BBC renews Atlantis for series 2

News Louisa Mellor 26 Oct 2013 - 00:01

BBC One family adventure show Atlantis has been renewed for a second series...

The BBC's Saturday evening adventure show Atlantis will have the chance to iron out its early wrinkles and expand into a second series next year, it's been confirmed.

The Howard Overman-written series, produced by Merlin co-creators Julian Murphy and Johnny Capps, will be returning to its Chepstow and Morocco sets next year to film the new episodes, which, we're told, will build upon the mythological world of the drama.

Also revealed by the BBC are two new guest stars for the first series' second half, Robert Lindsey and John Hannah, who will be appearing in as-yet undisclosed roles.

We imagine there's a pun to be made in the realm of Atlantis not sinking/going under yet, but we've a sneaking suspicion that the yearly quota of those may already have been filled. International wordplay law contravention is no laughing matter, people.

Read more about Atlantis, including spoiler-filled reviews and cast interviews, here.

BBC

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Wow the beeb has their beer goggles on. Pour more money into doctor who or new show. IMO Atlantis should have stayed lost

Atlantis is a giant red herring cooked up by Steven Moffat. At the end of the series, we'll discover that Joseph's surname is Zaroff, his destiny is to become a scientist and that's the start of The Underwater Menace.

More likely he cooked it up to make his cocking up of Who look less terrible.

And it's working!

Surely that's what RTD was for?
Every showrunner who ever takes over will look good next to the Abzorbaloff.

This honestly shatters my faith in mankind. The only salvation would be to sign-up Patrick Duffy as a guest star. A watery pun? How about something along the lines of 'should have been drowned at birth'.

You mean I got out of bed to read this?????

Nothing like starting the weekend on a downer. It gets worse, BBC One 8.15pm

In light of this news there's a huge party going on over at the ITV scheduling department.

BBC obviously failed to get Noel Edmunds back again...

Astounding! They did make several series of Robin Hood though, so they have form.

YAY!!! I think it could really get better and I think the more character development and action scenes the better

One word: WHY?!!!
I can only imagine that the production team have compromising photos of the Controller of BBC1 with farmyard animals. It's the only explanation...

I haven't actually watched a single epiode of Atlantis yet, but from the comments to this news i gather that's is hasn't been particularly well received.
I can name a few shows that started off rather weakly but, for good reasons, are rarely judged by their first few episodes. The majority of the first season of Star Trek TNG is nearly unwatchable, and yet it grew to be iconic. Doctor Who started off with a very good first episode but overall, the first serial is awful compared to the greatest that was to come.
The premise of the Atlantis has potential. Many of the people involved with the production have done fantastic things in the past. I see no reason why it shouldn't grow to be at least, good.

I'm paying my licence fee for this drivel,there really is no justice these days...

Joseph? ....his name is Jason lol

The Abzorbaloff was designed by a child, as far as I can remember. That said, Moffat is brilliant when writing single episodes/two part episodes. He just drags out his story arcs too much.

I don't mind Atlantis being renewed. I assume the BBC know it's getting a lot of criticism, so hopefully they'll work on fixing it.

Great news , I enjoy Atlantis despite what all the moaning myrtles keep repeating here week after week after week after week.
Guys switch over ,watch a video or go for a walk , if I hated a show that much I just would not watch it. lol

But the problem wasn't the monster design, it was the writing. The finales for series 3 and 4 have no such excuse, not does Aliens in London. I only highlighted the worst example but the truth is he was a terrible terrible dr who writer.

I say this as someone who enjoys his writing on other shows and who thinks he was a good showrunner, but when someone criticizes the current team it onu seems fair to point out how awful the writing of the RTD years tended to be.

I wouldn't use DoG as a sign for nationwide approval/disapproval though from the pretty interesting debates it does seem a very good barometer of the mature Sci-Fi / Cult fans.

Coz 6-7 million people are watching it every week. For some reason.

The BBC just LOVES finding reasons to make less Doctor Who. It isn't even just a lack of episodes - the budget going to tosh like Atlantis is in large part why they had to eliminate the 2-parters (read Moffat's explanation - it's an entirely budgetary decision).

Atlantis doesn't deserve anybody's time. And yet here I am taking time out of my day to type up a comment telling people not give it their time.... my head hurts terribly.

He said the main purpose of doing a two-parter was to SAVE MONEY but they were finding that they no longer did that so not doing two-parters has absolutely nothing to do with having a smaller budget.

One of my pet hates is when people slag off a show that clearly many others are enjoying. However in the case of Atlantis it is utter utter crap. What on earth are the BBC thinking?

Each episode has lost half a million viewers, that's not looking healthy for episode 13 is it?

WHY!! its actually terrible in every way, it doesnt even have Merlins decent (mostly) acting.

Bland 1, Interesting 0.

Its gonna be good!

Nice one, you've managed to find the silver lining.

The show is not entertaining in any way whatsoever, but the reaction to it certainly is. I have to click on every Atlantis article or review just to read the comments, despite only having lasted until about 10 minutes of episode 2. The shine is taken off the amusement, however, by the point that many people have made about the BBC's lack of Who or Who budget, whilst guffing this wet one into our mouths as we yawn.

Ok, so you're criticising the man who brought Doctor Who back? The man who brought back the show that has entertained people since 1963? He did a far better job than he's made out to have done, and he does not get the credit he deserves. I'd like to see you successfully reboot a series, under extremely high expectations, and then write well. Because RTD did. Just because you didn't enjoy it doesn't mean the writing is poor - I found it amazing.

Great news, especially after tonight's awesome episode!! Looking forward to all the fun in Autumn 2014!

Are you seriously asking me if I'm criticizing a mans work (let's be clear it's his work, not the man himself, I couldn't have made that more clear, his work on other shows is fine)... because of the quality of his work...

Yes. That is what I am doing. Apart from midnight he hardly wrote a single passable script, let alone something stellar. And even if it had been superb even Shakespeare isn't beyond criticism.

Sticking with Shakespeare for a moment - the actors who performed his works are all dead, the stages are not replicated, the writing is all that survives. The writing is the most important thing, so when the writer fails he lets the entire team down, and every single viewer.

Good news, but I'm afraid I am missing the point of calling this show Atlantis, even. Wasn't Atlantis a mythically technologically advanced society? I see none of that in this show. Might as well be set in ANY ancient Greek city. Didn't need Atlantis to tell these stories. We currently have no tech and no magic. We are not really finding out
anything about why Jason's so special and no info on his Dad. They
plucked a kid out of the future to return to the ancient world with no mention
or play on that fact since episode 1. It's fun to watch, but nowhere near
living up to its potential.

I'd love to think that if they cancelled Atlantis we'd get more Doctor Who but I doubt that would be the case. But if this can go into production on consecutive years then the BBC really have no excuse why Who can't.

RTD is a better and less sexist writer than Steven Moffat (major note that all steven moffatts female sidekicks are called something involving girl whereas the RTD women were treated as such)

good for you. I agree with you :)

At first I assumed you had to be trolling, but no, you appear to be serious. Oh my.

Amy was only addressed as "The Girl Who Waited" in episode titles, in the show Rory and the Doctor were here "boys", and going against years of tradition Rory becomes "Mr Pond".
I do not recall River being addressed as girl, nor do I think she would appreciate it, and Souffle girl only comes about after she dubs the Doctor "chin boy"... but then it's never fun to assess both sides of the argument is it.

Lets also take into account that this is a man who has worked in a professional environment with both his wife and mother in law, I don't know many sexists capable of that.

All of the above were infinitely more independent than any of the women introduced by RTD. Rose obsessed after Doctor 10, became jealous with Sarah Jane and in order to be able to bare being seperated from her man she had to be given a clone of the Doctor and an alternate universe version of her Dad.
Martha spent her entire era pining after the Doctor and wondering why he wouldn't return her affections.
That said Donna I actually liked as a character, and actually fixed a lot of the negative aspects of RTDs previous female characters.

I get angry with people who try to use sexism where it isn't appropriate, without presenting the counter argument as it makes people dismissive of genuine problems with sexism.

BBC, do yourself a favor and cancel this drivel. instead, more Doctor Who episodes per season and use the remaining broadcast time to air Doctor Who Confidential.

You see no logical inconsistency in your reply?

Let's break it down.

'the main purpose of doing a two-parter was to SAVE MONEY' - CORRECT!! You win a prize.

