Doctor Who [8]

Wife-ception!
So to speak, heheh.

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/jul/27/peter-capaldi-doctor-who-no-flirting-sidekick-coleman-new-series

probably late to the party but whatevz

More I hear more I'm looking forward to it- although judging from the comments that is a truncated version of the interview and has a lot of humour taken out of it, including him adding "but dont worry, we still blow lots of shit up too."

Nice fan trailer-

Round up of international cinema screenings for 12's debut episode Deep Breath-

USA-

'BBC America have partnered with Fathom Events to present Deep Breath in a special screening event taking place in twelve cities from midnight, with full details to be announced on the 5th August.
This will be followed by a wider cinematic release on the 25th August, with over 550 cinemas showing the episode at 7:00pm and 9:30pm, accompanied by the prequel and behind-the-scenes material as seen in the UK.

Canada-

Fans in Canada will be able to watch Deep Breath on the big screen in participating cinemas across the country via Cineplex. The new Doctor's first adventure (and its associated cinema extras) will be shown twice during the week after its premiere on television, with presentations on Monday 25th August at 7:30pm and on Saturday 30th August at 12:55pm.
A full list of cinemas can be found on the Cineplex website, where you can also book tickets.

Australia-

Event Cinemas and Palace Cinemas, and local theatres such as Melbourne's Cinema Nova launch a number of presentations of the episode on the big screen, many from 10:00am on the 24th August!
Shown in participating cinemas across the country, the episode be enjoyed at a number of different times during the course of the week: as well as 10:00am, Event Cinemas continue showings at 4:00pm, 6:30pm, and then for 6:30pm on the following Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday evenings; Palace Cinemas theatre showings occur at various times during the Sunday depending upon location; Cinema Nova has presentations at 10:00am, 11:55am, 1:50pm, 3:45pm, 5:40pm, 7:35pm and 9:30pm all on Sunday.
The programme duration also suggests that the Australian audience will indeed get to see the 'prequel' and behind-the-scenes features that will be enjoyed in UK, USA and Canadian cinemas.
A list of participating cinemas can be found via Sharmill Films.

New Zealand-

New Zealand will get the chance to watch the new series premiere Deep Breath only a few hours after its broadcast in the United Kingdom as some cinemas will present the episode on Sunday 24th August at 10:00am - taking into account time zone differences between the two countries, New Zealand cinema-goers might well be the first to see the debut of the new Doctor outside of Europe!
Hoyts Cinemas will present the same premiere package as with other countries outside of the UK (i.e. the 'prequel' and behind-the-scenes footage but no Q&A), showing at various times during the course of the Sunday; for example Tw Awa (Wellington) has showings at 10:00am, 4:10pm and 6:30pm, whilst Sylvia Park (Auckland) has showings at 10:00am, 4:30pm and 6:40pm; others such have Northlands only has one showing at 2:00pm - see the cinema website for overall availability.
Other cinemas may be added to the list in the future.'


More to come as they get announced.
Go here to check if there is TARDIS symbol at a cinema near you-

http://www.doctorwho.tv/watch/cinema

(Glasgow is the closest for me   - but I think there a few showing it near you Eldo, and in New York Halfy   )

Or just keep an eye on your local cinema listings- as this should be a good place for new fans to Who to jump on board.

Mrs Figg wrote:But she should be a woman.   

A Moffat written female Doctor?  

I suspect the closest thing to a female Doctor we'll get is River. (Doctor Donna   )

A Moffat written female Doctor? Amarie

  might as well ask Benny Hill to write the episodes.

I was thinking just the other day how cool Donna would be as the Doctor.    I would have her pitch up in Haworth Yorkshire in the 19th centuy, meet Charlotte Bronte and her sisters, and that visit is the inspiration the girls needed to begin writing, after meeting Donna Doctor maybe Emily goes with her on an adventure to present day England, Emily was always the wild one.   

