Poll: Doctor Who Could Be Better

[Josh123914]

A) Martha seemed to do just fine taking charge in Shakespeare's London, and Depression-Era Manhattan, and it is a show and they could do whatever they wanted (And often do) to make it work.
B) That is a non-answer that goes back to "I fear change".
C) Diversity applies to everything because the planet Earth is a diverse place.
D)Moffat's run has been a shadow of RTD's but he would be redeemed if he had the balls to do one bold move.

A) Suspension of disbelief.
In depression-era New York the shanty town's mayor is black, and he states that people there don't fight over what little they've got, and Shakespeare asks Martha what country she's from that she gets away with dressing how she does. Now amplify this for every historical episode for multiple seasons if the Doctor was black.

B) No, it isn't. The format would be changed too much because as someone else stated earlier, a woman or a black person back in the 1500's simply wouldn't be listened to, and this show is built around the idea of adventures in time and space, not tackling race or gender issues.

C) True, but historically the powers that be weren't, and it is not the Doctor's role to be the projection of a diverse and multi-cultural audience's view of the universe. That job is the companion's, the Doctor is largely there to bring them to these places and sort out the dangers there.
And as someone else said earlier, filling a quota on 'diversity' is a meaningless gesture, as it changes nothing about the show except bragging rights that said show is diverse, which in itself proves nothing other than the showrunners aren't completely closed to the idea of having a non-white male as lead.

D) Redeemed in the eyes of who exactly? Certainly not in my eyes since it'd largely be an empty gesture, and definitely not in the eyes of the large portion of the fanbase that loathes his writing with the likes of River Song of late.
RTD in many respects was better than Moffat in terms of being diverse. He had numerous strong females, he had black characters and he had gay characters.
These characters were women, black and/or gay but these traits didn't DEFINE them, but everyone was at least acknowledged it as a fact.
Moffat's idea of being diverse so far has been for minor characters with little to no characterisation to just randomly drop the fact that they're gay, usually to nothing but a raised eyebrow from somebody, which to me is not progress, and I doubt would magically change if the lead character was suddenly black or female, in fact I think those moments would become MORE numerous and in fact be amplified.

Keep in mind I am not against a black or female Doctor anytime soon. I am however against it just because there's some fictional quota that needs to be met in terms of equality.
If this is to happen, it needs to be done right.

 

[blackrave]

Congratulations on winning the Beating Around the Bush Award! Because not a single thing you've said has amounted to more than "They've always been this way and I'd feel icky if they changed it". You have yet to give one good, solid, concrete reason why a female Doctor, or a male Motoko, or a black James Bond wouldn't work.

"If it aint broke, don't fix it" is a cowards way of saying "I fear change so I'll settle for what I have now." All three series have changed in a millions of ways over the years (Bond and Who obviously had more time to do so than GitS). Drawing the line at the main character's gender and race is just arbitrary and small minded.

You know what? It is true that all my arguments could be reduced to "they've always been this way and I'd feel icky if they changed it".
But it doesn't make you right because base of your arguments is "lets change things just to change things"
Both are equally "small minded"
So lets put real world issues and our personal beliefs aside, shall we?

Lets talk about internal logic of series.
Doctor has been white male for 12/13 regenerations
I'm pretty sure he has preference or at least some REALLY good reason for these traits.
Can we at least agree on that?

 

[BrotherRool]

I guess one of the problems with a black or female doctor is that the show regularly time-travels back to the past, and, well...

FEMALE DOCTOR: "I know what the problem is!"
MEN OF 1500s LONDON "Shut up woman
FEMALE DOCTOR "No, my sonic screwdriver ha..."
MEN OF 1500s LONDON "A witch! Burn her!"

And that kind of thing would be interesting if the episode were a one-off set, say, during the Suffragette movement, but the Doctor being a woman would dominate every single episode set in the past (roughly 1/4-1/3 of an average season) in a way that the Doctor being a man does not. As a man he can move freely through any time period without slowing down the narrative for a "Sexism is bad, yo" message.
(Also I know his companions are female and the whole sexism in the past thing has been dealt with with a snide one-liner in the past, making the main character driving the story forward a woman would mean the issue would get pushed much more to the fore)

And as for the Doctor being black, that'd be even worse! I don't want lynch threats in my Doctor Who.

EDIT - Goddamn ninjas

The thing is, we've already had this problem and we know what the answer is. And the answer is they handwave it. There have been black and female companions that have gone to all kinds of eras and interacted with all kinds of people but they always choose to ignore the real social implication of having a women running round giving orders. When they want to pay attention to it for a one off episode they do, but otherwise no-one minds that Donna is giving orders in a Roman society and people are accepting them

It ends up being in the same place as people barely ever questioning what the doctor is wearing.

 

[Bluestorm83]

I'm against changing the race of the Doctor. Incidentally, the race of the Doctor is "Time Lord," not "White." White's a human word that's really got a whole lot of wiggle room as to what it means, depending on who's saying it.

A Doctor with skin color most often associated with human "Blacks" though? Yeah, no reason not to. The Time Lady Romana, who I believe could control her regenerations, had the option of Blue skin when regenerating. We'd just need a Black actor who had a grasp on the Doctor's basic core personality. Not the little quirks that change from regeneration to regeneration, I mean the basic inner workings that were laid down with William Hartnell and carried onward through all of them. That feeling of capable authority, his willingness to try anything to save people, and the sincere regret when something in time can't be changed and he's got to just walk away. As long as they don't make a "Black Doctor" just to show how PC they are, and get someone worthy and capable to carry the role, I think this could be absolutely fine, if not spectacular.

The Doctor (using the face of Matt Smith) stated that he knew The Corsair, who had on occasions been male or female upon different regenerations. But The Doctor has always been a guy. After 13 lives, you'd think that if The Doctor could be female, it would have happened. Besides, I think that there's a deep seated Masculinity in The Doctor. And I don't mean that like he's not tying ribbons and making tarts. Which are things I am relatively sure that the Male Doctor would do and probably DID at multiple points in his life. Lives. Whatever. I mean he has that sort of ominous "Man in Charge" personality deep down in his background. The Doctor's just kinda gotta be a man. Sorry.

Besides, there are already Female Time Lords out there. Time Ladies, they're called. The Doctor's overwhelmingly proportioned to be Female companions seem to ALWAYS be saving his bacon these days, while his few Male Companions have been relegated to Comic Relief, Liability, or Plastic Semi-Immortal Roman Reboot from an Erased Existence in a Dead Timeline in an Aborted Universe. Do we really NEED to have The Doctor be a woman? I mean, is it such a necessity? Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart was replaced not by his son, but by his daughter, Kate. Martha Jones had the Ostahaagen Key to blow up the world, and went on to continue saving the world. Donna Noble saved every universe as "The Doctor Donna" when TWO DAVID TENNANTS couldn't get it done. Think about that, TWO of him. Billie Piper pretty much became God at the end of Eccleston's run with the whole Bad Wolf thing. Also, River Song. She's already better than The Doctor in every way besides dying in the first episode we see her in.

My point is that the women of Doctor Who are already a force to be reckoned with, and to force a Female Doctor would change the character too much at his (yes, his, sorry,) core. But a Black Doctor could be hella cool.

 

[Tono Makt]

Change is, by and large, good. I don't feel you need a reason to change things if there's no good reason not to.

And

"If it aint broke, don't fix it" is a cowards way of saying "I fear change so I'll settle for what I have now."

Hmm.

In other words you aren't confident enough in your own arguments for changing the Doctor that you have decided to make the defenders of the Doctor's current ethnicity and gender defend it? That's what you're doing here, challenging the defenders to prove your assertion wrong. You're saying "I'm right, you're wrong. Prove you're right and I'm wrong." But you aren't offering up reasons why the Doctor should be changed, just challenges to the defenders to prove that the Doctor doesn't need to change. You haven't provided proof that you're right - you're just attacking people who are arguing that the Doctor doesn't need to change.

If you have confidence in your argument, then defend it. Why should the Doctor change? What would the Doctor as a non-White, non-Male character bring to Doctor Who? Why would this change be better than the current situation? Make your argument. Provide your opinions. Then we'll see if your argument has legs to stand on.

 

[BleedingPride]

I'm fine with whoever it is as long as they channel the essence of whats actually important, which isnt diversity of the actors, its about the quality of how they portray the character. David Tennant and Matt Smith for example are both white men, yes, but the reason that people like them is because their characters are so lovable. if they can have a black female doctor who is as fun of a character as those two then hire her, but this part goes for everyone: white or black, male or female, if they are not GOOD then they should NOT be the doctor. hire on acting quality.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

What if the Doctor regenerated into TWO Doctors at once? With both of their lives being linked to each other? You could have one be a male and the other female so you could both keep to tradition but also inject something new, it could also be interesting to see what two doctors working together at once for a long period of time would be like.

 

[Vigormortis]

Mate they can't get those people. They aren't going to turn down film and stage work to spend 18 weeks in quarry outside Cardiff for 50% less money. Naomie Harris has just played Winnie Mandela opposite Idris Elba as Nelson in a movie, neither of them are going to turn that film down to play Dr Who. Helen Mirren has got an Oscar for god sake, they can't afford her. This isn't US tv with 10000s paid per episode, its the BBC. They would be lucky to get paid 10000 for an entire season.

Except that Helen Mirren actually wanted to play the role.

And since when does having an Oscar equate to being too expensive for a role? Michael Caine has two and yet he's been in some bad and/or low-budget films.[footnote]Even after he won his Oscars[/footnote] Being an Oscar winner and being too persnickety to accept only the most prestigious and highest paying roles don't necessarily go hand-in-hand.

Also, it seems as though you aren't aware of just how much people like Tennant and Smith were paid to play the role.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4588563/Doctor-Who-will-be-a-millionaire-in-five-year-BBC-pay-deal.html

Smith was paid at least £200,000 for each season. And, by all accounts, he was paid significantly less than Tennant was per season.

And speaking of budgets, at this point the largest of them coming out of the BBC are devoted to Doctor Who. All of it's other shows receive far smaller budgets. So much so, in fact, that some actors and industry insiders, like Trevor Eve, are complaining about it.

So really, I don't see how they "couldn't afford" someone like Mirren. Besides, given how immensely popular the show has become, I'd have a hard time believing any of them wouldn't jump at the role. Or, in the very least, consider it.

 

[Ellie O'Daire]

I certainly don't need the Doctor to change gender, but after the mention of one Time Lord that was particularly feisty when he became a she, I've wanted to see them tackle the whole sex change thing with a side character at least once. I'm kind of hoping this new plotline they seem to be angling for (vague enough to not be spoilery?) allows them to introduce some more characters that can regenerate, then maybe they'll play around with that again.

Impossible Dream scenario: Jack Harkness somehow being regenerated into a woman, just because I expect it would be absolutely hilarious.

 

[Albino Boo]

Mate they can't get those people. They aren't going to turn down film and stage work to spend 18 weeks in quarry outside Cardiff for 50% less money. Naomie Harris has just played Winnie Mandela opposite Idris Elba as Nelson in a movie, neither of them are going to turn that film down to play Dr Who. Helen Mirren has got an Oscar for god sake, they can't afford her. This isn't US tv with 10000s paid per episode, its the BBC. They would be lucky to get paid 10000 for an entire season.

Except that Helen Mirren actually wanted to play the role.

And since when does having an Oscar equate to being too expensive for a role? Michael Caine has two and yet he's been in some bad and/or low-budget films.[footnote]Even after he won his Oscars[/footnote] Being an Oscar winner and being too persnickety to accept only the most prestigious and highest paying roles don't necessarily go hand-in-hand.

Also, it seems as though you aren't aware of just how much people like Tennant and Smith were paid to play the role.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4588563/Doctor-Who-will-be-a-millionaire-in-five-year-BBC-pay-deal.html

Smith was paid at least £200,000 for each season. And, by all accounts, he was paid significantly less than Tennant was per season.

And speaking of budgets, at this point the largest of them coming out of the BBC are devoted to Doctor Who. All of it's other shows receive far smaller budgets. So much so, in fact, that some actors and industry insiders, like Trevor Eve, are complaining about it.

So really, I don't see how they "couldn't afford" someone like Mirren. Besides, given how immensely popular the show has become, I'd have a hard time believing any of them wouldn't jump at the role. Or, in the very least, consider it.

Its not that popular, Strictly come dancing and the X factor both beat the show in the viewing figures and both have been exported worldwide. The budget per episode of DR Who is £687,000, Helen Mirren got more than for playing the Queen in the west end and picked up a bafta for it. Sir Bruce Forsyth gets £500,000 for doing strictly and the bill for the celebrities comes in £800000. Michael Caine spent most of the 70s drunk and took what films he could get and Caine is also known for a having a thing about money. He came from real poverty in the East End and intends to stay as far away from it as possible.Helen Mirren didn't buy a 6,699 square foot mansion in Beverly Hills on £200k a year.

 

[Vigormortis]

Its not that popular, Strictly come dancing and the X factor both beat the show in the viewing figures and both have been exported worldwide.

Except that the X-Factor's ratings continue to plummet while Who's continue to sky-rocket. Doctor Who and the X-Factor draw similar ratings, with Who handily beating X-Factor during the Who specials.

The budget per episode of DR Who is £687,000,

Mmm...not sure where you saw that. From what I've read the budget per episode was roughly £1,000,000. And, that was back during Eccleston's run. Since then the budget has increased.

Helen Mirren got more than for playing the Queen in the west end and picked up a bafta for it.

So she was paid more for playing a role in a feature film than you presume she would be from a single episode of Doctor Who? Not seeing how this is even remotely a fair comparison.

Michael Caine spent most of the 70s drunk and took what films he could get and Caine is also known for a having a thing about money. He came from real poverty in the East End and intends to stay as far away from it as possible.

I take it you missed the part where I said a number of those bad and/or low budget films came after his Oscar wins.

And even if his sole purpose for taking such low-paying roles is simply to make money, than that still refutes your point that having an Oscar means you must receive exuberant amounts of money to play a role.

Helen Mirren didn't buy a 6,699 square foot mansion in Beverly Hills on £200k a year.

Yet another point you missed. I had showed that Smith made roughly £200,000 per season for the show, and that that was significantly less than Tennant had made per season. And, considering the budget for the series has only gone up, meeting the salary demands of someone like Mirren[footnote]Of whom we're still, apparently, assuming would demand such ridiculously high salaries.[/footnote] wouldn't be too difficult.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

All this aside, I'm left wondering:
I never said they should have nabbed these actresses for the role. Not specifically. In fact, I made of point of saying actresses like them.

Even so, my original post was a flight of fantasy. Wishful thinking. I wasn't looking at it in a realistic sense. Not in terms of reasons they didn't select them.

So the question is, why did you feel compelled to step in a shit all over my discussion with another poster?

[edit]
On second thought, don't answer that. This discussion is just drawing the topic farther and farther away from the original discussion.

As much as I dislike this vernacular, let's just agree to disagree.

 

[irok]

Different is not the same as better , if there was a better actor , it would be better but it wouldn't simply be better if the doctor was suddenly a black woman. As a shining beacon of diversity I'm pretty sure that peter is the oldest doctor in recent years but there's a few things the doctor has always been and its always British and always male if you want diversity why not make a American doctor, or Australian or African , there's some diversity and im sure that wont cause any sort of uproar at all.

I think there's better minority actors out there sure but they don't really want to risk harming something they almost killed off already in classic if its working don't for the love of god change anything style and I personally like the idea of Capaldi as the new doctor but that's just my 2 cents on it.

 

[Qtastic]

Just wanted to thank everyone for the replies and votes. To address some patterns I'm seeing:

1. "Just pick the best actor and be done with it."

While I understand and agree the sentiment, I have to question the likelihood that a show with 12-13 white male leads is capable of objectively assessing acting talent separated from race/sex. This is NOT to say that are racist/sexist, just comfortable. Also, I somewhat agree with the notion that they are afraid to mix it up since people tend to dislike change, which is another pattern I am seeing here. Also, there are FAR too many people in this world to say that they couldn't hold a non-white/non-male audition and not come out with someone every bit as brilliant as any other Doctor. Nothing says they have to ACTUALLY be British. They are ACTORS. Pretending to be other people is kind of their job. Jack Harkness's actor wasn't American.

2. "Doctor Who can't afford good actor/actress X."

Bullshit. First, Doctor Who is a national treasure. If they wanted more money, it would be a simple matter to get more. Second and more importantly, several big names have expressed great interest in the part, and MANY actors/actresses have taken severe paycuts for the right roles, sometimes even doing things pro-bono (Christopher Lee comes to mind).

3. "The Doctor just FEELS like a white male to me."

Well, this is purely opinion. I would be hard-pressed to find any objective evidence that ANY trait is inherently male OR white. Associating race with traits is, by definition, racism...and wrong. Has anyone ever met a white man who grows up in a poor "black" neighborhood? Or a black man who grows up in an affluent "white" suburb? Associating traits with race is backwards. Many if not most if not all male/female traits are likely the result of socialization. In addition, the Doctors all have different personalities and quirks, so yeah.

4. "Statistics say 'what.'"

Enough. This doesn't matter. The Doctor is an alien from space. Besides, that argument from the "no" side is immediately invalidated when you realize that HALF the world is FEMALE. 1/4096 chance of flipping tails 12 times in a row.

5. "This is all PC crap."

Nope, not at all. If I were to say that all established white male roles, such as the human torch (troll face), should have females or non-whites sometimes, we could talk (though I don't care what sex or race anything is, but there is at least grounds for a conversation), but the Time Lords have been established IN CANON on numerous occasions as having the ability to change into any race/sex after dying (at random). So yeah...no.

6. "It shouldn't matter what race/sex the Doctor is."

100% agree. That's the point. If it doesn't matter, why NOT change it up? If anything, it would send the message that it really doesn't matter. EDIT: It has already been said that the Doctor changes randomly with each regeneration, so why not a non-white or non-male?

 

[Tono Makt]

Change is, by and large, good. I don't feel you need a reason to change things if there's no good reason not to.

And

"If it aint broke, don't fix it" is a cowards way of saying "I fear change so I'll settle for what I have now."

Hmm.

In other words you aren't confident enough in your own arguments for changing the Doctor that you have decided to make the defenders of the Doctor's current ethnicity and gender defend it? That's what you're doing here, challenging the defenders to prove your assertion wrong. You're saying "I'm right, you're wrong. Prove you're right and I'm wrong." But you aren't offering up reasons why the Doctor should be changed, just challenges to the defenders to prove that the Doctor doesn't need to change. You haven't provided proof that you're right - you're just attacking people who are arguing that the Doctor doesn't need to change.

If you have confidence in your argument, then defend it. Why should the Doctor change? What would the Doctor as a non-White, non-Male character bring to Doctor Who? Why would this change be better than the current situation? Make your argument. Provide your opinions. Then we'll see if your argument has legs to stand on.

Why should the Doctor change? Because, drum roll please:

Change is, by and large, good. I don't feel you need a reason to change things if there's no good reason not to.

Change for changes sake is simply better than staying the same for sameness's sake. Different is the spice of life, and all.

So it's like I said - you don't actually have an argument to back this up. "I don't feel you need a reason to change things if there's no good reason not to." is the cowards way of saying "I want it to be different but I'm not brave enough to say why."

Sad.

Oh, and change for changes sake is not better than staying the same when there's no obvious reason to change. Particularly in the case of multi-million dollar properties with 50+ years of history behind them and millions of fans world-wide. This isn't a case of "Well, I've had Mac and Cheese for dinner the last two nights, so let's go have sushi tonight." or even "Well, I walked to work yesterday - today I'm going to hitchhike!". It's not even "Yesterday I went out and tried to have sex with a woman. Today, I think I'm going to change things up a bit and go try to have sex with a man!" or "For the past two years I've told my son that he can't have chocolate before noon. So today I think I'm going to let him eat a whole bag of Chippets for breakfast, just to change things up! Woohoo!" Or "I think I'll try smoking today. I've never done it, so it'll be a nice change." Change for the sake of change may be acceptable when the stakes are almost non-existent, but it's actually a rather bad idea to make changes to something without a definite goal in mind for the change (an improvement, for instance) or to correct a flaw; it has a nasty tendency to simply not work out at the best of times (see: trying to "update" and "modernize" the logos of a large number of sporting teams, particularly in the 90's) or to utterly fail (see: New Coke).

This also goes for:

C) Diversity is a plus in and of itself. It doesn't need to bring anything else to the table, but often does anyway.

Diversity isn't always a plus - hence why people talk about "token" characters. Diversity needs reasons to be there beyond "Well... cuz."

 

[Qtastic]

You need to have a better reason to change something than "because I feel like changing it up"

Several reasons have been given, including but not limited to:

1. The Doctor's regenerations are supposed to be random.
2. A non-white and/or non-male Doctor would be an interesting and bold change.
3. "It would send the message that it really doesn't matter" what race or sex the Doctor is...it's still the Doctor (read the subtext "we aren't all that different from each other in the end.")
4. A large portion of the Doctor Who fan base is female (have you EVER been to a convention?), so I'm sure they would appreciate a female Doctor.

Mcoffey:
I would rather see a minority or a female doctor because I've already had 12 white male Doctors and would rather see where something different takes me. I'm tired of vanilla ice cream, so to speak.

That answer is in no way different to the one you were giving me before, where it was just "why not change it". This is essentially just repeating that same answer with a different wording.

That IS a reason. This person wants to see something new. How is that not a valid, if personal reason?

So I'll ask again: Do you have a concrete and preferably objective reason as to why this change should be done that transcends the typical "why not" reply?

I do not think that word means what you think it means (to quote a great movie). There cannot be an objective answer to a subjective question.

 

[Albino Boo]

Its not that popular, Strictly come dancing and the X factor both beat the show in the viewing figures and both have been exported worldwide.

Except that the X-Factor's ratings continue to plummet while Who's continue to sky-rocket. Doctor Who and the X-Factor draw similar ratings, with Who handily beating X-Factor during the Who specials.

The budget per episode of DR Who is £687,000,

Mmm...not sure where you saw that. From what I've read the budget per episode was roughly £1,000,000. And, that was back during Eccleston's run. Since then the budget has increased.

Helen Mirren got more than for playing the Queen in the west end and picked up a bafta for it.

So she was paid more for playing a role in a feature film than you presume she would be from a single episode of Doctor Who? Not seeing how this is even remotely a fair comparison.

Michael Caine spent most of the 70s drunk and took what films he could get and Caine is also known for a having a thing about money. He came from real poverty in the East End and intends to stay as far away from it as possible.

I take it you missed the part where I said a number of those bad and/or low budget films came after his Oscar wins.

And even if his sole purpose for taking such low-paying roles is simply to make money, than that still refutes your point that having an Oscar means you must receive exuberant amounts of money to play a role.

Helen Mirren didn't buy a 6,699 square foot mansion in Beverly Hills on £200k a year.

Yet another point you missed. I had showed that Smith made roughly £200,000 per season for the show, and that that was significantly less than Tennant had made per season. And, considering the budget for the series has only gone up, meeting the salary demands of someone like Mirren[footnote]Of whom we're still, apparently, assuming would demand such ridiculously high salaries.[/footnote] wouldn't be too difficult.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

All this aside, I'm left wondering:
I never said they should have nabbed these actresses for the role. Not specifically. In fact, I made of point of saying actresses like them.

Even so, my original post was a flight of fantasy. Wishful thinking. I wasn't looking at it in a realistic sense. Not in terms of reasons they didn't select them.

So the question is, why did you feel compelled to step in a shit all over my discussion with another poster?

[edit]
On second thought, don't answer that. This discussion is just drawing the topic farther and farther away from the original discussion.

As much as I dislike this vernacular, let's just agree to disagree.

The budget has fallen from just over £1000000 to £600k per episode http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_it_cost_to_make_an_episode_of_Dr_Who#slide2

I was referring to the stage show that Helen Mirren did in the theater not the film. She did an 18 week run in the west end playing the Queen again. Helen Mirren has repeatedly earned more playing the Queen in year than the Queen gets. If you want a private conversation use PM's don't post in public space if you don't want other people commenting on what you say.

 

[JoJo]

1. The Doctor's regenerations are supposed to be random.

I'm trying to stay out of this thread since I've said my part, but just a small canon correction, it's never been stated anywhere that the Doctor's regenerations are supposed to be random. We know from other Time Lords that it's possible to change sex, race or even species but we don't know at what rate, maybe only 1% of regenerations lead to a sex change (it doesn't seem likely to be 50%, given that the Master, River Song, Romana and most of the other Time Lords / Ladies throughout the series never changed gender either). Ditto with race.

 

[Qtastic]

The budget has fallen from just over £1000000 to £600k per episode http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_it_cost_to_make_an_episode_of_Dr_Who#slide2

Wiki answers is NOT a reliable source.