Doctor Who [5]

this guy has got to be the next Doctor.

Donna speaks latin?? sounds fun

If the race and gender issues get old, the writers could choose to dismiss them- David

I am not sure they are so easy to dismiss as it would undermine in a very obvious way the credibility of certain historical periods if ignored.

Donna speaks latin?- Norc

Fires of Pompai, Donna's second episode as a full time companion. Good episode overall.
Also has Karen Gillan in it as one of the soothsayer in her first ever appearence in Who.

oh.

OK fill me in quickly. We know there's a Tardis translator thingy that takes care of languages, and presumably accents. Is there ever any explanation on how he passes with clothes and manners? In real life the Doctor would be whacked on the head and hauled off to Bethlehem Royal Hospital.

YOu ask questions like that and then demand a 'quick' answer. No chance!

The TARDIS translator and the clothes thing is sort of tied together.
Few things to remember though- firstly the TARDIS was old and a museum piece when the Doctor stole her. She is also now kept together mainly with string, paperclips and love. The other main thing is all Time Lord technology is partly psychic based through the TARDIS telepathic crcuits, linking ship and pilot. And if the ship wants to, guests. She gets in your head and does some rearranging!

Not all languages are translated in Who, not all written signs are either, there can be a variety of reasons for this- the TARDIS just not working, her refusing to translate for someone, to far from the TARDIS to translate, blocked by some tech.
Accents too are not necessarily as might seem. When Amy meets Van Gogh he sounds Scottish. And when Amy speaks to him he says "Ah, so your dutch like me." So Amy sounds Dutch to Van Gogh and Van Gogh sounds Scottish to Amy. The TARDIS can translate to best suit the indivdual, the easiest way for Amy to understand Van Gogh is for him to sound just like her, so thats what the TARDIS translated the accent as.

When it comes to clothing sometimes, such as in the Idiots Lantern with Rose, or when Amy and Rory go to the late Victorian hotel for their anniversary, they wear period clothing.
But at other times they dont.
There is no real reason for this but an accepted contrived on is the TARDIS perception filter- the thing that means when the TARDIS lands and you walk by it that it doesnt seem odd, and even if you walk by that spot every day it will make you think its always been there.
Perception filters appear quite a few times in Who, the 'vampires' of venice use a personnal one to disguise their real appearence, the Angels use on in Time of Angels, the Silence timeship in the Lodger has one to.
In cases where they are dressed modern in a past setting the perception filter takes care of how they look.
Presumably the Doctor knows when its on the blink, and those are the occasions they have to dess up suitably from the TARDIS wardrobes.

So in other words, the writers can do whatever they want.

Which one would think includes making the Doctor something other than a white male.

I didnt say they couldnt, or shouldnt. Only that it does throw up some writting issues, however they choose to tackle it its a choice they dont have to even think about with a white male.
Most Who historical episodes are set in white northern european history where being male and white is like American Express, generally accepted everywhere.

And that's exactly why it would be interesting to bend it a little further.

One of the things that's interesting is what good spies and reporters women have been throughout history, because they can move more freely through a male dominated culture without raising red flags. Some of the best journalism out of the Middle East has come from women going where male reporters didn't dare. Personally I think that would be a cool angle for a Doctor, whenever the writers are ready.

Yes and I think all that would be interesting, to start with. But Who is not a political thriller, or an espionage show (although it can be either for a one off) and I wouldnt like it to get bogged down in those issues any more than I would have liked the Hitler epiosde to have been about the Holocaust. Its not really what Who is about- its about mad, daft, wild, wonderful high adventure set to a background of gods and scifi and fantasy and universal myths.
Race and gender issues can, and have been touched on, I just wouldnt like them to have to become a regular part of the meal.

touched on? there was a Whole series devoted to Amy's reproductive organs.

No the series was really devoted to the Doctors story and

Spoiler:

The Amy thing was really a plot device in service to the main (still ongoing) Doctor story.

Quite different to having a female Doctor and how secondary historic characters would react to her waltzing in as the Doctor does and immediately assuming control.

The issue is on the table, so they're going to have to address it sooner or later. In a perfect world I think it would be best to just do it and get it behind them.

But it sounds like they're increasingly at the mercy of ratings, which makes producers very conservative about taking risks. Unfortunate!

BBC worldwide is at the mercy of ratings.
BBC in the UK is a public broadcaster so dont have the same pressure to compete for ratings and advertising.
But it is a risk to change to a woman after 11 male versions.
And one thing Nuwho has notably done which classic Who never achieved is to bring in young female viewers in significant numbers. I am sure they will be considering how a female Doctor might play to that demograph too- will it appeal or will it lose that day dreaming quality of the Doctor swooping down his TARDIS to take them off for adventures?

On the other hand if you are going to take such a big risk its maybe best to do when the show is very popular than as a last desperate resort to try to stop falling viewers.

maybe it'll increase young male ratings

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

Quite different to having a female Doctor and how secondary historic characters would react to her waltzing in as the Doctor does and immediately assuming control.

Imagine Cate Blanchett's Dylan as the Doctor. It could work.... Right CC?

maybe it'll increase young male ratings -CC

Maybe, but Who has always done well getting that group already.
And then there is the companion issue- does she still mainly still take on young girls as companion, or does she go about with a 19/20 year old boy?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Race and gender issues can, and have been touched on, I just wouldnt like them to have to become a regular part of the meal.

It doesn't have to be a big deal. Marvel cast Idris Elba, a black British actor, as a freakin' Norse god in Thor and 90% or more of people didn't give a shit.

Who has never seemed like a show to let complete historical accuracy get in the way of its storytelling, anyway.

yes merely a plot device, Moffat would be the worst person to actually write a female Doctor, seeing as Amy and River were soap opera cliches.

Its a matter of historic credibility Eldo rather than accuracy.

A good example is the 10th Doctor story Family of Blood.
In it the Doctor becomes human and is a school teacher in a private school in the years before WW1.
His companion, Martha, who is a qualified medical doctor, gets a job at the same school- as a cleaner.
Where she has to put up with racist comments from the school boys and cant answer back.
Even when she finally reveals to a female nurse who has become close to the Doctor that she is also a doctor, she is dismissed on the grounds that someone of her colour and sex coud not possibly be a doctor.

Now if the Doctor had also been black in this case he could never have been a school teacher, more like the janitor, he could not have had the authority to do what he does in the episode without a chunk of the story being spent on convincing everyone to listen to him.
Even had he been a she instead the issue would arise as its clear in the episode what the attitude to women is, the female nurse is dismissed whilst the Doctor is listened to. The Doctor is allowed to be on the front line, the women are not.

Now addressing the issues head on would be good once or twice, but every time they go into such a historic setting it must have a bearing on the story or the setting will not seem credible.
And that might get a bit repetative and isnt what Who's is about.


Everything is a plot device Mrs Figg- Moriarty is plot device in Sherlock. And none the worse for being so.

a plot device that supports and confirms sexist tv tropes.

Then don't visit private schools of the Edwardian era. There is literally an entire universe of potential settings for Doctor Who stories. Even if they want the bulk of them to be set on Earth, DW is fortunate enough to have a decent-sized budget now. It can afford to flex its creative wings and be set in places other than Britain in the past century or two.

People like old Britain Eldo- last series we had two episodes set in Victorian England, 3 including the xmas episode. Before that the historic settting was the Old West in America, before that Nixons White House- race or sex would be an issue in the Doctors actions on all these occasions.

a plot device that supports and confirms sexist tv tropes.- Mrs Figg

I dont even know what you mean by that or how on earth it appplies, unless you mean

Spoiler:

I'm pretty sure they can think of a few decent plots for a black doctor in Victorian England. Plus considering the critical influence of race on humanity I'm pretty sure that casting a black Doctor would open up a whole world of potential plots, and of course there's already been a black time lord so where's the problem?

I dont have a probelm with a black Doctor I am pointing out however that having one will force a change on the way certain stories have to be told. Making it a more risky option to producers than sticking with what everyone is familar and comfortable with.