'they were finding that they no longer did that' - Also correct!!!

So....the change that lead to the loss of two-parters was that they were more expensive than they had previously thought.

Gee....that sounds a LOT like a financial reason to me.

If only there was some part of a production plan that dealt with financial constraints and how to manage them. I can't think of the word (though the letter 'b' comes to mind for some weird reason), but if such a thing DID exist, then it would stand to reason that if that thing was too small for requirements then it would lead to cost-saving measures.

Come to think of it, that sounds a lot like what some people might call a 'budget'. But you're right, that's just silly...

No. Stargate is not Greek myth.

Atlantis was a mythical city in ancient Greek legends and plays, that (according to the Greek mythology) sunk into the ocean. Nothing 'mythically technologically advanced' about it. The technological stuff was the invention of bad 20th century television programs.

Maybe I wasn't clear, obviously it is still to do with money but if:
one parter + one parter cost = two parter cost then any choice between doing one or the other is purely a story decision because both eventualities have the same effect on the magical b word.
If they wanted to they could do 7 two parters instead of a 14 episode series and come out with more or less the same cost. It is purely Moffat's choice not to do two parters their cost doesn't prohibit them it just doesn't give the same benefits as it did in the past.

Astonishing. Murphy and Capps must have blown someone really important to get this tosh renewed.

Um shall we not dawn on the fact that Amy almost every episode was violated in some way either physically or mentally. Whilst RTD was not perfect he is certainly for me anyway a slightly less problematic writer ( also Martha was the woman that walked the earth ,Rose one of the only people to look into the eye of the TARDIS )

Maybe the BBC realise that people might want to watch something other than more doctor who. Maybe they liked the idea of trying something new rather than continuously re-hashing the same old stuff over and over. Flying in the face of popular opinion I guess, but I like the fact its NOT just another episode of something that has been on the tv for years or yet ANOTHER remake.

Why do people think that pouring money into remakes is the way forward? Is it just because if someone remakes something that is a 'classic' film or tv series they guarantee there will be something to complain about?

Lets start off by saying that's a flawed argument (and you entirely failed to address the previous points). Being a victim does not make anyone inferior. Now we've got that other with... I can only think of one incident, and unless they made Rory pregnant it's not a role they could have handed to a man. And just how many times did Amy save Rory? Hardly the role of a victim.

Martha, the woman who walked the Earth telling everyone how amazing her man was (the man who ignored her feelings entirely) to have him turn into a god.
Rose, the individual who needed to be granted magical powers in order to be of assistance to the Doctor.

I'm not saying RTD was sexist, I don't think he was, but your arguments are terribly poor - making such weak accusations and displaying only one side of the argument makes it very difficult to highlight genuine sexism.

...but nobodies watching it!

The sad thing is that Series 2 of Atlantis will probably be broadcast before we even see Series 8 of Doctor Who.

Capps and Murphy must be rubbing their hands together with glee. Step 1 take old Merlin plots. Step 2 just change a couple of names and pick a new setting. And you have Atlantis. They should have called it "Money For Old Rope" - it would be more accurate. What's even more astonishing is that people are actually saying they think this is new and different! I can't understand how more people aren't up in arms about the blatant copying of Merlin going on ... it's almost as baffling as them getting renewed for Series 2 ...

I miss Merlin... :(

OK right lets fix this. RTD was a less sexist and had more diverse characters. Lets talk about Captain jack Harkness-Pansexual compared to Stephen Moffat penned Clara who reduces any form of nonhetero feelings she gads down to "a phase". Now Rose, in her first episode saved the Doctor using her skills pretty cool Rose did have the TARDIS inside her head but whilst she needed saving this was not as over the top as the many instances in which Amy was violated in someway, Martha proved herself when stuck in the boarding school in Family of blood. Hope this helped you

Fix what? You state an opinion as a fact... You realise that Captain Jack is male right, that he was introduced by Steven Moffat and that sexism has nothing to do with sexuality?

Rose's gymnastic skills? She did a gym class... wow, so did every kid in Britain. How about Amy used her brain in the beast below and spotted something the Doctor failed to - something River is also known for.

The first time we meet Clara the Doctor fails entirely to save her, but she saves his life.

