Badhead Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 It's very easy for people to say that its only middleage male fans who dont want a female doctor. People say that, but I think its more than that. I dont think its sexist to not want a female doctor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Slater Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 I really don't want a female doctor, I think it would change the way the show worked too much for a male character to become female. I think it's just people who only casually watch the show who think it might be a good idea most of the people I talk to who are fans of Doctor Who are against it. And that's not because we're sexist it's simple because the Doctor is a male character and even though theorectically he could be female I don't think he ever should be. Saying the next Doctor should be female is the same as saying James Bond should be female. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankymole Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Corsair has a snake tattoo? So did Pertwee. Hmm... I don't see why, if Time Lords can change species when they regenerate, we can't have an alien Doctor (perhaps the blue alt-Romana in Destiny of the Daleks was meant to be an alien?); also, why is a female Doctor the only possible minority (okay, women are a numerical majority on Earth, in the population if not in the workplace, but not apparently on Gallifrey) - I'd like to see an ethnic minority actor cast, or even better one of unusual stature or even disabled. Deep Roy would be fantastic. If they're leaving the white mold, then Sacha Dhawan would be an interesting non-caucasian choice, having played Waris Hussein it'd have a nice symmetry to casting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankymole Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 I've been enjoying the Mind of Evil DVD - at last in full colo(u)r, Mr Roger Delgado!! Hope Mike and Dan will mention it on a future BOTI... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Evil Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 I'm not saying that the Doctor can only be a white woman. That's what I mean by the casting call being truly open, anyone should be able to audition and the actor who connects the most, who truly stands out should be chosen. This wouldn't work unless the writers could get excited about the actor who they can see as the Doctor and, while I agree that not every actor could be The Doctor, gender and ethnicity shouldn't be barriers for determining who the Doctor should be played by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venneh Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Honestly, while Moff is the show runner, I don't want a female doctor, because he kinda sucks at writing women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Is that actually true overall, or is it just in a few select instances? Because, to be fair, the vast vast vast majority of male science fiction writers are terrible at writing women; I've always thought of Moffat as better than most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venneh Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Pretty good, if brief, points on the recent trend with the Doctor and his companions with Moff as a showrunner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 That is precisely the kind of ill-conceived surface-level reactionary feminism that doesn't help anything. One line encapsulated it all, I think: "Moffat reduces women to wives and mothers." Oh, so if a woman becomes a wife or a mother, she's been degraded? What kind of psycho shit is that? The Doctor's become a husband and father multiple times; does that mean he's been "reduced" too? The Doctor is the main character, the leader, and literally superior—physically and mentally—to all of the companions save maybe River. Other characters are generally going to swept up in his story, not the other way around. That's not sexism, that's a byproduct of storytelling. Also, where's the commentary on Rory being repeatedly trodden upon? (Amy treating him like garbage, the Doctor rarely acknowledging him as anything more than a "Pond," etc.) Rory is the sidekick to a sidekick; he gets off worse than any of the Moffat-era female companions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Moffat (of whom I am a fan and admirer) has historically had a lot of detractors in this regard, and not many of those detractions are unfair. Coupling was absolutely hilarious, but the female characters on that show were needy, insecure, sometimes downright psychotic, all in fairly stereotypical ways. The male characters weren't perfect but tended to get off a lot more lightly, and the underlying moral of the show was usually "Women are nuts but they are the gatekeepers to sex so just nod your head and go with it". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 I don't deny that Moffat's had his problems, especially on other shows. From some of his comments, it seems like he's trying to counterbalance a lot of the "women are smart, men are stupid idiots who only want beer/sex/sports" stereotyping that goes on in a lot of sitcoms today, which is basically only replacing stereotypical sexism with more stereotypical sexism. However, I do take issue with people writing off the Moffat era (and Moffat himself) as sexist purely based on his work on Doctor Who. Just because he doesn't make the show bow down and worship the companions the way that RTD did with Rose and (arguably) Donna doesn't mean that he's subjugating the entire female gender on the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 That is precisely the kind of ill-conceived surface-level reactionary feminism that doesn't help anything. One line encapsulated it all, I think: "Moffat reduces women to wives and mothers." Oh, so if a woman becomes a wife or a mother, she's been degraded? What kind of psycho shit is that? The Doctor's become a husband and father multiple times; does that mean he's been "reduced" too? No, because male characters in media haven't been mostly restricted to husbands and fathers like women have to being significant others and mothers. The Doctor is the main character, the leader, and literally superior—physically and mentally—to all of the companions save maybe River. Other characters are generally going to swept up in his story, not the other way around. That's not sexism, that's a byproduct of storytelling. And because of who The Doctor's character is, that should free up plenty of time for his companions to be given character traits and development beyond being "feisty" and being defined only by their relationships to The Doctor/significant other. Also, where's the commentary on Rory being repeatedly trodden upon? (Amy treating him like garbage, the Doctor rarely acknowledging him as anything more than a "Pond," etc.) Rory is the sidekick to a sidekick; he gets off worse than any of the Moffat-era female companions. There's no way he's worse off as a character than Clara, who merely existed to save The Doctor with no development as to why she would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badhead Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 That is precisely the kind of ill-conceived surface-level reactionary feminism that doesn't help anything. One line encapsulated it all, I think: "Moffat reduces women to wives and mothers." Oh, so if a woman becomes a wife or a mother, she's been degraded? What kind of psycho shit is that? The Doctor's become a husband and father multiple times; does that mean he's been "reduced" too? No, because male characters in media haven't been mostly restricted to husbands and fathers like women have to being significant others and mothers. The Doctor is the main character, the leader, and literally superior—physically and mentally—to all of the companions save maybe River. Other characters are generally going to swept up in his story, not the other way around. That's not sexism, that's a byproduct of storytelling. And because of who The Doctor's character is, that should free up plenty of time for his companions to be given character traits and development beyond being "feisty" and being defined only by their relationships to The Doctor/significant other. Also, where's the commentary on Rory being repeatedly trodden upon? (Amy treating him like garbage, the Doctor rarely acknowledging him as anything more than a "Pond," etc.) Rory is the sidekick to a sidekick; he gets off worse than any of the Moffat-era female companions. There's no way he's worse off as a character than Clara, who merely existed to save The Doctor with no development as to why she would. Martha existed to be love sick after the doctor, and to not be Rose. Rose existed to be the special girl who cared for this poor Broken man. I dont see anyone bringing RTD to task Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Mike and Dan certainly took him to task, and, while not in this instance, I've criticized the characterizations of Rose and Martha myself. That being said, I think RTD still gave them more character than Moffat's given to his female characters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 I think we've pretty much reached "Yes he is"/"No he isn't". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashfan1 Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Bringing conversation back to the regeneration, I'm excited because this is going to be my first real-time regeneration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Regenerations are always events - has it been established whether this happens in the 50th anniversary or the Christmas special? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pan-dub Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Yup, BBC statement says it'll be in the 2013 Kwanza Special Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 I wouldn't be shocked if they did a surprise regeneration in the 50th Anniversary Special. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pan-dub Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Definitely. Even if not there's a high chance that the events of the 50th anniversary will play some part in his regeneration. Thankfully there's not a hammered home "knock four times" riddle, the open possibilities are agonisingly awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc20willsave Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 I wouldn't be shocked if they did a surprise regeneration in the 50th Anniversary Special. I'd agree but it's only likely if the Christmas special is either A) Also a 2 Doctor story or B) it's entirely shot on soundstages with everyone forced to sign confidentiality agreements promising their souls/lives if they say a word to anyone. So, since we're coming to the end of the Matt Smith era, let's look back at some of the dangling plot hooks that are still just sitting there. 1) Who blew up the TARDIS and how? If it is The Silence, then how did they pull it off/why would they negate their existence just to kill the Doctor? 2) So, everyone had a merry old time at Trenzalore. So, that entire pesky prophecy, is it negated now or do we still have the Fall of the Eleventh and the question that must never be answered to come? 3) If the question was answered, did Silence Fall? 4) Who gave Clara the Doctor's number to call? 5) Why was there that Time Machine in Craig's upstairs, where did it go, and why does it look like the Silence's Console room? 6) Why aren't there ducks in the duck pond? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 The question was asked by Doctor Simian/Mr G. Intelligence. And was answered by River, who no one could hear. So silence did fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Carol Ann Ford interview from two months ago Came across this via The Five Doctors wiki entry when she stated that the production staff at the time wanted to do away with the grandparent line to remove the connotation that the Doctor had had sex. The rest of the interview's interesting enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted June 6, 2013 Report Share Posted June 6, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Carol Ann Ford interview from two months ago Came across this via The Five Doctors wiki entry when she stated that the production staff at the time wanted to do away with the grandparent line to remove the connotation that the Doctor had had sex. The rest of the interview's interesting enough. Is it just me or do the people who are super vehement that Time Lords are asexual come across as kinda creepy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.