14 replies on “Jodie Whittaker is the 13th Doctor”

  1. Beat me to it!

    Rumours were flying it would be a Broadchurch actor, so I guess that show will have had two Doctors in its cast.

  2. I was pretty sure they were going in this general direction, assuming it isn’t a massive misdirect somehow. After all, they spent a great deal of time establishing and normalizing the possibility of it happening over the past several seasons. Even so, it is a risky move even though it has a great deal of potential.

    It should be interesting and I really hope it works out.

    • They floated the concept of a female Doctor first (to my knowledge) in the 1980s, and at least one non-canonical female Doctor appeared on a BBC Children in Need special (a charity with which Doctor Who has a long-standing connection), so it’s been awhile coming.

      And yeah, some people out there will be offended or uncomfortable, but I’m interested in seeing how Whittaker fares.

    • I definitely agree it’s risky yet interesting. I’m particularly curious as to how the Doctor-Companion relationship is going to work given how much they have used the gender dynamic since the revival and whether that might have any kind of impact on the general “feel” of the show. Mess that up and it’s going to feel less like a regeneration of The Doctor and more like a reboot of the show, which would be almost certainly be highly devisive amongst the existing fans.

      Like JD said, some people are going to be offended by this for all manner of reasons, although I suspect that the whole gender identity/sexual orientation as a choice/illness/just what you are can of worms is going to be right up there. While I’m pretty sure they’ve just lost some fans with this move, hopefully the majority will at least give Whittaker – and her yet to announced companion(s) – a chance and, ideally, that a whole new group of fans will start watching the show now that it’s even less of a “boy” thing.

    • The line was “between your 12th and final regenerations” (show) or “12th and 13th regenerations” (novelisation), so theoretically we could still get some kind of appearance by the Valeyard in the Christmas special that could tie into Trial of a Timelord to keep the continuity. Moffat has been referencing the original seasons heavily over the last few years, presumably building up to this game-changing regeneration which doesn’t seem like it’s going to be an easy one. Given that he’s almost certainly aware of the Valeyard’s place in the regeneration timeline maybe that difficult regeneration leads to both the creation of the Valeyard *and* the Doctor’s gender swap. All the good in the Doctor going into Whittaker’s Doctor, all the bad into the Valeyard, perhaps?

    • I don’t understand why everyone thinks the Valeyard must fit into the Doctor’s personal timeline somewhere. It was *never* stated that the Valeyard is one of the Doctor’s regenerations. The Master’s line is: “There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you. The Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation. And I may say, you do not improve with age.”

      Basically, someone extracted or otherwise duplicated the darker portions of the Doctor’s psyche some time after his 12th incarnation and used that to create the Valeyard. It does not mean that the Valeyard is one of the Doctor’s actual incarnations. It would fit more with that line to think of the Valeyard as a sort of “dark clone” of the Doctor. He would still be a version of the Doctor, but not part of his timeline. He could be from a different universe, too, given on screen precedents.

      Also, there is the question of whether the Master is telling the truth, or just saying what is needed for his own goals, whatever those may be.

      Of course, the Master’s statement doesn’t preclude the Valeyard being a legitmate regeneration, either. My point is that the Valeyard need not actually be a legitimate regeneration based on what is actually said on screen. He *could* be, but he doesn’t have to be.

      • The original writer wanted to explicitly state that the Doctor’s final regeneration (into 13) was somehow twisted and warped into the unformed Valeyard, putting him in the Doctor’s timeline, but he left after only writing 12 of those 14 parts. People have taken his intentions as gospel, even though the last two parts went in a different direction and didn’t confirm that interpretation.

        • Assuming Moffat even goes there, then that’s how I’m seeing it most likely to play out too – as Lost said; more a “dark clone” than a a specific regeneration in the sequence. Taking the original writer’s intent, then “between the 12th and 13th” implies something that happens *during* the regeneration process, not a regeneration in its own right. Purging the darker sides of The Doctor/War Doctor into something that somehow becomes the Valeyard, even if it’s just as a subnet nod and wink to the older fans but not stated as such, does seem like it might be something Moffat would do.

          Then again, why the links back to Hartnell, including the picture of Susan right back at the start of the season? That doesn’t really tie into the Valeyard at all, so perhaps Moffat’s final nod to the the original series is something else altogether. We also got to see Clara in the Doctor’s flashbacks, despite him supposedly no having any memories of her, so perhaps he’s got something else in mind altogether. Whatever it is, I’m definitely expecting something that is going to make fans of the original series *very* happy in Moffat’s final bow.

          • I see no reason why he wouldn’t evoke multiple aspects of series history in his final episode.

            But I really hope we get at least a nod to the Valeyard.

  3. I was hoping for Hayley Atwell, but I pretty much say that about everything. Like when I go to the grocery store, yeah I got groceries but I was hoping for Hayley Atwell.

    This may be the push I needed to finally watch Broadchurch. Which Ironically I was planing to do because David Tennant.

Comments are closed.