DOCTOR WHO: BBC Responds To Anti-Trans Complaints As First Spin-Off May Have Finally Been Revealed

DOCTOR WHO: BBC Responds To Anti-Trans Complaints As First Spin-Off May Have Finally Been Revealed

Following complaints about a trans character in one of Doctor Who's Christmas Specials, the BBC has now responded. We also have news on one of Russell T Davies' planned spin-offs. Read on for details...

News
By JoshWilding - Jan 05, 2024 06:01 AM EST
Filed Under: Doctor Who
Source: SFFGazette.com

We've been hearing chatter about one or more Doctor Who spin-offs for several months now. Some believe it will focus on U.N.I.T., while others remain convinced that David Tennant's still very much alive Fourteenth Doctor will take centre stage in his own time-travel adventures. 

The main series returns in May and Disney+'s financial involvement is likely a key factor to any spin-off plans. However, seeing as returning showrunner Russell T Davies launched Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures during his last run, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised to see the Whoniverse once again expanding!

What we didn't expect was for this rumoured project to put the spotlight on the Sea Devils. 

This news comes our way from a listing on ProductionList.com (via SFFGazette.com) which suggests the series will be helmed by showrunner Phil Collinson and producers Julie Gardner, Jane Tranter, and Vic Delow. Shooting, meanwhile, is reportedly going to begin this March in Cardiff, Wales. 

The Sea Devils are a race of aquatic reptilian creatures that first appeared in "The Sea Devils" episode which aired in 1972. That was part of the Jon Pertwee era, during the Third Doctor's tenure.

The Sea Devils are related to another Doctor Who monster, the Silurians, who are an ancient and technologically advanced race that predates humanity. Like the Silurians, the Sea Devils are Earth-based creatures that went into hibernation to survive changes in the planet's climate. They were last seen in 2022's "Legend of the Sea Devils," though that received largely negative reviews and was the show's lowest-viewed episode. 

As a result, we'd bet on this being a misdirect to throw fans off the scent!

In related Doctor Who news, the BBC has finally responded to recent complaints from viewers about the inclusion of a transgender character, played by Heartstopper star Yasmin Finney, in "The Star Beast" 60th anniversary special. 

According to Deadline, the broadcaster has issued a response which reads, "As regular viewers of Doctor Who will be aware, the show has and will always continue to proudly celebrate diversity and reflect the world we live in. We are always mindful of the content within our episodes."

In other words, just like Davies, they're not going to pay attention to those who found fault with the Doctor Who franchise simply for embracing diversity. A recent trailer for the next season confirmed Finney's Rose Noble will return in the next series alongside Ncuti Gatwa's Doctor, so we'll no doubt see more complaining then. 

Which characters would you like to see in a Doctor Who spin-off? Let us know in the comments section.

DOCTOR WHO Star Ncuti Gatwa Is Reportedly Not Long For Doctor Role As Season 3 Plans Remain Up In The Air
Related:

DOCTOR WHO Star Ncuti Gatwa Is Reportedly "Not Long" For Doctor Role As Season 3 Plans Remain Up In The Air
DOCTOR WHO Alum Matt Smith Doesn't Understand Why The Series Faces Backlash From Some Fans
Recommended For You:

DOCTOR WHO Alum Matt Smith Doesn't Understand Why The Series Faces Backlash From Some Fans

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
1 2
Tasmaniac
Tasmaniac - 1/5/2024, 6:50 AM
“simply embracing diversity”

More like gave diversity a reach-around and then accused anyone who didn’t applaud like a seal of being a phobe of some description or another.
Metan
Metan - 1/5/2024, 8:04 AM
@Tasmaniac - As someone who stands in solidarity with trans people, I thought multiple lines in the episode were heavy handed too. Felt like they'd been written by an old man trying unsuccessfully to be hip with younger LGBTQIA+ people.

But, let's not spin things out of context. This response by the BBC and Josh's comment that you've quoted aren't towards people who didn't love the episode for a variety of valid reasons. They're in response to the 144+ silly complaints written to the BBC over the trans character being "inappropriate". I haven't seen anyone who didn't like the episode being called a phobe personally, though your experience may differ.

