What if Joanna Lumley Played the Doctor for Real in 1999?

[ravenscroft]

Ok, some background here.

The Curse of Fatal Death (link below) was a Doctor Who spoof that was filmed in 1999, starting with Rowen Akinson as the Doctor and then - after a series of accidents, regenderations, and more accidents, in which there were several versions of the Doctor played by actors who had been considered for the main role, ending with a female Doctor played by Joanna Lumley. It was a spoof, of course, but what if we had an earlier female Doctor, before having such a figure became a political nightmare?

RC

 

[DougM]

TLDR:It would have imploded. And she would have gotten the blame (right or wrong)

Now for the Long answer:
the First run had ended in 1989. The American movie bombed in 1996. And the revised series started up in 2005. It succeeded because it was lfaithful (more or less) to the original series while adapting a fresh approach that a modern and could appreciate, and it had some great writing (for most episodes) to start with. And kept any agenda to a minimum. While Not beating the audience over the head It still had more modern views such as with the popular reoccurring character Captain Jack.

But if you try to restart the series in 1999 only 3 years after the movie/revival bombed and with a female lead you will implode! Part of the issue with the move was a number of changes moving away from the series such as the advised ha
f human bit as well as the believe it was to “American”. Now if you put in a female Dr you are going in a direction that the original series never went so you are starting off by pissing off the old fan base.
And be 100% clear here. There was abs NO indication that the Doctor nor any other TimeLord could change genders. It was agruablt first suggested in the spoof mention In the first post. (And absolutely hilarious skit well worth watching even if you only have limited knowledge of Doctor Who).
It was not until the appearance of Missy in 2014 as a female regeneration of the Master that we got our true first main Time Lord character changing genders. We had a couple throw away lines before that such as durring Tom Bakers run way back when where he said something like “you assume my next regeneration will be a man”. And then Moffit started to press the issue and in the regeneration in 2011 we get the doctor speculating that he may be a woman. And then in the Day of the Doctor special we get the on screen regener of a Time Lord (the General?) into a female. But that was made pretty cringy by a line the character says that is frankly delegating to men. And is a pretty fair indication that Moffit was starting an agenda. That would ultimately lead to the First Female Dr. In 2017
I am trying to avoid modern politics (if a 2017 tv show is modern politics) but frankly the show tanked at that point. More from bad scrips and BASHING the audience over the head with agenda then because the Doctor was a femlae. Frankly I think Jody is a fine actress but the already difficult job of taking on a beloved character and doing it while changing the characters gender was made impossible bec she was given horrible scripts. Peter Capaldi who was perhaps the best actor to ever play the doctor was also undermined by bad scripts and the insertion of too much agenda.

Note that there had been an idea tossed out in i believe the mid 80a to cast a Female Doctor. It was being seen as a way to revitalize the series as it was starting to lag.
So taken all together changing The Doctor to a female for the revival in 1999 is going to be viewed as stunt casting. Much as it would have been in the 80s. And it would have had to make the change with out the insertion of comments and other characters indicating that genre was able to change in a regeneration.
So this will be a once season show at best.
And as a result we won’t get the show we got iotl. And great episodes such as Blink and many other great episodes wont get made. And many great actors Such as Ecclestone (sp?) and Garabladi and Whiticker won’t get to play the roll (while I think Whitker and to a lesser Degree Garabaldi were let down by the scrips I do believe if given the same quality of scrips as as we got in Series 1 thru 4 these two actors would be viewed as some of the best ever to play the part) which would be sad.

on the other hand we would avoid it overstaying which the last 4+ seasons have.

 

[PMN1]

Frankly I think Jody is a fine actress but the already difficult job of taking on a beloved character and doing it while changing the characters gender was made impossible bec she was given horrible scripts.

This.....its when I gave up..

 

[Nivek]

This.....its when I gave up..

Also when filming In Wales was very cheap too

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Joanna Lumley would have been a very good Doctor (and indeed was, even though only briefly) and I'm confident she had the standing and track record to be acceptable to the viewers once they'd got over the novelty [1], and - more importantly - was easily good enough to have been a success in the role [2].

As for Jodie Whittaker, she was good, though not one of my personal top three. She'd have been better served by less overbearing conspiracy story arcs and less reliance on the magic wand - sorry, sonic screwdriver - but those aren't under her control as an actor, and she did well with what she was given.

[1] Think of the recent fuss made over - gasp, shock horror - a female playing a near-immortal, time travelling non-human only a few years ago when we're supposed to have grown up a bit since the late 80s and early 90s.

[2] I just had a brief though about her with Ace as a companion. What a missed opportunity!

 

[farmerted555]

Would the Sofa of Reasonable Comfort be used often?

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Would the Sofa of Reasonable Comfort be used often?

Surely they'd have to have cameo slots by the other Doctors from her Children in Need appearance, and at least one should be forced to use it.

 

[Mynock]

The most interesting thing about Doctor Who TLs is what happens in front of the camera, the most important thing is what happens behind the camera. Who is writing this, who is producing this?

 

[CaptainCalvert]

The most interesting thing about Doctor Who TLs is what happens in front of the camera, the most important thing is what happens behind the camera. Who is writing this, who is producing this?

She might be available in place of Colin Baker [1]- post Sapphire and Steel, New Avengers etc. In principle she could be brought in to shake things up a bit - the anti- Who BBC people thinking a woman will crash it, the pro-Who people hoping she could save it.
Peri would either be a real companion (expert botanist with a real role rather than cheap glamour) or Perry the expert botanist who can do the manly action hero stuff.
Maybe the writers would be no better than Baker's , but they might attract some more creative ones and we end up a bit more Sylvester McCoy style storylines, or Lumley's status allows her to influence storylines into stronger territory or at least to interpret the material in her own way.

[1] post Sapphire and Steel - I'm convinced they are orthodox Timelords on legitimate missions! - and New Avengers she could in theory have replaced Peter Davison, but I think he would have been a necessary precursor, if only to break the Tom Baker spell.

 

[Mynock]

She might be available in place of Colin Baker [1]- post Sapphire and Steel, New Avengers etc. In principle she could be brought in to shake things up a bit - the anti- Who BBC people thinking a woman will crash it, the pro-Who people hoping she could save it.
Peri would either be a real companion (expert botanist with a real role rather than cheap glamour) or Perry the expert botanist who can do the manly action hero stuff.
Maybe the writers would be no better than Baker's , but they might attract some more creative ones and we end up a bit more Sylvester McCoy style storylines, or Lumley's status allows her to influence storylines into stronger territory or at least to interpret the material in her own way.

[1] post Sapphire and Steel - I'm convinced they are orthodox Timelords on legitimate missions! - and New Avengers she could in theory have replaced Peter Davison, but I think he would have been a necessary precursor, if only to break the Tom Baker spell.

To reiterate, who is behind the camera? Infinitely more important than the frontman (or woman) in making the show work. John Nathan-Turner never seemed particularly eager to cast a woman in the role.

 

[DougM]

In 1999 with no “set up” that a Time Lord could change gender and only three years after the flop that was the TV movie, it does mot have a hope mo matter how good the writing.
At the end of the First run? It would not help as the scripts were poor. And a female Dr will get blamed for killing the series.
The best chance a Female Dr would have would have been after David Tennet, A little bit os a sett up durring his run and the series was at a high point and the scripts were still ok.
The scripts were already getting questionable by Peters time. Saddly as i think he could have been the best Dr ever. he is a great actor, and he has what it takes to play the Dr in both the more laid back parts and then when the Dr gets all serious. Add in the agenda they started to beat fans over the head with and it was frankly to late to have a Female Dr and make it a success.
I stand by my statement that Jody was one of the best actors to get the role but i should clear that up a bit, Just because she was a good actor does mot mean she was right for the roll. Saddly she was miss cast, Note because she was a female simply because she just was not right for the role. The other actress that played the Dr durring the same run. Jo Martin (sp?) was actually better in the role. In part because her part of the script was better but simply because she was.
This is not ment as a slam on any actor especially Jody, but you need a certain type of actor for a give role. Martin Brando was a great actor but he would not be good as the Dr. And you would mot want to swap Robert Downey Jr with Benedict Cumberbatch in the marvel movies.
They are both very good in the roles they played but would not be ”right” for the opposite roll.
And sadly i dont think Jody was ”right” for the Doctor, I think she was cast because the show runner liked her and was used to working with her. Which given the questionable way he ran the show is not a suprise that his first and most import decision who to olay the Doctor was done baddly should i supoose not be a surprise.

So i think it is possible to cast a female in the role but you only have a short time yo do it and make it work. Also there is the problem no one wants to address for fear of being accused of being a male chauvinist and that is, Why? Why cast a female? up to the point that the started to set up that it was possible there had been no indication that Gender was changeable, So why cast a female? the Answer is important. Because the way it was done irtl it was cast not yo make a better or more interesting show but as part of a political agenda. If it had happened in the last 1st run it would have been stunt casting to attempt to safe a show. Much like adding a little kid to a failing show. A sort of ”Jump the Shark” moment.

Now if you can set up a reason IN the show to cast a femle as the Doctor that is a different thing. Make it have a reason, Then examine that reason. But out of show political agendas should not form the core of the series. Yes Dr who tended to address things much as Star Trek did. but they form the cire if the show.

So if you want a successful female you have to answer. Why? and then you need to get an actor that can oull of the Dr and not just be so so in the role. She better be great. Much like Michelle Gomez who was amazing in the role of the insane power hungry monster of the Former Master “Missy”.
Personally i think the show would have been better off if they had done a spin off show with a female Time Lord. Probably use the Dr Daughter. either jeep the actress from the episode or recast after a regeneration. Do a spin off like they did with Capt Jack.

 

[Ashley Pomeroy]

For the record, I grew up with Doctor Who. One of my earliest memories is of watching Logopolis twice, which always puzzled me. How could I have seen it twice? But I distinctly remember watching Tom Baker falling off Jodrell Bank and knowing what was about to happen, because I had seen it already.

And then I found out about the "Five Faces of Doctor Who" repeats of 1981. The show's producer wanted to bring the audience up to speed in advance of Peter Davison's first adventure, so Logopolis was repeated only a few months after it had been shown the first time. I have no idea what else I did on 03 December 1981, but I do know that in the evening I sat in front of the television watching Tom Baker fall to his death for the second time. Davison. Davison. Davi-son. Robert Davi. Davi-son. Not Davidson. Not Davidson. No.

But I lost interest completely the moment Red Dwarf came out. That show made Doctor Who look sad. It had better writing, the limited effects looked more professional, and despite being a comedy it had more interesting sci-fi ideas. I have watched a grand total of two (2) episodes of the new Who and have no desire to watch any more, although I'm broadly familiar with its swift rise, its imperial period, and its eventual decline.

Having said all that, I think Lumley would have been warmly received in 1999. Whatever controversy there might have been about a female Doctor would have been outweighed by Lumley's natural charisma. My recollection is that after Sapphire and Steel her career went nowhere until Absolute Fabulous, so she was still something of a blank slate in 1999 - the audience would have been interested to see her in a serious role. I reckon she would have done a good job. At the very least she would have been convincing as a more action-packed Doctor, along the lines of Jon Pertwee.

But it strikes me that, as mentioned by DougM, the timing was all wrong. The new Who benefited enormously from advances in CGI and television production in the early 2000s The same thing benefited the Battlestar Galactica reboot. We'd be talking about a show from the same era as e.g. Space: Above and Beyond or the BBC's own Invasion Earth, but with a need for lots of practical Earth-based effects rather than just CGI spaceships. It would have either looked cheap, or it would have had a lot of talking heads.

Mention of Jon Pertwee makes me wonder if it might have worked with the Doctor stuck on Earth. But the end result would have probably been derided as a copy of The X-Files, which was way past its prime in 1999 but still "a thing". An X-Files-esque version of Doctor Who with a decent budget and decent writing circa 1999 might actually have worked, but my recollection is that sci-fi was still looked down upon in 1999. The broadsheets pooh-poohed it. Television executives didn't want to be associated with it. And it was still the era when BBC shows had six episodes a series and that was it for a year.

So at best it might be a fondly-remembered curiosity, but not a pop cultural phenomenon on the same level as Tennant-Smith-era modern Who. I just think 1999 was too early for the commitment required to make it work.