UK Timeline : Doctor Who

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

[denphone]

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

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?

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

[techguyone]

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.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by techguyone

none have stayed more than a few seasons. I expect it's a fear of being typecast.

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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

Is it a stepping stone? Like you can see American TV shows run for 10 years with the same lead actor.

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.

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

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

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.

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

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

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

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.

[tweetiepooh]

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?

[BenMcr]

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.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

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?

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.

[Stephen]

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

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?

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).

Originally Posted by Stephen

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart

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?

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.

Regardless of race, gender, sexuality, age, disability or any other physical aspect.

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.

Originally Posted by Stuart

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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.