See this earlier article about the complaints: https://comicbookmovie.com/tv/bbc-america/doctor-who/doctor-who-bbc-received-over-100-complaints-for-inappropriate-transgender-character-in-the-star-beast-a208241
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 1/5/2024, 9:36 AM
@Metan - TBF RTD tends to do phuck em type response when asked directly about folk having a specific issue with things but he has always been like that and clearly directed specificaly at those specific small groups and never clumping all who don't like an episode or have a fair critique together as part of that small group who zero in specificaly on stuff like having a trans character or showing Davros not in a wheelchair during a genesis of the Daleks short for children in need.
dagenspear
dagenspear - 1/5/2024, 10:22 AM
@Metan - "This response by the BBC and Josh's comment that you've quoted aren't towards people who didn't love the episode for a variety of valid reasons."

I don't know about that. I think some people on both sides of the isle can paint with an un-nuanced brush. And with the nonsense Davros change, to me, I don't know if I trust them to not lean heavily, to me.
MergleBergle
MergleBergle - 1/11/2024, 6:01 PM
@Metan - Agree, at times it was a bit heavy handed. TBH, if it wasn't pointed out to me, I would have had zero idea that Rose was trans. But even when it was pointed out, I didn't care, because I'd prefer a good character portrayed by a good actor than a character who makes some folks more... comfortable.
MikeyL
MikeyL - 1/5/2024, 6:51 AM
As part of the LGBTQAI+ community, I’m ALL for representation. But holy [frick] was they first episode of the specials heavy handed. I watched it alongside a group of all community members and everyone of us was like “… that was a LOT”
DevilsDreams
DevilsDreams - 1/5/2024, 7:27 AM
@MikeyL - I'm kinda glad that those in the community see it that way too.

Whilst I know some people out there will just troll for trolling's sake, I think a majority of the criticism I've seen is over the heavy handedness of it! For it to be "normalised" it needs to appear "normal".
I think it's one thing I felt Star Trek Discovery did well, was that the same sex relationship was almost a background aspect, I was watching a scene when the science guy and the doctor (I can't remember their names) were talking and it was just like "oh their a couple... cool", rather than the "LOOK AT THIS" style which often just ends up feeling forced and ingenuine.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/5/2024, 7:49 AM
@MikeyL - Is the LGBTQAI+ community different from the LGBTQIA+ community? Is that more like the ChatGPT AI+ community, but for sexual preference? I think maybe my sexual preference is for computers. They certainly make me come more than humans these days, I'll tell you that for nothing.
TheFinestSmack
TheFinestSmack - 1/5/2024, 8:22 AM
@ObserverIO - I have no idea, but years ago i had an LGHDTV that I used to watch QVC in HD.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/5/2024, 8:39 AM
@TheFinestSmack - Coincidentally, that has also made me come. I love an unbeatable bargain.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 1/5/2024, 8:40 AM
Down to only $400???! GGGGgggg......aaahhhhhhhhhh....
MG0019
MG0019 - 1/5/2024, 5:23 PM
@ObserverIO - I for one only feel represented by, and can only watch shows, that explicitly state they support the HEKXPBET+q community. If the writing shows dog whistle support for the HEKXPBETl community, they are obviously heathen Nazi fear mongers who hate everyone.
dagenspear
dagenspear - 1/5/2024, 6:58 AM
"In other words, just like Davies, they're not going to pay attention to those who found fault with the Doctor Who franchise simply for embracing diversity."

But they'll disregard decades of Doctor Who canon in how regeneration in keeping the white man Doctor, for no actual reason so far.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 1/5/2024, 9:43 AM
@dagenspear - They setup in canon that the Doctor need not be white or male back in the 80's after another Timelord had regenerated as female instead of male, officialy stating back then the Doctor could be female (or any ethnicity) so that specific thing is not something they randomly chose to change with Jodie.
dagenspear
dagenspear - 1/5/2024, 10:20 AM
@Apophis71 - This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said at all. I didn't mention black people or women. I mentioned them keeping the white man doctor.
Apophis71
Apophis71 - 1/5/2024, 10:34 AM
@dagenspear - You stated they broke decades of canon, stated they officialy changed that in the 80's for Timelords and in interviews those making the show at the time they were casting Colin Baker as the 6th stated the Doctor could and would at some point be female and that the show had already established that ANY actor could be the titular character.

So Jodie may have been the first female and had the first non-white but it wasn't a modern decision breaking established canon for Timelords just something that had been promised over 30 years previously they finaly got around to doing.

If your talking the bi-generation that was also suggested/set in canon back in the 80's with the appearance of the Valeyard during the trial of the Doctor that although not totaly clear on the how very much implied when I watched it that at some point after the 12th regeneration a second, seperate incarnation of the Doctor would come to exist during a regeneration which the bi-generation fits into perfectly.

They never made clear previously how the Valeyard came to be other than it was the darker aspects of the Doctors subconcious that somehow would take on a seperate physical form, the question now is likely more which (Tennant or N'Cuti) will become the Valeyard.
dagenspear
dagenspear - 1/5/2024, 9:23 PM
@Apophis71 - You're ignoring that I didn't mention female doctors or black doctors. It has nothing to do with my argument.

The last part doesn't speak against my argument being that it disregards the rules of regeneration. It's just an argument of how the story could use it. It still disregards it.

Valeyard also weight if it's not the actual main Doctor we follow. I think it's also a dumb copy of what happened in series 4.
Spike101
Spike101 - 1/5/2024, 7:23 AM
So sad that they choose to use such a historic and loved series as a vessel for this ridiculous nonsense. Can’t they leave anything alone?
Origame
Origame - 1/5/2024, 7:31 AM
Yes, truly people just can't handle trans characters when they have issues with lines like "something a male presenting time lord wouldn't understand" 🙄
Metan
Metan - 1/5/2024, 8:17 AM
@Origame - I thought that line and some others were eye-roll inducing too. But this response by the BBC and Josh's commentary aren't in regards to people who just had problems with lines like that and didn't love the episode for a variety of reasons. They're in response to the 144+ complaints messaged directly to the BBC over the inclusion of a trans character being in their view "inappropriate". Just the typical pearl clutching over nothing.

See this earlier article about the complaints: https://comicbookmovie.com/tv/bbc-america/doctor-who/doctor-who-bbc-received-over-100-complaints-for-inappropriate-transgender-character-in-the-star-beast-a208241
Origame
Origame - 1/5/2024, 8:25 AM
@Metan - based on this article, it's about how she was included. Not that she was trans to begin with. They even mention things like "anti male", which goes along the lines of the line I mentioned.

This is the problem with woke. They equate the problems people actually have with just not liking whatever group they included.
Metan
Metan - 1/5/2024, 8:46 AM
@Origame - Whether or not you think the article is clearly written or not, according to the original Deadline report, 'The BBC received more than 100 complaints from Doctor Who viewers who argued argued that the inclusion of Yasmin Finney‘s transgender character Rose was “inappropriate.” The corporation has revealed it had 144 messages from disgruntled viewers in its fortnightly report on audience complaints. Some said Heartstopper star Finney’s character was “anti-male,” while others said it was an “inappropriate inclusion of [a] transgender character.”'

The BBC has also been very clear about which complaints it is responding to. Here's a link to the BBC complaints response page about this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaint/doctorwhotransgender

The BBC summary of complaints reads: 'WE HAVE RECEIVED COMPLAINTS FROM VIEWERS WHO OBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF A TRANSGENDER CHARACTER IN THE PROGRAMME and from others who feel there are too few transgender people represented.'

