Re: Doctor Who : Season 8
 

Something tells me that the Master wouldn't engineer a Cyberman army, and then hand it over to the Doctor, without first ensuring that (s)he had some defence against their weapons...

Re: Doctor Who : Season 8
 

Like if they tried to shoot her she teleports to her TARDIS.....

Re: Doctor Who : Season 8
 

Indeed, the point was it wasn't Pink who shot her.

I started watching Dr who late but I've seen the master return from being a withered husk, a slug, a fob watch and Ming the merciless' ring so nothing would surprise me :)

Re: Doctor Who : Season 8
 

Finally got a round to watching this.

I thought it was very good. Michelle Gomez was excellent as Missy.

A very strong, possibly the strongest, first season as a Doctor. Can't wait for the next season, just hope the writers are as good as Capaldi.

Re: Doctor Who : Season 8
 

What an anti-climax :erm:

Good episode but it was trying too hard to be clever for its own good. And we were told it would be sad? The only bit I thought was sad was when that lady realised she was in a wheelchair.

Re: Doctor Who : Season 8
 

I thought that it was one of the better Christmas specials.


But shouldn't Clara be pregnant by now, given the Danny-lookalike time-travelling descendent they met earlier in the series?

Re: Doctor Who : Season 8
 

I can't remember exactly but am sure it was confirmed by a member of the production team and explained.

Re: Doctor Who : Season 8
 

So, basically Alien meets Inception- all it needed to be totally derivative was for Santa to say "come with me if you want to live " whe he did the drive-by pick up.....

Re: Doctor Who : Season 8
 

Dr Who has often been derivative..Like when there were mummies involved many,many years ago..The Pyramids of Mars if I'm remembering correctly..with Tom Baker who is still my favourite Doctor.

Re: Doctor Who : Season 8
 

So Clara didnt leave then, was that all just a rumour, or did I miss something.

Re: Doctor Who : Season 8
 

Just seen Dr Who, it defintely was Alien meets Inception.

I'm glad Clara appears to be staying.

Re: Doctor Who : Season 8
 

My thoughts exactly.

Though I think the story would have been better had they not felt obliged to Christmas-theme it.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Dr Who meets GOT.
https://www.polygon.com/2015/3/30/83...ame-of-thrones

Re: Doctor Who
 

Return date confirmed as 19th September and also the first teaser has been released.

http://bbc.in/1Hg0q8o

Re: Doctor Who
 

Amazed no thread for the new series.

My opinion.....Moffat has disappeared up his own backside.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Didn't watch many episodes last season and can't see myself doing so this season.

I am not sure why, I think it's just fatigue and a lack of originality. Unless it's changed the show seems rather formulaic at this point and trending more to being light family entertainment rather than trying to do something new.

Re: Doctor Who
 

It's always been family entertainment.

I personally loved it. Capaldi was brilliant as always.

It's a great story and actually ties in to Genesis of the Daleks one of the best stories ever and doesn't just mention classic who for the hell of it.

Gave me a proper classic Who feeling. Loving that there are lots of multi part stories this time too.

Re: Doctor Who
 

I thought it was ok, no better or worse than before although they seemed to have turned down the volume on Clara's annoyingness. I'm starting to warm to Capaldi a bit as well too. Interesting to see how the next few episodes pan out.

Re: Doctor Who
 

It was ok.

I hate when they keep randomly changing things for no reason.
Dalek guns have never disintigrated people, just killed them, so why change that.

Re: Doctor Who
 

They haven't changed it. They aren't dead just teleported. Thought that was obvious.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Was a typical Doctor Who opening/closing episode. An incredibly interesting kernel of a theme that is woefully under explored in favour of completely inconsequential spectacle drama and wacky antics labouring under the delusion that the doctor is down with the kids.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Whatever,

I enjoyed it for what it was. Good Saturday night entertainment.

Re: Doctor Who
 

+1

Re: Doctor Who
 

That was pretty good, I'm impressed with this series so far. The sonic sunglasses were a neat touch :)

Re: Doctor Who
 

Yeah that second part was much better.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Marginally

Re: Doctor Who
 

I watched Ep01 to see if it had improved.