Much as I liked Donna and I am very glad Doctor Donna only lasted about 10 minutes of screen time- long enough to be fun then turn tragic, but whole episodes of that particular character I think would have been awful.

If they ever do change the Doctor to a female it would probably be best to do so under a female showrunner, to start with anyway.

Although if they do change to a female I still think 99.9% of the Doctors dialogue should be exactly the same as if they were writing for a male Doctor. Let the actress bring the female to the part, not the writers.

I think Lesley Sharp could do the Doctor justice, quiet and powerful without being a stereotypical strong woman type. She strikes me as being the female version of Eccleston. All thats great about his character as the Doctor she has too, but with added female interesting aspects to be explored.

but with added female interesting aspects to be explored- Figg

This sort of thing is what troubles me about having a female Doctor- why would they want to explore interesting female aspects just because the Doctor is female? The have never bothered exploring interesting male aspect because he is a bloke- he is just the Doctor- petty human notions of sexuality and discrimination shouldn't even register with the Doctor save where he is forced to wearily encounter it amongst primitive planets, like ours.

'This sort of thing is what troubles me about having a female Doctor- why would they want to explore interesting female aspects just because the Doctor is female? The have never bothered exploring interesting male aspect because he is a bloke'   Petty


well it depends on whether you think 'interesting female aspects' are stereotypically female interests like babies, fluffy kittens and shoes? or do you think being female is a tad more complex than that?. When I say interesting female aspects I dont mean the Doctor talking about menstration or the pros and cons of lipgloss.

and forgive me if I am wrong but the Doctor does already deal with so called male aspects, ie WAR, which is exclusively male or am I missing something? the last time women went to war it was the Amazons or something equally ancient Greek/Roman whatever. So the Doctor deals with male aspects every day.

So when I said interesting female aspects I would like to see the Doctor struggle to reboot his 900 year old brain after she is treated differently by everyone around her. Would his enemies treat her the same in a female body, would they underestimate her, laugh at her, and would that piss her off? would she lose her self confidence a bit? have a crisis, question past motives, would she be more ruthless or less, how would the TARDIS react to a female? would she change her attitude to assistants for example? would she change her modus operandi, choose wildly different types not your usual girl with tight skirt? would past assistants have a hard time dealing with her, theres loads of interesting female aspects without getting bogged down with stereotypical things.

Mrs Figg wrote:

and forgive me if I am wrong but the Doctor does already deal with so called male aspects, ie WAR, which is exclusively male or am I missing something? the last time women went to war it was the Amazons or something equally ancient Greek/Roman whatever.

I don't usually take part in Who discussions, but this statement is wrong, Figg - there are tons of female soldiers and officers who've been to Afghanistan, I even know a few, and I'm pretty sure the same goes for all the other countries and places that have seen war and conflict in recent times. And what about the effort Soviet women put in during World War II? This is taken from the Wikipedia article on the subject: "There were 800,000 women who served in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war. Nearly 200,000 were decorated and 89 eventually received the Soviet Union’s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. Some served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles". Several countries have mandatory military service for both sexes. The list of examples goes on and on, so I strongly disagree that war is exclusively male.

Out of the Who thread again    

you have totally misunderstood what I said. obviously women have contributed to the various war efforts and have become soldiers. But have any of those women STARTED the wars? No, because generally and with only a few exceptions, men start wars. Men have historically started wars and in every country on the earth, because historically men have ruled nations more than females have. and that was my point. Theres no point saying female Queens and leaders have started wars, I know that, but they are the minority, men start and engagé in war and if anyone wants to challenge that I will seriously want to question why the denial. Theres no female Hitler, Stalin, Polpot, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, various Roman Emperors, Bush and Blair. I can only think of one woman recently and that was Thatcher, Faulklands, not exactly massive war and that was to protect British citizens.

Then I apologise - I guess I got a little carried away

Thatcher took the country to war more than once. But most notably in the Falklands. And she proved pretty steely there, giving the order personally to sink the Belgrado even though it was retreating form the conflict zone.

Just because statistically there have been more men in charge of countries than women it doesnt mean women are any less warlike when confronted with the possibility of it when in a position of leadership.

so denial then. I thought as much. so suddenly war isnt male dominated and wars arent started by men. soon people will be saying day is night.

I dont see how it is denial- wherever in history you go where you find female leaders you also find wars, same as with men- Merkel -war Thatcher- war- Boudica- war- Cleopatra- war.
I am struggling to think a female leader of a historically powerful country who did not go to war.

oh dear I am sorry you cant accept war is male dominated, so tell me in the 20th and 21st century how many women have actually started a war? not defensive war against an aggressor, but actual aggressive first move full on war? One? Two? yep its about one or two amongst hundreds if not thousands of male leaders around the world. You are stretching credibility to the max, either that or you are trolling.

Historically most if not all Queens had male prime ministers who called the shots, Gladstone called the shots not Victoria, has there been a female Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot? the list is endless male aggression, and male wars have littered history. How many female leaders have sent the USA to war? zero, there have been no female leaders of the US, Russia? China? Africa? the middle East? the UK?, One, there has been only one female prime minister. Denial of this fundamental truth is useless, and if anyone does still insist in delusional clap trap they should really stop trolling because its on a par with the worst men as victims shit on the internet.

Its obvious if you have 10 men in power and 1 woman statistically she is less likely to go to war.

But we can only go on the actual examples we have- if you look at a history of prominent female leaders they are no more or less prone to go to war than any individual male leader.

Here are some examples from recent history-

Golda Meir- Israels first PM- Yom Kippur War

Thatcher- Falklands

Indira Gandhi- declared war on Pakistan. Got Bangladesh out of it.

Benazza Bhutto- authorised military action to topple the remaining communist regimen in Afghanistan

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo- didnt go to war, except on her own people- 'Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 1017 (PP 1017) and used it as basis in declaring a state of emergency throughout the Philippines. According to Arroyo, this declaration was done to quell the military rebellion, stop lawless violence, and promote peace and stability. PP 1017 also empowered the government to enforce warrantless arrests and take over strategic private utilities companies.'

Isabel Martinez Peron- another one that made war on her own people through mass corruption in her case.

Sirimanavo Bandaranaike- put down an uprising of her own people against her.

And these are just a few examples from recent history.

I see no evidence from history that there is much difference in odds of your country going to war if its leader is female or male.

This discussion again!  

It's absolutely a fair point that women in general have been deprived of access to the power to make war, as they've been deprived of access to the top seats in business, based largely on the myth that women aren't ruthless enough to "make the hard decisions" when times call for it.

I see the myth that women somehow are unable or unsuited to wield power such as making war as one of the great sexist myths that's responsible for one of the last remaining "glass ceilings" left in our culture.

In my experience, women who choose to be so can be every bit as strong, and every bit as ruthless, every bit as dynamic a leader, as any man.

I have no doubt that it Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will take the country to war just as any male president would if she sees the need. Yet I fully expect to hear the old sexist argument that she's somehow unfit for the highest seat in government because a woman somehow isn't "strong enough" to "make the hard decisions".   

In my opinion the world would be a better place if we could just get past this Man vs. Woman thing and make our decisions on the skills of the individual people. But realistically I don't expect to see that in my lifetime.

Well at least this time out we seem to be on the same page David.

It doesn't make any difference historically if the leader is male or female- its what they do, and historically a female leader is no less or no more likely to go to war, or be corrupt than male leaders are.
Its just there are and have been more male leaders.

I dont for one second think it would have mattered a jot if, for example, America had a female president when 9/11 happened- America would still have gone to war. The sex of the President would be irrelevant to the outcome.

"Women generally go to war to defend themselves from aggressive male invasion" Mrs Figg

Catherine the Great begs to differ