Mary Tam played a great Romana. Talk about alpha female that gave the doctor himself a run for his money. I vote a definite yes for female timeladies/lords whatever? A female doctor is just another attack on popular culture by those that wish to turn things backwards. It's an established icon and should remain an old white man. I thought they were doing it right with Capaldi after the spat of youngsters they got to play the role. This is just a huge reversal. I hope for the actresses sake the writing is strong because she has multiple decades of legend's shoes to fill.
General / Off-Topic What did we think of Doctor Who (spoilers allowed)
- Thread starter GreyAreaUK
- Start date
Question:
The role of God is traditionally that of an old white man (often with a beard).
What are your thoughts on god being played (several times) by Morgan Freeman?
Before anyone gets tetchy, I'm not accusing anyone of racism, but the argument is "the Dr is always an older white man" is directly comparable with "god is always an older white man".
Logically you should dislike Mr Freeman as God as much as a female doctor.
Does the portrayal of a fictional character ever really matter ?, to me no not at all or I'd have been offended at Thor not being properly Norse.
I've always wondered why Jesus is so often portrayed as white in pictures, movies and crucifixes/statues (otherwise known as graven images) when he must clearly have been middle eastern.
exactly.
i'd argue that there are certain features of fictional characters that define them.
e.g. James bond is a British spy with a code 007 and a licence to kill. you can make a great story about an american spy or british soldier, but it wouldn't be "James Bond 007"
but things like accent, ethnicity and gender are much more malleable in 007's case
Black Panther, on the other hand would be very difficult to make anything other than black, and arguably male.
the desire for alternate versions has always been there, look at supergirl.
Dr who though offers a unique chance to switch the main character up without having to create a different character precisely because the main character explicitly switches anyway.
the new Netflicks series "Altered Carbon", takes this a step further with multiple characters body swapping as a central theme. Presumably we wont have people complaining if Kovacs is played by a Chinese woman or a black man.
Sounds like a good series.
One thing you need to keep static with bond is being a bit of a snob, either through upbringing or just liking the finer things in life. All part of the swanky image required for hobnobbing with bad-guys in casino's.
the books are great.
I'd definitely say the hobnobbing with high society types is a "characteristic" but not necessarily that JB is upperclass himself, just he can move in those circles.
Arguably Craig brought "a touch of rough" to the role. I believe one of the directors described it as "a brute in a suit". He definitely has an air of menace about him that Roger Moore Pierce Brosnan lacked. He was much more like Connery or Timothy Dalton.
Yep, the bottomless chair in the book Casino Royal is nasty.
Absolutely agree about Bond needing to be capable of casual ruthlessness, which as you say only Craig, Connery and Dalton portrayed.
just had a thought about the idea of the essential bits of a character and what can and cannot be changed.
One essential bit of "James Bond" is his name, "James".
That would make it quite hard to make the character female because it would be difficult to have a female "James".
If it were "Joanne Bond", it would literally no longer be "James Bond". If Ian Flemming had selected "Alex Bond", then it would be easier to have a female "Alex Bond"
This restriction doesn't apply to Dr Who as there is no gender of his/her title and name.
One essential bit of "James Bond" is his name, "James".
That would make it quite hard to make the character female because it would be difficult to have a female "James".
If it were "Joanne Bond", it would literally no longer be "James Bond". If Ian Flemming had selected "Alex Bond", then it would be easier to have a female "Alex Bond"
This restriction doesn't apply to Dr Who as there is no gender of his/her title and name.
God is an unseen entity which television/movies portray someone's interpretation of God. God to many people mean different things. Dr Who is an established icon from British television history. To change it now to be more diverse and inclusive is just following a political agenda. It is not the character we all grew up with. I wouldn't want Black Panther to be anything other than a black African, no way. Thor should be a white male. If we had a depiction of Shiva in the movies, then yes, I would want a blue painted Indian to play the role.
I think Jesus was certainly dark skinned. Also the Hebrews of the bible were since when they fled the Pharaoh they hid in Africa.