Amy led the resistance when time fell in on it's self when the universe needed her, she also became an accomplished author when returning to a peaceful life - she was portrayed as someone entirely capable who did not relish violence.

And where is this word exploited coming from, do you even know what it means? To take sure a very strong term you really ought to provide a multitude of examples, and yet you have not provided a single one.

I really doubt this has helped you, reason seems to be lost on you.

Um I also focused on diversity which is another point lacking Moffat's Doctor Who. If we are talking of times Amy was in some way violated then um well She has her mind violated by the weeping angels, kidnapped by the silence. She is impregnated then made infertile Lets not forget Clara being changed against her will these are all important points that need addressing whilst yes conversion is used alot in Who, Asylum of The Daleks as an episode saw every woman featured having their body violated or control taken from them in some way and that needs addressing. This is just one example.

Oh my god, you are REALLY REALLY not up to debating with people.

Diversity. Jesus h flipppin' christ, forget Canton Deloware, Moffat has a lesbian reptile in there of all things (and he introduced captain jack in the Doctor Dances anyway).

In Doctor Who, a show famous for people having their bodies taken control of, heck this season saw the Doctor taken over by the cybermen, and in the previous one he was had his entire being copied.

And no in this sense, violated was not an appropriate phrase to be using, it sounds extremist, it sounds a little rapey, you chose it intentionally because at this point it is more than clear that you have no interest in the unbiased truth, you just don't like the guy and are trying to justify your feelings in the most abhorrent of methods.

There is nothing in Ayslum of the Daleks which needs addressing, that is what the Daleks do, they did it in Revelation of the Daleks and NuWho series 1. They convert people when they need to, just as the cybermen do, regardless of gender. Is it a good thing? Obviously not, they're the bad guys. You do realise that this is a TV show right? That they weren't ACTUALLY converted?

Have you not noticed you've gotten downvoted exclusively? Using extremist language and one sided arguments isn't convincing anyone.

on the whole may i suggest you look at the articles no this over at fandomsandfeminism(.)tumblr(.)com who explains this alot better than I do. What word would you use to describe Amy being made infertile and not made aware she was pregnant against her will? I used violated because it was what I have seen others describe it as and what I would say it is and for the recore I like some of Moffat's stories I mean The Doctor Dances was incredible but not just in Doctor Who his treatment of women has been very patchy at best shall we talk about Irene Adler or the fact that many of his episodes don't even pass the simple Bechdel test? also Moffat's comments to fans has been awful he has been openly biphobic and ableist. I'm sorry if my language choices were extremist to you and I shall try and express my points in a more non biased manner Thank you

Not a chance - online Feminists have done exactly what you do and abused the cause by only ever looking at a single side of any given example... which is pointless in an EQUALITY issue. It doesn't matter what bad thing happens/ can be said about a character if the same can be said about a character of the opposite sex (a very basic and important point you have repeatedly missed throughout this conversation).

I strongly suggest you avoid sites like the one you mentioned unless you have the capability of second guessing the statements within and putting them into the appropriate context.

How could Amy's ordeal have applied to a male character, what male character is capable of getting pregnant? And how is a bad thing happening to a character a sign of sexism, especially in a show like Dr Who (a point I raised but you entirely failed to address, you just reitterated it again).

Given Martha and Rose spent all their time obsessing over the Doctor and neither Amy nor Clara can be accussed of this I'm amazed you think the Bechdel test is appropriate, but it wouldn't be hard to show the numbers stack up in Moffats favour with that kind of test.

Irene Adler and Sherlock is ANOTHER example of taking things out of context. Did Irene talk about Sherlock? Rarely, but more so than Sherlock... does Sherlock talk about anyone, express any emotion? No, not ever.
How many times did Irene outwit Sherlock until the final scenes? He was unable to get a read on her, unable to access her phone - she stumped him for longer than any male character he has gone up against.

