|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 1, 2017 18:47:11 GMT
Name a leading character in a TV show or movie who doesn't resort to violence to defeat their enemies? the Doctor tops that list. hes probably followed by Inspectors Lewis and Barnaby and Father Brown. now, name a leading female character who does that. much harder. Hermione Granger? Still defined by how powerful a wizard she is. Peggy Carter? Jessica Jones? Sarah Lance? Buffy? Even Temperance Brennan is given a gun to be "hardcore" and "tough". so why shouldnt little girls want to grow up to be the Doctor? Penelope Garcia from Criminal Minds Samantha Stephens from Bewitched Jeannie from I Dream of Jeannie Morticia Addams Miss Marple And I'd dispute Hermione as she is most famous for being smart and solving problems with her mind: however, like the Doctor, she will fight if necessary. I have to add Miss Kitty from Gunsmoke, I watched her save Matt Dillion's life by winning a game of poker, just 2 days ago. The woman who started Remington Steele, though I think she carried a gun. Mary Tyler Moore, though, seriously, she didn't have any enemies, she never met a person she didn't like.
|
|
mbt66
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 3,081
|
Post by mbt66 on Feb 1, 2017 21:33:59 GMT
In the past I would have said the Doctor should be male, probably for no other reason than that was how I thought of "him" and I had bought into the good role model for boys agrument.
But two things have changed my mind
1, Missy - a masterful reinvention of the character, and 2, A post on this forum by christmastrenzalore where he outlined his idea for a series during which the Doctor regenerated into a woman. For some reason those stories sparked my imagination and I wish I could have seen that play out. So now I see no reason for the Doctor not to be played by a woman.
Whether they decide to cast a woman as the Doctor or not I really hope that they release a publicity picture of a man and a woman together with the caption "the Doctor and companion, but who is who?"
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 1, 2017 21:48:38 GMT
From a strictly pragmatic point of view a female Doctor makes a lot of sense. When it comes back in 2018 it will be 13 years after the show made its return and like any franchise, especially one built on the idea of complete change, that show needs to grab the attention of viewers. Said show needs people talking about it. A female Doctor does that and more. And I come back to the idea that Doctor Who is a show built on regeneration and change. The show has established Time-Lords can change gender, so the pick plays within the confines of set canon. I happen to love the idea of roles being flipped and having a male companion asking the questions and needing to be saved. It builds on the show's legacy whilst also subverting it. 50+ years and I don't see why The Doctor can't or should not be played by a woman. I just want the performed selected to be great. And right for the part. I just want to see the show succeed and continue to grow and tell great stories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 23:48:17 GMT
All of what you've said is true, but isn't it just as powerful to say that women don't have to be the Doctor in order to be special? Companions like Barbara, Zoe, Liz, Charley, Benny, Sarah Jane, Peri, Erimem, Lucie, both Romanas, Leela... They've managed to leave a pretty prominent mark, even though they're not the Doctor. I had a lot of respect for Barbara growing up as a kid. She didn't have to be the Doctor in order to run straight into a war zone just for the chance that she could save the Doctor and Ian ("Barbara, what are you going to do?" "I don't know, let go of me!"), plowing straight through a squad of Daleks in a truck, defeating the brains of Morphoton, surviving El-Akir and Palestine, using her reasoning insight into the workings of the TARDIS to determine what was at fault, trying to save the Aztecs from themselves and countless other heroic acts besides. There was something incredible about her careful reasoning, unwillingness to give up and blind bravery when it came to defending her friends that made her endearing. It was much the same with Romana's later exploits on Gallifrey or Bernice Summerfield's struggles on the Collection. Their lives weren't diminished just because they were companions. I agree. But wouldn't that message also be pretty true for men as well? And having the Thirteenth Doctor be female doesn't diminish any of his other incarnations, nor can it detract from the impact a companion can have on the audience. It would just open the doors to a wider pool of talent and give a lot of people something to aspire to. Aw, dammit, looks like we both have a pretty good point.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Feb 2, 2017 1:19:34 GMT
From a strictly pragmatic point of view a female Doctor makes a lot of sense. When it comes back in 2018 it will be 13 years after the show made its return and like any franchise, especially one built on the idea of complete change, that show needs to grab the attention of viewers. Said show needs people talking about it. A female Doctor does that and more. And I come back to the idea that Doctor Who is a show built on regeneration and change. The show has established Time-Lords can change gender, so the pick plays within the confines of set canon. I happen to love the idea of roles being flipped and having a male companion asking the questions and needing to be saved. It builds on the show's legacy whilst also subverting it. 50+ years and I don't see why The Doctor can't or should not be played by a woman. I just want the performed selected to be great. And right for the part. I just want to see the show succeed and continue to grow