I noted it still had it's head far up where the Sun don't shine :(

I won't be wasting any more of my life on this arty-farty trash.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Arty Farty?

IMO this has been the best story for a while, you really should watch the second half as its got a lot to do with Genesis of the Daleks.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Two parters everywhere. I like it, especially when it's something generally new. Underwater ghosts. Enjoyable episode, Clara is gradually setting it up for her demise, there were loads of clues in that episode that leave more questions, that was well done if you spotted them.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Classic Toughtonesque base-under-siege stuff. I enjoyed it, although I thought it was a tad dialogue-heavy at times.

Re: Doctor Who
 

What a cliff hanger!

Its very much like Ark but in reverse. That classic story went forward in time rather than backwards.

Think the 2 parters and cliff hangers are going to make this series one of the best so far.

Re: Doctor Who
 

I did enjoy that.

Shouts out to alien 3, Event horizon and Sphere.

Re: Doctor Who
 

My God how good was that? This series so far has beaten the entire last one.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Was awesome. Even if I didn't understand any of that explanation bit at the end. Something to do with the paradox he mentioned at the beginning I presume.

Edit: I get it now. Same paradox that the Terminator franchise applies in regards to John Connor existing was used in that episode.

Re: Doctor Who
 

I've enjoyed this season so far. Looks like Maisie Williams from GoT is in the next story.

Re: Doctor Who
 

They're absolutely flying this season. Must have just had a slow start like Smith's Doctor. Make no mistake though, this second season is massively better. The two part episode format is brilliant, so much more time spent on one 'full' episode really.

I think the result is telling, not a bad episode so far imo.

---------- Post added at 18:31 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------

Yeah, they're all two parters for now. so she'll be in the following too.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Last saturdays was the best so far of this season.

Re: Doctor Who
 

River Song back for xmas special

Doctor Who Official ‏@bbcdoctorwho · 59m59 minutes ago
The Xmas Special:
Peter Capaldi & Alex Kingston are joined by Greg Davies as King Hydroflax & Matt Lucas as Nardole!

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2015/11/10.png

Re: Doctor Who
 

I'm hearing that Clara may not be dead after all, is she, isn't she? (I know she's leaving end of season at the latest regardless)

Re: Doctor Who
 

She is definitely leaving, however she is known to have filmed sequences that have not yet been screened this season. And that's not even a spoiler - she's been shown as such on the Radio Times cover photo.

Re: Doctor Who
 

They could well be flashback scenes or something like that for the season finale.

As next episode is 100% just the doctor.

As the finale has

Glad river is finally back though! Just wish Captain Jack was coming back soon.

Re: Doctor Who
 

She appears in the season finale according to episode guides, its not clear in what capacity (i.e flashbacks ?).

Re: Doctor Who
 

WOW!!!!!

That was prettty epic.

Re: Doctor Who
 

I was quite impressed :)

Re: Doctor Who
 

As a side note I went along to the Doctor Who Experience today which includes a tour of the actual Tardis set at BBC Cardiff so I was actually in the Tardis :D

Loads of props etc that were actually used in the show too, Daleks used in the first few episodes of the last season as well. They even took one apart so we could see what it looks like inside. Pics below :)

Re: Doctor Who
 

Anyone else feel a little disappointed at the Christmas ep?

Re: Doctor Who
 

I never get excited for the Christmas episodes as they are usually just a bit of lighthearted entertainment with no real impact on the series or regular episodes.

However as a piece of Christmas Telly it was rather entertaining and pretty fun in places.

We finally got to see River and the Doctors last ever meeting, although a bit different to how River told it the first time we met her in the Library.

Re: Doctor Who
 

I gave up on Doctor Who ages ago but as Xmas TV is so dire I gave it a go.

Wish I hadn't bothered. It was a complete waste of Alex Kingston.

Re: Doctor Who
 

I have to say Alex and Capaldi were great together. Shame she was wasted on Matt Smith!

You've missed out. This season was by far the best in a long time.

Re: Doctor Who
 

It wasn't their last - their last meeting was in the Library. In the library, she could only describe their previous encounter in the vaguest terms. Spoilers. ;)

Re: Doctor Who
 

It was the last meeting with the Doctor in terms of his timeline not hers.

She in that episode mentioned their last evening looking out at the singing towers.