I would certainly reccomend a quick look at the website as it has some excellent points on Doctor who if you look in the search bar however I do tend to background read and get other opinions on this but thank you for reminiding me that people have views.
In the orginal Sherlock Holmes story featuring Irene Adler, Irene won she was the woman beat him however in Sherlock Irene has to be saved by Sherlock at the end it could be viewed as a minor change. Now yes bad things happen to male characters too this should definately be noted but lets also note the white straight male recurring theme that is almost everywhere and Tv shows have been fueled by man pain for years . ON Bechdel test numbers I think the second series of Moffat's with Amy as the main character had a grand total of 2 full passes. I am trying to look at both sides here I truly am. Also if we are talking about things you have failed to comment on Steven Moffat's biphobic and ableist comments should definately be mentioned. However Thank You for this it is definately making me see the other side of this argument

They're only "excellent points" if in context. I remind you again that sexism is about equality, I've seen those kind of rants before (including the strange woman who claimed the cracks in series 5 were meant to represent a certain part of the female anatomy... give me strength).

Have you read the original? Her success was little more than not getting caught, she hardly brought Holmes to his knees.
Here's another question: If Moriarty was a woman would you be making the same argument about him? Moffat saw him bested quickly and taking his own life based on little more than a few words. In the books he was a stoic character, and in the show mentally unhinged, a complete loon. How exactly would the people on tumblr be reacting to those changes had he been a woman?

How is Moffat responsible for Sherlock Holmes being male-focused?
Sexism is NOT a male writing about men. Writers do write what they know, and Moffat indeed has written about his divorce (where his ex-wife came off far more charitably than his own character did) and a school. Is he better acquainted with the male mentallity, leading him to enjoy works such as Sherlock, Doctor Who and James Bond? Possibly, but entirely irrelevant as sexism is the view of women as inferior - not something characters like River Song indicate, and not something a history of working with female relations indicates either.

Now I dispute Amy's "two passes", off the top of my head I confirmed that her first two episodes pass (the third is in Churchills Bunker with almost no women present) but lets put that aside... she's on a TARDIS, she mostly meets aliens, she travels with two men and unlike under RTD she doesn't watch the world end infront of the TV with her mum... is that test appropriate IN CONTEXT?

And I asked you this before, but I'll ask again. WHAT comments? The only ones I'm aware of are those misattributed when he was describing the character of Patrick from Coupling. It's useless making blind accusations without evidence, examples or references.

Elementary made Moriarty a woman and it worked well and was done interestingly. and I have indeed read the original and of course characters have to be changed towork for a modern audience just like the three pipe problem becoming a three patch problem. And I'm not accusing Moffat of making Sherlock male focused because of course by source material it has to be and as to Amy meeting mainly men as she is on the TARDIS surely this should mean all of time and space at least some more women to travel with or perhaps even dare i say it a female doctor or maybe brining The Rani back. There is a masterpost easy to find of all these comments over at feministwhoniverse, a few articles at The Mary Sue he has made . Heres one of his most sexist comments for you here "There’s this issue you’re not allowed to discuss: that women are needy. Men can go for longer, more happily, without women. That’s the truth."

Actually I'd say the combining of Moriarty and Adler was almost as mistaken as the series 2 portrayal of Britain.

And you're really reaching when you are accusing him of being sexist for not being the first person to have a female Doctor (he's done more to open up the audience to the idea than any previous showrunner) and not bringing back one of the shows cheesiest characters.

Does it not worry you that you're taking all your opinions from aggressively proactive feminist sites rather than forming your own opinions based on what you see?

That quote is from the article where he was talking from Patricks persepective, the article I just mentioned in the post you replied to. Please don't reply without reading what I wrote, and don't quote things without researching their origins.

This is one of his biphobic tweets
5:07am, 11-05-12. Regarding the lack of bisexual representation in television.
“We don’t acknowledge you on television cos you’re having FAR TOO MUCH FUN. You probably don’t even watch cos you’re so BUSY!!”

I am simply saying that surely if the Daleks and The master and the cyberman can return more females can too and if Rani is too cheesy they can change the characters a bit alot of the aliens started off as quite campy and now look at them. Batman was exactly the same 1960's bat,am was campy and fun Nolans Batman scary and interesting. It's possible.

I will make my own opinions and those websites i showed you were just two of the many based on this information that i thought would be easiest for you to find and digest.( And the mary sue is a geek girl culture site not paritcularly aggressive either)
oh and Happy halloween

Would you mind terribly if I reitterated my previous question? Does it not bother you that you get all your information from sites with an obvious agenda and bias and don't make your own assessments or checkup on the sources.

The reason I ask that is that particular tweet I saw as it went out, and it had NOTHING to do with bisexuals, quite the reverse, asexuals. Moffat had made a comment about the Doctor being asexual being boring, which offended some people, the above quote is him clarifying that they were *narratively* less interesting, and it was not a claim that being asexual led for a boring life. If anything the reverse, but whilst going to parties may make for a fun life, it doesn't make good television. I'm not commenting on that viewpoint, merely saying your quotes are all coming with the incorrect context, does that not bother you?

Our conversation was only about sexism, yes more characters could be female, more of RTDs protagonists could be (but then would you be back here complaining that too many of the meaty female roles are evil and cunning?), but failure to make such changes is not sexism.

The tweet was about bisexuals you can find a whole transcript of the conversation he has indeed mentioned a sexuality before but that was an interview which can be find on radio times. Also on asexuality he was mainly discussing how Sherlock couldn't be asexual because that would be boring. I never said it was a claim of any sort but surely there should be equal representation of all sexualities on television but any way I'm getting off point.

Female villains can definitely be well done much like a male villain can for example Abbadon in Supernatural at the moment however also in Supernatural it shows something about how evil female characters are written as they had Lillith who started off as a child but very quickly became a seductress and that became her main villain with very little character development either way.Male villains tend to be less sexualised there is still eye candy look at Hook in Once Upon A Time he is gorgeous but is not sexualised to the same extent,

As I said, I saw the tweet go out at the time so I'm unlikely to trust the log (nor am I likely to care, I can't see John Barrowman objecting to that statement somehow). It wouldn't even make sense, given Moffat has introduced two already.

There should not be equal anything on TV - if there were we might as well be watching documentaries. Writers are charged with providing entertainment. Their ethical responsibility ends at not misrepresenting any groups they do choose to portray (for instance highlighting women as incapable, or the mis-representing a mental disorder in a manner which encourages fear and hostility). This again comes back to your misconception of sexism - it is not sexist to NOT write about women, it is not even sexist to be poor at writing them (which I don't think is the case at all) - it is only sexist to portray women as inferior.

Female villains *can* be well done, RTD didn't do them, Moffat hasn't done them. Neither is sexist, they just didn't write about them, and sensibly so. If people like you come out of the woodwork due to a lack of women villains, imagine the reaction to a large female role being evil - how many negative essays would be scribbled across the internet about the hidden meaning of that decision, how closesly would each line of dialogue be scrutinized?

Would it affect Sherlock the show really if for example John turned out to be bi.? The answer is no the show would continue as usual just with slight differences would it change the show if Lestrade was a woman? probably not this is my point many male characters could easily be changed over to a woman or you know not be the stereotypical straight guy in a love triangle.

And it may not nessecarily be sexist to not have female characters but it is an issue that most shows now are white straight man pain with the token woman on the side somewhere with no proper story of her own.

Oh and Russel T Davies did quite a few female villains that were well received . The slitheen had a female the only one to survive, the adipose episode had a fantastic female villain yes she died at the end but she was still fantastic and hilarious exactly like male villains who also have died .

It wouldn't change anything, for better or worse, except maybe get in the way. The character stayed as he was. No writer has a duty to push any agenda, it's not sexist not to do so. Molly and Mrs Hudson may only be support characters, and the former may externally appear quite weak, but I am happy with how both are portrayed.

Also Sherlock is a boys fantasy, which comes from a boy, who happens to like James Bond too (shock horror). Surely the question you should be asking is why are there so few female writers putting forward their own view on life? What is the point on adding more female characters rather than adding more female writers and letting people write what they know?

Fewer people are bi than gay, Moffat has had several gay characters and the only reason you don't comment on this is that it would hurt your case.

Series 6 had Madaam covarian, Bells of St John had an absolutley superb female villain. You were talking about changing established characters, not characters in general.

ON the female writers question there are and thats another intresting point because Steven Moffat at the time of Doctor who past series did not have even one woman on his writing team. Now let that sink in! There are a few female writers but a lot of this is still a boys club and thats not fair women need to push in because look at how the majority of how comics are it gets nasty and objectification becomes rife and thats not good we don't want BBC doctor who section to become like DC comics

And how would the gender change of a character get in the way? Joan Watson doesn't seem to be affected! They can even change the angels vessels from male to female in Supernatural (Raphael)

Yes Boys fantasies are all very well and good we know they are everywhere. One of the key anti female doctor arguments was that boys wouldn't have enough role models but there aren't many primetime female fronted shows really. We have Once upon a time at a push but really we are limited and i think if it was the other way round men would complain and yet we are branded as silly. We had Ugly betty that was nice not great though, We have Orphan Black but its not the same as Doctor Who not as big.

On the fewer people are bi than Gay no thats an issue of visibility caused by biphobia so people are less likely to come out as it also there is also the issue of characters originally in books as Bi (pretty little liars did this) being in the Tv adaptation as gay. This leads on to other problems.

Thank you for reminding me what i was talking about however I think all examples are important in this argument hence why I have been including other shows as proof and evidence of certain themes and making my argument more meaningful to the current television scheduling.

Let what sink in? RTD only had one writer (and she was awful, Evolution of the Daleks is a disaster I hope never to see repeated). Under JNT we only saw two episodes, the middling Survival and the superb Enlightenment - and to the best of my knowledge that's it. Doctor Who is a show with a problem getting female writers, but it's not a Steven Moffat issue, please, I asked you before, keep things in context.

Who should they hire? Who is in TV writing atm? They've already got every well respected fiction showrunner/ writer at the BBC on the show that I can think of, except Dominic Mitchell and he would do much to balance the gender books.

Cumberbatch and Freeman have become global phenomenons, can you see the same happening to the cast of Elementary (even despite their strong established careers, particularly Lucy Liu). Now some of this is the quality of the show - but you say it would change nothing - so then why mess with such a superb pairing?

More over how is making John into Joan a win for feminism? She is essentially the Dr Who companion. Making Sherlock female would be a real win, but turning the less intelligent, less brilliant character always in awe of the main character into a woman strikes me as increasing the level of sexism, not decreasing it in anyway.
On that argument I'd be happy to see a female Doctor, and Moffat has done more to open the doors to this possibility than any other producer.

A writer can only write what they would enjoy themselves, you can't just point at men and say "write something for women". It doesn't work like that, you write what you want to see. I don't see Ugly Betty as a positive anything however...

There are probably fewer stigmas associated with being bi than with being gay, and in my group of friends I don't think anyone would be remotely concerned about coming out about anything (except perhaps being a fan of twilight).

!. Helen Raynor also wrote the sontaran episodes all which were good she also wrote an episode of Torchwood. Torchwood had 5 female writers and if Torchwood could do this I think Doctor who easily could. You can see who these female writers were easily and perhaps they could be brought over to Doctor who.

If we are talking about superb pairings then I shall have to bring up Mulder and Sculley. Sculley was a fantastic female character that got action, emotional moments why can't we have more like her that is equally important. She was just as good as milder probably a better agent!

There has been a book series with a female sherlock that went down quite well there is also always the comic book series with the female couple version of Sherlock and John. Joan however is fantastic although with unnessacry change of backsotry she is still a fantastic character who can humanise Sherlock a bit even if not by much she steals the show.

Ugly Betty was a show about a woman in the fashion industry who was the opposite of what they wanted she wasn't white she wasn't thin and yet it showed her and her family as the good guys. It had positive representations of most diversities and was a really fun show if anything it said too some that you don't have to be skinny or a cultural ideal to get places! thats important

Also biphobia is perpetuated by harmful stereotypes like saying bisexuals sleep around are unfaithful. These stereotypes are almost always in media nowadays just look at glee.

Firstly before continuing can I say that I'm not saying they were bad because they're women, I don't want the internet set on me. I'm saying there isn't a pool of established female writers for Dr Who that Moffat is failing to draw from, both of his predecessors had a disturbing lack of female writers, which is why I commented on the fact (Torchwood isn't a fair comparison as Moffat doesn't have a show in his catalog which is a collaboration with more than 2 writers).
I agree the show needs more women - but recently Who has ONLY taken established proven writers, so proven that they have to be showrunners, so who is being overlooked with that pedigree? And why isn't there anyone to overlook?

In my view both the Sontaran Strategm and the majority of Torchwood (with the notable exception of series 3) were poor, very poor.

Just because it *can* be done, doesn't mean it should. The pairing of Sherlock and John is a worldwide success, Elementary is daytime fluff sitting there with Castle and Diagnosis murder, a bit of fun with some shameful misrepresentation of the British. I am *not* saying the decision to make John into Joan is the cause, but it didn't help the show, didn't expand the audience to more women than Sherlock, there's no reason to make that decision or to attempt to bully writers into making parts female just for the sake of it. Ask WHY a character is a female if they have unhealthy stereotypes attached to them which coincide with the gender. Do not ask why a character is a particular gender or race when it is not relevant one way or the other, that's just stupid and pointless and has taken us round the houses too many times already.

I don't think making Joan female is any kind of win, you didn't address that the fact that John Watson IS the traditional female part, there is nothing groundbreaking in handing that back to a woman, it was probably less sexist to leave it as a male part.

Mulder and Scully were equals, and if anything Scully was portrayed as the stronger and more intelligent of the two on many occasions (even if willfully ignorant). But there was no source material, no established dynamic.

I haven't observed such a stereotype, and it's on a massive tangent anyway.

Toechwood is a fair comparison as it is in the same universe as Dctor /who also we could also say there was a problem with Sarah Jane Adventures not having female writers too.

In my view the sontaran stratagem was quite a fun two parter and I personally loved series 2-4 of Torchwood and thought it was exactly the standard it needed to be I thought it was an enjoyable show however these are just opinions.

Of course Sherlock and John are a big thing but there are similar pairing. Rizzoli and Isles for instance both women Elementary is a very diverse show including Mrs Hudson being played by a transwoman that is very important. Joan Watson is a great character and whilst yes John was the more feminine one i suppose if you have to say it that way. Still Joan is a good character.
Having a character of a specific gender is still important as i have pointed out changing lestrade to a woman would have no change on the story.

Mulder and Scully scully was definitely the better agent Whilst there was not a specific dynamic established before doesn't mean it isn't a landmark

Also just because you haven't observed such a stereotype doesn't mean it it is not there and this stereotype is in a lot of media even scrubs has references to it

Yeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

OMG I'm so excited. I <3 Atlantis

Yes! Atlantis is the best. Yeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

I can't wait! I love Atlantis

Yes Yes Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes I enjoy Atlantis and look forward to the new episodes, I no people are saying about doctor who but some people are not interested and is already has a load, I enjoy doctor who put to have more will cause struggle for the writers.

I love the show. Keep 'em coming. Greetings from Sweden :)

I quite enjoyed it. Lots of naked torsos. What's not to like! lol What do they mean by 'as-yet undisclosed roles'. John Hannah is Jason's father! lol

atlantis is a good family series with lots of humour and does not need bad language to try and make it funny, much better than watching tv soaps that revolve around misery swearing and impending doom. some people need to get a life and just enjoy it for what it is, a family show that entertains all family members.

Dr Who???? Now THAT is a bag of rubbish......year after year dr who gets millions for only twenty people to watch it 300 times an episode - OR as I like to call them CU*TS!
IMO, you need to start watching real programs not DW rubbish you fantasist

Ummmm, why are all you sado's trolling this announcement just to complain about you not getting enough Dr Who time? Dr Who is sad, its pathetic, its based on NOTHING and has been replayed and rehashed to death over and over again! If I don't like Dr Who, I don't click on DW links.....so why do you to Atlantis? At least it has educational value BEING very close to the original Greek mythology!
But wait! Lets forget that kids might actually learn something about mythology and lets put more Dr Who on the tv because that will help them in school, that'll help them learn something!!!!
Go away and rejoice on your Dr Who pages.
Pathetic when you have so much free time that you find a link about a program you despise then click on it JUST complain about it!
SAD

Why has this got anything to do with Doctor Who, alright so you don't like the shows everyone has different opinions and just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean they have to be cancelled there are plenty of people who love the shows and want them to continue, what about the shows you like? Not everyone will like them even though you may think it's the best thing on tv, so stop your whining and negativity, and let some people just enjoy the shows they want to enjoy.

Wow so many haters, why are you all reading tis article if you hate atlantis so much/ personally I enjoyed it, though its lost the storyline a little, after all Jason now seems to pretty much have forgotten he's from the future. but it's a great show, and child-friendly, which at that tim eof evening its thin on the ground to find something that families can watch together quite happily.

Sponsored Links