The new doctor who is to be female about time.... Make an interesting change

Was hoping for Tilda Swinton.

I'm not a Whovian but am curious about how Whovians evaluate the scripts and performances for this new doctor. Keep posting about this.

I think that the Master/Missy was probably a test run to see how people would take to it.

I'm always excited by a new season of Doctor Who.  Especially when I can see a new Doctor and/or Companion.

It has been a while since we've seen a Regeneration without a Companion there to help him through the transition, so that should be particularly interesting.

That said, it's still 5 months until the Regeneration happens and even longer before the next season starts.  So, it's hard to maintain excitement for that long.  We'll see how things go.

I was a big fan of Matt Smith, a tiny bit less of David Tennant, and I thought Capaldi was a great actor with a bad a script for his seasons.  I think that is the sticking point for me for the new doctor being female.  On its own, it shouldn't matter, but if they spend an entire season with the only main gimmick being everyone reacting to the doctor being female, it will get real old real fast.  Sort of like how they went out of the way to emphasize Bill's orientation and race in nearly every episode she was in.

My only other hesitancy on a female doctor is that all the previous doctors had a personality of fake bravado that, to me, felt distinctly male.  If it isn't handled (written) correctly, it will feel like a female doctor trying to act like a man.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:32, Sun 16 July 2017.

In reply to Vinny (msg # 2):

That would be out of character, so to speak, for selecting a new Doctor.  Swinton is certainly a good enough actor for the role, but they don't generally pick actors who have a thriving big-screen career, opting for equally talented, but lesser-known actors whose past roles are less likely to impact the audience perception of the character.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 7):

I dunno.  Christopher Eccleston, David Tennant, and Peter Capaldi all had pretty significant pre-Doctor careers...

Eccleston and Capaldi yes. Tennant wasn't really 'big' yet. He first did Doctor Who in 2005; the same year that both Casanova and Goblet of Fire were announced. Most of the stuff he did -before- then, didn't get much coverage outside of the UK. He only really shot into being a true leading man after Doctor Who.

Capaldi, for all his massive success before, did not prove to be a very popular Doctor. And with Ecclestone, they really needed a 'name' actor to bring it back; especially as they were intent on conquering America this time around, which they never did before.

I am worried though that it will be a gimmick. If they did a full audition, and she was considered to be the best for the job? Fine. I just worry that what they did is decide before-hand they needed a woman to appease the fans.

As opposed to deciding beforehand that they needed a man.

No better, no worse.

I know it's a big topic nowadays, but it is sort of normal for them to approach the doctor as male first.  That's the way the character has been written for 60+ years.  Yes, the doctor CAN become female, but that isn't the norm.  It wasn't established in the canon world until I think the episode the Doctor's Wife that a timelord could switch gender.  That means casting a woman was a choice to move away from what had long been established to something new.

Who knows, it may work out great.  The last few seasons have had some pretty bad writing, so the bigger deal is the new head writer.  If he's good, then the new doctor will be good.  If he's not....well, we can hope it will improve eventually.

In reply to willvr (msg # 9):

It wouldn't be the first time that they changed or reconned something.   Remember back in the Baker days how the 12th doctor was supposed to be more evil than the Master?

If you want to be technical, the Valeyard was 'somewhere between the 12th and 13th incarnations'. And the Valeyard didn't work too well.

I'm not against change; but change purely for the sake of change often doesn't work. I've been watching since the late '80s, and yeah, a lot of the things they've done since it returned doesn't exactly make me happy. Whether this is a good change or not, really depends on how much they overplay the fact he regenerated into a woman. If it's just something done briefly in the first episode? That's fine. But if they keep on harping on about the fact that it's a woman now; that's going to be worse than not having that regeneration.

I'm not going to disagree.   Change for the sake of change rarely works out well in the end.

She's an actress who's been working with the new showrunner (on Broadchurch), so I'm pretty sure he's familiar with her acting chops and satisfied that she can portray the character...since he's the one who knows what that entails...

I'm pretty sure this is more than just 'change for the sake of change'.  I remember rampant speculation that Smith's replacement could very well be a woman...I didn't really get into the show prior to his time frame (not to say that I don't like the earlier actors...I actually prefer Tennant, and wish Eccleston had more than one season), so I can't say how far back that speculation has gone.  After twelve Doctors, coming up with a concept for a quirky character that can be relatable to the audience has to get tricky...how to do a new character that doesn't seem like a veiled retread of an old concept, or merely a combination of 'gimmicks' from two or three earlier incarnations could easily be a daunting prospect.  Doing it all from a woman's perspective?  Very easy way to put some fresh spin in the show...and a great way to provide a new perspective on our own society, from an outsider's perspective (which is something sci fi has pretty much always done, in some measure).

I know very little about her career...but I'm looking forward to seeing how this casting choice influences the series.  I think it's got a lot of great potential.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 16):

The speculation has actually gone back to 1981, when Tom Baker made an off-handed comment that the next Doctor should be a woman.

And yeah; despite the feeling that the Doctor is not usually played by a big-name, very few of them have been total unknowns. I'm looking forward to it; but somewhat wary - but that's probably as much to do with that I'm more a fan of the classic series than the fact that the new doctor is a woman.

Perhaps not having a well known in you face actor in the role will lessen the expectations fans will have.... Will that be as good as... Hop they don't act like they did in... Etc

Could be great for the show

Quote from bbc.com:

Chibnall said the 13th Doctor was always going to be a woman.

He said: "I always knew I wanted the 13th Doctor to be a woman and we're thrilled to have secured our number one choice.

"Her audition for the Doctor simply blew us all away. [She] is an in-demand, funny, inspiring, super-smart force of nature and will bring loads of wit, strength and warmth to the role. The 13th Doctor is on her way."

Colin Baker approves of the choice. :)

https://www.theguardian.com/co...ittaker-inspire-fans

Is there any significance to the number 13 here?

I heard the sounds of a thousand fanboys crying out in agony.... than nothing.

Not hard to understand the apprehension.  They just made a possibly very big change to a very beloved character.  People are afraid it won't go well.


Then there are those who just get mad at anything and everything, who it is best to ignore anyway.

I just saw on Facebook that someone has set up a petition to get the character changed back to a man.... Really? I understand people getting worried especially as the doc has been male for 60 years but for God sake there's nothing to say it can't be a female.... Give the new doctor a chance is what I say...

I'm of two minds about it; but the moment they established a regeneration -could- change genders; they pretty much had to do it at some point.

In reply to willvr (msg # 25):

That happened a long, long time ago.   It's just never been done with the main character.

It was never established, in canon, till the Doctor's Wife. It had been guessed at, insinuated, but never totally established.

Actually, it has been established that The Doctor doesn't even have to appear human.  Imagine Madame Vastra as The Doctor.

it's sort of a paradox that people have to work through.  It's argued it shouldn't matter if the doctor is female, but then if it doesn't matter, why did it need to be a female?  I think it WILL inherently change the character for this go around.  The change may be great, or it may not be.  That's why my judgement of if it's a good thing or not hinges a lot more on the writing than the casting.

Peter Capaldi was an awesome choice for the doctor, but his seasons were by far the most disappointing I've seen since it started back up in 2005.  Just personal opinion, it's great if people enjoyed them, but not everything is enjoyable for everyone.  So who knows, the 13th doctor may produce great seasons, or it may not.

Frankly, I was a fan of Eccleston from the moment he introduced his Doctor to Rose Tyler and told her to run for her life.  I thought he did well with the angst of having believed himself the only survivor of The Last Great Time War because he thought he had killed everyone else.  I wish he had been able to portray him longer.
As for The Doctor as a woman, I'm all for it.  But, my opinion is skewed.  I loved the New Ghostbusters almost as much as the originals.

I didn't mean I didn't like Eccleston.  I meant that the recent seasons have been the worst I have experience with, and I started watching when the show began with Eccleston.  I've only seen a few of the older specials.

I'll just ignore the whole ghostbusters comment and let sleeping dogs lie.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:50, Thu 20 July 2017.

Eccleston was my first, and is my favorite, Doctor.  I've tried watching the first season/series, but I have a problem with getting through Hartnell.
And what is wrong with the new GBs?  People just need to get over it and give the film a chance.

Well, for me, its two things.  From a nostalgia stand point, I grew up loving the Ghostbusters and ate up every rumor of them writing a third installment.  But when Harold Ramis died that hope died too.  To see them use that license to make a remake was pretty disappointing, especially when there was such a good opportunity to make a sequel with the old Ghostbusters passing the mantle off to a new team.

As for the remake, the jokes just fell flat to me.  I didn't think it was very clever or anything.  I just didn't find it funny.

It hinges a -lot- on the writing, and Chibnall's Doctor Who work is not amongst the best. Having said that, Moffatt pre-showrunner was the best new series writer by a country mile; but a lot of his work when he was showrunner fell flat.

Yes, it's been established timelords can change appearance to look more alien; but all Romana's forms were female. That was a poor decision regardless as it was the first hint that you could choose what you looked like. Wasn't fond of it.

