By Moffat. I know of no occasion in the Classic series where it was "established" that Time Lords can change gender. Changing either the Master or Doctor into a woman is simply for the purpose of political correctness or to create controversy.
It annoy's me how some act like only the classic series should be taken seriously. I often dislike things Moffat does but he runs the show now, one which is the same show as it was then and what he says/ establishes about the timelords and gallifrey, just as what RTD stated about it all is as valid and true as anything in the classic series, and in fact even more so because it has been said more recently
It annoy's me how some act like only the classic series should be taken seriously. I often dislike things Moffat does but he runs the show now, one which is the same show as it was then and what he says/ establishes about the timelords and gallifrey, just as what RTD stated about it all is as valid and true as anything in the classic series, and in fact even more so because it has been said more recently
I agree in part to what you say. Of course a showrunner is going to leave their mark and express their ideas. But the show is not about one showrunner. It is about the heritage, legacy and what is acceptable and what the people who watch the show feel (which is why the show is on air). To take a character and suddenly alter the very fundamental thing that that character is because they (the writer) have some sense of entitlement is insulting and out of order. If the next showrunner came along and decided to make The Doctor a "figment of the companions imagination - a chartacter that never actually existed" would that be OK too?
It's not like Moffat came up with the idea of a Time Lord changing genders I can recall me and friends talking about that in the 80's so it's been long debated all Mottat did was confirm some peoples theories on it.
It's not like the Classic show ever said it was impossible.
It's not like Moffat came up with the idea of a Time Lord changing genders I can recall me and friends talking about that in the 80's so it's been long debated all Mottat did was confirm some peoples theories on it.
It's not like the Classic show ever said it was impossible.
Tom Baker brought it up, probably at JNT's request, to grab some headlines in 1980. Assume it's only been the c word since Neil Gaiman's The Doctor's Wife when the Corsair is mentioned.
I wouldn't be happy about watching it so wouldn't. I was very unhappy when it was revealed River Song was Amy's daughter. I nearly gave up watching it after that. But my partner persuaded me to give it a go and whilst I'm not over the moon about the River/Amy relationship I do concede that it was not really that big a deal in the context of the show. Having a female master suddenly thrust upon us is merely one step towards a female Doctor and that is not what the show is about. So, yes, if Missy is The Master, regardless as to whether she's in the next series or not, I will stop watching Doctor Who because it would have become a ruined, different show to what I have enjoyed these past 40 years.
BIB: I'm curious. What did you find so objectionable in that plot development that you initially nearly gave up watching?
She seems like she's going to be an awful character, no matter who she is. And she'll be a strong, but evil woman written by Moffat, so I'm certainly not expecting anything good. But I have no objections whatsoever to Time Lords changing gender and it's not exactly like Simms' Master was a loving tribute to Roger Delgado, so I'm absolutely fine with it on that level.
On the other hand, it'll really annoy people who get upset over a TV programme that they like not being exactly how they like it, so on that level I really, really hope she is. I'm not expecting great things from the episode tomorrow, but I think there's a fair probability that the forums after the episode have aired are going to be worth their weight in bitcoins.
To take a character and suddenly alter the very fundamental thing that that character is because they (the writer) have some sense of entitlement is insulting and out of order.
Jacobi > Simm was a much bigger change in "the very fundamental thing that that character is" than Simm > Gomez would be.
But Michelle Gomez is female!
Her capabilities is not what I am questioning.I have never commented upon her performance other than to agree with others that she is excellent. But I simply do not want a female Master or Doctor regardless as to who is playing the role and how good they are. End of. I realise your viewpoints on this as you have expressed the same long-winded sermons several times so I ask you respectfully to accept my viewpoint in the same way I have come to accept yours.
"The Master has stolen a woman's body in exactly the same way as he's stolen bodies before" leads to "The Doctor regenerates as a female" in much the same way that "men being allowed to marry men" leads to "men being allowed to marry dogs". One does not necessarily lead to the other, and any expectation that they might is a stretch.
You have repeatedly said in the past that you don't want the Doctor to be female, and you've opened another thread that just expresses exactly the same thing. And yet you try to position me as the one banging on about it?
"The Master has stolen a woman's body in exactly the same way as he's stolen bodies before" leads to "The Doctor regenerates as a female" in much the same way that "men being allowed to marry men" leads to "men being allowed to marry dogs". One does not necessarily lead to the other, and any expectation that they might is a stretch.
You have repeatedly said in the past that you don't want the Doctor to be female, and you've opened another thread that just expresses exactly the same thing. And yet you try to position me as the one banging on about it?
I have opened a thread based on relevant speculation concerning the current series of Doctor Who. Sure, I've repeatedly said that I do not wish to see a female Doctor and now, because it seems possible, I do not want a female Master either. If you look at the poll, the majority of pollsters do not want one either.
I want strong female characters who are characters in their own right. Doctor Who has the scope to provide that. But not at the expense of already male characters.
BIB: I'm curious. What did you find so objectionable in that plot development that you initially nearly gave up watching?
The air of mystery surrounding River in "Silence in The Library" and "Forest of the Dead" then again through the series 5 weeping angels two parter was cleverly crafted to engage the viewer into a sense of marvel. It really was well written and when it was revealed that River was Amy's daughter it seemed lazy and convoluted, as if the whole purpose of Amy was a second thought or a device to just enhance the character of River. I really had a bad time accepting the reveal because I felt that Moffat could and should have been far more original, especially as he is more than capable of being so.
The Rani is a renegade Time Lord,[2] an evil scientific genius whose villainy comes not from the usual variety of lust for power and suchlike, but from a mindset that treats everything (including morality) as secondary to her research; she has been known to enslave entire planets such as Miasimia Goria in order to have a ready supply of experimental subjects and a place to carry out her experiments uninterrupted. Her major interest is in tinkering with other species' biochemistry
All this seems to square pretty well with what we've seen of the finale from the trailer (the idea of huge experiments) and the disappearance of the "dead".
46.56% is a minority. The majority either want it or aren't bothered.
But twice as many are opposed as are in favour if you consider either yes or no. Not bothered are neither yes or no so can't really be added to yes in as much as they can't be added to No.
But twice as many are opposed as are in favour if you consider either yes or no. Not bothered are neither yes or no so can't really be added to yes in as much as they can't be added to No.
Not bothered means not bothered. The question in the poll is whether you'd be actively happy if Missy is the Master. You then claimed that the majority of posters actively don't want Missy to be the Master.
That's incorrect, it's a minority of posters who have said that they don't want Missy to be the Master.
Even the ones who are bothered doesn't mean they will hate it enough stop watching.
Even if it does lose a few viewers that is normal a few stopped watching when Peter Capaldi was cast but it gained a few back from the ones who stopped watching when Matt Smith was cast.
Sure, I've repeatedly said that I do not wish to see a female Doctor and now, because it seems possible, I do not want a female Master either. If you look at the poll, the majority of pollsters do not want one either.
That's not what your poll is asking.
I voted no, not because I'd be upset at a female master, but at the easy guess. I want to be surprised.
So you cannot draw that conclusion from the question asked.
But more posters don't want it than do want it. Just because as many people aren't bothered as do those that do want it, then that can't be counted as a positive vote, its a neutral vote.
But more posters don't want it than do want it. Just because as many people aren't bothered as do those that do want it, then that can't be counted as a positive vote, its a neutral vote.
I voted Not Bothered because I'm not bothered if Missy is The Master or not but I do want to see a female incarnation of them both one day
Can't the master disguise himself? I haven't watched it in a long time but he does in Logopolis right? So if Missy does turn out to be the Master, there is a possibility he's still male but merely disguised as a woman.
I'd be happy anyway. From what I've seen, I think she'd make a brilliant Master.
NO Gender changes please! Although the Time Lords can regenerate, they only regenerate as same gender, If this is ridiculous enough to be The Master, then of course that opens the doors up yet again for a female Doctor, which would be a travesty. I do not think its the Master though.
BIB: Actually, Captain Kirk was once played by a woman in the original series episode "Turnabout Intruder". In that story he was body swapped with a mad female scientist.
Yes, I know :-) Can name all the episodes in the correct order, too. Thanks though.
Comments
It annoy's me how some act like only the classic series should be taken seriously. I often dislike things Moffat does but he runs the show now, one which is the same show as it was then and what he says/ establishes about the timelords and gallifrey, just as what RTD stated about it all is as valid and true as anything in the classic series, and in fact even more so because it has been said more recently
I agree in part to what you say. Of course a showrunner is going to leave their mark and express their ideas. But the show is not about one showrunner. It is about the heritage, legacy and what is acceptable and what the people who watch the show feel (which is why the show is on air). To take a character and suddenly alter the very fundamental thing that that character is because they (the writer) have some sense of entitlement is insulting and out of order. If the next showrunner came along and decided to make The Doctor a "figment of the companions imagination - a chartacter that never actually existed" would that be OK too?
It's not like the Classic show ever said it was impossible.
Tom Baker brought it up, probably at JNT's request, to grab some headlines in 1980. Assume it's only been the c word since Neil Gaiman's The Doctor's Wife when the Corsair is mentioned.
Yep!
BIB: I'm curious. What did you find so objectionable in that plot development that you initially nearly gave up watching?
On the other hand, it'll really annoy people who get upset over a TV programme that they like not being exactly how they like it, so on that level I really, really hope she is. I'm not expecting great things from the episode tomorrow, but I think there's a fair probability that the forums after the episode have aired are going to be worth their weight in bitcoins.
Jacobi > Simm was a much bigger change in "the very fundamental thing that that character is" than Simm > Gomez would be.
"The Master has stolen a woman's body in exactly the same way as he's stolen bodies before" leads to "The Doctor regenerates as a female" in much the same way that "men being allowed to marry men" leads to "men being allowed to marry dogs". One does not necessarily lead to the other, and any expectation that they might is a stretch.
You have repeatedly said in the past that you don't want the Doctor to be female, and you've opened another thread that just expresses exactly the same thing. And yet you try to position me as the one banging on about it?
I have opened a thread based on relevant speculation concerning the current series of Doctor Who. Sure, I've repeatedly said that I do not wish to see a female Doctor and now, because it seems possible, I do not want a female Master either. If you look at the poll, the majority of pollsters do not want one either.
I want strong female characters who are characters in their own right. Doctor Who has the scope to provide that. But not at the expense of already male characters.
The air of mystery surrounding River in "Silence in The Library" and "Forest of the Dead" then again through the series 5 weeping angels two parter was cleverly crafted to engage the viewer into a sense of marvel. It really was well written and when it was revealed that River was Amy's daughter it seemed lazy and convoluted, as if the whole purpose of Amy was a second thought or a device to just enhance the character of River. I really had a bad time accepting the reveal because I felt that Moffat could and should have been far more original, especially as he is more than capable of being so.
46.56% is a minority. The majority either want it or aren't bothered.
Just based on the Wikipedia entry for Rani alone:
All this seems to square pretty well with what we've seen of the finale from the trailer (the idea of huge experiments) and the disappearance of the "dead".
But twice as many are opposed as are in favour if you consider either yes or no. Not bothered are neither yes or no so can't really be added to yes in as much as they can't be added to No.
Not bothered means not bothered. The question in the poll is whether you'd be actively happy if Missy is the Master. You then claimed that the majority of posters actively don't want Missy to be the Master.
That's incorrect, it's a minority of posters who have said that they don't want Missy to be the Master.
Even if it does lose a few viewers that is normal a few stopped watching when Peter Capaldi was cast but it gained a few back from the ones who stopped watching when Matt Smith was cast.
No. Absolutely not.
The Master, like the Doctor, is a male character, and should stay so.
That's not what your poll is asking.
I voted no, not because I'd be upset at a female master, but at the easy guess. I want to be surprised.
So you cannot draw that conclusion from the question asked.
I voted Not Bothered because I'm not bothered if Missy is The Master or not but I do want to see a female incarnation of them both one day
I'd be happy anyway. From what I've seen, I think she'd make a brilliant Master.
Yes, I know :-) Can name all the episodes in the correct order, too. Thanks though.