Look, before we get started, let me assure you all that I
know the character is called The Doctor, and not Doctor Who. But you can’t just
have an article headline, even on io9, that only mentions the Doctor, because
many people won’t realize you’re referring to Doctor Who. The same is true in my time, but inevitably some Who-ligan will correct me. The show hasn’t aired in 30 years, but these people
feel it is super-fucking-important to make sure you know he’s only called “The
Doctor.” It’s like, we live in the post-apocalypse, people. Why don’t we try to invent running water again before we stress about Doctor Who nomenclature.
By the way, this awesome cosplay in the pic above is by janey-jane. Check out more of her awesomeness over at her DeviantArt page.
Doctor’s Orders
Fake Name:
Apocalyptic Postman,
I’m writing to you from late November 2013, at a time
when the Doctor Who 50th anniversary celebration has
just passed. Though I should be satisfied with the excellent productions
cranked out in association with the program, particularly the centerpiece “Day
of the Doctor,” which only a curmudgeon could have found serious fault with.
Alas, despite the show’s standing and worldwide
popularity, I am filled with unease unto dread, plagued with the nagging vision
of Doctor Who’s impending apocalypse with every new regeneration since David
Tennant’s. At the heart of this vision is nearly-overwhelming fear: namely, the
fear that someday the character of the Doctor will be played by a woman.
Now hear me out; this is no hyper-traditional, vaguely
sexist off-the-cuff remark like the recent one by Peter Davison based on
that’s-the-way-it-always-has-been reasoning, I promise.
Here’s my thought: Regardless of whether the producers of
the show at that time have found *the* perfect choice for the first-ever female
Doctor, regardless of her acceptance by fandom, regardless of how seamlessly this
transition naturally flows from the plot line, the truth is the majority of
mainstream viewership will simply see the move to a female Doctor as complete
and utter jumping the shark. This would not be due to stupidity or some
general lack of imagination, I believe, but rather because it would *look
exactly like* complete and utter jumping of the shark.
In my vision, Helen Mirren or Olivia Colman or Billie
Piper (gods help us) is revealed as the choice to play the Nth Doctor. Millions
turn off (and turn off to) the program immediately upon the announcement. By
the end of season one, episode one of the new Doctor’s reign, lines otherwise
thought merely pithy and/or throwaway will be found to be little more than
cheap shots and/or evidence of the scriptwriter’s lack of knowledge of women,
thereby alienating another large portion of viewership. By the time this
generation’s Sylvester McCoy is called in a futile attempt to save a program
universally judged as “camp” at best, the writing’s on the wall. Soon, the
program is exterminated more fully than any Dalek could have managed.
So tell me, please, Mr. Postman, in hopes that insomnia
will not rule my nights when Peter Capaldi’s contract is not reupped, tell us
from your future vantage point: Will the Doctor someday be cast as a woman? And
how much longer do we have after that?
Okay, first of all, I’m not using your real name as I
suspect a few (thousand) people may (virulently) disagree with you. No need to
let those people have your real name and Google-stalk you to tell you how wrong you are. Second, what?
I think your primary argument — which you have worded
impressively poorly (which, hey, I have done on many an occasion, so my
sympathies) — is that Doctor Who shouldn’t have a female Doctor because 1) people won’t like it, 2) the writers
will use it as a platform for cheap jokes (“Now that’s I’m a woman, maybe I
should be called the Nurse!”) and 3) the show will turn into camp.
Let’s break this down.
1) People won’t like it. Hey, I’m a pessimist, but even I
think most people could handle a female Doctor. Sure, there will be
fuddy-duddys like Peter Davison who feel otherwise, but I guarantee you he
thinks every change to Doctor Who is a grievous error. Besides,
this argument is based on your latter arguments — people are going to need reasons
to dislike a female Doctor beyond just her having boobs, and I think your latter
arguments are also incorrect.
2) The writers will make cheap jokes about it.