Regardless, it's probably not what the common fan thinks that's going to be the deciding value on whether it was successful - it's the general audience. Fans have their very strong opinions, and they differ from other fans; but the actual fandom is a small minority. TV shows are successful or not based on the general audience, not the fans.

Yeah.  Look at Firefly.

Look at virtually any 'cult hit' show that failed to grab the interest of the general audience.

In fact, it was Doctor Who ignoring 'fandom' that has it what it is now. It's why there are many fans of the classic series (yeah; I'd probably include me in this) don't like it that much any more; because they've ignored what the 'fandom' wanted and aimed at what the general public wanted.

I still miss Eccleston, and Tom Baker was my first Doctor.

Perhaps one day we'll have an Idris Elba Doctor, but I'm not getting my hopes up.  =)

"Getting my hopes up" looks really weird to me.  I had to check an idiom dictionary to see if it was correct.

(Hopefully) If "Dark Tower" does well, the BBC wouldn't be able to afford Elba...

I'm in the other camp - liked Eccleston as the Doctor, but found the writing childish - I think Moffat had more of a handle on things, but occasionally the intricacies detracted from the delivery.

But I get that with a few series nowday - it seems the convolutions of early episodes are there for the payoff of the run to the finish.  Very few manage to get the balance right.  So for one, I'll miss Moffat.

Pertwee was my first Doctor, but Baker was the one I identified most with until Matt Smith's run cemented him as my new favourite ... Capaldi was brilliant as always, but it didn't quite click (though the last two episodes of the last series nailed it for me).

And I miss Firefly too.  And Blake's 7.

Another Blakes' Seven fan - now that's a rarity.

The problem I had with Moffatt is things like the Weeping Angels. Where you couldn't stop looking at them, or you were dead. At the same time, you couldn't look at them, or you were also dead.

Troughton, Pertwee, the first Baker are too close for me to call as to my favourite. None of the new series Doctors, for me, are quite as good. Though Ecclestone probably comes closest.

Another member of the Blake's 7 fan club here. Hartnell was my first Doctor, but maybe Tennant is my favourite. And I like Moffatt's gripping stories, but yeah, most of the 'new start' has been too convoluted to be fun. Keep the 'edge of seat', ditch the convolutions, I say.

Female Doctor? Meh. Nothing against women, but I'd rather see a separate female Time Lord introduced and have the Doctor disappear or take a back seat for a while.

The Doctor's a bloke, like Sherlock, Batman, Robin Hood, Flash Gordon, etc, etc. Flipping the gender of an established hero just doesn't work for me.

Can't TV companies give a heroine a central role without her standing on the shoulders of an established male personality? Create an independent heroine and let her establish her own following. Or don't they think a woman is capable?

They have done that, numerous times.  Sarah Jane Smith.  Rose Tyler.  Amy Pond.  Clara Oswin Oswald.  Martha Jones.  Donna Noble.  All of them strong and independent heroines.

They were strong and sort of independent, but not central. They were all the Doctor's sidekicks, subordinate to a man by association, no matter how much 'independence' they were permitted to have in their second-class roles. I'm talking about a central, female Time Lord, like the Doctor, but not the Doctor - with her own sidekicks.

You could still call the series Dr Who, even if he's not central or even present - witness the long-running British cop show Taggart, whose title character died (along with the actor) at the end of the first season.

But all this is academic. The BBC have made their decision, for better or worse. Time will tell whether it was the right decision. Unfortunately for them, they don't have a Tardis... :)

The original concept of Romana was to be fair; the major reason Mary Tamm quit is because she had turned into a typical companion, which is not as it was presented to her.

If they wish to establish a character both as main and independent of the Doctor, they're going to have to do it as a spin-off.  Ultimately, any character will be subordinated in one form or another to the Doctor simply because Doctor Who is about the Doctor....

The Sarah Jane Chronicles was a good attempt.  Unfortunately, death ended that show.
Torchwood was a good try.  Until that third season.

Tom Baker was the first Doctor I watched. There might have been opportunities to watch early episodes, but, in those days, I couldn't deal with the $1.98 special effects.

I was quite impressed with Capaldi, mainly because I didn't know who he was.

And while I tend to consider Tennant as my favorite, I thought Matt Smith stepped in with just as much flare and talent.

I would have liked to see Katherine Tate do a stint as Dr. Donna, at least for half a season if not a whole season. I thought she was brilliant.

Perhaps the right direction is the Dr.'s Daughter being done as a couple of audio books.

I'm all for a female Doctor. But, as others have said, it'll be the writing that determines how entertaining the shows are.