Check out "Attack the Block".

Stoners, street thugs, and one serious woman take on an alien invasion . :P

Check out Kite.
A heavily drug addicted young kinda prostitute takes on a huge human trafficking cartel.
There's also an American remake without breasts.

I haven't seen the original yet but got it now as well.

Spotted on Twitter:

What goes 1657. 1986. 1245. 2015. 1912. 1764.

The new Doctor Who trying to park the TARDIS in the year 1826.

Oh dear:)......^

The whole "ticking the box" thing is a weird argument. People make out as if ticking a box is an offensive or repulsive thing. I mean, I'm not saying it is just ticking a box, but in the absolute worst case scenario... can anyone explain what is so bad about that? There's a kind of idea, the only real argument, that it means the quality of the actor will suffer because they limited it to just women.

But that makes no sense: that means they "limited" it to a pool of about 3.7 billion people. Hardly a small pool, and roughly the same size as the pool you get by limiting it to men. Besides, they cast pretty poor actors as the Doctor for years, it's not like the series is known for its amazing acting pedigree. It's definitely a lot better since Ecclestone (or McGann, even), but the new Doctor will be a better actor than at least most of the previous ones. Besides which, casting is pretty much always about ticking a box, in a broader sense, in that they have something in mind and they cast for it.

Not to mention that any potential box ticking is just something that affects the initial moment of this phase. From then on, once the decision to cast her has been made purely on (potentially) nothing but box ticking credentials, she can now go on and act like any other professional actor in stories that are going to be equally be based around her being a woman as the previous Doctor's stories were integrally based on him being a man. It doesn't make any difference in the end anyway.

I agree with you overall. I know what you mean about watching films with female leads and not caring at all. I didn't watch Alien or Aliens as a kid and think "Meh, decent film but how could I related to a WOMAN!?" I also agree that trying to redo or modernise older designs can really backfire.

Where your argument falls down is that you mention the character design changing and it being less popular, and going back and it getting more popular, yet the Doctor has already had 12 incarnations. The Doctor is all about changing. His original version is by no means the most popular. It tends to vary between either his 4th or 10th. Capaldi was great in my opinion, and was very similar to the original in terms of being a similar age and of a similarly grumpy disposition, yet he wasn't very popular.

It seems people are really hanging onto gender as the sole defining trait of someone when you can compare previous Doctors and frequently find no common ground. Would you ever confuse Peter Davison with John Hurt, particularly in their Doctor roles?

It's just not a good way to create anything worthwile. To create the best possible work, the creator should have as much freedom as possible, and shouldn't be constrained by a checklist of things he's supposed to include, whether it is because of political correctness or becasue the executives in charge think those things sell better, or becasue they are needed for merchendising etc. Such thinking has often hurt movies, TV shows, etc. so obviously there is a lot of hate for the practice, or even a glimmer of it.

I did not say that it is going to be less popular. I said that IF it is less popular and loses viewers it won't be because male audience can't relate to a female character, but because they just don't like the change, as long time fans often do, for variety of reasons, or even simply "becuase".

Like I said before, I think that when so much changes it's all the more important to not change everything. But obviously it's very subjective where that line beyond which the change is too much lies. I've listed my issues with the change as best I could, and I fully acknowledge they're subjective. And some other fans may have no issues with it other than baisically "just because", like I've said above. I've known long time comic book fans who could get over decades of changing interpretations of the characters, but as soon as DC gave Wonder Woman pants they were basically done with the series. Those pants were just a bridge too far man. It's important to acknowledge that while you may find that extremely silly (as I too have on some occasions), there is nothing wrong with that. When you're a fan of something, you care about it, and when it's something that changes a lot over time you tend to develop a certain "perfect" image of it, of what you like it's different versions to be closest to. It doesn't have to be entirely rational. It just is.

By the way, I loved Capaldi. unfortuantely except for that final season he had some of the worst scripts in the new series to work with. But he still might just be my favourite ever. Especially the way he was in that last season.

How does expanding the possible casting from "man only" to "either male or female" going forward restrict the freedom of the creators?

He asked about why "ticking a box" is considered a bad thing, and that's what I'm talking about, in a general sense. I'm not saying this case is an instance of such box ticking. However, if it were a case of it, it would not be expanding the possible casting (at least not at this moment), it would just shift it from "man only" to "woman only".

So, the amount of freedom would be... exactly the same? I don't see how "woman only (because political correctness)" is any worse than "man only (because that's how it's always been)". And in the future, they can cast both men and women = more freedom.

Human only... damn speciecism.

Again, I'm not saying this is about box ticking and I never said that's where my problem with the decision lies. I was just answering why, in general, "box ticking" is considered a bad thing and why people tend to get upset when they see something they perceive as an instance of that.

Leaving all this aside. Race, gender, orientation, how much they smile. Do you think She'll make a good Dr?

Personally I think she's got potential.

You're asking the wrong person. I'll never buy her as The Doctor, just like I'd never buy Danny DeVito, great actor though he is, as Conan the Barbarian, so obviously I don't think she'll make a good Doctor. All I can say is that if there is an actress who could make me think "I don't like this idea at all, but something about her feels like it might just work" it's not her, though I can't really think of one that would. At least not one that would realistically take the job.

Anyway, apparently they are doing everything they can to make me give up on the Christmas Special anyway, as supposedly Clara is coming back, cause we haven't had enough of her, and Bill is definately coming back, and it really feels like a terrible idea to bring her back after the recent finale. It was a perfectly good ending for her, more can only spoil it.

It fits the lore so what´s the problem? First time the doctor embodies a woman, so what?

If it would be a transexual in forgotten realms or a black nordic god, you could say that does´t fit the lore at all, but I don´t see any problem on this.