The Next Doctor
This topic contains 924 replies, has 86 voices, and was last updated by 
Craig 10 years, 8 months ago.
-
AuthorPosts
-
5 June 2013 at 22:50 #11909
Anonymous @
@bluesqueakpip – I’ve been harping on about Claricles-not-Clara-Prime in this latest series, and now you have provided quite detailed reasons why this might be so!
{going to faint on the sofa now} 😀
5 June 2013 at 23:10 #11911I’ll see you in court over the bonkers theorising trademark!
5 June 2013 at 23:15 #11913Oops – wrong place
5 June 2013 at 23:18 #11916@pedant , @chickenelly – FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
This is like Fight Club, and thought of flying feathers and spraying of (non-)fishscales is most enjoyable. 😀
Don’t forget that our inimitable @craig has the trademark on Edward Norton looky-likeyness, so he should probably be the arbiter on the winner of your wings-n-non-fishy badinage. 😀
5 June 2013 at 23:19 #11917I think the phrase you were after was:
I’ll see you in court over the bonkers theorising trademark™!
he he
5 June 2013 at 23:27 #11919Yes that’s right folks, I’ve trademarked my trademark.
5 June 2013 at 23:36 #11920From now on I shall simple refer to you as The Pipe Smoking Trademark Thief (or “Samsung”) for short!
5 June 2013 at 23:58 #11923So Clara-from-Blackpool is a product of the Doctor’s future. She’s either a Claricle herself, rather than Clara-Prime (and so would cease to exist if the Doctor never reached Trenzalore) or she’s a future Doctor.
I’d say yes she’s a Claricle. Victorian Clara was Clara-Prime. If the Doctor hadn’t met her (and Dalek Oswin Oswald) he would never have sought out any other Claras. Even if other Claras had existed, the chance of the Doctor encountering one without actively seeking them out would have been effectively zero. So Victorian Clara had to come first. The Doctor never saw the human form of Dalek Oswin, and there could have been an iteration, before Clara was scattered across the time stream, when it was just a random mad Dalek with delusions of being human. I’d say the fact that it was in an asylum as a clue, and it wasn’t even called Clara, just Oswin Oswald. Contemporary Clara “blew in on a leaf”. I’d say that leaf fell as a result of Clara being scattered across the timestream. But Victorian Clara was definitely real and human, and she provided the catalyst, giving rise to the course of actions which eventually led to there being other Claras.
Could contemporary Clara be a future incarnation of the Doctor? I don’t think so. We’ve seen a back-story for her in which she is a human, with human parents. She currently has no memory of being anything other than human from Blackpool. In particular, she has no memory of being a Time Lord, and certainly not of being the Doctor.
However, she might become a future incarnation of the Doctor, in a sense. Because she’s scattered across the Doctor’s timeline, she might have made such an impression on it that the next time the Doctor regenerates, he regenerates with the appearance of Clara. We could then have the confusing situation of one actress playing both the Doctor and the Doctor’s current companion. Is that bonkers enough? If not, we could have Doctor-Clara and Companion-Clara rescue Oswin Oswald from the Asylum planet just before it blows up, and together the three of them could continue to explore all of time and space, meeting other Claricles (including River Song) along the way …
6 June 2013 at 08:24 #11926@mtgradwell – “However, she might become a future incarnation of the Doctor, in a sense. Because she’s scattered across the Doctor’s timeline, she might have made such an impression on it that the next time the Doctor regenerates, he regenerates with the appearance of Clara.”
I’m liking that explanation for the Clara-as-Doctor theory very much. But even though we know JLC has been confirmed for series 8, who’s to say that’s as a companion? So your Doctor-Clara and Companion-Clara theory, although pleasingly insane (especially with the addition of Oswin-Clara!), could simply be Doctor-Clara and companion X (hopefully, X & Y).
6 June 2013 at 11:30 #11928@shazzbot and @mtgradwell – I’m uncertain that Victorian Clara is Clara-Prime, simply because she repeats Blackpool Clara’s last line – and calls the TARDIS ‘smaller on the outside’, as if she’s already done the ‘bigger on the inside’ thing. I’d wonder if the-Doctor-with-the-appearance-of-Clara is the actual ‘Clara-Prime’.
even though we know JLC has been confirmed for series 8, who’s to say that’s as a companion?
JLC’s statement on the announcement of Matt Smith’s leaving certainly took a wee bit of time to appear – it did make me wonder if they were delaying it because they were waiting to find out if the identity of the next Doctor had also leaked. Whether it’s her or not (and she is my personal top candidate, which is why I haven’t really speculated on any others), I’m fairly certain the next Doctor is already cast.
6 June 2013 at 12:29 #11929Not particularly looking for a fight on this, but I’ve not said anything about the potential for a female Doctor. I’ve written before and said how I’d trial the idea in a kind of Mind-Robber/Dream Lord type Doctor “Lite” episode, where genders were swapped. At the end I’d have a scene, similar to the one in the Dream Lord episode where the Doctor sees his alter ego. A reminder that in the universe the Doctor inhabits, what can be remembered can become reality.
A great way to actually test audience reaction to the idea rather than just comment blogs which tend to be distorted by adult populations, with adult obsessions. If Matt had been in the role for something like this I would have suggested someone like Jaime Murray, who as a female HG Wells in Warehouse 13 gave a quirky turn with a mixture of comedy and pathos that would have worked I think.
Whenever we get to this point though of considering the next Doctor, the inevitable articles we get on both sides of the argument tend to turn me off the idea. Especially the notion it should be done because of “good” sexual politics.
I read the article by Noami Walderman on the Guardian which congratulated @danmartinuk for his “brilliant patronising, patriarchy-upholding blindness”. Had to laugh at that. The problem I have with realising the potential of a female Doctor is that most of the arguments are presented this way. It’s possible so it must happen. That’s fairness.
Therein lays a problem. In this idealised reality a woman finally gets to play one of the ultimate heroes for children (of all ages). Well that’s great, BUT as Dan pointed out there are aspects of the Doctors character that aren’t that laudable. Isn’t that why we like the character? Will the same people who demand a female Doctor allow her to occasionally be seen as vain? Or wrong? Will they object to her being petty? Occasionally vindictive (as with Solomon perhaps) Would the armchair commentators castigate her first angry scene as shrewishness and further evidence that male writers cannot write female characters?
Any fair handed commentator should see the dangers inherent for any writer or performer who went down this route. The same commentators who demand equality will be giving a blow by blow account of her faults. How she really isn’t a good role model after all.
Ultimately I think, for a female Doctor, she needs the room to realise her own version of the “beautiful idiot” that Idris described the Doctor as. I think that’s the ultimate test, but the result will never please those obsessed by the sexual politics debate.
6 June 2013 at 12:30 #11930On a lighter note, reading a few of the many, many comments on the many, many, many internet articles on who should be the next Doctor put me in mind of this clip. The Second Doctor gets the chance to select his own appearance for regeneration.
“Too old, too fat, too thin, too young!”
6 June 2013 at 13:16 #11931How do you think the Eleventh Doctor should ‘killed’? I think it should be an assassination by The Silence.
6 June 2013 at 13:20 #11932Hello everyone all interesting posts…
I had a thought the other day, the writers of Dr Who scripts are mainly men…I have not seen any female writers for the last few seasons of Dr Who (may not be correct here)… Not sure if this has been mentioned before but they wound not have much experience of writing a female Dr role if indeed Series 8 was already in the “bag” so to speak for male Dr leads..?
I am still of the opinion the role has already been cast…An unknown actor that just showed potentail with SM with no predetermined ideas of what actually they were looking for..
Really enjoyed reading all these posts..
6 June 2013 at 13:23 #11933@phaseshift – I haven’t read the Naomi Walderman article, though I did read Dan’s. Just the blurb about the article turned me off.
And it would be fun if we can try out a female Doctor in the same way a writer called Steven Moffat did in The Curse of Fatal Death – one regeneration in a number of high speed regenerations. Though, if we did get a regeneration into a woman, I can’t help wondering whether they’d rework the Sonic Screwdriver a bit (three settings!).
Any woman who takes on the role of the first official woman Doctor is going to have one very Doctorial quality – courage in buckets. Because she will be picked to pieces by the armchair commentators – not just the male ones, but also that unfortunate variety of feminist who seems to think that ‘feminism’ consists of running other women down for not living up to an imagined ideal.
6 June 2013 at 13:48 #11934@phaseshift – your comment (http://www.thedoctorwhoforum.com/forums/topic/the-next-doctor/page/6/#post-11929) made me think about why I would like to see a female Doctor. I think it’s because everyone bangs on about the Doctor being a role model for children (no guns etc) so why shouldn’t there be a female role model?
However, this: “It’s possible so it must happen.” Yeah, I’m uneasy about doing something just because it can be done. It really needs to make sense; and after @mtgradwell ‘s idea in 11923, I’m really liking the idea that the Doctor regenerates into looking like Clara because she’s been all over his timestream. But then we have the problem of, what happens/ed to ClaraPrime?
And to you and @bluesqueakpip – not just the actress having a thick skin for the sh*tstorm of criticism bound to follow in the wake of a female Doctor announcement, and for the feminist-bandwagon idiots who’ll shout and argue on the other side of the hall … but also for what you said Phasey about the ongoing criticism of female Doctor behaviours that go unnoticed when a male Doctor exhibits the same.