and tell great stories. Transgender regenerations may be canon, but I don't know if they've ever been explored. I can think of two, one on TV and one on audio, that seemed more like a whirlwind that didn't even have time to explore the disorientation we see in The Doctor's regenerations let alone anything else. Do we know anything yet about the effect of regeneration (or lack thereof) on preferences, for instance? I hope if that proves awkward that the TV show doesn't find out the hard way, and after the NS having put so much emphasis on Doctor-companion relationships more than once, I'm not sure how much would be avoidable. I like to think I'm not easily scandalized (or that biased one way or the other about a female Doctor), but like you I want to see the show succeed and continue. I've barely been back in the loop where I'm looking forward at the series instead of entirely backward at it and I've mainly really enjoyed that. DW is still my favorite of any shows current and I hope I don't lose it again, and especially not because the show took a big risk at what might be a bad time to be taking big risks. If the show tanks, I don't think it's for want of a female Doctor hence I don't think I see a female Doctor as the fix for flagging ratings. If they were out to rejuvenate the show, I think I'd rather they try to do it with better stories first and foremost because without that, anything else may be that much riskier.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Feb 2, 2017 1:23:01 GMT
Aw, dammit, looks like we both have a pretty good point. This might just be why we're still kicking the question around. :-) There are good points on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 2, 2017 1:29:43 GMT
I suppose it depends on how you view the show in its current creative state. I continue to believe series 9 was one of the show's strongest post-revival. I don't want to see Capaldi go and I was truly hoping he would continue with the new creative team. That isn't happening. As for flagging ratings, again we are talking about a series going into its 12th year and 10 series with a full slate of episodes. I don't know of many television series that have not shown some degree of viewing slippage as the run exceeds a decade. If you are going to gender swap a 50+ year old character you have to have the right performer to do it and you have to have the stories you want to tell with that kind of change. That it would be the first female Doctor gets a lot of new viewers tuning in and a lot of former viewers checking the show out again. 13 years into this run of the series risk becomes part of the equation if you want to grow your audience.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 2, 2017 1:42:18 GMT
In 50 plus years of Doctor Who, I still don't remember the doctor ever having a bathroom scene. Never seen the Master go either. Nor the monk, nor Romana, or any of the time lords. Do they, or don't they? And which gender would they prefer if they do? Or is that a different thread? I know as a human how much time I spend in the bathroom, and I know as a husband and father of 3 girls, how much time they spent in the bathroom, and I know they used to be in there much longer than me, but as I age, I am catching up with them, and getting to a point where reading material is preferred. So the question stands. For a 1000 plus year old time lord/lady, do they have to go to the bathroom, and which gender would they prefer? Ive tried sitting down everytime, and um, it's much more hygienic. But after 5 hours in the truck, who wants to find a real bathroom, when there's a totally empty truck lot. with nobody around for miles. As an afterthought, ive never seen the doctor bathe or shower either. I wonder how he smells?(and don't say with his nose, that jokes older than well, me.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 6:06:22 GMT
As an afterthought, ive never seen the doctor bathe or shower either. Spearhead from Space! There is a shower scence in that, featuring the 3rd Doctor wearing a very trendy shower cap!
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 2, 2017 6:47:40 GMT
You are right, I forgot that one. At least we know the doctor has had at least 1 shower...
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Feb 2, 2017 7:47:58 GMT
From a strictly pragmatic point of view a female Doctor makes a lot of sense. When it comes back in 2018 it will be 13 years after the show made its return and like any franchise, especially one built on the idea of complete change, that show needs to grab the attention of viewers. Said show needs people talking about it. A female Doctor does that and more. And I come back to the idea that Doctor Who is a show built on regeneration and change. The show has established Time-Lords can change gender, so the pick plays within the confines of set canon. I happen to love the idea of roles being flipped and having a male companion asking the questions and needing to be saved. It builds on the show's legacy whilst also subverting it. 50+ years and I don't see why The Doctor can't or should not be played by a woman. I just want the performed selected to be great. And right for the part. I just want to see the show succeed and continue to grow and tell great stories. especially not because the show took a big risk at what might be a bad time to be taking big risks. I How is it a bad time to take big risk? Now is the perfect time for a female Doctor IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 9:59:55 GMT
I don't think a female doctor is the way to go, children need male role models as well female role models, I just don't get changing the doctor's gender would fix the shows ratings, the issue is the scripts which i felt lack bite, gravitas & have lost that shock factor.
I find that the tone has become more cheesy of late & i don't find the drama is there, it's style over substance it looks nice but when you peel away there's little substance there, Clara overstayed her welcome & overshadowed the main character, I'd like to see episodes were the doctor gets it wrong & show the aftermath of his decisions put the focus back on him.
But hey I'm a analogue signal living in a digital age so what do i know about the 21st century ideals & values when my ass is stuck in the 1980's.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 2, 2017 10:56:22 GMT
especially not because the show took a big risk at what might be a bad time to be taking big risks. I How is it a bad time to take big risk? Now is the perfect time for a female Doctor IMO. There are a few reasons to argue bad timing: the underperforming of the gender swapped Marvel comics, the massive failure of Ghostbusters 2016, the online culture war over not just women in media but also the current state of feminisim (known as third wave) as an viable ideology (the last few years have been mired in allegations of some sects endorsing misandry, money laundering, pro-segregation of genders and the lack of attention paid to women in the Third World). Regardless if I do or don't, there is clearly a feeling of not wanting Who involved in what amounts to some very ugly cultural drama at this time.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Feb 2, 2017 12:47:26 GMT
How is it a bad time to take big risk? Now is the perfect time for a female Doctor IMO. There are a few reasons to argue bad timing: the underperforming of the gender swapped Marvel comics, the massive failure of Ghostbusters 2016, the online culture war over not just women in media but also the current state of feminisim (known as third wave) as an viable ideology (the last few years have been mired in allegations of some sects endorsing misandry, money laundering, pro-segregation of genders and the lack of attention paid to women in the Third World). Regardless if I do or don't, there is clearly a feeling of not wanting Who involved in what amounts to some very ugly cultural drama at this time. As a counterpoint - the women's marches against Donald Trump, the show itself laying the groundwork for a female Doctor, the success of Paul Feig's movies... Ghostbusters (2016) wasn't a success at the cinema but it has been a big success on home media.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 2, 2017 19:51:51 GMT
Aw, dammit, looks like we both have a pretty good point. Reposting this from my own thread: for the sake of argument, let's say they do go female this time. Regardless if I do or don't agree, let's get to some brass tacks here as to what could be expected: 1) Given a big to-do over Capaldi was age and not moving toys, we're likely skewing for a younger actress in Tenant's age range. If anyone was hoping for Olivia or Helen or Imelda, it likely won't be this time. 2) Decently built from a physical standpoint. Won't be someone petit like Jenna, or more robust like Ingrid. It'll probably be someone more like Freema: not a model, but someone you'd buy in an action scene. 3) Likely a white actress. Naturally, if they go female, all bets are off, but I have a gut feeling if the Beeb go female, they'll at least keep the same race as the past Doctors for some kind of 'safety', for lack of a better or more polite term.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Feb 2, 2017 23:55:17 GMT
How is it a bad time to take big risk? Now is the perfect time for a female Doctor IMO. If the show is cancelled after the first season of the female Doctor, it will have been a bad time to take a big risk. :-) It's one of those things, isn't it, where if it works well, everyone including me will think it's genius, but if it doesn't... I'm just not feeling fully confident that the show's makers will manage, not so much that they haven't done an awful lot right already, just that I think they've maybe done certain things wrong on a regular basis and it may have them somewhat boxed in, as may the overall tone of the show, which I think has been set as a little more comedic than its spin-offs. That may carry a risk of ending up with sort of a female caricature of The Doctor as opposed to a bona-fide female Doctor. Also there's been companion-snogging in the New Series, which is another one of those things I hope they haven't boxed themselves in with. I hope no one feels cheated if the show got back to a more firmly platonic Doctor-companion relationship, because that might make things easier, but there is still River. Personally I wanted in the TARDIS for where The Doctor is going and am just as happy to not know who he fancies, but as long as they don't cause parents to change the channel. Be careful with my favorite show, that's all I ask. I'm sure they could create a brilliant female Doctor provided they're careful. Perhaps I'm just overprotective of my favorite show. I will say I had a traumatic experience as a youth with something vaguely similar with STNG The Host where the Trill that Beverly Crusher is dating gets a new host body of different gender. They were apparently half-heartedly trying to be progressive or something and it ended up falling on its face and just being a heartbreak, IMHO. I guess it was the times but to actually hear Dr. Crusher basically say, "Falling in love with an alien parasite is one thing, but ladies kissing? Now that's just too freaky!" - Yikes! If I ever watched that series again, I would just skip that whole episode. As a counterpoint - the women's marches against Donald Trump, the show itself laying the groundwork for a female Doctor, the success of Paul Feig's movies... You may have a point, politically it might be as timely as ever, although I do hate to mix politics and gender if it might result in division of the masses. It's important to keep solidarity and remember that some of our poor excuses for leadership may be p*ss*ng off men just as much as women. :-)
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Feb 3, 2017 1:00:30 GMT
You want success for the next Doctor? Whether male or female send them as far away from earth as possible for as long as possible, rather like some of Tom's tenure back in the day. Or more actual time travel. Much more.
