Eddie Izzard As ... Doctor Who?

cmdr_forge writes "The BBC is reporting that Former Doctor Who Tom Baker says that Eddie Izzard is to be the next doctor for the TV show that starts 2005. How awesome is that!"

Comments

Dr Who - The Next Generation

[quinkin]

OK so it's not a cross post from a trek fan... :)

They have just started playing the original Dr Who in Australia again and I am getting a massive kick out of watching my son react the exact same way I did 25 years ago.

If you have never watched Dr Who from behind your dad's back (cowering in fear everytime the cellophane alien or plastic dinosaur lurches into view) the you just haven't watched it right. :)

Q.

Re:Actually

[jweatherley]

Yes, Tom Baker is great but he is as mad as a crate full of squirrels. Ananova reports that he reckons Melinda Messenger would make a good assisstant because:

'Melinda would be good as she can scream and has bosoms. It doesn't really matter if she can act.'

Re:Actually

[TomV]

Tom's been on a bit of a media blitz recently. Note that Tom, back when he was the incumbent, suggested that the Doctor should have a talking cabbage as a companion.

At this ridiculously early stage in proceedings, I'm rather in favour of Bill Nighy for the part, and there seem to have been a few leaks suggesting this is Russell Davies' feeling too. He seems t ohave let it slip in conversation with Doctor Who Magazine editor Clayton Hickman, and has mentined it elsewhere as well.

But let it not be forgotten that Eddie Izzard has been branching out into very serious drama recently and has turned out to be a very capable and powerful actor, so if he gets the part, no worries.

But seriously, Tom's not into facts, Tom's into stimulating interesting conversation. and here we are, interested, and conversing :-)

tV

If you don't know the difference...

[IBitOBear]

...you arn't entitled to an opinion.

Cross-dressing and "homosexual agenda"? Be serious. There is no deterministic relationship between the two outside bad steriotypes.

Izzard is straight and tranvestite. I'm homosexual, dislike "drag shows" and pusshy-queen walking steriotypes, and would go naked before putting on a dress. Getting transvesties onto TV is about as far from my agenda as you can get. I don't want them not-there, but seeing a man in drag is like watching straight people kiss; it does nothing for me at all and generally looks a little creepy. 8-)

Lumping people into broad categories just because you haven't bothered to do any fact-finding, and then claiming they lumped themselves and are now subscribed to a particular "agenda", is tiresome and childish.

On a less-side note, I dislike anybody sexualizing characters that don't need it. It makes for bad literary construction as no mater how you slant sexuality you, by definition, slant it into a niche. Izzard could be a hoot as the doctor if he is capible of playing the character. I've seen him in suit and tie so I think he could pull off a nice excentric personality without injecting sex where it doesn't need to go.

[FURTHER ASIDE]
I once had an over-straight homophobe ask: "What do you mean 'phobia'? Why would I be afraid of some faggot?"

My response: Clearly you are affraid that there are men out in the world who might think about you, and treat you, as badly as you think about and treat women.

I have never met a homophobe, or indeed any man who used the phrase "homosexual agenda" (etc), that didn't also misstreat, marginalize, or rampently objectify every woman foolish enough to approach him.

Re:If you don't know the difference...

[hellfire]

I can't believe this was modded up. This argument is the same argument that a woman was raped because she dressed provokatively, that a hacker is inherently evil because the media has played up the word hacker, and that its okay if the public at large attaches a label to others with little information!!!!!

See the movie "To Wong Fu, thanks for the Memories, Julie Newmar." There's a nice explanation between all the different "categories," if you permit me to categorize, of this type of psychology.

There are men who are heterosexual who like to dress in women's clothing (transvestite). There are men who want to act or feel feminine, and some of them even get operations to be as close to female as possible (transsexual or transgendered). There are men who, in the words of Wesley Snipes character "Gay men who have way too much fashion sense" who are "drag queens" and dress up and act as women but do not do it for sexual pleasure.

There are many different levels to homosexuality and lesbianism. As with just about every other goddamn thing on the planet, its complicated and layered and just because one is ignorant does not give anyone the right to make gross generalizations and say its okay to make them because that's the only thing they "see."

Re:Excellent!

[Dj]

Ah, well, us folks in the UK actually know what Izzard has done in the acting department; he was fantastic in 40 and his Imdb entry seems to miss the play screened on BBC4 with Eddie as the father of a special needs child which was just heart breaking.

And the transvestite stuff? Well, Eddie Izzard dropped that from the act years ago. And anyone who can do five minutes on jam and make it hilarious is fine by me. Oh yes, and if you've ever seen him go bilingual in a set, well, then you're lucky to have seen a master of international comedy (who takes the international bit seriously).

If all you can see is a frock on stage, that says more about you than it does of Eddie Izzard.

And, for the record, I think he'll be a superb Doctor.

We're way off topic but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't "homophobia" a hatred of gays based on a fear of one's own homosexual urges? I don't think it's a fear of gay people.

Going even farther off topic, I'd just like to make a comment on your last paragraph. When men are around other men, they play down their attachments and feelings for women. This is psychological fact. Actual poor treatment of women is absolutely wrong, but when women aren't present, men will often talk about them in a more callous manner. I played rugby for a year in college, and some of these guys would say the most sexist, derogatory stuff. Some of them actually were assholes, who ought not to be allowed within 100 feet of another human being. But there were also a good number who weren't that way. Some of them were just acting out a role, in the same way that guys who talk trash (during sports or videogames or whatever) may actually respect or even like their opponents.

I bring this up because I often notice the same phenomena with respect to gay bashing. Yeah, "gay" or "faggot" are often used as insults, but in many cases it has no meaning. Just as calling someone a "bitch" is rarely meant to imply that the person in some way resembles a female dog, gay related insults are often much the same way. I recall reading an article in my freshman year about a gay guy on the soccer (I think it was soccer) team. The article talked about how there was a lot of worry that it would be a bad situation, because the guys on the team tended to use terms for homosexuals as insults. The players were frankly surprised it was even an issue. Basically what they said was "yeah, sure guys would say those things, but no one actually MEANT it." The gay teammember said basically "I do get treated a little differently, but not in a bad way. Most of these guys have never met anyone who was openly gay, so they're a little worried about saying something that will offend me. For the most part though, they're a great group of guys."

Now, I went to a relatively enlightened school and I'm not trying to say that there is no such thing as sexism or homophobia. That is clearly untrue. Indeed, even saying derogatory things about groups of people does reveal prejudices. However, I'm also suggesting that perhaps people aren't always as bad as they seem. Sometimes, the way people act in one context is not a good indicator of their personal morals or deeply held beliefs.