Rasist.
people keep saying "following a political agenda", with zero evidence of it, and yet when actual evidence of the contrary is shown relating to the fact that making the character a woman is *not* a recent idea, they simply ignore and / or say "i refuse to respond to you anymore".
once again: this is something that's been suggested, and asked for, by both fans and people involved in the show, for almost forty years. and of the first 15 years, regeneration didn't even exist for the first 3. so that's what, 12 years of troughton and pertwee with a splash of baker - and even troughton was fine with the idea (and pertwee in later interviews, iirc) so it's not like there's a huge, sacred chunk of show where the doctor always, absolutely had to be a man. any potential time period for such an idea is vanishingly small.
as for "the character you grew up with", you realise the character played by each actor is almost totally different bar a few occasional overlaps, right? if i grew up with sylvester mccoy's so called champion of time, i absolutely did not grow up with patrick troughton's character causing trouble from the edge of each scene, no more than someone who grew up with david tennant being endlessly enthusiastic, no more than someone who got stuck with jon pertwee's vaguely drag style action man.
the show's whole gimmick is being able to survive with regular clearing of the decks, from lead actor right through to writers, production team, and everyone else. there is no one single character we all grew up with.
Last edited:
but Dr Who is being set "now" (insofar as a time travel show is set anytime). Modern Britian is diverse and women have been a significant part of the UK population for quite sometime.
My point was that there is no actual "canon" reason for the Dr to be male, or white or straight.
Those are not defining characteristics of the character or show.
agreed, because being black and from an African nation (albeit fictional) is all part of the character.
I believe "whoever is worthy to wield Mojlinor shall posses the power of Thor" or some such is the essential bit hence a female Thor is possible (and has happened, much to the same arguments we have for Dr Who).
I'm not arguing that JW will be a great Dr Who, she may well be rubbish (I am not yet onboard), but I don't believe the fact she is female will be the reason it sucks (if it does suck). It will be down to things like writing, directing, storylines.
I was unsure about Matt Smith at first, but ended up loving his version. Peter Capaldi took a long time for me to warm too and he's still not my favorite Dr, but he did a good job and brought something fresh to the role.
I can see several potential plusses from a story point of view. Up until now the Dr has always commanded attention. It's part of his thing that he walks into a war room or starship bridge and takes charge, saving 4hw day with his brilliance.
There is mileage in how the Dr will cope if she walks in to a room and the King or Captain immediately ignores her and starts talking to Bradley Walsh. Her primary power, the ability to manipulate others through her charisma and super intelligence, will have been blunted. How will she cope?
I think people should wait and see and if she's terrible, the beauty is they can always replace her and try again.
Last edited:
i can only imagine the "thor must be a white male" crowd lose their minds when they find out thor was once a horse called beta ray bill.
Idris Elba as Heimdall must really annoy the same people.
If Dr No1 hates the latest incarnation, then that just suits his character fine as he's hated all his other regenerations as well
There are rumours that it'll be Bradley Walsh playing the sidekick. I shall be playing a drinking game where I take a swig of whisky everytime he says that he isn't the Doctor and it's her who's the Doctor. I am hoping for a sober new year... Cheers everyone
What a ridiculous thing to say.
This is just strange to read.
Of all the things in Who, being female is what breaks the suspension of disbelief?
"A female doctor, what madness is this?". It's like something from the pre-victorian times.
People are not hating or getting upset. Simply changing a long established character's gender doesn't feel like Doctor Who to me. It's not about there being a female timelord. That is cool. Changing the actual gender of a long loved male character/trope just ain't the same. To me anyway. No hating, no goose stepping, no night of the long knives. Just meh. There is a political agenda, it's an open secret. Although you have to be literate in social engineering to realise there is more to your programming than just harmless entertainment.
If it's an open secret you'll have no problem coughing up some actual receipts instead of the evidence free tinhattery on display in this thread.
Of course, if by evidence you mean "40 years of people working on the show suggesting / asking for it, documented in newspaper, books, tv, and everywhere else" then it's certainly open, though hardly a secret.
So far this thread has had:
* one person insist an old episode had the doctor say he's not part of an army of "time travelling cross dressers", and when asked for evidence of this couldn't produce it, but still kinda insists it definitely happened
* another person who insisted it was a politically correct move, and when shown evidence that there's 40 odd years of this being asked for, said "I'm not listening to you because reasons" and abandoned thread
* someone insist thor must be a white male, apparently unaware that the role was at one point taken by a talking horse. While unrelated to doctor who, I'm wondering where the howls of horsey outrage went.
Now it's an "open secret". If any part of four decades of this being rolled around the BBC tables in publicly available newspapers and recorded interviews is "secret" then I'm a monkey's uncle.
One has to wonder how many decades of "you can't do this because" have to roll past before you get to question where the actual agenda is here.
Last edited:
let's just say, for a second, this choice is solely with a social agenda.
Can you articulate why is that so bad?
How many young girls get to see hero just like them solving problems and saving the day in franchises like Dr Who, Ghostbusters and Star Wars?
Is that a bad thing? So it makes a few older fans a little off balance. As you say... "meh".