I'm in principle against it due to my belief that children should have a male TV hero figure that always leaves violence as a last resort. Despite that I believe that the role can theoretically be female.
|
|
aztec
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,849
|
Post by aztec on Feb 3, 2017 11:41:34 GMT
Gillian Anderson would be a great choice i.m.o...
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Feb 3, 2017 11:43:33 GMT
How is it a bad time to take big risk? Now is the perfect time for a female Doctor IMO. If the show is cancelled after the first season of the female Doctor, it will have been a bad time to take a big risk. :-) It's one of those things, isn't it, where if it works well, everyone including me will think it's genius, but if it doesn't... I'm just not feeling fully confident that the show's makers will manage, not so much that they haven't done an awful lot right already, just that I think they've maybe done certain things wrong on a regular basis and it may have them somewhat boxed in, as may the overall tone of the show, which I think has been set as a little more comedic than its spin-offs. That may carry a risk of ending up with sort of a female caricature of The Doctor as opposed to a bona-fide female Doctor. Also there's been companion-snogging in the New Series, which is another one of those things I hope they haven't boxed themselves in with. I hope no one feels cheated if the show got back to a more firmly platonic Doctor-companion relationship, because that might make things easier, but there is still River. Personally I wanted in the TARDIS for where The Doctor is going and am just as happy to not know who he fancies, but as long as they don't cause parents to change the channel. Be careful with my favorite show, that's all I ask. I'm sure they could create a brilliant female Doctor provided they're careful. Perhaps I'm just overprotective of my favorite show. I will say I had a traumatic experience as a youth with something vaguely similar with STNG The Host where the Trill that Beverly Crusher is dating gets a new host body of different gender. They were apparently half-heartedly trying to be progressive or something and it ended up falling on its face and just being a heartbreak, IMHO. I guess it was the times but to actually hear Dr. Crusher basically say, "Falling in love with an alien parasite is one thing, but ladies kissing? Now that's just too freaky!" - Yikes! If I ever watched that series again, I would just skip that whole episode. As a counterpoint - the women's marches against Donald Trump, the show itself laying the groundwork for a female Doctor, the success of Paul Feig's movies... You may have a point, politically it might be as timely as ever, although I do hate to mix politics and gender if it might result in division of the masses. It's important to keep solidarity and remember that some of our poor excuses for leadership may be p*ss*ng off men just as much as women. :-) I think the new series is generally much better quality than the classic; the quality of the stories is very strong compared to those in the classic series, so I think they absolutely could introduce a female Doctor without it being a caricature. I'd imagine the scripts would probably be written with a male in mind anyway, so they wouldn't change if a woman were cast. We might even have our first lesbian Doctor.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 5, 2017 0:55:41 GMT
If you are going to gender swap a 50+ year old character you have to have the right performer to do it and you have to have the stories you want to tell with that kind of change. That it would be the first female Doctor gets a lot of new viewers tuning in and a lot of former viewers checking the show out again. 13 years into this run of the series risk becomes part of the equation if you want to grow your audience. To act as devil's advocate against a traditional position, yes, there would be those in and out of fandom who'd wholly support and embrace a female Doctor. But, and let's not kid ourselves or give into giggles, a very particular chunk of said embracers, who frequent certain websites, would do so for... said certain reasons.
|
|