Pretty simple. The complaints the BBC received about the episode were largely to do with the very fact a trans character was included, not how she was included. As well as from people on the other end of the issue who think the BBC doesn't go far enough.
DevilsDreams
DevilsDreams - 1/5/2024, 9:34 AM
@Origame - That was an awful and cringe filled line...
marvel72
marvel72 - 1/5/2024, 9:56 AM
@Origame - The Doctor should have replied "If a male can't understand than you shouldn't either."
Origame
Origame - 1/5/2024, 9:57 AM
@Metan - there were 2 complaints listed. One said she was anti male, which I referred to, and the other specifically said it was an inappropriate use of a trans character. This implies there is an appropriate use of a trans character. So based on what's presented, it's how the trans character was depicted that's the problem, not just that they are trans.
Origame
Origame - 1/5/2024, 9:57 AM
@marvel72 - "I was literally a woman for years until today. What don't I understand?"
dagenspear
dagenspear - 1/5/2024, 10:25 AM
@marvel72 - Be pretty random.
Metan
Metan - 1/5/2024, 4:47 PM
@Origame - I disagree. Yes, there were two complaints listed in the original report (in addition to a third complaint listed later that there are not enough trans characters) and one of the complaints was that the episode was anti-male. I don't disagree and wasn't disagreeing with you on that. I was and am disagreeing with you saying before that the complaints were only 'about how she was included. Not that she was trans to begin with'.

Again, the response from the BBC was specifically clear in it being in regard to 'COMPLAINTS FROM VIEWERS WHO OBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF A TRANSGENDER CHARACTER IN THE PROGRAMME and from others who feel there are too few transgender people represented.' See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaint/doctorwhotransgender

The Complaints Report from Nov 20th to Dec 3rd 2023 meanwhile stated that for Doctor Who the 'Main Issue(s)' in complaints were 'Anti-male / INAPPROPRIATE INCLUSION OF TRANSGENDER CHARACTER.' See the report here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/sites/default/files/2023-12/20%20November%20%E2%80%93%203%20December%202023.pdf

Complaining that an episode has 'inappropriate inclusion of transgender character' does not mean one thinks there is an appropriate form of inclusion in the complainers mind. That's a huge assumption and mental gymnastics routine on your part. All we can conclude it indicates is that the complainer thinks the inclusion of such a character was inappropriate. That they think the inclusion of a trans character is either sometimes or always inappropriate simply because they're a trans character.

You substituting the phrase 'inappropriate inclusion' for 'inappropriate use' is also highly misleading. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that that's an innocent mistake. Inclusion is a much more foundational issue than use.
Origame
Origame - 1/5/2024, 4:53 PM
@Metan - you can keep saying that's what the BBC said, but in the example included its simply talking about how it was. And I'm not trusting their word on the others.

And it doesn't matter either use, because whether it's use or inclusion, both still imply there's an appropriate way it can be done.
Metan
Metan - 1/5/2024, 9:29 PM
@Origame - I'll keep repeating what the BBC said, because it's factually the source of what we're talking about and shows clearly that the BBC is responding to people who had a problem with the very inclusion of a trans character. The examples previously mentioned are the actually the main complaints the BBC received and has responded to SUMMARISED. One of the main complaints received was that the episode was 'anti-male'. And one of the main complaints received was that there was 'INAPPROPRIATE INCLUSION OF TRANSGENDER CHARACTER'. The main complaints the BBC's responded to meanwhile are 'COMPLAINTS FROM VIEWERS WHO OBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF A TRANSGENDER CHARACTER IN THE PROGRAMME and from others who feel there are too few transgender people represented.'

There being complaints about 'INAPPROPRIATE INCLUSION OF TRANSGENDER CHARACTER' and 'FROM VIEWERS WHO OBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF A TRANSGENDER CHARACTER IN THE PROGRAMME' does not actually imply or tell us that those making those complaints think there are in fact appropriate ways for a trans character to be included. That is a massive assumption on your part. Someone can think one example of something is inappropriate because they in fact think all examples of that something are inappropriate.

All we have to go on is what the BBC's said. I'm not sure why you're so intent on ignoring key parts of what the BBC's said to defend these specific complaints to them.
Origame
Origame - 1/5/2024, 9:55 PM
@Metan - ...because when they give actual examples it's nothing.
Metan
Metan - 1/5/2024, 11:13 PM
@Origame - I feel like we can apply the logic that the simplest explanation is the most likely one in this case though. The BBC has released reports in this case with a summary of complaints as it does for all complaints. It's not reasonable to expect them to break from standard practice and list all the individual complaints as an example. Now, is it possible the BBC is lying or being misleading? Yes, it's possible, the BBC has done some very dodgy shit in the past. But is it also possible they and their complaint reporters are being impartially honest and accurate in this case? Yes, it's very much possible, and I think much more likely.

It's common knowledge that there are people out there who simply don't like trans people and their very inclusion in media. So, it's not hard at all to believe that the complaints the BBC received were indeed largely, though not completely, from such people who, as the BBC said, 'object to the inclusion of a transgender character' in Doctor Who.

Yes, evidently not every complaint about the Special and that character has been because of trans inclusion. As I mentioned at the start of this discussion, I had my own issues with the Special.

But if the complaints were only 'inappropriate inclusion of rude character', the BBC reports would state that instead of what they actually state, which is: 'inappropriate inclusion of trans character'. Many of the complaints to the BBC were specifically to do with the character being trans.

And the complaints the BBC has specifically responded to are the ones to do with 'the inclusion of a transgender character and from others who feel there are too few transgender people represented.'
Origame
Origame - 1/6/2024, 8:08 AM
@Metan - yes, but if you're conclusion is "they didn't like us using a trans character", using one example of someone actually saying that instead of talking about how they're used is pretty important.

We've played this song and dance with all these companies relying on esg. They get backlash then throw the bigot card to excuse it.
MergleBergle
MergleBergle - 1/11/2024, 6:05 PM
@Origame - WHy don't you understand the definition of "woke"? Or maybe you do and don't care. Maybe it should be researched instead of taking right-wing American politician definitions as to what it actually MEANS would be helpful. The way those guys word it today, referring to people of colour as N-words being bad would be "woke".
Origame
Origame - 1/11/2024, 6:27 PM
@MergleBergle - my use of woke here is to talk about woke as a political movement. As in, what people who claim to be woke are doing.

As an example, you see this with the snow white movie. In which they actually referred to the production as woke. And guess what? They're calling people bigots for not liking the changes made to make the cast more diverse and "woke".

The term as originally defined states being aware of injustices around you. People who subscribe to this movement believe underrepresentation is an injustice that needs to be fixed. Therefore, if you don't like the end result movies from this process, they call you a bigot.

Stop pretending I don't know what I'm talking about. Also, liberal.
mountainman
mountainman - 1/5/2024, 7:32 AM
Never been a Dr Who fan, but the ones I do know are as disappointed in the output in recent years as Marvel and Star Wars fans are. Pretty crazy how all the popular IPs can be destroyed at the same time. There’s no way it’s because of a mind virus that was infected far too many people and it’s just a coincidence?
elcapitan
elcapitan - 1/5/2024, 9:15 AM
@mountainman - you’re right, it’s not a mind virus. It’s from a fickle general audience that makes judgements about a given work before even seeing it. How many comments have you read on this site that call films trash before they’re even shot? I’m sorry but this whole thread is just ridiculous. If incorporating a trans character in your beloved show ruins it for you then too bad. That’s just sad.
dagenspear
dagenspear - 1/5/2024, 10:26 AM
@mountainman - Star Wars was destroyed because of garbage like reylo and poor writing.
mountainman
mountainman - 1/5/2024, 11:00 AM
@elcapitan - Do you watch every show/movie ever released or do you use trailers and word of mouth to help you decide what is worth your time?
elcapitan
elcapitan - 1/5/2024, 2:58 PM
@mountainman - there's a difference between deciding what I do or don't want to see and calling something trash without ever having seen it. The bigger problem is that people discard a movie before it's even been filmed, just based off a logline or what they consider to be a bad casting choice. They don't even wait for a trailer to make their judgements.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder