I don't see this as simply the show runner's decision. They've lined this up with plot changes in the last 2-3 years (ie having Time Lords switch sexes for the first time). I have no inside info but my guess is that they've sought out a producer sympathetic (or even committed) to this idea.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I don't really get why it feels like a political decision. The show runner has decided he wants her. I'm presuming because there's a narrative he wants to tell involving a female Doctor.Son of Mathonwy wrote:Yes, there seems to be a lot of pre-emptive sexist abuse (eg "wailing manbabies"???) for anyone thinking that this is not a good thing.Mikey Brown wrote:I don't watch Doctor Who but it's fascinating to see some of the ludicrous reactions to this. I actually thought we might be past the point where this was a big deal, though equally that may mean we're not past the point where a woman may be given the role for the sake of equality, rather than on merit.
That would be a shame as she's a fantastic actress from what I've seen. Hard to judge her sense of humour from Broachurch though.
Doctor Who is full of strong female characters. This change is not going to cure a program of sexism, coz it's not suffering from it. Is it going to help society? Who knows? I'd prefer this to have been a plot-based decision rather than a political one (which one feels it is).
But good luck to her, I hope she does a great job.
I have no concern about Whittaker. I'm very concerned about having a show runner who was involved in the abomination that was series 2 of Broadchurch.
I haven't seen any Broadchurch, but the Doctor Who episodes Chibnall's written so far are average at best. This is in marked contrast to Moffat, who usually wrote the stand-out episode in each series prior to becoming the current producer.