bbc [Official] Doctor Who Thread

[Son_Of_Dad]

The Doctor is an established role/character, don't shake the box for the PC crowd to have transgender African midget in the role. Just as The Master shouldn't have magically sex changed when the series already had an established evil time lady.

[wendy oltman]

12 hours ago, margrave said:

If a woman is out, how about a different race?

 

How about a black man?

 

OOooooo Peter Dinklage would be awesome!!!!

 

Maybe Ralph Fiennes? He's a great actor.

 

Mads Mikkelsen would be good,

 

Taron Egerton would be great for a younger one.. 'Matt Smith' time-ish....

 

 

I am just imagining peter dinklage as doctor. He might be good but I dont think he can pull off the job of being the doctor

[Son_Of_Dad]

1 hour ago, wendy oltman said:

I dont think he can pull off the job of being the doctor

 

He wouldn't reach the console to start with!

[margrave]

I think the Doctor should finally get to be a ginger like he's always wanted.

 

And for the ultimate shaking the box up, an African woman with red hair. That'd shock the world.

 

 

I think Dinklage would be an awesome doctor. You know the Tardis would be able to accommodate him in that form with no problem. 

[+John. Subscriber¹]

The trouble I have, it's that it was created as a male role. 

 

I don't have any objections to a woman playing it, I would just prefer that a new original role be created in a new IP, rather than having to mess with something that's been established for so long.

 

Like The Expanse, for example, some of the best roles in that are played by Women, and the role was created specifically for a woman.

[TheReaperMan]

20 minutes ago, John. said:

The trouble I have, it's that it was created as a male role. 

 

I don't have any objections to a woman playing it, I would just prefer that a new original role be created in a new IP, rather than having to mess with something that's been established for so long.

 

Like The Expanse, for example, some of the best roles in that are played by Women, and the role was created specifically for a woman.

I Agree no matter what people say the Doctor is a man and should always be a man.

 

it is like recasting James T kirk as a woman or superman as a woman it just is not right.

[LOC Veteran]

Yeah but come on, the role was created in the 1950's. It's 2017 now. Women aren't just eye candy or damsels in distress anymore (well they are, depending on what you watch lol) They've already commented that a woman can play the Doctor, its just a matter of time for when they pull the trigger on it. Whether this regeneration or the next or the one after. It'll happen eventually.

 

As for Peter Dinklage? Eh, not a fan of his to be honest. Also, would the BBC and the UK really accept him in the role since he's purely American? I mean, the Doctor Who TV movie was one thing back in the 90's but eh. The Master was played by an American while the Doctor was still British of course. Not sure an American (who can do a British/non-American accent) would really be wanted/accepted. Then again, so many movies and TV shows these days use actors doing accents they aren't born with naturally anyways, does that even matter anymore? We have the most American superhero of all, played by a British dude right now.

[LOC Veteran]

3 minutes ago, TheReaperMan said:

I Agree no matter what people say the Doctor is a man and should always be a man.

 

it is like recasting James T kirk as a woman or superman as a woman it just is not right.

While Kirk still works (unless I am forgetting an old comic or book) the Superman angle doesn't work since he has been turned into a woman before in the comics. And all sorts of weird stuff happens there, if you can think it up, it happened. As for a movie version being a woman, sure probably wouldn't fly (haha, get it, fly!).

[margrave]

Well, I think the Doctor could be played by the right woman. I just think he needs to be a ginger finally too though.

 

I know, how about Christina Hendricks!

 

I think Iwan Rheon would be an awesome Master.

[DConnell Member]

1 hour ago, LOC said:

Yeah but come on, the role was created in the 1950's. It's 2017 now. Women aren't just eye candy or damsels in distress anymore (well they are, depending on what you watch lol) They've already commented that a woman can play the Doctor, its just a matter of time for when they pull the trigger on it. Whether this regeneration or the next or the one after. It'll happen eventually.

 

 

Women never have been just eye candy on Doctor Who, and there's no shortage of strong female leads on TV these days. So what is there to be gained by changing a long-established character like this? And is it worth the risk of the general audience (arguably the largest group of viewers) rejecting the change? What profit is there in "pushing the envelope" with the show if it ends up ending the series. I'm not saying it definitely will, but back in 1966 regeneration itself was a huge risk. It was worth taking because Doctor Who would have otherwise been canceled with Hartnell leaving. That gamble was handled extremely well, and choosing the extraordinary Pat Troughton as the replacement  certainly helped. I'm not certain that there's enough justification for the risk in this major change, and that the people in charge are skilled enough to carry it off well enough.

