taking that part of the post seriously...
a lot of nutjobs on the LiveJournal commmunities my sister is or was a part of. inhabited by a certain breed of teenage girls who only know nuWho and squee over Ten and Rose.
WHY
- Thread starter James Wright
- Start date
taking that part of the post seriously...
a lot of nutjobs on the LiveJournal commmunities my sister is or was a part of. inhabited by a certain breed of teenage girls who only know nuWho and squee over Ten and Rose.
I do remember someone--it may have been Ward herself--saying that her Romana was written to be match for Baker's Doctor in the sense she was also an adventurer-type personality, and could scramble around a rock quarry and get her hands dirty just as well as he could.
I'd rather there be simply be another Time Lady, who also roamed space-and-time in her own (preferrably perfectly-working) TARDIS, that runs into the Doctor now and then. Heck, spin her off into her own show that is different in tone from Doctor Who.
There is absolutely NO canonical reason why the Doctor couldn't regenerate into a woman. It has NEVER been explained exactly how regeneration works, anyway, and even if it had been, they could always find some technobabble reason for changing it (just as they're going to in order to have him beat the "13 lives" rule.)
Let's say some very rare but not impossible genetic mutation takes place during regeneration. The Doctor is just as surprised to find himself a woman as the audience is. He knows it's happened occasionally in Time Lord history, but he never imagined it would happen to him. In the first episode or two, this would no doubt be played for awkward and amusing hijinks, but after that, it would become second nature. After a season, we'd forget that the Doctor had never been a woman before, as long as the actress they cast was a good one.
And then, 20 years from now, when the 19th Doctor is being cast, and for the 4th time they're casting a woman, this debate will be long, looong forgotten. Just like the debate about whether you can recast Kirk.
The next question, is, why? Why should they do this? Because it would be a very, very good idea, for the producers of the most popular currently-running science fiction show in the world, to have a female protagonist. To have a female be intelligent, wacky, condescending, sentimental, courageous, hot-tempered, kind, complex....all the characteristics they've given to men over the last 50 years of the show. And get this - she won't need a man to help her. Maybe she should have a male companion who's always getting into trouble and screaming for help, and SHE would have to rescue HIM all the time. Or maybe she should have a male companion who falls in love with her, and she never gives him the time of day, like they did with the Doctor and Martha. Just switch it around a bit. Maybe, gentlemen, you'll finally be able to see how annoying and offensive the show is and has been to women for most of its history.
Anyway, as I said, if they do have the balls to do it, years later the debate we're having now will seem silly. OF COURSE they can cast the Doctor as a woman. If the writing is good, you can get away with ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING.;
Let's say some very rare but not impossible genetic mutation takes place during regeneration. The Doctor is just as surprised to find himself a woman as the audience is. He knows it's happened occasionally in Time Lord history, but he never imagined it would happen to him. In the first episode or two, this would no doubt be played for awkward and amusing hijinks, but after that, it would become second nature. After a season, we'd forget that the Doctor had never been a woman before, as long as the actress they cast was a good one.
And then, 20 years from now, when the 19th Doctor is being cast, and for the 4th time they're casting a woman, this debate will be long, looong forgotten. Just like the debate about whether you can recast Kirk.
The next question, is, why? Why should they do this? Because it would be a very, very good idea, for the producers of the most popular currently-running science fiction show in the world, to have a female protagonist. To have a female be intelligent, wacky, condescending, sentimental, courageous, hot-tempered, kind, complex....all the characteristics they've given to men over the last 50 years of the show. And get this - she won't need a man to help her. Maybe she should have a male companion who's always getting into trouble and screaming for help, and SHE would have to rescue HIM all the time. Or maybe she should have a male companion who falls in love with her, and she never gives him the time of day, like they did with the Doctor and Martha. Just switch it around a bit. Maybe, gentlemen, you'll finally be able to see how annoying and offensive the show is and has been to women for most of its history.
Anyway, as I said, if they do have the balls to do it, years later the debate we're having now will seem silly. OF COURSE they can cast the Doctor as a woman. If the writing is good, you can get away with ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING.;
That is to presume there would be some inherent advantage to a female protagonist (which you say, as if an unheard of thing in modern media). There wouldn't be. There would be no difference for a female to play The Doctor than a male to play The Doctor. It would be pointless to make him a her based simply on the idea that "they've never cast a woman before". Well, they've never cast a head of cabbage as a companion, so does that mean they should? (No, Tom Baker, no they shouldn't...)
I believe you are living about twenty-five years in the past, my friend. Doctor Who is not the chauvinistic show it was back in the 1960s and 70's. I know it's fun for people with "causes" to try and perpetuate that myth. But, I believe if you do some homework, you will find that there is a HUGE percentage of women that make up Doctor Who's audience. And I would guess that a majority of them would hate to see The Doctor as a female. One, they would no longer have some sexy piece of Time Lord meat to drool over (see how the other side of the "sexist" label works?) and two, they would have the same thought 99% of the rest of the Who audience would have: This is fucking stupid.The Doctor is a man. Saying that he should be a woman simply on the personal idea that it would be "better" doesn't hold water to the facts of the show. If it's that important that you see breasts in front of those two hearts, write some Fanfiction. But, keep the politics and social trends out of Who...
I remember saying this to friends YEARS ago.
I ACTUALLY said that I thought Joanna Lumley would make an EXCELLENT Doctor. Cut to "The Curse of Fatal Death".....
I am THAT good!!!
That is to presume there would be some inherent advantage to a female protagonist (which you say, as if an unheard of thing in modern media). There wouldn't be. There would be no difference for a female to play The Doctor than a male to play The Doctor. It would be pointless to make him a her based simply on the idea that "they've never cast a woman before". Well, they've never cast a head of cabbage as a companion, so does that mean they should? (No, Tom Baker, no they shouldn't...)
The Doctor is a man. Saying that he should be a woman simply on the personal idea that it would be "better" doesn't hold water to the facts of the show. If it's that important that you see breasts in front of those two hearts, write some Fanfiction. But, keep the politics and social trends out of Who...
Wow. I'd like to comment on your comparison between equal representation for men and women and equal representation for humans and cabbages. Would it make a difference if the Doctor were a woman? Yes. The difference would be, that she would be a woman. That's all the difference. That communicates to the female audience that a woman can be just as complex and intelligent and courageous and important as a man. Would it hurt to have a female character be the lead in the most popular sci-fi show of all time? Do you also think it would "make no difference" if the Doctor were black?
Do you realize that Martha was the first black companion in 50 years? You don't find that troubling? This is not the 60's or 70's, it's now.
Leave "causes" out of Doctor Who? Impossible. Everything sends a message, EVERYTHING. Sex and the City, Seinfeld, Doctor Who, you name it, it's presenting values, either consciously or inadvertently. But you cannot stop that. Everything you present sends a message. I'm just offering that the message Doctor Who sends is outdated, that it's the woman's place to stand there and be emotional and gawk at the charm, courage, and intelligence of the man in her life. Bleah. That's a cause, alright, it's just an unfortunately stereotypically male-fantasy one.
As opposed to all the "dumbing-down" it did of women with Rose, Prime Minister Harriet Jones, Sarah-Jane Smith, Sally Sparrow, Reinette, Martha Jones (who, btw, has gotten loads more evolution and character from the writers than pretty much any of them except--) Donna Noble, Amy Pond, River Song? Right.
The point is not whether it would hurt, but what's the point? Again, I state there is no point. It's a meaningless shifting of parameters to satisfy the imagined sexual injustice that does nothing to lend to the story, and actually goes against every example we've seen of the process.
Two different things. We're talking gender, not race. Please focus.
Okay, you've lost me now. We were talking about how silly it would be to make The Doctor a woman, and now you're talking about something you read in your sociology homework. Please, try and pay attention.
Have....have you ever heard of Sarah-Jane Smith? A character designed to be a feminist character? Have you seen River Song, the only other character who can pilot the TARDIS besides the Doc himself....and she's better at it? Calm your hysteria over imagined chauvinistic attitudes. You're throwing out platitudes from the 80's. Women have near absolute equal representation in all walks of life, media, and culture. You may not impose your moral and social views over others in order to satisfy your pet fantasies...
The novels/audios have used Iris Wildthyme BTW, another presudo-female Doctor (Similar to C.E Evan's idea).
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Iris_Wildthyme
Interestingly she has some similarities to River Song, as did Bernice Summerfield, another prominent book/novel character.
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Iris_Wildthyme
Interestingly she has some similarities to River Song, as did Bernice Summerfield, another prominent book/novel character.
Iris Wildthyme spinoff FTW!!!
Well, Katy Manning is returning to SJA as Jo....but I doubt we'll see her do Wildthyme in any screen incarnation. The most likely "Time Lady" to appear would be Romana or the Rani. Romana's a good character and technically could be used in some capacity if they ever bring the time lords back permenantly-and she *could* have been Claire Bloom's character (Although it's more likely she's Susan). The Rani, on the other hand, is more of a pantomime villainess in the original series and Dimensions in Time. She doesn't have quite the dimensions that the Master does, even in the classic series.
But maybe we'll have a Jo spinoff? It's Who so anything could happen. We did almost get a Rose spinoff...
But maybe we'll have a Jo spinoff? It's Who so anything could happen. We did almost get a Rose spinoff...
I'm sorry, but Barbara, Zoe, Sarah Jane, Leela, Romana I & II, Teagan, Ace, Rose, Donna, Amy....all female companions who do more and stand and gawk at how brilliant the Doctor is. In fact lets face it Romana on the whole was often portrayed as being smarter than the Doctor.
Jesus wept...want a sci-fi show with a smart, eccentric, brave, noble female lead? Then create it, frankly I'd watch it. But the Doctor is what he is, by all means if the right actor for the part comes along and happens to be a woman, then fine, same with if the right actor who's black or asian comes along, but they have to be right for the part, their gender or ethnicity is irrelevant. Hiring someone because they're female, or black is as pointless as hiring someone because they're blonde or cute, or tall, and it diminishes the person. Matt Smith wasn't hired cos he was young, he was hired because he was the right choice, and he happened to be young!
Positive discrimination is a really stupid thing sometimes, I know that at times people aren't as colour/gender/whatever blind as they should be, but the world is getting better all the time(certainly here in the UK) I'd hate to have been hired for a job simply cos I was a bloke?
As for Martha the first black companion...surely Mickey predates her by about a year.
Jesus wept...want a sci-fi show with a smart, eccentric, brave, noble female lead? Then create it, frankly I'd watch it. But the Doctor is what he is, by all means if the right actor for the part comes along and happens to be a woman, then fine, same with if the right actor who's black or asian comes along, but they have to be right for the part, their gender or ethnicity is irrelevant. Hiring someone because they're female, or black is as pointless as hiring someone because they're blonde or cute, or tall, and it diminishes the person. Matt Smith wasn't hired cos he was young, he was hired because he was the right choice, and he happened to be young!
Positive discrimination is a really stupid thing sometimes, I know that at times people aren't as colour/gender/whatever blind as they should be, but the world is getting better all the time(certainly here in the UK) I'd hate to have been hired for a job simply cos I was a bloke?
As for Martha the first black companion...surely Mickey predates her by about a year.
There are so many frickin shows out there with strong female leads! Ever heard of Joss Whedon? Watch...well, ANY of his shows! Strong females characters are all over the place. Doctor Who is not perpetuating anything by not casting a female in the role; it's simply keeping the character the same gender as its always been. Just because a man has been a man for really long time doesn't mean it's time for him to be a woman. The Doctor is a man, and suddenly changing him into a woman would do nothing but alienate the majority of the Doctor Who audience.
River is the 13th Doctor. Love thy self.
You know, the more I think about this theory, the more it makes sense. It totally works!
Okay, you have the rather glaring fact that were she the Thirteenth Doctor River would know all along that her trip to the Library would be her time, but otherwise there's nothing wrong with it.
Poor Mickey Smith, everyone forgets him.
Yes, because that bolded part completely describes Amy Pond, River Song, Adelaide Brooke, Lady Christina de Souza, Donna Noble, Martha Jones, Rose Tyler, and Sarah Jane Smith.
And that's just a selection from the new series.I mean, did you totally miss the references to "Amy and her boys"?
I want to see:
Robyn Hood, with her boyfriend Man Marion.
Jane Bond, screwing her way round the world on Her Majesty's Secret Service
Iron Woman, with Robert Downey Junior going one better than his Tropic Thunder role and playing a woman
Tarzana, Lady of the Jungle, swinging through the jungle with James on her arm
She-lock Holmes and her friend Dr Joan Watson (women can be doctors, you know)
Zorra, aka Donna Diega LaVega, fearless female Latina bandit, fighting for justice.
I mean, really - what's the point?
Robyn Hood, with her boyfriend Man Marion.
Jane Bond, screwing her way round the world on Her Majesty's Secret Service
Iron Woman, with Robert Downey Junior going one better than his Tropic Thunder role and playing a woman
Tarzana, Lady of the Jungle, swinging through the jungle with James on her arm
She-lock Holmes and her friend Dr Joan Watson (women can be doctors, you know)
Zorra, aka Donna Diega LaVega, fearless female Latina bandit, fighting for justice.
I mean, really - what's the point?
the 'Don' in Don Diego de la Vega is his title, like 'lord'. it's not his name.
Poor Mickey Smith, everyone forgets him.
Yes, because that bolded part completely describes Amy Pond, River Song, Adelaide Brooke, Lady Christina de Souza, Donna Noble, Martha Jones, Rose Tyler, and Sarah Jane Smith.
I mean, did you totally miss the references to "Amy and her boys"?
Everyone keeps referencing all these female side-characters as if it invalidates my point. We bring Sarah Jane Smith back, and what do we do? We have her and Rose fight over the Doctor. We bring in feisty Amy Pond, and what does she do? She tries to sleep with him. We bring Martha Jones on board, a brilliant doctor in her own rights, and what do the writers do? Have her fall in love with the Doctor so badly, that she has to leave the Tardis so as not to get hurt.
I'm obviously not saying there have been no strong female SIDE characters in the show. Barbara was one of the earliest and strongest. Liz Shaw was strong, but she was written out because they didn't want their female companion to be as smart as the Doctor. Rose had her moments, too, although her role is the classic, stereotypical female role science fiction has been writing for women for centuries: she is the woman who manages to humanize and bring down to Earth the genius but emotionally disconnected male hero. This is nothing new - women side characters have been fulfilling this male fantasy role in science fiction since Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
You all keep saying "what's the point?" so dismissively, and so condescendingly. What is the point, really, of ANY change in a character? To explore new avenues of storytelling, of course. Of course Sherlock Holmes or Superman or Kirk can't suddenly and retroactively be made female, that makes no sense, but change of body and mind is BUILT INTO the character, the story absolutely allows for it. A little bit of technobabble, and bang, we've got a female protagonist.
Here's the last thing I'll say about this: I 100% absolutely guaran-fucking-tee there WILL BE a female Doctor in the next few doctors. Wait and see. Remember that I said this. And - get this - the ground will NOT fall out from underneath the writers or the fans. It will be fun, and get lots of attention, and a change in the Doctor's sex will become simply part of the fabric of the show. It will NOT turn off fans in droves, and the show will just go on, as it always has. I guarantee this will happen, and relatively soon. At which point this debate will be as old as the one about recasting Kirk.
Similar threads
