There has been a female Doctor/Time Lady..... in the original series, she was played by Mary Tamm (subsequently played by Lala Ward) in the guise of Romana.... in a Children In Need Special, the Doctor regenerated into Joanna Lumley.
Romana wasn't the Doctor. She was the Doctor's companion.
No one is saying that there aren't female Time Lords. The argument is about whether the Doctor himself should or could change gender in a future regeneration.
There are male and female Timelords that have never changed gender in the past and they grew up male on Gallifrey.
I wouldn't abandon the show without giving it a go but I can't help think that if they feel the need to change the gender of The Doctor it would be because the show was in decline and they were trying to grab ratings and headlines rather than the because it was the correct thing to do for the story.
Whether people like it or not, it's now part of the canon that Timelords can change gender through regeneration. I don't think it would be a good thing for them to do it simply for ratings and headlines either, but an open casting call for an incoming incarnation that found an excellent actress for the part wouldn't bother me one bit.
There has been a female Doctor/Time Lady..... in the original series, she was played by Mary Tamm (subsequently played by Lala Ward) in the guise of Romana.... in a Children In Need Special, the Doctor regenerated into Joanna Lumley.
I have no problem with female Time Lords (Time Ladies?) whatsoever. I loved Romana II especially (City of Death, The E-Space Trilogy, etc.).
The main point of contention which continuously emerges in different threads is whether or not The Doctor himself should ever regenerate into a female as part of the canon of the show (not as a comedy special).
All of the evidence points to the fact that the vast majority of the watchers of the show see The Doctor as specifically male (as he has always (within canon) been presented). However, there is a small but vocal group who wish to see this specifically masculine figure turned into a woman. Thus, the never ending debate.
Your conclusion does not follow. Sarcasm is a perfectly legitimate response to an argument not based in logic. You cannot seriously be saying that the Doctor cannot be female because you and your friends would stop buying stuff. Debate cannot counter a statement like that. And to follow that with, "Everyone who disagrees should just give up disagreeing, because we're right"? Humour is the only possible response.
You must have seriously misread my statement. I was not saying for a moment that the could not make the Doctor female because my friends and I would stop buying/watching it. I was saying that they should not because not only is The Doctor's character very clearly established as a male, but, also because many others would also stop watching. Once again, why risk such a great formula which has worked for 50 years on a move that would only be looked upon as a gimmick, as "jumping the shark". It could possible signal that the show is in its death throes (the same way that bringing a baby into a sit-com shows how they have run out of other plot devices and almost always indicates that the show is in its last season or two).
I am sorry that you misread my original post on the subject. The end-all be-all of the argument is that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". People love the show as it has always been and remains to this day: "A Madman in a blue box". That is why the show has lasted for 50 years (with two hiatuses.)
Screwing around with something that has worked so well for so long usually has disastrous results (Jar-Jar Binks, Meticlorians (sp?), heck, the entirety of Episode I for examples).
Why would the BBC risk what should be a cash cow for them for years to come on what could easily such a disastrous move?
As to your point about the possibility for other good male role models on the show even if they make The Doctor female, while it is true that they might make some good male role models and they might not (although the history of the current revival would heavily argue that they would not), we watch the show because we identify with and wish to emulate the male role model known as The Doctor. He is who we have been watching for most if not all of our lives and we do not wish to lose him as such.
Whether people like it or not, it's now part of the canon that Timelords can change gender through regeneration. I don't think it would be a good thing for them to do it simply for ratings and headlines either, but an open casting call for an incoming incarnation that found an excellent actress for the part wouldn't bother me one bit.
Various writers may have paid lip-service to the idea, but the bottom line is that every single Doctor Who producer and writer has regarded the Doctor as a male character over the past 50 years. The established history of five decades outweighs the technical cannon in my opinion.
Thing is though, what if it failed? What if the ratings completely tanked under a female Doctor? They can't just change him back into a male and pretend it never happened.
It could put the show in danger, plus I see no problem whatsoever with a male Doctor. He's been that way for 50 years and the show is still a huge hit, there's no reason to risk that just to pander to women.
Have a regeneration crisis split the Doctor into three potential futures, who have to co-operate.
One white male, one black male, one female.
Make it into a four-part miniseries, perhaps with each Doctor the main focus of one episode, and one as a group.
Film three endings, with each of the potential Doctors absorbing the others and becoming the real next Doctor.
Study the audience feedback over the first thee episodes.
Splice in the appropriate ending according to popularity.
Starting writing the next series.
I don't see how a female Doctor would have to be any different from a male Doctor in regards to the Doctor's core characteristics.
A penis does not make a character any different from not having a penis.
There's no answer to that, it's so striking in it's simplistic view of male and female.
I see men and women as fundamentally different (though you do have a point, as hormones would play a part in that difference). You obviously don't. All I can say is, our life experiences must have differed widely.
There's no answer to that, it's so striking in it's simplistic view of male and female.
I see men and women as fundamentally different (though you do have a point, as hormones would play a part in that difference). You obviously don't. All I can say is, our life experiences must have differed widely.
I do accept a fundamental difference between males and females but that's a question of sex (noun) rather than gender; gender difference is just a fabricated idea perpetuated by society and culture. (Hence the disparity between say, a Victorian wife and an Amazonian female).
I reckon gender differences will become smaller and small;er as modern human society continues to develop.
Comments
Romana wasn't the Doctor. She was the Doctor's companion.
No one is saying that there aren't female Time Lords. The argument is about whether the Doctor himself should or could change gender in a future regeneration.
I have no problem with female Time Lords (Time Ladies?) whatsoever. I loved Romana II especially (City of Death, The E-Space Trilogy, etc.).
The main point of contention which continuously emerges in different threads is whether or not The Doctor himself should ever regenerate into a female as part of the canon of the show (not as a comedy special).
All of the evidence points to the fact that the vast majority of the watchers of the show see The Doctor as specifically male (as he has always (within canon) been presented). However, there is a small but vocal group who wish to see this specifically masculine figure turned into a woman. Thus, the never ending debate.
You must have seriously misread my statement. I was not saying for a moment that the could not make the Doctor female because my friends and I would stop buying/watching it. I was saying that they should not because not only is The Doctor's character very clearly established as a male, but, also because many others would also stop watching. Once again, why risk such a great formula which has worked for 50 years on a move that would only be looked upon as a gimmick, as "jumping the shark". It could possible signal that the show is in its death throes (the same way that bringing a baby into a sit-com shows how they have run out of other plot devices and almost always indicates that the show is in its last season or two).
I am sorry that you misread my original post on the subject. The end-all be-all of the argument is that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". People love the show as it has always been and remains to this day: "A Madman in a blue box". That is why the show has lasted for 50 years (with two hiatuses.)
Screwing around with something that has worked so well for so long usually has disastrous results (Jar-Jar Binks, Meticlorians (sp?), heck, the entirety of Episode I for examples).
Why would the BBC risk what should be a cash cow for them for years to come on what could easily such a disastrous move?
As to your point about the possibility for other good male role models on the show even if they make The Doctor female, while it is true that they might make some good male role models and they might not (although the history of the current revival would heavily argue that they would not), we watch the show because we identify with and wish to emulate the male role model known as The Doctor. He is who we have been watching for most if not all of our lives and we do not wish to lose him as such.
Various writers may have paid lip-service to the idea, but the bottom line is that every single Doctor Who producer and writer has regarded the Doctor as a male character over the past 50 years. The established history of five decades outweighs the technical cannon in my opinion.
Thanks Granny:) We all need a Time Lord or two (five and nine for me, please!)
It could put the show in danger, plus I see no problem whatsoever with a male Doctor. He's been that way for 50 years and the show is still a huge hit, there's no reason to risk that just to pander to women.
One white male, one black male, one female.
Make it into a four-part miniseries, perhaps with each Doctor the main focus of one episode, and one as a group.
Film three endings, with each of the potential Doctors absorbing the others and becoming the real next Doctor.
Study the audience feedback over the first thee episodes.
Splice in the appropriate ending according to popularity.
Starting writing the next series.
I will have my cheque now please, Mr. BBC.
I am confused by this phrase.
I don't see how a female Doctor would have to be any different from a male Doctor in regards to the Doctor's core characteristics.
A penis does not make a character any different from not having a penis.
There's no answer to that, it's so striking in it's simplistic view of male and female.
I see men and women as fundamentally different (though you do have a point, as hormones would play a part in that difference). You obviously don't. All I can say is, our life experiences must have differed widely.
I do accept a fundamental difference between males and females but that's a question of sex (noun) rather than gender; gender difference is just a fabricated idea perpetuated by society and culture. (Hence the disparity between say, a Victorian wife and an Amazonian female).
I reckon gender differences will become smaller and small;er as modern human society continues to develop.