 

That the new showrunner is picking the new Doctor Who (regardless of gender) is a major plus, as I don't trust Moffat's judgement, but Moffat will still be around. With the right actress, and the right scriptwriters and showrunner, a gender switch could work. But we don't know who will have the part, the showrunner is currently unproven, and we KNOW the writers aren't good enough. We only have to watch the last few seasons of the show, and especially their horrible characterization of Missy to see that. (Not Michelle Gomez's fault - she is doing a stellar job working with the garbage she's stuck with.)

 

I've seen a few unofficial polls on Facebook, and the majority seem against the change. So why take the risk, at least right now? Wait until we have an experienced showrunner and a decent set of writers.

 

I don't want a female Doctor, but I'm willing to give one a chance. But I just don't think the current staff is capable of making it work. And this change would not only need to work, but be extraordinary across the board, something we haven't had since the Key to Time season (Tom Baker as the Doctor, Douglas Adams in charge!) We've had amazing writers, amazing Doctors, amazing companions, amazing showrunners and very good combinations of some of these elements but never all of them at once. "Deep Breath" as the introduction for a female Doctor won't be good enough - we'd need another "City of Death" to sell her to the general public.

[wendy oltman]

Just now, DConnell said:

Women never have been just eye candy on Doctor Who, and there's no shortage of strong female leads on TV these days. So what is there to be gained by changing a long-established character like this? And is it worth the risk of the general audience (arguably the largest group of viewers) rejecting the change? What profit is there in "pushing the envelope" with the show if it ends up ending the series. I'm not saying it definitely will, but back in 1966 regeneration itself was a huge risk. It was worth taking because Doctor Who would have otherwise been canceled with Hartnell leaving. That gamble was handled extremely well, and choosing the extraordinary Pat Troughton as the replacement  certainly helped. I'm not certain that there's enough justification for the risk in this major change, and that the people in charge are skilled enough to carry it off well enough.

 

That the new showrunner is picking the new Doctor Who (regardless of gender) is a major plus, as I don't trust Moffat's judgement, but Moffat will still be around. With the right actress, and the right scriptwriters and showrunner, a gender switch could work. But we don't know who will have the part, the showrunner is currently unproven, and we KNOW the writers aren't good enough. We only have to watch the last few seasons of the show, and especially their horrible characterization of Missy to see that. (Not Michelle Gomez's fault - she is doing a stellar job working with the garbage she's stuck with.)

 

I've seen a few unofficial polls on Facebook, and the majority seem against the change. So why take the risk, at least right now? Wait until we have an experienced showrunner and a decent set of writers.

 

I don't want a female Doctor, but I'm willing to give one a chance. But I just don't think the current staff is capable of making it work. And this change would not only need to work, but be extraordinary across the board, something we haven't had since the Key to Time season (Tom Baker as the Doctor, Douglas Adams in charge!) We've had amazing writers, amazing Doctors, amazing companions, amazing showrunners and very good combinations of some of these elements but never all of them at once. "Deep Breath" as the introduction for a female Doctor won't be good enough - we'd need another "City of Death" to sell her to the general public.

5

They might choose a woman to play as the doctor since these days women have been getting roles in classic remakes like ghostbusters and ocean's eleven(Movies that had mainly males). I am also in favor of a male doctor  and hope they dont change his gender like they did with the master(although Missy was awesome, I really liked her)

[DConnell Member]

47 minutes ago, wendy oltman said:

They might choose a woman to play as the doctor since these days women have been getting roles in classic remakes like ghostbusters and ocean's eleven(Movies that had mainly males). I am also in favor of a male doctor  and hope they dont change his gender like they did with the master(although Missy was awesome, I really liked her)

And look how well received the female Ghostbusters was. That pretty much proves my point that the change, if done needs to be done extraordinarily well. The show doesn't need to be "progressive". It needs to appeal to the general audience. If a woman is cast as the Doctor, it should be because a woman auditions who is perfect for the part, not simply to have a woman Doctor.

 

I don't want a "woman Doctor". I want an awesome Doctor. If that happens to be a woman, I'm fine with that. I do prefer a paternal figure in the role, but if she works, she works.

[wendy oltman]

32 minutes ago, DConnell said:

And look how well received the female Ghostbusters was. That pretty much proves my point that the change, if done needs to be done extraordinarily well. The show doesn't need to be "progressive". It needs to appeal to the general audience. If a woman is cast as the Doctor, it should be because a woman auditions who is perfect for the part, not simply to have a woman Doctor.

 

I don't want a "woman Doctor". I want an awesome Doctor. If that happens to be a woman, I'm fine with that. I do prefer a paternal figure in the role, but if she works, she works.

 

I agree with you about the awesome doctor. Although I would prefer a male doctor, BUt if and only if they find the right woman for the part then that will also be acceptable. 

[Draconian Guppy]

1 hour ago, DConnell said:

Women never have been just eye candy on Doctor Who, and there's no shortage of strong female leads on TV these days. So what is there to be gained by changing a long-established character like this? And is it worth the risk of the general audience (arguably the largest group of viewers) rejecting the change? What profit is there in "pushing the envelope" with the show if it ends up ending the series. I'm not saying it definitely will, but back in 1966 regeneration itself was a huge risk. It was worth taking because Doctor Who would have otherwise been canceled with Hartnell leaving. That gamble was handled extremely well, and choosing the extraordinary Pat Troughton as the replacement  certainly helped. I'm not certain that there's enough justification for the risk in this major change, and that the people in charge are skilled enough to carry it off well enough.

 

That the new showrunner is picking the new Doctor Who (regardless of gender) is a major plus, as I don't trust Moffat's judgement, but Moffat will still be around. With the right actress, and the right scriptwriters and showrunner, a gender switch could work. But we don't know who will have the part, the showrunner is currently unproven, and we KNOW the writers aren't good enough. We only have to watch the last few seasons of the show, and especially their horrible characterization of Missy to see that. (Not Michelle Gomez's fault - she is doing a stellar job working with the garbage she's stuck with.)

 

I've seen a few unofficial polls on Facebook, and the majority seem against the change. So why take the risk, at least right now? Wait until we have an experienced showrunner and a decent set of writers.

 

I don't want a female Doctor, but I'm willing to give one a chance. But I just don't think the current staff is capable of making it work. And this change would not only need to work, but be extraordinary across the board, something we haven't had since the Key to Time season (Tom Baker as the Doctor, Douglas Adams in charge!) We've had amazing writers, amazing Doctors, amazing companions, amazing showrunners and very good combinations of some of these elements but never all of them at once. "Deep Breath" as the introduction for a female Doctor won't be good enough - we'd need another "City of Death" to sell her to the general public.

Perhaps something short lived like when Tennat's Doctor became human?

[DConnell Member]

1 minute ago, Draconian Guppy said:

Perhaps something short lived like when Tennat's Doctor became human?

Or maybe have the Doctor disappear at the end of the Christmas special, when Capaldi departs. Have Romana or Iris Wildthyme or River Song take over for the beginning of the next season, searching for the Doctor. Filling the Doctor's role in the story without committing to a female lead.

 

If viewers like the "temporary" female lead, they can reveal that the Doctor regenerated into a woman.

 

Or give Romana her own series, which would be my preference. More Whoverse would be a good thing!

[wendy oltman]

1 minute ago, DConnell said:

Or maybe have the Doctor disappear at the end of the Christmas special, when Capaldi departs. Have Romana or Iris Wildthyme or River Song take over for the beginning of the next season, searching for the Doctor. Filling the Doctor's role in the story without committing to a female lead.

 

If viewers like the "temporary" female lead, they can reveal that the Doctor regenerated into a woman.

 

Or give Romana her own series, which would be my preference. More Whoverse would be a good thing!

 

that would be very interesting

[LOC Veteran]

3 hours ago, DConnell said:

Or maybe have the Doctor disappear at the end of the Christmas special, when Capaldi departs. Have Romana or Iris Wildthyme or River Song take over for the beginning of the next season, searching for the Doctor. Filling the Doctor's role in the story without committing to a female lead.

 

If viewers like the "temporary" female lead, they can reveal that the Doctor regenerated into a woman.

 

Or give Romana her own series, which would be my preference. More Whoverse would be a good thing!

Well we are getting that weird looking school Whoverse show. Kinda looks OK actually but eh.

 

And yes, I agree with all of you that a Doctor who is awesome regardless of gender is best of course! I just think the people who are absolutely opposed to a woman being in the role are being really negative about it. I mean, I understand the point and all, but it's been hinted at over DECADES now basically, and we've seen several Time Lords change into women now. Plus, come on. It is a TV show, not real life lol  (Also, don't hate me, but I kinda enjoyed the new Ghostbusters)

[TheReaperMan]

14 minutes ago, LOC said:

Well we are getting that weird looking school Whoverse show. Kinda looks OK actually but eh.

 

And yes, I agree with all of you that a Doctor who is awesome regardless of gender is best of course! I just think the people who are absolutely opposed to a woman being in the role are being really negative about it. I mean, I understand the point and all, but it's been hinted at over DECADES now basically, and we've seen several Time Lords change into women now. Plus, come on. It is a TV show, not real life lol  (Also, don't hate me, but I kinda enjoyed the new Ghostbusters)

Was going a long with your points, until you killed it with that last line, your option in this matter is now null and void!!

 

would you have a women as Thomas the Tank engine, Noddy, Postman Pat, Avon (blake 7), father Christmas or he-man and the master of the universe or even James Bond.

 

No you would not. So why mess with something like this, other then to pander to the PC brigade.

 

I have nothing against a female time lord, but they should not be  the doctor. 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by TheReaperMan

[BetaguyGZT]

3 hours ago, DConnell said:

Or maybe have the Doctor disappear at the end of the Christmas special, when Capaldi departs. Have Romana or Iris Wildthyme or River Song take over for the beginning of the next season, searching for the Doctor. Filling the Doctor's role in the story without committing to a female lead.

 

If viewers like the "temporary" female lead, they can reveal that the Doctor regenerated into a woman.

Since Clara and Mi have a TARDIS, have them go looking for the Doctor with River, Vastra, Jenny and Missy? Pretty much all of the women in his life.  And when they eventually find the Doctor, Capaldi is in serious trouble and early on regenerates into a female for the time being. Some lesson he needs to learn.

 

And seriously, I'd look forward to all of the banter between River and Missy .... that would be several levels of fun. I'm not even kidding. Missy would have fun too. So would River. Someone that's actually trying to kill the other at any given moment?? Missy would adore her.  They'd have tea ... and "tea" ... and then "tea". Oh, then there's "tea". Oh boy ... I'm giggling just thinking about the possibilities.

 

Have it be a short-ish arc, and at the end of the season, that lesson is learned and another regeneration (unless the fans get up in arms about it, then leave the Doctor as-is for the time being)?

[Draconian Guppy]

4 minutes ago, Unobscured Vision said:

Since Clara and Mi have a TARDIS, have them go looking for the Doctor with River, Vastra, Jenny and Missy? Pretty much all of the women in his life.  And when they eventually find the Doctor, Capaldi is in serious trouble and early on regenerates into a female for the time being. Some lesson he needs to learn.

 

And seriously, I'd look forward to all of the banter between River and Missy .... that would be several levels of fun. I'm not even kidding. Missy would have fun too. So would River. Someone that's actually trying to kill the other at any given moment?? Missy would adore her.  They'd have tea ... and "tea" ... and then "tea". Oh, then there's "tea". Oh boy ... I'm giggling just thinking about the possibilities.

 

Have it be a short-ish arc, and at the end of the season, that lesson is learned and another regeneration (unless the fans get up in arms about it, then leave the Doctor as-is for the time being)?

Yep, 1-2 episodes or a christmas special!

[BetaguyGZT]

You know, it only now occurs to me -- Vastra hasn't ever actually been in the TARDIS when it was functional, has she? She's only been inside when it was decayed and done for ... hmm.

 

SHE could do the line now!  Woohoo!

[Son_Of_Dad]

6 hours ago, LOC said:

Yeah but come on, the role was created in the 1950's.

Interesting given Dr Who first aired in 1963

[LOC Veteran]

8 minutes ago, Son_Of_Dad said:

Interesting given Dr Who first aired in 1963

Yes, it was a typo, sorry. I know it started in 63, considering they just did the big anniversary thingy.

[DConnell Member]

All of the nonsense about how a woman is overdue in the role and Billie Piper's comment that not casting a woman would be a "snub" is as bad in its own way as those who are absolutely against a woman in the part. I don't like the idea, but if the best person is a woman, and the writing is good enough to sell the change and make the new dynamic work, then I'm willing to try it.

 

But the ONLY valid reason for casting a woman is she's the best one for the part. Not "it's overdue" or "it's chauvinist to cast a man" or any other SJW nonsense.

[+mram Subscriber²]

I'm all for political correctness.  However, established paradigms should not be bent to conform based evolving standards unless they are outright offensive in and of themselves.

 

For example, "Superman" shouldn't be a woman.  It's kind of impossible.  Make a new character.  Don't bend.

 

There's nothing against Doctor Who being any gender as long as the mythology supports it, which as far as I understand things, does.