Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
The 1960s had a regular male companion, but from 1970 onwards the Doctor's regular travelling companions were almost all female (excluding the UNIT regulars, Pertwee's Doctor never had a female companion, Tom Baker's had Harry Sullivan for a brief spell in his first season then Adric at the tail end; Davison had Adric then Turlough. Turlough left the series in 1984 and was the last recurring male character billed by the show's producers as a companion in either the classic or the modern era, with the singular exception of Rory (when he wasn't getting killed). Actually I really liked the Smith/Gillan/Darvill Tardis, it was very Troughtonesque and IMO will likely come to be regarded as classic.
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.
|
Sorry to nitpick, but I suspect you meant Pertwee never had a male companion, beyond the Brigadier (who, in fairness, was in a *lot* of third doctor stories) and various UNIT soldiers.
Regarding the role of the companion, I remember Janet Fielding said something in one of the DVD commentaries I think is possibly as a result of her feeling slightly bitter, but is also possibly true. She said that she always felt that the companion was there (from a narrative point of view) partly to provide a reason for the Doctor to explain some arcane technology (thus explaining it to the viewer as well) and partly to provide something for the audience to look at. Most of the classic era companions were not developed far beyond that. The fact that most of them were quite young and good looking would seem to back that up.
OK, that's not true in all cases. Turlough wasn't what I would call good looking. A good actor, and a good character, but not good looking. He also had a backstory of sorts. Kameleon is, of course, another exception. He wasn't good looking (or a human for that matter), and had the technology been there, could genuinely have been interesting.
In the modern series, all of the various companions have had some sort of back story. Rose had a family and Friend. Mickey had Rose as a friend and when he was introduced as a companion, got a nan. Martha had a family, and a cousin. Donna had a Mum, and the brilliant Bernard Cribbins as her Grandad. Rory and Amy had each other, and also Rory's dad. Even Clara had a family (although they were only referenced a couple of times) and her relationship with Danny (which I do consider a mistake, as I think it made the series slightly soppy). One thing that I like about the new series is it has shown that the companions have a life away from the Doctor (particularly Amy and Rory, but to some extent Martha and Clara as well)
Ironically, in the original series, Teegan probably came closest to having a back story.