Cable Forum - UK Timeline Doctor Who

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Television (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=110)

- - UK Timeline : Doctor Who (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33698617)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35883799)

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.

Well I am saying they can't cast regardless of gender because if they decide to cast a female doctor that decision would have to be made before they begun casting.

I don't think they would be turning 50 years of male backstory to female though would they? 'She' would still have that backstory and have that backstory as a man. Those stories would still be her past. It would be a bad decision to do this for political reasons but I think it's justifiable as a creative decision to have to deal with that change. Although given recent seasons of Doctor Who I am not they could pull it off.

It's a change that wouldn't bother me but I am not really that into Doctor Who anyway. I'll watch it occasionally but am unaware of the canon of the show.

No, my point is, the Doctor is a hero character, highly regarded by the audience and loved by kids and nerds worldwide. That hero-worship is why feminists covet the role for a female actor. They see it as a way of diverting all that hero-worship onto a strong, female role model. But it is a Pyrrhic victory indeed for feminists to do this when that hero-worship is the work of half a century of male actors.

I was just warming to him as well. Oh well I'll await the replacement with interest :)

Latest trailer for series 10.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35883725)

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.

The Brigadier, Benton and Yates are often categorised as companions of the classic series. Personally I disagree. They were regular recurring characters for sure, but they remained at (almost) all times on Earth and in their chosen occupations. They never "left" to go away and travel in the Tardis, unlike every other companion in the series.

Janet Fielding may moan, but she was there when Sarah Sutton, at her own suggestion, spent the best part of her final story wandering around a derelict space ship in her underwear. :D

Pertwee's Doctor was rather different to most others. He was marooned on Earth for a long time and UNIT employees were his companions to a degree. Sarah Jane also arrived during his tenor if I remember.

Sarah Jane took over from Jo Grant.

I loved Jo, I wished she had stayted longer.
(She made a guest appearance in the Sarah Jane Adventures).

New trailer. Watch to the very last few frames for a major revelation.

'An error occurred. Please try again later. (Playback ID: mLY36REcr&nVgee6)'

Looks like they don't want it embedded. I've taken the video tags off the link.

Raw link, what's the revelation? The regen? we knew that was coming anyway.

Removed link, it's above.

This is the video frame you're looking for.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...1&d=1491229252

We were led to believe Capaldi would appear in the Christmas special this year, with a regeneration taking place then. It now seems he's off at the end of this series. Which means the announcement of the new actor is probably coming sooner than we thought too.

What if he still is though, they could film a regeneration scene inside the tardis now and just add it to the Christmas special before they even start proper production on it. Just gotta make sure the continuity is right. Then again, BBC deliberately alerted viewers to that frame.

A new Doctor before Christmas, is a win/win really?

I was never aware he'd still be in the Christmas show though, hence the lack of revelation. Just assumed he'd get a two parter ending and we'd see the new one. As many others have suggested though, could be a drawn out regeneration, that being the start but not actually going full circle till the Christmas special, the special with two actors playing the doctor for each half of it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35893079)

Looks like they don't want it embedded. I've taken the video tags off the link.

Works ok for me, maybe you didnt do the tag correctly ?