Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Jodie Whittaker Is Doctor Who’s Thirteenth Doctor (theverge.com)
29 points by kposehn 9 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 18 comments

Cool, I'm always sceptical of whoever they choose for the next Doctor but they usually make a good choice.

For me, the actor is the least concern, what the series really needs is some better writing.

After the first year of the reboot, with that Eggles-can't-spell-it guy, I couldn't keep watching the reboot. Same formula over and over, each episode: Doctor to the rescue! Skin of the teeth!

I enjoyed the first year of the reboot. The Doctor/Rose dynamic was something new and really well played.

I'm no longer a regular watcher, but I guess I did note a few exceptions to the above. E.g. particularly the episode where... Tenant, I think, encounters a forward-thinking female member of the royalty. Good writing and chemistry in that one. Ok, and Donna was a good change-up at points, another different bent to the companion role.

I guess I mostly wish the episode stories weren't so basically repetitive. For the most part.

But then, there was the... um (sorry, not a remember the name of every detail kind of fan) "stone angel" episode, with a younger Carry Mulligan. Unique for being an entire episode with the Doctor at best making a cameo at one or both ends (just the end, IIRC). That was different. And, Mulligan did a great job.

At that time, I thought she would make an excellent Doctor. Hoped, wished production might think of the same thing.

Didn't happen. But now, here we finally have a woman in the role. I hope it adds some new aspects to characterization and the roles. I hope, too, that in might inject some new thinking and variations into the writing and story construction and focus.

As for production values, Baker remains my favorite Doctor. Yeah, the sets were obviously sets, and some -- many -- of the aliens would have been at home in the Los Isoles (sorry, again, not the kind of fan who knows the spelling of that) bar back in the first Star Wars film, "A New Hope".

But the characters were characters, and they showed more than a bit of heart. And, where I was, then, the syndicated broadcasts made for a great excuse to stay up too late on Sunday nights.

Some more of that, please, Ms. Doctor.

> Los Isoles

This is the Mos Eiseley Cantina, in case anyone else is stumped.

LOL -- sorry! I'm not sure I've seen it with a good sound system since back when it was in the theater during the original launch. Lots of times, on tinny TV speakers.

"Excuse me, while I..." Sort of along those lines.


> what the series really needs is some better writing

And production value.

I love science fiction and I love the "idea" of Doctor Who but every time I sit down and try to watch it I get really annoyed with the (in my opinion) juvenile/simplistic story lines and the poor production value, i.e. it looks very flat and VHS.

However, having said that, maybe those two things are exactly what attract other science fiction lovers to the series and it's exactly supposed to be like that..

>it looks very flat and VHS.

Even compared to the old series?

I'm pretty sure once I saw a monster that was literally just a gaffer dressed in bubble wrap.

> juvenile

It's a young kids TV show, aimed at 12 year olds. Of course it's juvenile.

I have been so consistently disappointed by Capaldi's Doctor (due to poor writing, not Capaldi's acting) that any change is welcome.

I just hope they don't run it into the ground. Taking every opportunity to point out that the character is female is insulting to the audience and why I quit watching Supergirl.

FWIW they've dropped that completely in the latter half of the first season.

I tend not to give shows second chances. There are far more good shows than I have time. If one of the few I make time for disappoints me, I quit watching in favor of trying out a new one.

I'm only a fan of the original 26 years, but isn't the Doctor limited to 12 regenerations?

The rebooted Doctor Who seems too Americanized. Maybe it's the 1 hour story format. I much prefer the Tom Baker years.

They had the Time Lords grant him another set (which is an ability that the Time Lords were known to have from the original show).

The real answer is that the Doctor is limited to as many regenerations as the BBC can print money from. It would be insane to assume they would actually stop filming after twelve.

>I much prefer the Tom Baker years.

I adore Tom Baker, he's the Doctor I grew up with and his stories are what I always associate with "proper" Who, but let's be real, the serial format made stories as dull as dishwater a lot of the time, and more convoluted than necessary in order to pad out time.

I watched them on PBS in the USA late Saturday nights, and they strung them together, so a 4 serial episode would be almost 2 hours. That's what I miss. The stories have been compressed to fit in under 1 hour.

At the end of Matt Smith's reign, the Time Lords popped in from Gallifrey and granted him some extra lives.

Tom Baker, the best Dr of them all...

jelly baby?

...for some value of 12. ;-)

Is this not Hacker News?

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact