Dr Who appeasement or divide and conquer?

The Amy thing was really only one-way too, wouldn't you say? Though I found it a bit over-blown. Not that she had a crush on him, but I thought for a person old enough to get married her behavior was bizarrely immature, she was like a love-struck 14 year old.

Whether RTD would improve things I thought was unclear. If you think back to Eccelston or the first DT years, and what was going on in the world at that time, the pressures around correct speech and right-think were massively fewer. Other shows were things like House, Nip Tuck (totally non-PC) The West Wing. Even the ones with a real political bent wren't so preachy as every show seems to want to be now.

Given RTD's approach to politics it seems unlikely he wouldn't be right in with that.

For me the best recent Doctors were Matt Smith with Amy and Rory as companions and David Tennant with Donna. There's no romantic interest there and Amy, Rory and Donna got some great lines.

There was definitely plenty of tension between Eleven and Amy to the point it was a full-blown love triangle. Ten and Donna were my favourites, especially after love-addled Martha. I said on the DW thread in Telly, but Aisling Bea would make a great Donna-like companion. She was fab in the NY special.

Chances are the next doctor will be played by a black, disabled drag queen, complete with beard.

Ugh - I was so looking forward to RTD coming back and dishing out some bloomin' decent characterisation once again. But after his embarrassing speech about shortening words to three letters and attacking the LGB Alliance, I can't trust him not to shoehorn in the woo. I'm half-expecting a cross-dressing Olly Alexander to be the next doc.

I don't really understand your question, OP. But I'm so bored of companions falling for the Dr, whether the doc be male or female. I can't see it resolving well, either, since there are only two more episodes left. Think it'll go down the Dr/Martha route where it's a one-sided thing.

Or actor! I'm old....

I agree. She's a great actress and she's finally been given her head. The early Chibnall series were just appalling writing. Trite, superficial and cliched. And, as PP said upthread, dreary modern Calvinism. Preachy and humourless. I'm glad Whittaker got a chance to make a real go of it before she regenerates.

Well. First off, I don’t think anything suggested the Doctor is lesbian in this incarnation. Her awkwardness comes from the fact that she’s over 1,000 years old and although she does love her companions she recognises she can’t ever reciprocate Yaz’s feelings in a way that would satisfy her. Her denial comes from not wanting to have that awkward conversation again (like s/he did with Martha etc) rather than being in denial about her own sexual orientation.
Secondly, there has always been an element of moralising in Doctor Who. Being ‘woke’ is not new.
Each Doctor has its fans and detractors. I personally like what Whittaker has done with the character. It’s an enthusiastic incarnation as if she’s rediscovered the joy of being the Doctor but there’s a deliberate guardedness there as well. I’ve found the Chibnall episodes have just got better and better, and the last few episodes have really worked for me.

The preachiness / box ticking as far as I'm concerned reached a new low with the episode The Demons of the Punjab.

Not the subject matter itself (the partition of India and how that affected Naz's family- it was one of the better episodes) but because it was shown on Sunday, 11th November 2018. So 100 years from the end of WW1 and in a year when Remembrance Sunday fell on a Sunday.

Yes maybe the British should get over WWI and II and yes , loads of other things deal with WWI but Dr. Who is about the ability to time travel and given the coincidence of the dates couldn't the partition of India have waited a week?

Chances are the next doctor will be played by a black, disabled drag queen, complete with beard.

It's the worst sort of tokenism, and I often wonder how actors feel about it. You could be the fabulously talented, the best for the role, and they pick you because you are a particular sex or race - I can't see how anyone would find that comfortable.

Although it was a bit funny when people were saying the black woman in that episode a few years ago was the first black Dr, and Peter Davidson said no, he was. Ha ha.

I don't really know what the thinking was behind this episode, but I think the BBC have become so woke in their thinking these days that they are more interested in ticking the right boxes with cast members, than with actually entertaining people. The episode was tiresome and dull, even the daleks didn't manage to liven it up.

Chances are the next doctor will be played by a black, disabled drag queen, complete with beard.

I liked Donna too. Though they started right around then tying up the storylines into too many loops, trying to connect everything.

Now being pretend it could equally be the case either way, but it seemed to me like a pretty sure thing that it was being done in order to fit in with a progressive narrative about gender. Which didn't bode well for the writing generally, at least at this point in time when a very heavy handed didacticism seems to be evident in a lot of television.

Donna was, and remains, my favourite companion.
She was my favourite Doctor, even!

Just wanted to add that I was so disappointed as I was really looking forward to a woman doctor.

Donna was, and remains, my favourite companion. I gave up watching this incarnation of the Doctor. Far too preachy for me. It stopped being fun and proper sci-fi.

For me the best recent Doctors were Matt Smith with Amy and Rory as companions and David Tennant with Donna. There's no romantic interest there and Amy, Rory and Donna got some great lines

Hear bloody hear

(Doesn’t hurt that my children think I’m exactly like Donna with her ‘giant wasp comment…I’ll take that)

One of the interesting things that struck me with the Tennant doctor and Rose was that the story would have worked just as well if it had been presented as a non-physical relationship, maybe even better given the way she ended up with the other doctor in the alternate dimension. The Riversong plot similarly, the sexual element was completely cringe.

Frankly I think Dr Who was better when there were no love interests at all.

That's a bit of a myth, caused by most of the audience being young enough to not get the subtext of 'interested looks' and 'the Doctor's taking Romana to some really romantic places, isn't he?'

Various producers were worried about the Really Bad Implications that could arise if the Doctor too obviously seemed to be collecting young girls he had a romantic interest in, then subjecting them to appalling dangers. That's why the first and second Doctors were usually travelling with either relatives or adopted relatives and later Doctors had an amazing ability to find attractive young women whose entire family/space station/planet had been destroyed.

I don't understand your OP, OP.

And I watched the episode last night.

I like it still . So far the lesbian interest is a crush on the Doctor, rather than by the Doctor but agree having an alien who changes sex and race does trump this (though I think they would have difficulty providing a male love interest).

My DGS's stopped watching because 'There's just too much moralising'

I watched 10 minutes of it. I prefer Tom Baker and dodgy latex rubber monsters.

Just watched this out of curiosity.

This is the first episode I've watched with John Bishop. Unbelievably he's even more wooden than Mandip Gill. It was watchable only by the efforts of Aisling Bea and Adjani Salmon.

I'm mystified by your questions.

As for the second part of your question hangonamo's reply.

I haven't seen this episode. Jodie Whittaker's Dr. has been abysmal. Terrible, plodding, preachy scripts and wooden acting.

One point that struck me is that there were 2 side- kicks who weren't white and that in itself was enough to tick the diversity box. It didn't matter they were terrible actors and perhaps more importantly were landed with such weak scripts. There was none of the sparkling and witty dialogue that Amy, Rory, Missy, River Song, Donna and even Clara got.

Dr Who is now a rather poor tract for modern secular Calvinists to impart their values to their audience.

What do you mean? How is Dr Who Calvinist? And who are these modern secular Calvinists who are using it to impart their values?

Is the Doctor still played by that woman who prances about and overacts?

No chance of me watching it then.