Re: Doctor Who
They also announced when Dr Who will return - Saturday April 15th (Easter Saturday).
|
Re: Doctor Who
Quote:
|
Re: Doctor Who
I can remember all the doctors since Troughton, none have stayed more than a few seasons. I expect it's a fear of being typecast.
|
Re: Doctor Who
Quote:
|
Re: Doctor Who
Quote:
Quote:
I never really really warmed to Smith but thought Tennant was amazing. Quote:
|
Re: Doctor Who
Isn't it part of the fun of The Doctor that he does regenerate so different leads, different styles? How about a female lead, doctor wakes up with "different bits" and different hormones?
|
Re: Doctor Who
For me it makes sense.
There was a new Doctor when Moffat took over in full, so it is easier to change to the tone and feel of the show with a new Doctor as well as a new showrunner. |
Re: Doctor Who
Quote:
|
Re: Doctor Who
Classic Who had a fair few male companions, so not strictly true.
Also they already gender swapped the Master so don't think they would do that with The Doctor. Thirdly yes he does regenerate but it doesn't feel that long since Capaldi came on board. I'd have wanted one more season at least when Chris Chibnall takes over as show runner. |
Re: Doctor Who
Quote:
I've had arguments online with people who claim either that it is not Canon, or it's PC gone mad. Regarding the former, I have a couple of thoughts.
Regarding the latter, I agree that there are areas where Political Correctness has gone mad. I work in an organisation where one of the staff tried (and failed) to introduce the concept of "positive discrimination" where people were rewarded (in terms of job/promotion etc) because they are in a minority. Incidentally, that is a concept I find offensive as for one thing, discrimination is always negative (by discriminating for someone, you are discriminating against someone else) and for another, it demeans the achievements of anyone who actually got their job/promotion on merit. Back to The Doctor. I don't feel that awarding the part should be done for Politcally Correct reasons. It should be awarded to the person who can play the part best, and bring the most to the show/character. Regardless of race, gender, sexuality, age, disability or any other physical aspect. For instance, I read yesterday that Paul McGann has said he thinks Tilda Swinton would make a good doctor. I agree, I think she would. I would also like to see Richard E. Grant given a stab at the character on TV in the main series (I know he was in Scream Of The Shalka, but that has been overshadowed somewhat by the TV series). |
Re: Doctor Who
Quote:
All that said, I think they probably have leant towards female companions as a balance for the character of the Doctor, who is male. However the thinking behind that doesn't apply if they cast the next Doctor as a woman, because that decision will have been taken for different reasons. The only reason for casting a woman to play a male role is a perceived need for gender equality. Those same reasons would permit two females in the Tardis while simultaneously frowning on two males in the show's lead roles. Steven Moffat has spent the last 3 years furiously bending the show's continuity so as to provide a ready in-universe explanation for casting a female to play a character who has regenerated from male to male no fewer than 12 times. Nevertheless, such a radical change in the structure of one of the BBC's most lucrative properties isn't a decision that will be taken by Chris Chibnall alone. It will require consent from upstairs. ---------- Post added at 23:25 ---------- Previous post was at 22:59 ---------- Quote:
1. A story must be internally consistent. Yes, all those things are true of the Doctor, but all those things operate according to rules we have to feel we understand, otherwise it is not possible for us to be carried along with the sense of peril the show seeks to generate, or to find the eventual resolution satisfying. A show as long-running as this one has a lot of internal consistency to live up to and a lot of volunteers who will shout loudly if it doesn't. So leaps of faith don't come into it - either a gender-change is consistent with everything else we know about the Whoniverse, or it isn't. 2. It is now canon because Moffat has worked extremely hard to make it so. You can't really fashion gender change out of Romana's regeneration, which was silliness typical of that point in the show's history and in any case was intended to distract from the obvious failure of Mary Tamm to show up and shoot a regeneration sequence. The idea of gender-shifting Time Lords is entirely a work of the last 3-4 years, and has been done with the explicit aim of opening the role up to a female actor in future. 3. We know that Time Lords have meaningful gender because every single piece of relevant continuity from 1963 to date says that they do. Time Lords talk about their parents, they talk about being children; Gallifreyan children have been portrayed in the modern series more than once. With two very recent exceptions, Time Lords who regenerate always regenerate from male to male, or female to female. Everything we know about Gallifreyan society suggests that for one of them to change from a man to a woman or vice versa would be potentially problematic, certainly in a family setting where a couple are intending to have children. Also, Time Lords have always sought to avoid direct relations with other races. I think it extremely unlikely they would inconvenience themselves with alien concepts of gender just to endear themselves. Quote:
|
Re: Doctor Who
Quote:
|
Re: Doctor Who
Apparently Kris Marshall is currently tipped as the replacement.
Casting a female doctor would most likely turn some few fans away, but is unlikely to attract many new ones. I would be very suprised if they did that, especially as the viewing figures for the last season were a little lower than previous ones. |
Re: Doctor Who
Quote:
A good current example would be Liz Carr, who plays Clarissa in Silent Witness. She has a congenital condition that, amongst other things, more or less confines her to a wheelchair. As someone who has done stand up comedy for years, I think she brings a sparkle and a confidence to the character that I really enjoy (actually I think she's my favourite character in the series). On the other hand, her mobility issues mean that in casting her, the show runners have restricted whet they can do with her. She can't go pelting off down the street like Jack or Nikki. Her appearances are normally confined to a couple of rooms within their base. Doctor Who doesn't quite fit the usual casting rules. Normally when you have to re-cast a main role in a continuing drama, you and your audience conspire not to notice that the character's face and voice have changed. In Who, the changes in appearance and temperament that are a natural result of employing a different actor are written into the script and have an "in-universe" explanation. So yes, to answer your original point, any new actor playing the Doctor gives the script writers new possibilities. That would be the case regardless of whether the actor was male or female. However, even when selecting from exclusively male actors, the process is fraught with difficulties. Aficionados of the series generally look back on Colin Baker with affection, for example, but there's no doubt his wild, angry and sometimes murderous take on the character alienated the broader audience. And that's the key to all of this: you have to keep your audience on board. It is far from clear that casting a woman will work from that angle. The audience is used to the character being male. If they begin to feel the character has changed too much and is someone they no longer understand, they will switch off. There will be a *lot* of audience research before they ever cast a female actor to play the doctor. No doubt in the meantime the feminist lobby will continue to complain about gender bias (while cheerfully ignoring the strange and un-feminist implications of turning 50 years of male backstory female, rather than simply building a strong female character from scratch and allowing her to stand on her own merits) but gender bias is the worst possible reason to do it. I hope that the senior people at the BBC have the good sense to see it. |
Re: Doctor Who
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.