-tip marker! we don't see enough sloppy felt-tip marker labels in the new episodes
bonus feature on the disc is an edited reconstruction of the completely lost fourth serial Marc Polo, using dialog and screenshots to re-tell the 7 part episode within half an hour. As a geography major and history buff, I find Marco Polo inherently fascinating, as important to European knowledge of the outside world as Columbus would be centuries later, and thus a good subject for a science fiction series that was supposedly focused on teaching children history. I wonder why this serial hasn't been properly reconstructed as an animation yet?
Also I wonder why the Doctor didn't use the Tardis (his flying caravan) to return Marco Polo to Venice, as the character kept saying he wanted to do? perhaps that was covered in the three hours of dialog not included in the condensation? probably because we've just seen in each previous serial the Doctor can't really control where the Tardis takes him
also:
I'm skimming through a book called The Doctors Who's Who (Craig Cabell, 2010). Its mostly capsule biographies of the actors who played the first eleven Doctors. But in the intro, the author mentions a first draft of The Unearthly Child where we actually learned where The Doctor and Susan came from, and the nature of their relationship. Suzanne (not Susan) was the character's earth name, the Doctor personally calls her Findoclare and says "Findoclare would rule, Findoclare would be Queen in a world greater than your minds could dream of, but her people are enslaved by Paladin hordes". The Doctor rescued her when she was a baby, and has been keeping her hidden from her enemies here on Earth. She just calls him Grandfather, as part of her cover-story and out of affection and gratitude. The show's creator Sydney Newman preferred the Doctor's origins be completely mysterious, so the backstory was written out and forgotten about until something completely different was explained seven years later (and Susan locked out on a Dalek-infested future earth and never mentioned again).
I tried doing a Google search for the name Findoclare and got nothing. You'd think with all the Doctor Who content online there'd be discussion of this first draft, so maybe its been discredited?
EDIT: Cabell spelt it wrong. Findooclare, with two O's, produces results
Regeneration energy, saying it might cost him a hand or a leg in a future regeneration. As I laughed my daughter
( Who's a big Who fan ) asked what's so funny. To which I replied, well it did lead to him losing his penis ! After all
He regenerates as a Woman ! .............. Then she started laughing.
Two highlights in my opinion, the brief reappearance of Clara "Boing" Oswald & the TARDIS gobbing out its new peroxide pilot!
......as Lulu might sing " We Shall See !!"
Although my Daughter a young twenty year old, I'm guessing the new Doctor is supposed to
Appeal to, has said she's done with Dr Who now and will not be watching any more .
CR-06 would get seven outings at the cinema out of me, and today, it is still my outright favorite Bond film.
With the Doctor (esp now Moffat is gone) anything is possible.
But I too, will miss Mr Capaldi.
Its criminal he was never given the quality of material he deserved.
Female characters Dr Who has always had, and says this is all crazy " politically
Correct " cobblers !
The Doctor has always had strong female characters pushing him on the straight and narrow. If the roles are now reversed, then that's not a very strong position for the female Doctor. Unless they make the male characters dunderheads. Which I guess will be the case. Not very politically correct is it.
I have no interest in a female Doctor WHO, because he isn't female. James Bond isn't either and neither is Sherlock Holmes or Robin Hood. If they brought Romana back and gave her a spinoff series then that would be cool, but changing a male character to female to make it politic is just lazy and a bit stupid. Do something new and leave the original character alone. It's worked for Star Wars. Let's make Lassie a cat, and Wonder Woman a bloke 8-)
Nice idea having the 1st Doctor back but felt a bit heavy handed (smack-Bottom etc), I get it, Moffat you are #woke and all that, doesn't mean you have shove the leftist propaganda down our throat so much, but I digress...
That being said, the best part of the episode for me, was the 12th's final speech and 13th's entrance, I am part of the wait and see crowd but I loved her first few seconds on the screen so far and the decision to keep her Yorkshire accent
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
But I enjoyed this episode and David Bradley was marvellous as Hartnell - quite an extraordinary resemblance and he had the character down to a T. However a woman as DW is a big no-no and just another sop to the PC brigade. Interestingly, like TP's daughter, my 11 year old granddaughter who loves DW also says she now has no interest in the new Doctor and won't be watching.
I thought the constant un-PC remarks was ridiculous. The First Doctor never behaved like that with the constant wittering about Polly doing the dusting and hoovering. Yet another pandering and twisting of characters to make an unwarranted point.
I never really took to Capaldi at all...Smith was a very hard act to follow and the episodes Capaldi had were poor, imo. There were moments of good stuff, but that was all. Ironically I thought this last episode was probably his best.
David Tennant. Then up pops Matt Smith, who
Quickly became my favourite of the modern Doctors.
I personally have no problem with a female Doctor. I haven't seen Jodie Whitaker in anything, so I am reserving judgement on her performance and her accent.
As for showrunner Chris Chibnall, I have reservations based on his previous writings in the DW universe.
I shall be sad to see Capaldi go, more than ready to see Moffat go.
I'm not worried about who the next Doctor shall be, all twelve actors so far have been memorable. I'm confident Jodie Whittaker will be strange and funny and unique, in her turn. I'm more worried about who this next showrunner is. Based on the problems with recent seasons, that's the more crucial issue.
Anybody got any opinions on Chris Chibnall? I've never seen Torchwood, but Wikipedia shows he wrote several regular Doctor Who episodes over the years ... and none of them are ones that stuck in my mind. Whereas Moffat did write some of the most unforgettable shows during Davies' run, every one of them remained stamped in my brain years after, and based on that record I had much higher expectations of him than what we actually got once he was in charge fulltime.
Has Chibnall indicated any change in direction once he takes over? has anybody within the Doctor Who organisation ever said out loud that the shows no longer make sense and nobody cares about the characters anymore, and that maybe another approach is needed? or will Chibnall follow the same bad storytelling habits?
Also, plotwise, gotta question about Capaldi's last episode.
Has it been established that when different incarnations meet, they somehow forget? There's been so many of these episodes starting with the Three Doctors (1973), yet...
For that matter, how come one incarnation of The Doctor never meets his own exact self in a time-travelling mixup? why is it only ever past selves?