New Doctor

[JLC]

Thankfully I'm not bothered by Doctor Who anymore, as I think the "new" series (that's everything since Sylvester McCoy to me) is just completely horrible.

If I did care, I would be thinking this is a bad  idea that will likely alienate a huge chunk of its audience. I think it's desperately sad that the BBC couldn't just come up with a family orientated sci fi/adventure program with a strong female lead rather than feeling the need to turn a male character into a female character. It isn't progressive, it's just lazy.

Anyway, thankfully I really don't care as I think it's rubbish anyway. Hope it delivers for those who do.




Ps. Tom Baker is Dr Who, everyone else is just background noise.

Totally agree.   I've never been much of a Nu Who fan anyway but this is the final nail in the coffin for me.

What were the other nails?

I have to agree though, its political correctness gone mad! What next? A man playing Widow Twankey?

[jacob g]

Since I care more about story and talent than worn out sentiments... I'm kind of excited about it. It's a good casting call, I hope quality writing will follow.

[JLC]

Whether it's a decision you support or not, surely choosing to cast a woman in a role that's never been played by one is undoubtedly radical?

The feeling I have is 'why did it take so long for it to happen to a character who can change its physiology so frequently?'

It's radical with a small r.

Yes. There were attempts to do it in the 80s. Maybe if they had done the show wouldn't have been cancelled.

[Greg M.]

Didn't Marvel turn Thor into a woman?

Not quite - the original Thor was no longer worthy of Mjolnir, and the hammer was instead lifted by Jane Foster. Both characters are still around and both still have their own comics.

[The Legendary Shark]

Thanks, Greg - I stand corrected.

[Andy Lambert]

Performing onstage against Christopher Eccleston... I can easily see her as the Doctor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgsYfRPmNDs&feature=share

[TordelBack]

I do not understand how so many aspects of the Doctor's phisiology and foibles, age and accent, senses of taste and humour, and as we saw with the War Doctor even his core philosophy, can be mutable from incarnation to incarnation, but gender (and race) are a problem. Especially as it's been established that there is some kind of significance to the specific forms the Doctor takes: the issue of 12 becoming a double of the Fires of Pompeii Capaldi; McGann's decision for 8.5 to be a warrior; and earlier wasn't Troughton offered a choice from a range of faces before having Pertwee imposed?  If there is an element of choice, even subconsciously, wouldn't any of us, faced with immortality and the chance, try on another gender at some point?

And if the regenerations (as I fanwank it) somehow work through facets of the total being that is the Doctor, perhaps 13 is simply the concentration of aspects of that nature that find best expression as a woman. 

Anyway, there'll be another white male along shortly, never fear.

[Jim_Campbell]

and earlier wasn't Troughton offered a choice from a range of faces before having Pertwee imposed?

Didn't Romana run through a range of regeneration options? The Doctor exposes himself to far more danger than the average Time Lord, and holds his regenerations as a kind of 'get out of jail free' card in extremis. I thought it had been canonical for decades that other Time Lords actively choose to regenerate at a time, and into a form, of their choosing. The idea that, given all that, they can't choose to swap gender seems ludicrous.

[Greg M.]

I do not understand how so many aspects of the Doctor's phisiology and foibles, age and accent, senses of taste and humour, and as we saw with the War Doctor even his core philosophy, can be mutable from incarnation to incarnation, but gender (and race) are a problem.

My argument would be that despite surface changes, the Doctor is more-or-less the same core personality every time, and it's a personality characterised by a very male form of eccentricity. The restless runaway space-hobo / crazy bachelor uncle angle, the tendency to think he can always fix everything, the fundamental recklessness of the character, the whimsy  - of course women can have these sort of qualities, but combined, the whole package seems to me distinctively male.

Maybe I'm wrong, and the show will flourish. If so, great - the gamble has succeeded and the risk was worth taking. But ultimately, it doesn't really matter what I think - it matters what young audiences think. And if they don't go for it, there won't be another man along shortly, because there may not be a programme.

[JOE SOAP]

I can't see any crippling negatives with this decision and it might inspire a few original stories. If the show fails, it won't be for the lack of a sonic-screwdriver between the Doctor's legs.

[dweezil2]

I feel silly asking this, as I've watched Doctor Who since the early 70's, but do Time Lords possess genitalia and if not, how do they procreate?

They have huge clocks.

You filthy bitch!!!
I love it when you talk dirty!!! 

[Tiplodocus]

Told my eldest new doctor was a woman. And I quote:

"Who? What? No. That'll be rubbish"

I fear the scripts won't be strong enough, given what's gone before, to carry this off.

It's already given you the opportunity to ask "Why do you think that?" And discuss gender equality so that must be a good win for you already.

[dweezil2]

I don't believe Time Lord genitalia has ever come up in the programme, but I believe Time Lords procreate through the use of "looms" according to the book "Lungbarrow". I've never read the book, so I can't tell you how that works.

Thanks for the info Andy! 

[dweezil2]

What seems to have happened with Ghostbusters 3 (which is a good movie, btw) is that it alienated a percentage of it's core audience by gender-switching the lead characters, but that there wasn't a new audience to replace them.

I think Greg's right, some of the Doctor Who audience won't be able to cope with this change, and will drift away. The survival of the show now depends on it being able to find a fresh set of viewers to replace them.

My issue with Ghostbusters 3 is they had a perfectly good original cast the could of used and chose, for what ever reason, not too.
The gender issue never came into for me, I just wanted a true sequel, not a reboot.

[TordelBack]

...it's a personality characterised by a very male form of eccentricity. The restless runaway space-hobo / crazy bachelor uncle angle, the tendency to think he can always fix everything, the fundamental recklessness of the character, the whimsy  - of course women can have these sort of qualities, but combined, the whole package seems to me distinctively male.

That's a very interesting, thoughtful, take, but if Chibnall et al explore anything along those lines I'd be thrilled.