Any Doctor Who fans?

[Mr. Minnow]

Whereas in my view, Michelle Gomez is the best person to ever play the character and I can't take my eyes off her any time she is on screen.

I have nothing against Michelle Gomez as an actress, I think Moffat's writing is the reason I find Missy so cringeworthy.

[Madiel]

I have nothing against Michelle Gomez as an actress, I think Moffat's writing is the reason I find Missy so cringeworthy.

You've just spent considerable effort talking about the gender of the character/actor, and yet as soon as I say I have a different view as to the merits... you focus on the writer??

Seriously, I'm trying to figure out how that makes any sense. You're perfectly entitled to say that you don't like the current portrayal, but if your problem is with Moffat then I haven't the slightest clue why you brought Missy into the current conversation in the first place.

[Mr. Minnow]

You've just spent considerable effort talking about the gender of the character/actor, and yet as soon as I say I have a different view as to the merits... you focus on the writer??

Read my earlier posts again. I said

On the other hand, casting a woman simply because it's not been done before is not much of a reason for doing it, and if he's done it simply because he could, that's no reason at all. In my view, Moffat fell into that trap with Missy

So no, I haven't suddenly switched from talking about the actor to the writer, I was clear from the start that I thought the failing was on Moffat's part.
 

Seriously, I'm trying to figure out how that makes any sense. You're perfectly entitled to say that you don't like the current portrayal, but if your problem is with Moffat then I haven't the slightest clue why you brought Missy into the current conversation in the first place.

I said I thought Moffat fell into the trap of changing the Master's gender simply because it hadn't been done before, that that doesn't seem to me much of a reason for doing it, and that the result was that it added nothing to the character. I then said that if Chibnall's decision to cast a woman as the Doctor has been done for similar reasons it won't work, but if he has some substantive ideas for a female Doctor it should be fine. Whether or not you agree, that doesn't seem too hard to understand to me.

[Madiel]

There's no requirement in my view for it to "add something to the character". There's only a requirement for it to not detract from the character.

Because once you've established the character is a shape-shifting alien, the question isn't why should it be played by a woman, the question is why SHOULDN'T it? Why do men keep being cast?

That's what a heck of a lot of discussion misses. The reason there's been a push with this particular character is because it's a character where, unlike a lot of characters, the human gender ought not be relevant. And yet the character has defaulted to human male.

One of the Who directors back in the 70s would go through scripts and cast females in roles where gender was not relevant to the character. The reason for doing this was because so often the scripts would default to these characters being male for no reason other than it was the default.

If you want a reason for why to cast women in these roles, the reason is because human society has reached a point where excluding 50% of the acting pool from a role without a genuine gender requirement is no longer justifiable.

[Mr. Minnow]

There's no requirement in my view for it to "add something to the character". There's only a requirement for it to not detract from the character.

If they're going to make a pretty big change to a long established character I'd like there to be a better reason than novelty value or "just cos", because if it feels like that then it does detract from the character, for me anyway. If it comes across as a gimmick it's not going to be enjoyable to watch.     

Because once you've established the character is a shape-shifting alien, the question isn't why should it be played by a woman, the question is why SHOULDN'T it? Why do men keep being cast?

That's what a heck of a lot of discussion misses. The reason there's been a push with this particular character is because it's a character where, unlike a lot of characters, the human gender ought not be relevant. And yet the character has defaulted to human male.

One of the Who directors back in the 70s would go through scripts and cast females in roles where gender was not relevant to the character. The reason for doing this was because so often the scripts would default to these characters being male for no reason other than it was the default.

If you want a reason for why to cast women in these roles, the reason is because human society has reached a point where excluding 50% of the acting pool from a role without a genuine gender requirement is no longer justifiable.

There are perfectly good arguments for casting a female Doctor, I haven't argued otherwise. I simply said that Moffat's writing of Missy was such that it came across to me as having been done for a not so convincing reason, with less than stellar results, and I therefore hope Chibnall has something more interesting in mind for Whittaker's Doctor.

By the way, it's worth pointing out that not all those who are against the idea of a female Doctor are frothing right wing loons (even though quite a few of them obviously are). This letter to the Guardian is an example:

It's an absurd mistake arisen out of muddled thinking around gender equality, and I am a former radical feminist.

It could have been fun to see a female Doctor written into the script as a totally separate character. There would have been plenty of space to show how you don't need to be male to become a world saviour. In fact, the BBC has missed a great opportunity here to show gender differences in a real way.

Equal gender opportunities do not mean a woman and a man have to become interchangeable in every single way. There are so many other ways to break the boundaries, why uproot the origins of one of the most iconic figures on TV? Did the BBC run out of imagination to create female characters who might rival the Doctor's heroic nature?

Even if you disagree with her argument, it does make a change from the lunacy clogging up the comments section of the Daily Mail.

[Madiel]

If they're going to make a pretty big change to a long established character I'd like there to be a better reason than novelty value or "just cos", because if it feels like that then it does detract from the character, for me anyway. If it comes across as a gimmick it's not going to be enjoyable to watch.     

Um, we're talking about a "character" whose personality has significantly, sometimes, RADICALLY, changed a dozen times already.

Which is what makes all the "big change" arguments so bizarre to me. Having gone back and watched William Hartnell's incarnation a few years ago, it's scarcely recognisable as the same character as many of the later versions.

Gimmick? The very idea that the same person can be portrayed by actors of completely different personalities and ages has been a gimmick for half a century.

[Mr. Minnow]

Um, we're talking about a "character" whose personality has significantly, sometimes, RADICALLY, changed a dozen times already.

Which is what makes all the "big change" arguments so bizarre to me. Having gone back and watched William Hartnell's incarnation a few years ago, it's scarcely recognisable as the same character as many of the later versions.

Gimmick? The very idea that the same person can be portrayed by actors of completely different personalities and ages has been a gimmick for half a century.

Of course there have been changes in the character's personality over the years. As I said before, what makes those changes interesting (or not) to me is whether they add anything to the character. If they don't, and I don't think changing the Master's gender did, then it feels to me like novelty value for the sake of it. 

[Madiel]

Of course there have been changes in the character's personality over the years. As I said before, what makes those changes interesting (or not) to me is whether they add anything to the character. If they don't, and I don't think changing the Master's gender did, then it feels to me like novelty value for the sake of it.

Fine. Whatever. Being female is a "novelty".

[Mr. Minnow]

Fine. Whatever. Being female is a "novelty".

FFS. I didn't say "being female" was a novelty. I said a change in a character's gender was done for novelty value. If you can't grasp that difference then I'm afraid I can't help you.

[Madiel]

FFS. I didn't say "being female" was a novelty. I said a change in a character's gender was done for novelty value. If you can't grasp that difference then I'm afraid I can't help you.

I can grasp the difference. What you seemingly can't grasp is the social and cultural context that has driven the change in gender and makes it far more than a novelty. It's a conscious statement. And if you don't like your fiction to make conscious statements, well that's your business. But the people who make Doctor Who are very conscious of the wider significance of the move. In the case of the Doctor they've been paving the ground for 3 seasons.

[Mr. Minnow]

I can grasp the difference. What you seemingly can't grasp is the social and cultural context that has driven the change in gender and makes it far more than a novelty. It's a conscious statement. And if you don't like your fiction to make conscious statements, well that's your business. But the people who make Doctor Who are very conscious of the wider significance of the move. In the case of the Doctor they've been paving the ground for 3 seasons.

Of course I'm aware of the wider social context. Christ, there's been talk of a female Doctor for 30 years or so, it would be hard not to be aware of it. And in the case of the show's lead character, yes, that's almost certainly a deliberate statement, and hopefully Chibnall will use it to explore some new ideas. But the Master/Missy has appeared only very infrequently, and as such is not likely to have the sort of impact desired if the intention is to use the change to make a conscious statement - at any rate, if the intention of creating Missy was to pave the way for a smooth transition to a female Doctor I'm not sure it's been all that successful, given the controversy Whittaker's casting has produced.

[71 dB]

I can grasp the difference. What you seemingly can't grasp is the social and cultural context that has driven the change in gender and makes it far more than a novelty.

I think social and cultural changes have made the idea of gender change a lesser and lesser novelty and now it's "small enough" to be done, but still has novelty value left.