6 June 2013 at 13:49 #11935@bluesqueakpip – ‘three settings’ on the sonic for a female Doctor? Did you just imply what I think you did 😯 or do I just have a filthy imagination? 😀
6 June 2013 at 15:32 #11936@phaseshift– I think I like your comments on @danmartinuk‘s more than I did his actual comment: ‘his strengths and his weaknesses are, to me, fundamentally male. He is impatient and petulant and always think he’s right – massive generalisations, yes, but qualities that have been hardwired into the character for 50 years.’
I can accept the argument that, as a whole, many people, both male and female will tend to regard these qualities with less hostility from a man, that anti-feminists (of both sexes) will use such characterisation as an illustration for why ‘feminism goes to far nowadays’, and that many feminists would even use this characterisation as evidence of sexism, which is depressing but quite probably true.
But while I found the patriarchy upholding comment in the other article factious, I do think the point is that these qualities are more accepted in men, not that they are male qualities. One thing I loved about Rory’s character was that Moffit managed to create a male character who was in (what is, in a massive generalisation) ‘feminine’ kind of profession, and not remotely interested in asserting dominance in his relationship, but clearly (though alas not to everyone) a strong and admirable and impressive character.
Having said that, I can only imagine the scorn that would have been poured down on a female writer, had he been created by a woman, an I cannot forget the scorn the character did receive for being ‘wet’ and ‘whipped’ just because he was kind and loving and (for the most part) easy going. So I can see the difficulties in a female Doctor.
‘impatient, petulant, and thinks their always right’ however, seems quite gender neutral to me. (Might just be the people I associate with…)
6 June 2013 at 16:01 #11938Sadly I suspect all this speculation is likely to drive the team the opposite direction, to avoid being labelled PC 🙁
But it’s very interesting when you start to see the creative objections to a female Dr, and none of them hold up as @miapatrick, @bluesqueakpip @mtgradwell and many others have said. Fanbase and ratings are another matter. Given the polarising effect River has/had you can understand why they might be wary! (Thanks for the interview clip @wolfweed, Alex K was great).
Maybe… TimeLords get chunks of 13 regenerations then they choose if they want a complete make over, including gender and/or species, or just a quick cell rearrangement. Would love to see a mult-Dr series as suggested above (TM @blenkinsopthebrave)
I think Victorian Clara is a claricle btw, mainly on the grounds that she died! Ditto AotD Clara.
6 June 2013 at 16:42 #11939@ardaraith Many “there, there, dear”s sent to you .We may not agree on Matt Smith as being the best Doctor but I knew you’d be sad at the news! He did grow on me, and it’s mostly your fault that I gave him a closer look. I look forward to re-watching his eps when I’m not sleep-deprived from raising a toddler. I hardly like anyone on days when I’m underslept; maybe I’ll like him better in this hypothetical and longed-for future of good sleep! You may tell me “I told you so” if I have a sea change. 🙂
Neil Gaiman offers his thoughts about casting (no spoilers save a few names he’s heard bandied about, which I’ve seen posted here as well). I think that I agree with him: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2013/06/on-casting-doctor.html
As to the Doctor being a woman, I suppose this might be TMI but I slightly prefer fancying a male-gendered Doctor. I have no doubts that the right woman would provide good female-gendered fancying though, so my personal ability to mentally explore back rooms of the TARDIS with the Doctor are irrespective of gender. People that feel strongly about a certain flavor of sexual expression probably care a great deal about the Doctor remaining in the gender role that they most fancy.
I do approve of the example a female-gendered doctor would provide to children, but I don’t support casting a woman solely for that purpose. And, as many of you have said, if the writing team wasn’t up to the task, it would fail utterly. I’m thinking of Captain Janeway in Star Trek: Voyager now, who in her first season was written like “starship capitan who is totally just like any dude.” I don’t think it would have worked had she not gotten to evolve into “awesome lady character who is also a starship captain.” Taking away her gender made her boring; making it part of her strength made for good viewing IMO.
Bottom line, I agree with the prevailing sentiment: they should cast whoever will allow the writers to tell the best stories. A non-white Doctor, a female doctor — those could unlock some amazing tales. That’s the only compelling reason to change the character’s face: to tell more and better stories.
6 June 2013 at 16:56 #11940Thanks for the Gaiman link. Completely agree with –
I want to be taken by surprise. I want to squint at a photo of the person online and go “but how can that be The Doctor?”. Then I want to be amazingly, delightedly, completely proven wrong, and, six episodes in, I want to wonder how I could have been so blind. Because this is the Doctor. Of course it is.
(and sympathies on the lack of sleep. – can be good for bonkers theorising tho, esp when you get to the hallucinating stage!)
6 June 2013 at 17:39 #11941I’m definitely getting the point where I just want them to make an announcement, if only to stem this incessant flow of pointless, and increasingly more baroque, articles about it in the mainstream media…
6 June 2013 at 19:02 #11943@jimthefish – I feel your pain! And certainly the more of such ‘baroque’ as you put it articles which appear, the more stress is heaped on The Moff & Co and BBC publicity regarding the reveal.
My guess is that the last two disasters – early shipping and misuse of email groups – have made them ever more cagey to ensure that every single i is dotted, every single t crossed, and all PR bookings over-cautiously pre-managed, before doing the big ‘taa-daa!’.
6 June 2013 at 20:12 #11946As to the Doctor being a woman, I suppose this might be TMI but I slightly prefer fancying a male-gendered Doctor. I have no doubts that the right woman would provide good female-gendered fancying though, so my personal ability to mentally explore back rooms of the TARDIS with the Doctor are irrespective of gender. People that feel strongly about a certain flavor of sexual expression probably care a great deal about the Doctor remaining in the gender role that they most fancy.
Ha! Well, I really liked your honesty on this 🙂 Most of the professional commentators’ arguments for why there should “never” be a female Doctor are clearly about people’s personal preferences, e.g they like identifying with the Doc and find it easier to think about continuing to do so if he stays male, or because they like fancying the Doc and find it easier to think about continuing to do so if he stays male.
Fine, but dressing up personal preference as “because he’s a role model for boys” (implication – which women can’t be) or because his “qualities” are inherently masculine (@juniperfish “impatiently” and “petulantly” side eyes @danmartinuk – really Dan!?) seem rather thin attempts to avoid just being honest, unlike you @curvedspace , and saying “Because I wouldn’t like it as much!”
I didn’t start out rooting for a female Doctor in particular, but the more I read all the cries of horror, the more I think “bring it on”.
6 June 2013 at 20:27 #11947Oh and @riverrunsthroughit Welcome, first time caller! Lovely to see the curly-haired one as someone’s avatar.
That’s quite a list you’ve got there. Yes, I can’t say I see Bradley James in the role myself, there wasn’t an ounce of darkness in his Arthur. Of the Merlin crew I would choose Anthony Head in a heartbeat, although I realise that would be a bit of a continuity headache, given that he was last in the Whoniverse as a giant evil bat-person susceptible to chip-fat.
Oh and also thanks to @wolfweed for the Kingston interview clip!
6 June 2013 at 23:53 #11958Did you just imply what I think you did
or do I just have a filthy imagination?@Shazzbot – oh, come on. You know that the king of the ‘did you just imply what I think you just did in a programme watched by three year olds?’ is Steven Moffat. 😀
That was a direct quote from The Curse of Fatal Death. I’ve never been able to look at a Sonic Screwdriver in quite the same way since. 😯
6 June 2013 at 23:56 #11959@juniperfish– I do think this debate is raising some interesting issues.
A: is it that the overall characterisation of the doctor (sorry, brief pause for a cheer that I correctly spelt ‘characterisation’ despite losing confidence half way through) is in any way incompatible/inconsistent with a female doctor, or that people (of both sexes and varying viewpoints) would respond so differently to the same qualities in a female doctor than they do in a male that it might place too greater burden on the writers/actor?
B: Is the fact that girls/women are, arguably, better at relating to male protagonists than boys/men are at relating to female protagonists a reason why there is no need for a female doctor, or a reason why, perhaps, a female doctor might be a good idea?
( If boys/men from ‘humble’ beginnings had never related to the achievements of men born of a higher class, they would never have demanded the franchise, if Doctor Who had existed in Victorian Times, there would have been many articulate arguments against the Doctor ever being ‘working class’. a good argument for him being working class, of course, would have been Faraday.)
C: how important is the fancyability of the doctor, and would more women and men be put off by the change, than would be put ‘on’ by it? and should this be a factor?
D: is probably one of the oldest and most beloved franchises of all time I) not the place to address these issues? or b) exactly the place to address these issues?
I don’t have an answer for any of these questions. Most of me agrees with @jimthefish: stop pretending it hasn’t been cast (reminds me of the whole thing when a band pretends to leave at the end of a concert, but if you clap and shout loud enough, they’ll come back and do their hit single. They already rehearsed it and set up the lighting. Just do the show…
7 June 2013 at 00:42 #11960@bluesqueakpip – thank you, more than you can know – because I really needed a laugh tonight.
Yes, I should have known after that ‘tongue’ gag in AGMGtW that The Moff is quite capable of slipping those things in. (ooh, errr, Miss!) 😆
7 June 2013 at 09:22 #11962@miapatrick A – it would be a challenge to the writers, certainly. But in a good way. B – a reason why it would be a good idea. C – fancyability not crucial, charisma a deal-breaker. The first without the second would be disastrous. The second without the first, absolutely fine. Both together could be perhaps too much of a good thing (see my comments earlier about Tennant). D – exactly the place. It’s well enough established, even (dread word) iconic. It can take risks that a pilot can’t. There are advantages to being in one’s 50s (honest) – it’s a time for reinventing and reinspiring and all that stuff.
7 June 2013 at 10:37 #11963<waves @cathannabel – not seen you for ages 🙂 >
And yes CHARISMA! That’s the word 🙂
@miapatrick You’re right re throwing up issues. And also that every one of the things you bring up can be used equally well as a reason to do or not do something.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the racism/sexism allegations recently. I think DW does well, but could do better. eg women are well represented in a range of different characters, including the Paternoster Gang. However non-white actors are less visible recently than they have been (can be hard to tell under the costumes). All the main actors are currently mainstream white, even though they represent a diversity of species. I’m not for 1 minute suggesting “token” casting or that the BBC doesn’t operate “colour-blind” casting, but maybe they should check how widely they spread the casting calls to make sure they get the biggest possible talent pool.
Same with the moans re lack of women writers. I don’t know what the situation is behind the scenes eg if they operate mentoring schemes or other ways of bringing on new talent. But until women start seeing other women writing for DW they will just assume (albeit unconsciously for the most part) that it’s not for them/they’re not wanted.
This isn’t attacking the programme or the team for not being representative, just saying that in its position as a flagship BBC drama it has a lot of experience it can offer talented people; it’s not good enough to say that women don’t want to write for the show cos the fanboys chew them up after.
Phew! Sorry, bit of a serious post this one (and probably not one I would put on the G blog). Damn you Ian Levine! That Smithy announcement this week has even curtailed bonkers theorising, LOL. Nothing more bonkers than some of the names coming up – I notice Russell Brand is doing his media-whore bit and offering his services, and the Star had Paris Jackson as a shoe-in the other day. Me? I can’t get past Tom Waits since someone suggested it on the G-blog the other day. 😥
7 June 2013 at 10:41 #119647 June 2013 at 12:24 #11967@scaryb – thanks, I’ll take two if you don’t mind. 🙂 I won’t know until tonight if I feel chirpier. I certainly don’t right now – I’m bushed after two solid hours of Extreme Weeding! No need for the gym today. 😀
I agree with you, Cath Annabel, and @miapatrick regarding women, sexism, and charisma. But … what you said about women writers made me think some more. If it shouldn’t matter if the Doctor is played by a woman, for all the reasons being argued, then why does it matter if the writer is a woman? I take your point about stereotypical ‘fanboy’ reactions, but how would it be obvious what the writer’s gender is? (Do the fanboys expect menstruation jokes?) If it’s some kind of horror of (and presumption of) chick-lit style stories, well, nothing could have been more grippingly romantic than River’s goodbye kiss with the Doctor. Said scene written by a man. And Rory waiting 2000 years for the woman he knows full well doesn’t love him as much as he loves her? Man again.
The show started with Verity Lambert, and in the After-Gap era hasn’t one of the Exec Producers always been a woman? So there’s always been a female influence in the show … but no-one’s complained about that. I agree that for simple equal-opportunity employment reasons more women should write for the show, but I wonder if that would have an appreciable (or to the ‘fanboy’, detrimental) effect on the episodes and arcs themselves.
7 June 2013 at 12:52 #11968True, there hasn’t been a female writer on the show since Helen Raynor. (And the fact that her stories weren’t really very good is neither here not there. That criterion didn’t stop Chibbers from getting asked back again and again.)
But Who is basically the Beeb’s flagship drama at the moment and I’d imagine there’s not much inclination to take risks on unknown writers of either gender. And the female ‘names’ in TV drama writing at the moment don’t seem to be that interested in genre. But I certainly don’t think it would hurt Moff and co to cast their writers’ net a bit further than they do at the moment.
But I personally think that positive discrimination, whether it is in casting or writing or any other aspect of the production of the show, should come secondary to getting the right person for the job, regardless of gender, ethnicity or whatever.
7 June 2013 at 13:02 #11970Apologies for not joining in last night, a few things cropped up. Thanks for the responses.
Yes – courage in buckets indeed. Tennant and Smith had convivial dinners with Peter Davison who explained how their life was going to change (and he presumably passed on Troughtons advice to him that three years was about right). I don’t think anyone could prepare a woman for the reaction and the microscope of press fixation on her performance and life.
To be honest the Dan/Naomi exchange (his not open for comments, her right to reply shortly afterwards was) just screamed click-bait setup, and got the usual responses. It’s why I didn’t join in but thought I’d bring the issues here where you can at least get an intelligent debate. My concerns really are about some double standards in how female characters are allowed to be played – more later.
Thanks @shazzbot, @curvedspace and @scaryb and @cathannabel for other thoughts.
Ha! Well, I really liked your honesty on this…..I didn’t start out rooting for a female Doctor in particular.
Ha! I’m calling B*llsh*t on that one, as a fervent admirer of your posts since season 5. Your preference for “gender bending” ideas are clearly being hidden behind “a role model for girls” excuse! 😀
In all honesty I actually hoped you’d give some feedback on my post, because from memory you’ve raised, in the past, points about female characterisation in the Moff-verse you don’t agree with.
So – just to expand on my point. As a role model the Doctor isn’t a typical perfect specimen – he has many negative traits, which are made up for by the entirety of the performance itself. I won’t repeat them, as this post is going to be long enough as it is.
Televised media though is a peculiar thing because it is so widely accessed. If you take advertising for instance, it’s long been established that if you are going to see a useless feckless idiot, it’s going to be a white man. The reason for this is obvious. Men see it and think – “that bloke is a bit of an idiot”, not as a representation of all manhood. Such are the very real sensitivities about portrayal of women and race on screen, they play safe.
Television hasn’t got to that level yet, but there are trends. As @bluesqueakpip suggests there are those who leap upon any “non-conforming” ideal and make it an issue. You get articles like “Why Miranda is not guilty of misogyny“. (which raises an interesting question as to whether this article defends her because she is a writer/performer, so you can’t just assume it’s the men writing her a bit rubbish).
So the question is would writers try to play safe with the character because of perceived sensitivities, or would they take the characteristics of the Doctor “warts and all”? I’d hope the later. It would create a shitstorm on occasion, that may be discomforting to the production team and performer, but it would highlight some real double standards that are in play.
In all honesty – are there any scenes you remember from previous series, or lines, that would ring alarm bells if you heard or saw a woman perform them?
7 June 2013 at 13:08 #11974@Shazzbot – have as many as you like! (LOL – I misread your post as extreme wedding… oops 🙂 )
Re women writers – I’m arguing from an equal opps pov rather than suggesting any intrinsic gender differences in writing style/content (do Timelords get PMT??). Moff is on record as saying it’s difficult to get women to write for the show because of previous experiences of women being pounced on by the fanboys – as they do with most of the writers, not just female ones. And it’s not a show to set an inexperienced writer loose on. As with a female Dr, it needs to be someone already experienced in the genre, so that she’s not totally demoralised when her script is torn to shreds in the forums afterwards. Classic Catch 22 – how do they get the experience?
I think there’s only been 1 female writer since 2005 – Helen Raynor (Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks (oops) and the Sontaran 2-parter). To be fair, the production team (which is currently all male with recent addition of Brian Minchin) seem aware of the problem and have said they’ve specifically targetted established female writers but no-one available. But maybe they just don’t feel wanted enough.
7 June 2013 at 13:11 #11977Sorry @jimthefish, @phaseshift – my post overlapped yours – was still composing when you were posting, so apologies for restating some of your points
7 June 2013 at 13:17 #11980@scaryb – all this talk of women writers / genre experience reminds me of the Today programme that (I think?) Craig linked to. The (female) presenter asked the two guests something like ‘but aren’t Doctor Who fans mostly male?’
There are a heckuva lotta female commenters on this forum! And while I might wager that the overall fan split is something like 55% M / 45% F, this flagship programme has far more female fans than even the BBC’s flagship news programme are aware of. Hmmmph.
7 June 2013 at 13:20 #11982
Crazy Captions 7 is now awaiting your wit & wisdom…7 June 2013 at 13:22 #11983It’s not about making Dr Who an issue-led show, far from it. It’s neatly dodged all attempts to do that since the beginning (educational (history & science) show anyone? 🙂 ). But it is currently a flagship show for the BBC and it should be using that clout to scour the widest possible talent pools (and ponds 😉 ). As a concept it can do, be, go anything/where/when it likes. So long as it stays story and quality driven, and doesn’t play safe (difficult when you have change built into it), I’ll be happy.
7 June 2013 at 15:37 #11990it needs to be someone already experienced in the genre, so that she’s not totally demoralised when her script is torn to shreds in the forums afterwards. Classic Catch 22 – how do they get the experience?
Quite. The BBC have been busily developing a set of playgrounds for their baby writers – namely, BBC3 for comedy and SF, daytime drama for modern and period drama. There’ve been some successful SF series that started on BBC3.
I dunno; I often get the impression the forums really don’t understand the differences between a commissioned script and the un-commissioned, speculative stuff that many of them do write. If you’re writing a spec script, you have all the time in the world. If your work is commissioned – they want it by Tuesday. And they want it by Tuesday much more than they want ‘brilliant’, because the read-through is Thursday. 🙂
Then you get the people who don’t understand the difference between a special effects failure and a writing failure. And blame the writer for the special effects failure.
Plus there’s a kind of whirlpool effect, where a lot of people will be thinking ‘not the best story ever, but okay’. Then someone posts up their reasons why that story was terrible. People agree and post up their reasons why the story was terrible. Then someone else posts up their reasons… and before you know where you are, a perfectly okay-but-not-brilliant story has: ‘The top twenty reasons why this is the worst story in the fifty year history of Doctor Who.’ 🙁
Add to this mixture some reason to be ‘above the parapet’ (you’re either new to Who, or you’re a woman) and you might as well paint a big target on your chest. I’m consistently unsurprised that most of the established women writers are discovering other engagements when they’re asked to write for Who – I note that the newer writers on the team do tend to also be fans. They’d consider being able to achieve one of their writing dreams worth the risks.
7 June 2013 at 16:50 #11992It seems like giving women equal representation in a role is also being debated with the Bank of England!
The campaign linked below is all about making sure the only female person on our bank notes doesn’t regenerate into a man! They are raising funds to pursue it in court. I wonder if people would do that for the Doctor?
http://www.change.org/petitions/bank-of-england-keep-a-woman-on-english-banknotesp.s. @bluesqueakpip I saw this image on Fake Science and thought of you 😉
7 June 2013 at 18:13 #11994In all honesty I actually hoped you’d give some feedback on my post…
Ah well, I was tactfully ignoring you 🙂 only because I largely agreed with Naomi’s Guardian criticisms of our dear @danmartinuk but, as you say, click-bait city, intended to rustle the hornets either way! Interesting however that Naomi’s piece was given right of reply and not Dan’s – suggests to me that a female Doc may actually indeed be potentially in the works.
Ha! I’m calling B*llsh*t on that one, as a fervent admirer of your posts since season 5. Your preference for “gender bending” ideas are clearly being hidden behind “a role model for girls” excuse!
Well that’s kinda a thump on the arm and a pat on the back all in one go 🙂 I’ll take it!
I’m not arguing simplistically from a “role model for girls” perspective. I think the Doctor is already a role model for kids, boys and girls. It’s simply been that case that, for fifty years, girls have had to imaginatively cross-gender identify in order to envision being him. I’m actually asking why men and boys can’t have a go at performing a similar feat of imagination should the Doctor happen to regenerate as female this time around.
The reason for some of the resistance to this idea does, I think, come down to the inflammatory “p” word (yes, patriarchy). Men and boys in British culture have been, historically, taught that “being a girl” is a lesser and negative thing to be (don’t throw like a girl, cry like a girl, fight like a girl etc.).
Children’s imaginative play is inherently identificatorily flexible, I think, Kids will imagine being anthropomorphic animals of all kinds, aliens, elves, the lot. But, boys have been culturally shamed for imaginatively playing female in a way that girls have not for imaginatively playing male (the “tomboy” has been more permitted than the “sissy”). That historic cultural shame (the imperative given to men not, at all costs, to “be a woman”) is the reason why, in my view, so many in the Whoniverse mediasphere are freaking out about a female Doctor. The equation goes:
“I strongly identify with the Doctor.
The Doctor is now a woman.
Oh dear gods, I cannot strongly identify with a woman, that would make me a woman (which is bad).”
So, because I see the root of this particular freak-out (which by no means all male fans of Who are having, just some, rather publicly) as underpinned by an historic devaluation of female-ness, it makes me cross, to the point where I am even now making my “That’s Ms Doctor Who to you” placard 🙂
You’re right, I love gender-fluidity of all kinds. But, if the Doctor regenerated as a woman, I don’t think the way to conceptualise the Doc would be as a male consciousness in a female body, and I’d be disappointed if the show wrote her that way. For sure, as the Doc has, up to now, inhabited male bodies exclusively (as far as we know) viewers might reasonably expect an adjustment period when the Doc comments on her new female identity/ self presentation, but then she’d adjust and be off in the TARDIS as usual, I’d hope.
In all honesty – are there any scenes you remember from previous series, or lines, that would ring alarm bells if you heard or saw a woman perform them?
Well, the sonic erection gag in The Crimson Horror might not work 🙂
No, I like my Doctor capricious, wandering, layered, kind-hearted, a little dark sometimes, petulant, given to more than occasional flashes of grandiosity, bright, brilliant, mad-cap, full of wonder. And I like all those things equally well in men and women. Her own version of Idris’ “beautiful idiot” is just right 🙂 She should stride across the universe quite as arrogantly and as endearingly as before. And the universe should just damn well catch up.
OOps that got a bit long…
7 June 2013 at 18:26 #11996@juniperfish – that was lovely. It encompassed everything I’ve been thinking but hadn’t been able to write as eloquently as you.
This: “girls have had to imaginatively cross-gender identify in order to envision being him. I’m actually asking why men and boys can’t have a go at performing a similar feat of imagination should the Doctor happen to regenerate as female this time around.”
And not just for the Doctor, but in fact most of literature / the movies / TV shows / culture in general.
The inherent and fundamental ‘maleness’ of human society you have nailed with your observation about girls as ‘tomboys’ being so much more accepted than boys as ‘sissies’.
If there is a male-female divide, then this is it: men simply cannot ever truly understand what it means to be a woman, to see male role models far outnumbering female role models, and having to do that acrobatic mind twist to see ourselves as the [strong, proactive] protagonist.
7 June 2013 at 19:14 #11997Just a thought, but they’re going to have a terrible job phrasing the announcement of the Next Dr if it IS Clara. Assuming they don’t want to give away a big chunk of plot. So if they make us wait till November, I’m putting my money on JLC 😉
7 June 2013 at 19:14 #11998suggests to me that a female Doc may actually indeed be potentially in the works.
@juniperfish – interestingly, I was out last night with a group of friends who aren’t forum haunting Whovians (who, me?)- two of whom watch with their kids, most of whom don’t watch now but did when they were kids – and there was, without me suggesting it, a unanimous ‘it’s going to be a woman this time’. That’s their perception of the way the publicity is working. There’s been so much discussion in the media about the possibility of a female Doctor, it’s got to be because that’s what the BBC are planning.
They were all, male and female alike, fine with the idea of a woman. So yes, your notion that the objections may be coming from people who strongly identify with the Doctor might well be right. The general audience, it seems, may not have a problem.
@scaryb – agreed. If they say the Next Doctor will be officially announced after the 50th Anniversary Special, I’m going to get very suspicious indeed. 🙂
7 June 2013 at 19:27 #12000That’s interesting re your friends. In fact if it’s not a female Dr I’d expect a fair bit of male-centric PR to be coming from the Beeb pretty soon, or there’s going to be a sense of disappointment! I came across an interview with Moffatt recently (it was from last Aug) where he says he pitches DW firmly at the mainstream (has to quell his own little geeky fanboy voice sometimes). Sorry, can’t find it now 🙁
Now could be a very good time to do it, when the show’s profile is high and they presumably have a bit of clout (with the BBC and with actors). And it could be a fun way to shake things up a bit.
As you’ve said before, they always build in a get-out at the end of first seasons. Any idea how long season 8 is? I only know know it seems an awfully long time away! <folds arms, stamps foot and looks huffy!>
7 June 2013 at 19:31 #12001@scaryb , @bluesqueakpip – and then, here’s the JLC interview:
http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/coleman-has-no-idea-who-next-doctor-is-50365.htm
Jenna joins the ‘The Moff / The Doctor lies as rule 1’ club. Because all of our bonkers theorising ™ point to JLC being the next Doctor!
And there’s absolutely no way in heck that the next Doctor hasn’t already been cast, if they start filming in a couple of months.
7 June 2013 at 19:38 #12002@juniperfish, the interesting thing about relating to female characters, is that it doesn’t seem to have been the case that only women read, for example, gothic novels, which frequently involved female characters in dangerous situations, reacting with courage and curiosity, and frequently saving young men from peril. At a time when there were greater social (and legal) differences between the lives of men and women, courage and curiosity seemed to relate to both sexes.
Which also makes it curious about the lack of female writers in Who, and generally in sci-fi and horror. Back in the day women more or less owned the gothic genre. Male critics from the 18th century onwards have tended to place writers like Radcliff above Walpole and Lewis in terms of quality of writing. (Personally I find ‘the monk’ fun if you regard it as game of ‘gothic horror bingo’: the devil, witchcraft, cross dressing, accidental incest, catacombs, dead baby, nuns, accidentally ending up at a murder b&b for the night.) The female writers of the time tended to focus more on the horror that is contained within human nature. At some point people began to get the idea that these genres were not, as a rule, the kind of things women write. I just can’t see why, for anyone with access to bookshops or a library.
7 June 2013 at 19:39 #12003And further in re a female Doctor …
@pedant over on the Spoilers thread commented about the difficulty of a new female Doctor, competing with the memory of River Song.
That is indeed an issue. River, in retrospect, was a female Doctor (as per @juniperfish, arrogant and endearing, capricious, petulant, grandiose, brilliant, madcap). How could they possibly write another female actor to encompass all those traits, but not devolve into River Mark II?
7 June 2013 at 19:41 #12004@Shazzbot – well, by the rules of our bonkers theorising:
- No, they have no idea who the next Doctor is. The next Doctor after her, that is, because JLC’s already under contract and working on the show.
- Honestly, it’s going to be a long, long search. Hopefully, it’ll be about four years long. Maybe five.
😈
-
AuthorPosts
The topic ‘The Next Doctor’ is closed to new replies.
