Lets start a petition, Kathy Burke for the next incarnation of Missy !
I could actually see Kathy being able to carry off a serious and dark role on reflection, she has played some good straight parts. My main point is that I doubt somebody physically like her would get the Dr role whereas a male equivalent might.
Completely off the wall I know but a mature "character" actress who could nail a major part is Stephanie Cole imho.
Yes. That's what I said. I don't know what your point is here.
The point is that you're essentially arguing against a change of the gender of the Doctor ("a change for change's sake"), rather than a change of the writers. You've pre-decided that the current writing team will only ever be capable of cheap gags that mock the situation...rather than suggest that you'd be happy if a new writing team broached the topic of gender-switching The Doctor, you'll slam the idea because by your own standards the current team isn't up to the task.
As a bad comparison, it'd be like throwing away a poorly constructed cabinet, rather than finding someone else to reassemble it for you correctly.
You'd sooner deride the idea of a gender-change outright, than find someone who could potentially do the idea justice.
Basically, 'what I'm saying' is change for change's sake would be an error. Having it 'just happen' would be a wasted opportunity both in the show and culturally.
As I've stated above, with the current team all we'd get would be a bunch of immature gags which would make a mockery of the whole thing (see: Missy). By treating it as relevant and necessary to the narrative you minimise the risk of descending into camp parody and by exploring the issue in a mature way you would go a long way towards challenging the opinions of those steadfastly against it and hopefully winning them round through a long term, show defining exploration of character versus a temporary gimmick..
But how many of these "immature gags" were written in that were the result of a gender change for Missy? You use her as your gleaming example - what is it about the gender of the character that is so responsible for this offensive approach? What immaturity displayed by the character was an offence to her gender?
You talk about minimising the risk of descending into camp parody, and I must ask whether you saw John Simm's portrayal of the same character? In his first story he wheels The Doctor around in a wheelchair to the Scissor Sisters, in his second story he 'becomes everyone' and can be seen wearing dresses, and blouses and all sorts. The Master is the definition of a camp villain...man or woman. As such it sounds like you have an issue with the character in general, and have somehow applied that to gender issues rather unfairly.
It boils down to opinions at this point, but most seem to love Michelle Gomez in the role. Most just accept it and move on - the gender thing doesn't even come into play for most people. It served the character well from a plot angle, because it threw The Doctor off in terms of figuring her identity. It doesn't need to be any bigger a deal than that.
For many years gay people rightly complained that whenever a gay character was introduced into a show, the focus will always be on that characters sexuality - their coming out, their daily struggle, even just an obsession with their love life as opposed to anything else - even when viewed in a positive light. Their sexuality became their whole identity and that was wrong. By comparison, what is any different about making a big deal, or finding a dramatic cause that ties into gender-changes? Why can't we just accept the gender change as a small part of the character, have the odd reference to it along the way if need be (I doubt full-on story will ever be required...it's not a soap) and let them get on with telling the stories? A heavy-handed approach to it, or dwelling on it only serves to make it a bigger deal - which is the very thing it isn't meant to be.
A big part of the issue is that the BBC is renowned for its political correctness and so no matter how cleverly the transition is written in it will always be "the elephant in the room".
Given that there are an infinite number of good plotlines that can be conceived without changing the sex of the Dr it could still be viewed as change for changes sake. One way of writing a female actor into the role is to have The Dr as very androgynous (Tilda Swinton type), as a trans (similar situation to Hayley from Corrie) or as a cross dresser (after the fashion of Eddie Izzard and Grayson Perry) but played by a woman. How would a male character played by a woman suit?
There are loads of good actors out there so the choice of Doctor isn't exactly restricted and to my mind should be more plot led than actor led.
It's an interesting subject generally, but I do wonder how the casting process would work in practice? Say Peter C has finished his run (hopefully a few years down the line!) and whoever's in charge of the show at the time says, okay, we need to recast. They can't interview every equity member, so do they compile a list of who they are interested in purely on gender grounds or not? Say, um, 10 women and 10 men and go from there? Unless the showrunner at the time has a very specific person in mind? A la Capaldi and Tennant?
Famously, Steven Moffat was looking to cast someone a bit older than David, and then a certain youngster comes in (I can call him that. I'm getting on a bit) and blows everybody away. (thank god. Wonderful Doctor.)
I mean, I've got an open mind about the whole thing, as said earlier in the thread, but it's kind of easy for Helen Mirren to say what she said cos, well, it's not going be her, is it! Assume she wouldn't want it! Most actors who takes on such an iconic role must think long and hard about the impact on their lives and whether they will be accepted by the general audience/fans. If there is a female Doctor in the future, that actor is going to have a lot of flipping guts, considering how even hypothetically the subject seems to be so hotly debated.
I never rule anything out and my mind remains open...anything can happen in (oh no! Don't say it!) the (arghh! He's gonna say it!!) 'Whoniverse'. (Oh, gawd. He said it!)
Had clearer points to make before that ramble. It got away from me. :kitty:
Comments
I could actually see Kathy being able to carry off a serious and dark role on reflection, she has played some good straight parts. My main point is that I doubt somebody physically like her would get the Dr role whereas a male equivalent might.
Completely off the wall I know but a mature "character" actress who could nail a major part is Stephanie Cole imho.
That really depends on whether you think it was a good story!
As a bad comparison, it'd be like throwing away a poorly constructed cabinet, rather than finding someone else to reassemble it for you correctly.
You'd sooner deride the idea of a gender-change outright, than find someone who could potentially do the idea justice.
But how many of these "immature gags" were written in that were the result of a gender change for Missy? You use her as your gleaming example - what is it about the gender of the character that is so responsible for this offensive approach? What immaturity displayed by the character was an offence to her gender?
You talk about minimising the risk of descending into camp parody, and I must ask whether you saw John Simm's portrayal of the same character? In his first story he wheels The Doctor around in a wheelchair to the Scissor Sisters, in his second story he 'becomes everyone' and can be seen wearing dresses, and blouses and all sorts. The Master is the definition of a camp villain...man or woman. As such it sounds like you have an issue with the character in general, and have somehow applied that to gender issues rather unfairly.
It boils down to opinions at this point, but most seem to love Michelle Gomez in the role. Most just accept it and move on - the gender thing doesn't even come into play for most people. It served the character well from a plot angle, because it threw The Doctor off in terms of figuring her identity. It doesn't need to be any bigger a deal than that.
For many years gay people rightly complained that whenever a gay character was introduced into a show, the focus will always be on that characters sexuality - their coming out, their daily struggle, even just an obsession with their love life as opposed to anything else - even when viewed in a positive light. Their sexuality became their whole identity and that was wrong. By comparison, what is any different about making a big deal, or finding a dramatic cause that ties into gender-changes? Why can't we just accept the gender change as a small part of the character, have the odd reference to it along the way if need be (I doubt full-on story will ever be required...it's not a soap) and let them get on with telling the stories? A heavy-handed approach to it, or dwelling on it only serves to make it a bigger deal - which is the very thing it isn't meant to be.
Given that there are an infinite number of good plotlines that can be conceived without changing the sex of the Dr it could still be viewed as change for changes sake. One way of writing a female actor into the role is to have The Dr as very androgynous (Tilda Swinton type), as a trans (similar situation to Hayley from Corrie) or as a cross dresser (after the fashion of Eddie Izzard and Grayson Perry) but played by a woman. How would a male character played by a woman suit?
There are loads of good actors out there so the choice of Doctor isn't exactly restricted and to my mind should be more plot led than actor led.
Famously, Steven Moffat was looking to cast someone a bit older than David, and then a certain youngster comes in (I can call him that. I'm getting on a bit) and blows everybody away. (thank god. Wonderful Doctor.)
I mean, I've got an open mind about the whole thing, as said earlier in the thread, but it's kind of easy for Helen Mirren to say what she said cos, well, it's not going be her, is it! Assume she wouldn't want it! Most actors who takes on such an iconic role must think long and hard about the impact on their lives and whether they will be accepted by the general audience/fans. If there is a female Doctor in the future, that actor is going to have a lot of flipping guts, considering how even hypothetically the subject seems to be so hotly debated.
I never rule anything out and my mind remains open...anything can happen in (oh no! Don't say it!) the (arghh! He's gonna say it!!) 'Whoniverse'. (Oh, gawd. He said it!)
Had clearer points to make before that ramble. It got away from me. :kitty: