It would be wrong of me to suddenly profess to being a Dr. Who fan. To be honest the franchise has never inspired me in the way that star trek, Tolkien, 007 etc do. Yet that is not to day I’m not interested in it. As you probably know last night saw the unveiling of a new doctor:An average of 6.2 million viewers apparently tuned in to BBC One last night to see Peter Capaldi unveiled as the 12th Doctor. I didn’t watch it but caught up with it on Iplayer this morning. I’m sort of interested in such cultural phenomena; I wanted to see how it was presented, how it was sold. It occurs to me that the doctor has a lot in common with Bond: while one is cinematic and the other televisual, both franchises are around fifty years old, and both have had numerous actors embody the role. Thus it could be said that they occupy similar cultural niches. In fact, I daresay that the doctor could have been used as an alternative to bond in the sketch where 007 escorts the queen to the olympics, although Bond is more well known internationally, making him the obvious choice. Only the doctor has that status, though, and that interests me.

This opens up the possibilities for the franchise, though. Given that the announcement of a new doctor was such a big event (reminiscent in fact of the unveiling of a new Bond) could the doctor now be used in a similar way? He is one of those dramatis personae known to all, loved universally: if bond can take the queen to the olympics, could the doctor be used in a similar way? granted, the two franchises differ – while both are british icons, dr. who is made by the beeb and bond by eon; they have different audiences; the doctor is slightly more kitsch, and for want of a better word geeky. Both franchises seem in a way to have different type of universality, so to speak, probably due to their differing formats.

Thus, to me, the Bond character is suited more to be used on the worldwide stage, but dr. who could still be used as part of the same sort of cultural device. That’s why that sketch was important: if fiction and reality can merge on such an epic scale, the door is open to any other possibility. You could call it the ultimate victory of postmodernity, demonstrating that no cultural icon is too sacred to be played with. At the same time, as I wrote here, you have to be careful: you can’t just throw any two cultural phenomena together or everything will become farcical and the profundity of the concept will vanish. For example, if President Obama was now to be shown having a beer with Homer simpson, even if it was inspired by ‘Happy and Glorious’ it would in a way take away the impact and novelty of the original, because homer is a comic character. This is a paradox I’ve been musing over quite a lot recently. It sets an important precedent by presenting the queen in a way we never predicted. It rereads her position in our culture, but as soon as it is followed, as soon as somebody does something similar, the journey is complete and the queen’s position as just another part of popular culture is confirmed. The irony being that the reason why everyone gasped at the olympic sketch was that the queen was supposed to be above such things: if this type of thing becomes normal, nobody would gasp. The goal of this short film was arguably to shock people by admitting the fictional reality of monarchy, yet as soon as people realise that truth, the shock value evaporates. I suppose what I’m trying to say is that it is nice to cling on to some fictions, lest everything becomes dull. At the same time such textual play is welcome in that it questions old stagnant norms. What boyle did was brave, but at the same time he merely admitted a truth we all knew deep down, and where’s the bravery in that?

We can therefore see the complexities of such things. You can probably tell that this fascinates me; it still has me in two minds – I would love to see others do similar things but fear that if they do the original would become less special. Nevertheless, if Dr. Who is a similar cultural phenomenon to 007, he too can be used as bond was, albeit perhaps in a different kind of event perhaps national rather than international. I wonder what he could do. If we do now live in a world where fiction and reality can merge, and aspects of fannish textual play are seeping in to the mainstream, his franchise seems ideally placed to follow the example of bonds. While, as I say, part of me worries that such stunts would lose their impact if they become frequent, the dr. who franchise now begs to follow bond into reality. After all, he is an immortal time-lord able to avoid death by regeneration. I just think it would be cool if the bbc took the next step and made the doctor real, as they did with bond. It seems to me that such stunts are places where the gap between fiction and reality blurs, allowing us for a moment to revert to the simple joy of childhood dreaming, and banishing the daunting solidities of adulthood.