Dr Who..

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr's regenerate into anything, you can see this when you see other timelords, **** time lords have become women and gone back you name it.

I dunno why people lose their minds over this ****. Its like all the morons who have an issue with Loki being bisexual not knowing anything about the mythology.
 
Wow dont hold back on your predjudices. Thats some mighty big tick boxes they have ticked for you.

I rememeber when, many years ago they outed the doctor from Eastenders as gay. There was a massive uproar.
I recall.

This chaps going to do well though. I look forward to it.
 
Is he going to be the least qualified 'actor' to ever take the role - his pedigree ? wokeflix's sex education, a click-bait/engineered show for teenagers,
seems like the bbc just gave up on casting and rolled the diversity dice.

success attracts success. - do good writers queue up for a show with unknowns.
 
Is he going to be the least qualified 'actor' to ever take the role - his pedigree ? wokeflix's sex education, a click-bait/engineered show for teenagers,
seems like the bbc just gave up on casting and rolled the diversity dice.

No, Matt Smith had barely done anything before he became the Doctor.

Sex Education (season 1 and 2 is all I have seen) are funny and I am 39
 
A gay black guy as the new Doctor Who, I bet the BBC creamed themselves at the prospect.

Doctor Who used to be great. Now it's a woke tick box exercise that needs retiring again. A shame as I used to love Doctor Who.
Yeah same with me. It was quite laughable to see the interview of him on the BBC with the cameraman/person frantically raising the camera above his neckline to prevent the viewers from continually witnessing his Moobs poke through his jacket.
 
:rolleyes: surely not the BBC being political since he originates from Rwanda.

I've often wondered about this, the media says he is "Scottish" not that he is Rwandan (is that right? , Rwandian, Rwandan? not sure which is right) , something I have always wondered is what is the correct method when it comes to this sort of thing. Are you <insert country here> because of where you are born or where you are brought up? If I was born in Moscow but have lived in the UK since I was 4 years old, am I Russian or British? If its based upon where you are brought up, whats the cut off age? Would I be Russian if I didnt move to the UK until I was 7? 8? 9? Alternatively, should it have nothing to do with your birthplace and more to do with where your parents are from, so if I was born in Moscow, to two Spanish parents and have lived in the UK since I was 4, am I Russian, British or Spanish?
 
I've often wondered about this, the media says he is "Scottish" not that he is Rwandan (is that right? , Rwandian, Rwandan? not sure which is right) , something I have always wondered is what is the correct method when it comes to this sort of thing. Are you <insert country here> because of where you are born or where you are brought up? If I was born in Moscow but have lived in the UK since I was 4 years old, am I Russian or British? If its based upon where you are brought up, whats the cut off age? Would I be Russian if I didnt move to the UK until I was 7? 8? 9? Alternatively, should it have nothing to do with your birthplace and more to do with where your parents are from, so if I was born in Moscow, to two Spanish parents and have lived in the UK since I was 4, am I Russian, British or Spanish?
My wife has this exact dilemma. She was born in Uganda, to Pakistani parents, and came to the UK when she was four years old. She mostly considers herself to the British but it's not that clear cut and often says she is Pakistani or Ugandan. I guess the most accurate description would be to say she is British Pakistani from Uganda.
 
Dr's regenerate into anything, you can see this when you see other timelords, **** time lords have become women and gone back you name it.

I dunno why people lose their minds over this ****. Its like all the morons who have an issue with Loki being bisexual not knowing anything about the mythology.

I do chuckle a bit, a time travelling alien with two hearts who can go anywhere in space and time in a box that's bigger on the inside than the outside, and who can regenerate from almost any fatal wound or illness into someone who has a different bone structure, different height, different build, different eye and hair colour (and hair style), and a wildly different personality is fine, but change the level of skin pigmentation and that's too far fetched ;)

I also chuckle at the calls of "retconning" given the entire idea of regeneration was a retcon to allow them to change the actor when the original became to ill to continue in the role.