Google River Song timeline, its very very complicated.

Re: Doctor Who
 

It wasnt fantastic, but it was entertaining, and pretty much the only thing I've watched on TV over xmas as the rest of the schedules are dire.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Christmas Who isn't meant to be epic, it's meant to be a bit lighter, a bit sillier ... Actually pretty much what the entire output looked like in 1978 ...

Having said that, I thought the way they topped off River Song's storyline was lovely, and I had a lump in my throat when the Doctor said the night lasted 24 years.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Anyone got anything solid on there being no Doctor Who season this year? Is that a definite?

Re: Doctor Who
 

Yes, its not back as a series until Spring 2017. However, there will be a Christmas Special in 2016.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho...c-82bd514f02fe

Re: Doctor Who
 

Then from 2018 there will be a new showrunner.

Re: Doctor Who
 

It's not quite as bad as it sounds. They are moving it out of Strictly season, because Strictly forces it to run too late on a Saturday evening. In moving it to the spring schedule, they had no option but to go for 2017. Spring 2016 is after all only about 6 weeks away.

Re: Doctor Who
 

That's reassuring, I thought for a moment we'd see it go full sherlock mode. Although I guess with Sherlock you have to give them sympathy knowing both main actors are pretty much A-list actors at this point and are bound to have full schedules unless booked years in advance. Both are currently working with Marvel.

---------- Post added at 20:28 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------

Can't say I've massively enjoyed the ones he's done thus far. I do remember 'Countrycide' from Torchwood though, probably one of my most enjoyed ones.

Re: Doctor Who
 

The irregular and well spaced out scheduling of Sherlock is the entire reason they have managed to keep hold of such a stellar cast and production team.

Re: Doctor Who
 

I don't mind, I just hope it doesn't get stuck in limbo eventually. It's easily one of the best produced Television shows worldwide. The sheer quality of each episode is telling. This show is what got me back into giving more TV shows a try and so far I haven't looked back as it appears there's plenty of enjoyable productions out there again.

Re: Doctor Who
 

When I went on the tour I mentioned to the guides how jealous I was of their job. At the time I didn't pay much attention to their response but one of them did say it was going to be busier for them this year as "there won't be much filming going here". This was on the set of the TARDIS so I assumed they meant most of the filming would be away from it but given how it's been announced there won't be anything this year it's possible that's what they were referring to.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Only a few minutes now and we get to find out who replaces Jenna Coleman :D

Yep I'm sad!!! :rofl:

---------- Post added at 18:16 ---------- Previous post was at 18:05 ----------

Pearl Mackie (turns out that it was on the radio times website 7 hrs ago.)

Re: Doctor Who
 

just showed you on BBC 1 during half time of match

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03rzc48


video of trailer it Pearl Mackie new companion

Re: Doctor Who
 

Hrmm she's going to get annoying really quickly, is she comic relief?

Re: Doctor Who
 

Yep almost as annoying as Capaldi

Good thing is that we have wait till next year to see her ....yay

Re: Doctor Who
 

I remember the tour guides telling us we could take as many picture of inside the Tardis as we liked but requested we didn't do so of the outside which was basically a load of wooden planks and panels in the shape of a dome as they felt it could damage the 'magic' in fans' minds of the Tardis which I can understand if you saw how naff it looks.

However we went on over to the guy who designs the current Daleks, he took the 'lid' off from one of them and showed us how they are controlled which I didn't expect as by doing so would have the same effect.

Obviously wooden inside, there's a seat - in reality just a wooden plank - and no floor to it so the operator moves the unit around Fred Flintstone-style. Their left hand controls the gun and takes over if the remote controlled head fails, the plunger is connected to a handle that goes under their right armpit and the right hand controls the eye stalk from a modified handle.

That clip looks promising but although I'm not really sure what else I was expecting from inside a Dalek they don't really have the same impact anymore :erm:

Re: Doctor Who
 

I think I'm going to like her. Seems fun. Reminds me of Ace a bit.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Personally, I think the trailer just released makes the character look clichéd, cheesy and potentially irritating. In that sense, she is just like Ace.