This is plausible, but self-defeating. Lots of shows can’t write decent female
characters, but does that mean we should never feature shows with female
characters? Obviously not. Likewise, we can’t not have a female Doctor just
because it might be shitty. And
besides, I don’t know that the current Doctor Who guys have given us any reason
to believe they’ll be any worse at writing female characters than anyone else.
Amy Pond, River Song and Clara have all been pretty good. Sure, the show has
other writing problems, but I’ve never considered the female characters to be
one of them.
3) The show will turn into camp. Excuse me, have you seen Doctor Who before? The show with
farting aliens, serial fez wearing, and “Fear Her”? Are you really telling me
that a female Doctor is somehow worse for the series than the Slitheen? No.
Just… no.
Coming from the future as I do, I can tell you that the Doctor swapping genders is something that definitely happens before the apocalypse, so you’d best make your peace with it. The female Doctor didn’t add or subtract any
problems from the show (other than, you know, the problem that the Doctor had always previously been played by white dudes). Although I will admit that someone did make a “The Doctor? More like The Nurse!” joke, but the Doctor immediately
decked them, so it was all right.
P.S. — I find it exceedingly odd that you liked the 50th anniversary special but are vastly disturbed at the idea of a female Doctor.
Perhaps because a female Doctor only has potential problems, while the 50th anniversary special had actual problems. Don’t Doctor Who fans have enough to
worry about right now without making up additional issues?
Sense of Wonder
Clay K.:
wonder woman needs a female director with no bs. there is
only one person for this job:kathryne bigelow.
thoughts?
I wouldn’t necessarily say she’s the only person for the
job, but I don’t know of anyone better suited. I’d say it’s a moral necessity to have
a woman direct a Wonder Woman film, lest we get Man of Steel But With Boobs,
but I would doubt Warner Bros. feels the same, because having an actual woman
direct Wonder Woman is a good idea and Warner Bros. doesn’t seem to
particularly care for those.
By the way, Charlie Jane is exactly right when detailing the
potential horrors of Zack Snyder’s Wonder Woman (that the dude who made Sucker
Punch is the dude who is bringing WW to the big screen make me mildly
nauseous). My only hope is that WB keeps Zack Snyder on the main DC movie-verse
franchise, and hires someone else to direct a solo Wonder Woman movie. Although
it will almost certainly be McG. “Hey, he directed the Charlie’s Angels movies,
he gets women!” a WB executive will shout triumphantly,
his nose frosted with cocaine.
https://gizmodo.com/i-still-dont-want-to-see-zack-snyders-take-on-wonder-1476510770
Magic Trick
Brian ?:
Is Marvel trying to be anti-magic/spiritual?
I mean in the first Thor movie everyone clearly
stated they were gods and that they used magic. Then in Thor 2 everything is no
longer magic just complex science, and Odin says that asgardians are just more
powerful long lasting versions of mortals.And in Agents of Shield a saint and mythical
warrior turn out to be just a guy, and a portal to hell ended up just being
another planet. Marvel has a Satan and Mephisto, but they didnt even toy with
the idea of it being hell.Isn’t all this “all magic is just
science” motif gonna be a problem since they are making a Black Panther
and Dr. Strange movie, and both of those characters have a good understanding
and usage of magic?
I understand your point, but I don’t think it’ll be much of
a problem. Despite the “magic is
science we don’t understand yet” of Thor, there’s still room for actual magic
in the Marvel Universe, whether it be Dr. Strange, Scarlet Witch in Avengers 2,
or… another character in the Marvel U. who uses magic that isn’t Loki. It may
be a bit jarring, after the “realism” of the Marvel movie-verse so far, but I
think audiences can handle it, and if Marvel is going to make a Dr. Strange
movie, and by all accounts and common sense they are, I’m reasonably sure they
have a plan to do so that will gel with the rest of the movies.