From what i've seen of the new actor he's quite good, but as has been shown in many things you can take a great actor and if the writing and direction are poor the results will likely be poor, whilst you can take a mediocre actor and if you've got a good script and director you can get decent results.
Who has suffered from some poor writing, small budget, and an over reliance on low budget cgi imo, at least with practical effects if it's not great it's an actual physical thing whilst poor/low budget CGI is just naff most of the time.
 
I do chuckle a bit, a time travelling alien with two hearts who can go anywhere in space and time in a box that's bigger on the inside than the outside, and who can regenerate from almost any fatal wound or illness into someone who has a different bone structure, different height, different build, different eye and hair colour (and hair style), and a wildly different personality is fine, but change the level of skin pigmentation and that's too far fetched ;)
They missed a trick really, they should have had the next Dr be a kid, like an 8 year old or something, that way they could appeal to the young demographic and also potentially discover the next child star (a la Chloe Grace Moretz or Millie Bobby Brown)
 
I've often wondered about this, the media says he is "Scottish" not that he is Rwandan (is that right? , Rwandian, Rwandan? not sure which is right) , something I have always wondered is what is the correct method when it comes to this sort of thing. Are you <insert country here> because of where you are born or where you are brought up? If I was born in Moscow but have lived in the UK since I was 4 years old, am I Russian or British? If its based upon where you are brought up, whats the cut off age? Would I be Russian if I didnt move to the UK until I was 7? 8? 9? Alternatively, should it have nothing to do with your birthplace and more to do with where your parents are from, so if I was born in Moscow, to two Spanish parents and have lived in the UK since I was 4, am I Russian, British or Spanish?

I've always thought it to be based on where you are born. Regardless of being brought up somewhere else, they'd still be brought up by the same parents, who are likely from their child's place of birth.
 
Yeah, don't think it's particularly an issue with Dr Who. There are other cases though where it's quite jarring. I'm looking at you Roland of Gilead...
 
Since he doesn't seem very qualified it seems very unlikely that he wasn't up against others with more proven talent. The next question is what is he being paid, will he receive a salary equivalent to others such as Matt Smith when he was first appointed? On the surface it seems the BBC just don't care about the obvious wokie, leftie nepotism and have just gone full ahead with, to hell with needing to justifying decisions.
 
Almost any kind of political posturing in TV can be accepted if the final product is good. If all you've got is political posturing shame on you. Doctor Who is just badly written and has been for quite a while. I barely got halfway through Jodie's first season not because I was outraged she was a woman Dr Who but because it was dross. I have heard nothing about the Chibnall run that has made me think I'm missing out. It remains to be seen if Davies can get this back on track after the vandalisation by the previous show runner.
 
Since he doesn't seem very qualified it seems very unlikely that he wasn't up against others with more proven talent. The next question is what is he being paid, will he receive a salary equivalent to others such as Matt Smith when he was first appointed? On the surface it seems the BBC just don't care about the obvious wokie, leftie nepotism and have just gone full ahead with, to hell with needing to justifying decisions.
You might want to see what his actual qualifications are...

For example he's got a similar amount of experience in TV as Matt Smith had, and has already won a couple of awards for his acting.
No offence toSmith, but I don't believe he had even been nominated for any when he first took the role on and people seem to think he did a good job of playing the part.
 
Since he doesn't seem very qualified it seems very unlikely that he wasn't up against others with more proven talent. The next question is what is he being paid, will he receive a salary equivalent to others such as Matt Smith when he was first appointed? On the surface it seems the BBC just don't care about the obvious wokie, leftie nepotism and have just gone full ahead with, to hell with needing to justifying decisions.

What exactly is your issue? He has a solid resume and can act. Why are you so butt hurt over it?

Do you ask these questions for all casting decisions?

How utterly bizarre.
 
He has a solid resume

Film[edit]​


Television[edit]​

YearTitleRoleNotes
2014Bob ServantMale Customer1 episode
2015StonemouthDougie2 episodes
2019–presentSex EducationEric EffiongMain role; 24 episodes
TBAMasters of the Air2cd Lt.Robert Daniels3 episodes

u wot m8? A couple of minor roles in some straight to TV movies. A few episodes in very small-fry TV shows over the last decade with the exception of his part in Sex Education.

How's that solid?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom