Red Herring?
Doctor Who... Page 258
Quote: Griff @ January 2 2009, 8:28 PM GMTWell I guess it won't happen this time -
And never shall it, I hope. It's just brought up to get a few extra headlines. The Doctor may be an alien, but he's a male one.
Quote: Griff @ January 2 2009, 8:28 PM GMTPersonally I really can't see any reason why the Doctor couldn't be a woman.
45 years of history? The Doctor is a man, Bond is a man, The Vicar Of Dibley is a woman; some things should just not change. Plus, why make him a woman? Besides an initial sense of novelty?
Quote: Moonstone @ January 2 2009, 8:27 PM GMTI don't see why on earth not. Tradition? Lame reason imo.
It's a shit idea. Good reason IMO.
Quote: Aaron @ January 2 2009, 8:33 PM GMTIt's a shit idea. Good reason IMO.
Are we *gulp* in agreement. .? *faints*
Quote: Moonstone @ January 2 2009, 8:27 PM GMTI don't see why on earth not. Tradition? Lame reason imo.
It's got nothing to do with tradition, and everything to do with the fact that the character is male. So to cast a female would be somewhat odd.
Correct me if I'm wrong but surly within the canon of the show we cannot have a woman timelord? As we've seen that the race of Timelords is split into male and female (Timelords and Timeladies) and that Timelords regenerate into male-human-lookalikes and female Timeladies regenerate into female-human-lookalikes.
To have a male Timelord turn into a female-human-lookalike would be changing his sex into Timelady, surly?
I'm probably missing some bit 'But' here.
Quote: Griff @ January 2 2009, 8:35 PM GMTthere's great female actors that could have played it just as well.
Yes, but the character is male; a male shape changing alien.
Quote: Griff @ January 2 2009, 8:39 PM GMTWell, the big "but" is that nobody in charge of the show gives a flying f**k about established canon if it would suit them more to change the rules at any given time.
I think it would be madness to for no apparent reason deciding to cast a Woman; and what's more they never would. RTD even mentioned how he and Moffat joked about the issue when they were discussing the changeover, making sure they said it could be a woman, just because it's sort of traditional.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 2 2009, 8:37 PM GMTIt's got nothing to do with tradition, and everything to do with the fact that the character is male. So to cast a female would be somewhat odd.
Maybe odd at first, but everyone'd get used to it.
I think it'd be an interesting experiment anyway. Just as Thatcher was 
Quote: Griff @ January 2 2009, 8:55 PM GMTAgreed, I mean it's not like Doctor Who is this highly conservative show where the rules have never changed in the past.
And I don't see that casting a woman needs "an apparent reason" anymore than casting a Scot or a black actor needs a reason. The only consideration is whether the actor has got the presence to carry the show.
Amen.
I can't honestly see why it's such a huge problem. I'd watch it anyway - especially if she was fi...had the presence to carry the show!
Quote: Griff @ January 2 2009, 8:55 PM GMTAgreed, I mean it's not like Doctor Who is this highly conservative show where the rules have never changed in the past.
And I don't see that casting a woman needs "an apparent reason" anymore than casting a Scot or a black actor needs a reason. The only consideration is whether the actor has got the presence to carry the show. The regeneration happens, the female Time Lord/Lady/Ladyboy stands up, someone says "but but you're a woman", the new Doctor says "yes that's right", recites the usual boring technobabble they always use to cover shoddy plotting, and everyone moves on and forgets it.
Them I'm glad you have nothing to do with the show, because you're quite, quite wrong! 
I've a feeling the new Doctor will be Roy "Chubby" Brown. He already has the eccentric outfit. Perhaps his sidekick could be called Alice.
What would that do to the ratings?
People are talking of established rules and concepts, but it struck me this morning that these really mean bugger all. The most recent series has been publicised by the BBC as the fourth series, not the 30th. So it's really a revival of the basis/concept of the series, and not a continuation. Almost a re-make, if you will. Eccleston just was the Doctor, back in 2004 or whenever it was. He didn't regenerate from a previous one. To date I believe it's been relatively faithful to the old series' and the laws established there, but that I suspect is more to do with the writers having their own memories and personal ideas based on what they grew up with, rather than any sense of HAVING to stick to these rules and ideas now.
Ah yes, that's true! I'd forgotten about those. Still, fairly small in the big scheme of how they run the show in the long-term. If I'd been a watcher of the original series', I'd have thought that the 12 regenerations would be quite a big thing. But evidently that's going to go to shit now.
What does the regex resolve as? 
I just found out that Matt Smith who is the 2nd favourite on some betting website, comes from my hometown - Northampton. So, of course, it's on the front page of our local paper. *sigh*