However, I've been wrong before (I though Catherine Tate was going to be annoying, but she turned into one of the best assistants, IMO), so hopefully I'll be proved wrong again/

Re: Doctor Who
 

Nothing like Ace (who I really liked).

Not particularly impressed by her in that clip, but I think it would be very foolish to base my like/dislike on one clip - so I guess we'll see in 2017.

(unless she's in the 2016 xmas special of course).

Re: Doctor Who
 

Any idea how they plan to execute Matt Lucas's role as the comic relief over an entire season? Its all jolly for a single special episode but could they really get away with that over the whole series? I have a mixed view on it, I don't know whether I like him or its going to annoy me.

I've never disliked anything about the 2005 revival series thus far. There's plenty I've liked far more than others though. E.G being I don't dislike Martha Jones but she'd be down near the bottom. So here's hoping it continues with the new companion and whatever Lucas does over the series.

Truth be told however, I've never felt so disinterested and skeptical about a new companion as I have Pearl. As for worries about her being comic relief... As above, Matt Lucas is now in that mix.

Re: Doctor Who
 

I did enjoy the christmas episode.

New series looks interesting. apparently they have gone back to basics.



Still not sold on the new companion though. Matt Lucas would be a better choice!

Re: Doctor Who
 

Don't usually like the Xmas specials, but this was good and the only thing worth watching on Christmas Day. Tennant's first was the only other good one, last year's was appalling sentimental slush.
Hope Capldi continues for a few more years, however with a new producer coming and 3 seasons now being standard, this might be his last.
New companions are a bit of a worry. I like Lucas, but he should have ignored the critics and stuck to Pompidou (am I the only one who loved it?).

Re: Doctor Who
 

Did you mean Madam Pompadour?

Re: Doctor Who
 

No, Pompidou .

Pompidou: why the critics are wrong about Matt Lucas's comedy

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...y_to_clipboard

Re: Doctor Who
 

This was the first Christmas Special I've actually really liked for quite a while (since Titanic).

Not sure about Matt Lucas, I think he may wear thin after a while.

Equally not sure about Pearl, but then I was very sceptical about Catherine Tate when we learned she would be a companion, and that worked out ok.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Yep me too. :)

Re: Doctor Who
 

Doctor Who Official ‏@bbcdoctorwho 2m
2 minutes ago


More
Peter Capaldi reveals to Jo Whiley that the new series of #DoctorWho will be his last…
Hear the moment now @ http://bbc.in/2kLA9hZ

Re: Doctor Who
 

What is it with a few seasons and done? Is it a stepping stone? Like you can see American TV shows run for 10 years with the same lead actor.

I liked Capaldi but I can't see me missing him that much. Still Smith and Tennant here.

Alright then? Matt Smith to return? Benedict Cumberbatch, Eddie Redmayne.

More seriously of course, Jason Isaacs or Hugh Laurie? Anyone got some?

Re: Doctor Who
 

Timmy Mallet, obvious choice.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Doubtful. They tend not to go for anyone particularly well known. Generally the actor playing the Doctor may have been a regular in a TV series, but he will not have been that well known. That said, there are exceptions. Peter Davison was already playing a major character in a successful TV series (All Creatures Great And Small), Christopher Ecclestone had already been in Shallow Grave and quite a few successful TV series and films and obviously John Hurt (who has been in a *lot* of successful films). I think they went for Christopher because they were relaunching the show. They needed someone relatively well known to increase the show's chances of being a hit. John Hurt was introduced because I think they felt they needed a really big star to launch the 50th Anniversary special.

I doubt it will happen, but I'd like to see Paul McGann have a crack at it again. I think that given a well written series with decent special effects, I think he would have made a great Doctor. I actually think he made a good Doctor in the TV movie, but while it also had excellent special effects (for the time) and a cool looking Tardis interior, I think that neither the writer nor director had any clue about what makes Doctor Who special and seemed to assume it was just a generic action/sci fi show. They assumed that good SFX, a few one liners and a story about time would be enough.

That's one think I like about Doctor Who. The stories. In the old series, they had a saying that you could spend a tenner on the special effects and still get change, but they had some great stories (The Caves of Androzani, Genesis of the Daleks being two). Yes, the sets looked awful, as did the SFX, but the story kept the viewer on the edge of his or her seat.. With the movie, the sets looked great, as did the SFX (for the time, although they look incredibly dated now), but the story was a bit.. meh.

Who would I like to see as The Doctor? Probably someone like Richard E Grant. I know he isn't the handsome heroic type, but the Doctor has not always looked like that handsome heroic type. Look at John Pertwee and Patrick Troughton. No disrespect to either, as I believe they both made good doctors, but I wouldn't say either looked handsome or heroic. I think Richard could carry it off, as he seems just eccentric enough.

I do wonder if the actors consider it a stepping stone (and it certainly seems to have been one for Tom Baker, David Tennant and Matt Smith), but the average stay seems to be 3-4 years.

Re: Doctor Who
 

They also announced when Dr Who will return - Saturday April 15th (Easter Saturday).

Re: Doctor Who
 

l thought he was pretty good so l am a bit disappointed they he will be going.

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
 

Except in Colin Baker's case where he effectively got the sack !

Re: Doctor Who
 

I think that's usually due to there being a lot more money on offer over there. Hugh Laurie was on almost half a million dollars per episode of House MD. Also actors tend to stick around if the the character was either written for them or they went on to make it their own.

Yeah I liked Capaldi too, when I went on the set tour the guides were saying all the rebooted Doctors were great with their fans but he always went the extra mile. As part of the tour you go rushing around the corridors of the Tardis and in one room there's a big screen which has him burst through a door to 'greet' you but if it was a school group doing the tour and Capaldi was around during filming time he'd often do it himself in person.

I never really really warmed to Smith but thought Tennant was amazing.

I think Cumberbatch would be a bit too Sherlock-like to be honest. I'd like to see Eddie Izzard have a go but I very much doubt he'd consider it, plus he was awful in the Day of the Triffids reboot.

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
 

I could see them gender flipping the Doctor but I'm not sure they'll do so with a relatively new female companion. I mean there they could both be female but generally the (main) companion is a woman because the Doctor is a man.

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
 

A female doctor seems to wind people up as much as a female James Bond.

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.

1. It's a series about a being who lives for thousands of years, can time travel, can change into a new body at death and lives in box that can appear instaneously wherever and whenever he wants, is the size of a Police box on the outside yet almost infinitely large on the inside. How much more of a leap of faith is it to accept the character can change gender?
2. It is Canon. Romana changed into several forms (some of which were only humanoid in as far as they had two arms, two legs and a head) several times before she settled on the form of Lalla Ward. Also, David Tennant's doctor regenerated into himself. Finally, in one of the Peter Capaldi stories, a timelord did change gender during a regeneration, and the doctor has talked about his friends changing genders.
3. How do we know that Timelords *have* any meaningful gender? They can clearly change form during regeneration, so how do we know they don't merely assume a gender to make dealing with other races easier?

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
 

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.

---------- Post added at 23:25 ---------- Previous post was at 22:59 ----------

To take you point by point:

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.

Sorry to be blunt but this is complete bollards. An actor's physical characteristics are often central to the casting decision. TV shows spend millions on finding precisely the right locations, building sets and on CGI to fill in the bits that can't be realised otherwise, just so that everything looks exactly the way the director wants it to. To suggest that the same considerations suddenly don't apply when putting a human actor in the centre of the shot is nonsensical - it's a mindless platitude that only sounds good because it sounds inclusive.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Casting a female doctor would presumably open up different stories though. Such a change would have ramifications they could explore. So it wouldn't just be a case of best actor.

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
 

When casting a role, it's entirely fair to see what the actors you audition might bring to it. They will have their own take on the character. You're not just casting someone who reflects your idea of the character; you are hopefully casting someone who can work on the character with you. The person you eventually cast has their own strengths and weaknesses and that will both enhance and limit what you can then do with the character.

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
 

I don't think I explained my point very well. When I said physical aspects, I meant that the actor's physical aspects should not exclude them from the part. If they can bring something to the character that enhances the character in some way, I think they should be good for the part regardless of gender/race/age/sexual persuasion etc.

Re: Doctor Who
 

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.

Re: Doctor Who
 

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.

Re: Doctor Who
 

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

Re: Doctor Who
 

Latest trailer for series 10.

Re: Doctor Who
 

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.