What Marvel doesn’t want to do is introduce the idea of
divinity or religion into their movie-verse, because that can possibly do is piss
certain people off. So no hell, no Mephisto, no gods Norse or otherwise — just crazy alien beings
whose technology ls called magic and which looks for all intents and purposes
like magic and who were also worshipped as gods by various humans in the past
despite not really being gods. Marvel really doesn’t want to say Thor is an actual god, because someone, somewhere, will immediately ask about Marvel’s Jesus, and
there’s no right answer to that question.
I admit, though, I’m really curious if the Scarlet Witch
will actually have her “hex powers” in Avengers 2. Hex powers sound like a
pretty hard thing to show on screen, and the Marvel movie-verse isn’t really
prepared for magic yet. Introducing it with a lower-tier character in
Avengers 2 doesn’t exactly sound like the right way to do it. I’d think Marvel
would need to introduce magic in, say, a Dr. Strange movie, establish the
rules, get audiences used to it, and then introduce it into the movie-verse
proper.
Weirdly, if Avengers 2 just says the Scarlet Witch has a power that affects probability and luck, then that might actually fly.
She could theoretically be in a big fight scene, causing loose bricks to fall
on evil robots, helping Hawkeye’s arrows hit exactly the right place to shit
them down, causing malfunctions, etc. It only gets weird if they call it
magic. For now.
Free Enterprise
Ken P.:
I fear the Dr. Who 50th has put the Trek 50th in a Kobayashi
Maru like scenario. Having multiple regenerations and being
unbound by time and space means the Who 50th can cash in on 50 years of
nostalgia without feeling overly contrived or cheesy, you know like Star Trek
Generations.
However, there have been times where Star Trek can
successfully appeal to nostalgia i.e. Spock and Scotty’s appearances in TNG and
the DS9 tribble episode. Personally, I would avoid screwing with
continuity, aged actors, set and prop design and focus on making good Trek. But
that’s presumably what they do anyway with mixed success and don’t you think
the fans will revolt without somehow devising a way for all the Enterprises and
Voyager to all dock at DS9 without seeming contrived?
Do you see an out for this no win scenario?
Yeah, don’t worry about it, because all Paramount is going
to do for Star Trek’s 50th anniversary is re-release the shows on
DVD and maybe — maybe release the third
nu-Trek movie. There will be no anniversary special, especially not one set in the
classic Trek universe (there may be a documentary-type special on TV, but I doubt
it). There will be no official celebration, nothing that pulls together all the
classic series, except maybe a commemorative poster or something. I imagine the
closest thing we’ll get to an on-screen acknowledgement of 50 years of Star Trek
will be the third movie rehashing something from the original movies — probably
space whales — but Paramount was almost certainly going to do that anyways, no
matter the year.
Homicide Squad
Tim S.:
Dear
Mr Postman
Finally
watched Man of Steel. Did not have an issue with Superman Killing Zod.
Why?
Because
Superman *would* kill in that situation!
He
killed Doomsday. He killed Darkseid. If those were extenuating circumstances,
this was too.
Thank you for your service
Yes, Superman has killed people in the comics. And Batman
has used guns and Wonder Woman was the Justice League’s secretary (see above) and Green
Lantern killed an entire city of people and Captain America was a werewolf for
a while.
In 70 years of comics, there have been a handful of comic writers who have decided to let Superman kill bad guys, but because it happened before doesn’t
make it right for the character. I’d say the millions of times Superman has not
killed villains is a bit more indicative of his character. And I’d say if
Batman refuses to kill people, which he does, then Superman should refuse to kill people even
harder.
Again, if you want to see the problem with Superman killing
bad guys, go check out Injustice Vol. 1. It’s based on the DC videogame from
the Mortal Kombat guys, but it’s one of my favorite superhero books of the year
for this very reason (and it’s good besides).
Do you have questions about anything scifi, fantasy, superhero, or nerd-related? Email the [email protected]! No question too difficult, no question too dumb! Obviously!
